You may also like
Ratas torrent reviews
Jaime D (ru) wrote: This is the problem with putting random movies on my Love Film list on the strengh of a one paragraph blurb... ropey acting, crap script and film school level of direction... How the director manage to turn a true story into something less believable than Star Wars is a feat of unentional Genius.
Dax S (de) wrote: Very good, confusing at times, but visuals were amazing and it was a great movie all around.
Jason V (nl) wrote: THE FLICKThe horror genre on film goes back, roughly, to the 1890's and Le Manoir du diable by Georges Mlis. In the intervening years, filmmakers from across the globe have tried to put their spin on the genre, some successfully and some...well, less so. In the last decade or so, there is a new school of thought which equates blood and gore with horror at the expense of rational, logical decision making. Wes Craven's Scream series pointed this out to great effect, yet some people still haven't taken the hint. It's not enough to carve up a half dozen teenagers in the middle of nowhere anymore. Nor is it enough to pay lip service to the things they should be doing to survive the film. Rather, horror films (and the associated sub-genre's of chiller, slasher and torture, among others) need to create a realistic world for the characters and audience to get caught up in. The British import Gnaw does none of these things and opts, instead, to be one part slasher and one part gross out flick.As with most films in the genre, Gnaw starts out with a group of six teens heading out into the middle of nowhere, where they are systematically killed off because they have no idea how slasher pics work. Seriously, this is the modern day United Kingdom. Doesn't anyone watch a movie or television show? Don't you know the minute you decide to go off into the country you will end up dead? How many times do we have to see one person (in this case, the movie's lone asset, the Slaughterman) killing the entire group when, by all rights, at least one person should survive the carnage? Oh no, Gnaw doesn't stop there. On top of being mind numbingly banal, it has the audacity to think it has the smarts to bring cannibals into the story. Cannibals! It's not director Gregory Mandry who's the problem. Nope, it's the "been there, seen that" script by Michael Bell and Max Waller which cuts off its own foot in the before the marathon even starts.Gnaw doesn't just tip its hand far, far too early (the bad guy is shown at the very beginning of the film); it has no hand to tip. See, nothing in the film feels remotely original. It may be the lack of any true story arc. Mandry tries to make a case for the arc being Slaughterman's obsession with Lorrie (Sara Dylan)-who is pregnant, by the way-with Jack's (Nigel Croft-Adams) kid. Alas, Jack's girlfriend Jill (Rachel Mitchem) doesn't know this. And she doesn't get the chance to figure it out precisely because the script doesn't deem it important. So much for that story arc, right? All the characters are merely a distraction and cannon fodder for Slaughterman. If the only rationale for the story is to watch people die, is that worth it?It's not, in case there was a doubt. There is no bottom to the story, nothing to propel it forward with any meaning. Typically, that reason would either be a story arc or character development. Since we've ruled out a story arc, then it must be the wonderfully complex characters, right? Wrong. They simple run from place to place-usually alone-and get massacred. And that supposed story arc? It's non-existent precisely because Slaughterman has no personality. He's just a killer, grinding up his prey into meat pies. Freddy Krueger had a motive. Jason Voorhees had a motive. Michael Myers...heck, even the shark(s) in the Jaws films. Slaughterman? Eh, there's nothing on television.I apologize if it sounds as though I'm being hyperbolic. Gnaw doesn't do much right. The acting is categorically over the top, especially Croft-Adams as Jack. Loud, grating and obnoxious, Jack is the jock of the pic without anything particular jock-y to do. Bell and Waller are unable to do anything but paint with the broadest of strokes. Each character has one, maybe two, defining personality traits. Asthmatic Matt (Oliver Lee Squires) pines for Lorrie...and that's all we know about him. Jill is just as shrill as Jack and prudish on top of that. And so on. Everyone involved seems to have a cognitive disconnect about what a horror movie is. Yes, blood and guts, but scary blood and guts which puts the audience in the position of the characters. We can identify with some of the characteristics, but simultaneously can't wait for the six leads to die so the end credits can roll.By the way, here's a note for future filmmakers who want to dabble in this genre. If you're going to commit to a slasher film, you need to be willing and able to show slashing. Especially if your characters and plot are worthless. Gnaw shows precious little of its alleged blood-letting. It even tries, if you read between the lines, to up the scare ante by not showing knives cutting into bodies or other acts. But that philosophy is to the film's overall detriment. Something has to make people want to see the flick. Jaws doesn't feature a lot of blood or violence, yet it works because the tension from the menace is there. Slaughterman has no hope of being iconic or thrilling. One well placed whack to the head and he should be down for the count. Try that with a shark.The intention was for every element in the film to come off as being realistic to the modern day, at least according to Mandry. That's why a cell phone is used to take a short video of Lorrie and Matt makes a point to check his cell phone when the group arrives at the country house. I guess the script should get some props for thinking of the cell phone angle even if it doesn't quite get around to thinking about anything else. Why go back to a car which doesn't start in order to escape? Didn't any of these kids tell parents where they were going? And when they don't return, no one mounts a search and rescue, which would invariably lead right to Slaughterman and Mrs. Obadiah (Carrie Cohen)? A credits sequence suggests these two have been at their killing rampage for years and years. Apparently, there are over 200,000 cases of missing persons in the UK every year. Some people are recovered alive and others aren't. There's not a lick of information about where they might have gone? Really?THE LOOKThere is a distinctive look to films produced outside of America. They tend to have a color palette veering into red/brown territory and slight picture softness. Neither of those hallmarks are actual transfer issues and need to be removed from the discussion when talking about Gnaw. Instead, the anamorphic picture is generally well done with no visible scratches or blemishes. Black crush plays a part in further diminishing texture and detail in dark scenes. While we can make out some specifics, a lot of the film-especially the background-is hard to see. The black's tend to be a bit too bright also, making them more gray than actually black. Fleshtones are acceptable keeping in mind all the picture caveats.THE SOUNDThe disc includes both an English 5.1 mix as well as a 2.0 versions. Both are clean and free of distractions, allowing the dialogue to come through clearly. (This is especially important considering the English accent of all the actors.) Very early on in the 5.1 iteration the use of the rear speakers jumps to the forefront. Scratching and clawing sounds, not to mention mental-on-metal, enhance the main title sequence. From then on, these ambient sounds are toned down a bit in favor of the front speakers. Directional effects are relatively sparse, usually coming in the form of a car driving down the road and not other sounds going across the screen. The track also does a very good job in balancing the score, sound effects and dialogue, making sure one does not overpower the other. English subtitles are included.THE STUFFOne note about the run time on the box art: Gnaw is purported to clock in at 90 minutes. The film itself lasts for roughly 74 minutes.Now then, director Gregory Mandry doesn't have a lot to say in the feature-length commentary. He either doesn't have the necessary anecdotes and behind-the-scenes information with him or he's not quite sure these kinds of things work. Long gaps in the film go by with nothing from him, essentially making the audience watch the production for a second time. When he does interject, the information isn't terribly compelling. The movie took 2 weeks to shoot, certain sequences kept getting expanded, the coldest day of the year (that always happens when a film is shooting, it seems like) and the startling fact he had a relatively closed set for the sex scenes. Mandry needs someone to play off of or, at the very least, a good stack of notes about his film.The nearly ten minute making of is world's better in terms of providing background trivia, however lame and useless it might be. There are references here to the nursery rhyme allusions in the movie (Jack and Jill, for instance), the drive to make Slaughterman as iconic as Freddy or Jason (psst...EPIC FAIL, as the kids say) or the crew patting themselves on the back for keeping Slaughterman out of the picture for as long as they did (Ridley Scott. Alien. Check it out.). This is the kind of stuff that should have been in the commentary. A terribly spoilery trailer for the movie is also included. The film comes in a clear keepcase without an insert. There are 13 chapter stops.
R Muhammad I (nl) wrote: tenaaannggggg...hehehe, tapi adegan senamnya lucu juga. Sebaiknya tidak ditonton siang hari atau pas tengah malam, bisa bikin ngantuk (-_-)''
Nathan A (ca) wrote: Incase you don't know who Bill Hicks is, I'll tell you. Bill Hicks is probably the funniest stand up comedian of all-time, not only that but probably one the most intelligent people to ever stand on stage, infront of a audience. You may ask why would I make such a statement, about someone who didn't get to see his own 33rd birthday. He didn't live long enough to established himself amoung the other high ranking comedians, you might say? That would be a bias and unfair judgement to make without ever seeing one of his performances. The man was a pure genius, if the guy can make me laugh out loud and piss myself, I would say he's comic mastermind. Not only was Hicks funny, he was very insightful and had his own philosophy. His ideas made more sense than anything I learn in school. Seriously. In the long run, Bill Hicks might be the best teacher I'd ever had. And I never even met the guy, which is quite sad now that I think about it. I had for years, been told Hicks one the best, if not the best comedian to do stand up. I was always thinking people might have hyped him up too much. Well they didn't, I would have to atleast have to say he's my favorite stand up based on his overall charm. The guy could probably get me to fuck a chicken. Speaking of chicken fucking, it's very ovious that Bill Hicks is the inspiration for a certain character on South Park. Actually Trey Parker and Matt Stone stole alot of humor from Hicks and put into South Park. But even Hicks is better than the immitations of his persona. You can't copy a pure genius, Often tried but never duplicated. So if you love stand up, or maybe even South Park for that matter, see the original Bill Hicks. If you don't laugh your ass off while watching this, you must have hit the mute button. Highly recommended, the man way ahead of his time. Also, if your not the biggest fan of South Park, I'm not either, so don't worry. Hicks is alot funnier than his South Park Incarnations.
Mert Y (it) wrote: 'uzak' gibi mkemmel do?al diyaloglara sahip bir ba?ka nuri bilge ceylan filmi.
Rob F (gb) wrote: Shouldn't that be called...16mm? Ah hahahahahahahaha I'm not funny
bill s (it) wrote: Talk about your mess of a script.
Dustin P (us) wrote: While I understand it was big at the time, most of it doesn't quite hold up now. I didn't really laugh much. At times, Murphy comes across as a bully, which made me not like this special as much as his Raw special.
Angel E (mx) wrote: Havent Seen It But Many People Recomend It And Say Its A Great movie About a Pachuco Back In the Days so Imma Watch It 4 Sure
Kenny N (kr) wrote: Mae West is a pioneer when it comes to women in cinema (on camera AND behind the scenes). This, her final film, is sad. Very very sad. It's an all star extravaganza, and all of the stars manage to completely and totally embarrass themselves. But none worse than Miss Mae herself. Other than "Myra Breckenridge," this was truly her darkest hour. It makes you immediately want to go watch "I'm No Angel" or one of her other classic films. In fact, just go watch "I'm No Angel" or any one of her other classic films and just forget this movie exists. You'll thank me later.
Peggy M (gb) wrote: If you want to laugh at dysfunctional characters and be touched when they fall in love, this is the movie for you. We all know at least one "Barry", the friend whose inappropriate behavior amuses us as teens, and later becomes an embarrassment when we become adults. Imagine what would happen if your Barry's dream girl was even more inappropriate than he is! This movie is raunchy amusement at its best, and a touching romance to boot! Rush to see it now.
Jhuan D (es) wrote: I'm so sorry this film were so dull. If it weren't for David Garrett's enchanting playing... scenes in which one could only sense a bit of what Paganini really embodied... There were really goo shot and the attempt as a whole was intrepid, but not well developed. Not a movie for a second view