Shocking Blue

Shocking Blue

William, Jack and Chris have been friends for as long as they can remember - until that day in April when Jack ends up under the wheels of a tractor, his body crushed, William at the wheel. Suddenly nothing is left of the boys' friendship. Chris tries his best, but William is one lump of impenetrable rock, secretly wondering if the events of the night before, when Jack went off with fifteen-year old Marianne, had anything to do with the accident...

Story centers on childhood friendship in the Dutch tulip fields. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Shocking Blue torrent reviews

Greg S (ag) wrote: The storytelling is better than the story

Vincent V (de) wrote: Great, we get to eat the little bunny's food too.

Vivien B (jp) wrote: Nul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! La seule fois ou je suis parti du cinema avant la fin...

MICHAEL M (jp) wrote: Takes everything great from part 1 and flushes it down the toilet. This movie is boring, the characters are uninteresting, Kid N Play have no screen presence. The party is the last 15 minutes of the movie. The only redeeming factor is "Jamal" and even he can't act. This movie sucks and part 3 is even worse.

Scott A (br) wrote: This is one mess of a movie. I give props to Cosby for trying, but I wasn't sure where this film was going. I didn't hate the film, but it did seem to drag for only being around 80 minutes long.Okay, so the psycho cab driver was fun. But then Cosby becomes a ghost, but he can still be seen if the lights are off and he quickly learns how to be heard and to still touch people??? Some ghost!The movie isn't very funny, and for most of the film is more drama than anything. And if you died, why would you care so much about keeping your job? Like he;s a damn ghost and neither he nor his kids seem to really get how major it is that he is dead!!! It's just like a Tuesday to them all.And far too much use of a Janet Jackson every five minutes there for awhile.The effects actually didn't look horrible some 23 years later.

Eric H (kr) wrote: A fantastic film showing the sleazy and sometimes tragic side of "success." For mature audiences only.

Harry W (ag) wrote: With Halloween (1978) kicking off the trend of slasher films which would become popular in the succeeding decades, Halloween II's continuation of the story came with a big name to live up to as well as the potential to expand upon the mystery created by the John Carpenter original. A distinctive trait of the slasher film genre is that any entry with a commodity character as a villain has large potential to turn into a franchise, regardless of how heavily the following films prove to decline in quality. While Halloween largely originated the slasher genre, Halloween II contributes to the endless trend of unnecessary and repetitive sequels synonymous with the genre.John Carpenter rejected the chance to direct Halloween II because according to his own words "I had made that film once and I really didn't want to do it again". Though he assisted in the film's completion, he made the right decision to disregard the directorial offer as the resulting film is quite literally the exact same thing over again. This is made clear from the moment the film kicks off as the intro to Halloween II is an exact replica to that of its predecessor, only with a gothic alteration of John Carpenter's original theme composed by him and Alan Howarth completely on a synthesizer organ rather than a piano. Rather than having the classical feel of the original, the new rendition is awfully excessive and gets repetitive extremely fast. The music is ultimately used very rarely over the course of the film which is very stupid as it was the key source of atmosphere in the original Halloween, but the lack of music is one of the more minor flaws in Halloween II. After an overly familiar intro, Halloween II leads viewers through a journey of meaningless characters and pointless dialogue which feels like it has been all been done before. This is a path it proceeds along all the way until we see Dr. Sam Loomis repeatedly shooting at Michael Myers, one of the final images of the film which is all too obviously a replication of Halloween's climax. Halloween II is a large repeat of its predecessor with arbitrary differences which pay it no favours.The change of setting does not make Halloween II any more innovative. In fact, it actually deals a lot of damage to the film. For one thing, Halloween was a film interpreted by many to have social commentary due to the recurring traits found in the victims of the story. In Halloween II they are mostly just nameless locals and hospital workers. Few of them are particularly careless or unlikable; they're just a generic collection of stock characters who have no meaning whatsoever. Even the characterization of Michael Myers is a mistake; Michael Myers is supposed to be pure evil. Alas, in Halloween II we too often see the eyes beneath his mysterious mask and are reminded consistently that he is a human. Perhaps part of director Rick Rosenthal's intention was to intimidate audiences with the idea that this kind of evil come from a human, but its contrasted by the fact that he is still capable of surviving so many stab and bullet wounds. I don't know what characterization they were going for with Michael Myers, but either way they managed to mess it all up.Rather than relying on actual atmospheric tension to create thrills, Halloween II makes the mistake of relying on its increased budget. Halloween's $2.5 million budget is far greater than its predecessor's $320,000, and the first sign of this comes from when Ben Tramer is killed in a car explosion. The murders in Halloween II are executed with the same simplicity and visual style as Halloween, but with a slight increase in blood. It is slight enough to see but not to entertain, and though it is not explicit nor is it entertaining. Halloween essentially retains all the lesser elements of its predecessor and nothing new to justify the film's existence in the first place.Even the characters in Halloween II are given lame treatment, but the cast still manage to pull through.The main character in Halloween II is no longer Laurie Strode. The most running time in the film is given to antagonist Michael Myers, played by Dick Warlock. Decked out in his distinctive costume, Dick Warlock creeps his way through the story with the stilted movements of a statue. His performance is purely physical, and his slow movements give him an intimidating rate of progress towards the victims of the story. Dick Warlock's large stature makes him a consistently intimidating antagonist in Halloween II, and with the job of walking around and killing everyone being his main responsibility it is a job that he easily fulfils.Jamie Lee Curtis is OK. Laurie Strode is reduced to being a background character for the majority of the film since she spends most of it lying in a bed with nothing to do. As a result, it's difficult for Jamie Lee Curtis to remain all that interested in disinterested to the outside world. But during the later parts of the film she is pushed to get more actively physical with her performance where audiences see her bring out the utmost intensity in her performance. Her effort proves to be a very physical one as well, and the intense look of terror on her face reminds audiences what made her such a solid Halloween cast member in the first place. Jamie Lee Curtis doesn't get much to work with in Halloween II, but she brings in a fine effort either way.But it's Donald Pleasance who really takes a stand. Expanding upon what he started in Halloween, Halloween II depicts Dr. Sam Loomis having descended into complete psychological imbalance and despair over the acts of Michael Myers. With new character elements introduced to Dr. Sam Loomis, Donald Pleasance takes the chance and runs with it. As a result, his performance is the finest in Halloween II. The intense stare in his eyes widens to a far greater extent this time around, and the tone of his voice is so raw that it commands the dramatic nature of the film. Donald Pleasance's performance is the one great aspect that come from Halloween II.Halloween II gains an intense performance from Donald Pleasance, but with a premise that directly follows the structure of its predecessor without enough thrills or originality to justify its existence, it is a perfect example of a cliche slasher sequel.

Shamith G (kr) wrote: This was one of my favourite movie when I was in school years and still I don't regret watching it again and again...At that time all I cared was about action and body building, but now I see why I still like this movie. Spectacularly shot in the jungles of Mexico with an awesome Alan silvestri orchestra and vividly controlled direction of Mcternian . The movie certainly has some flaws in the story but still it doesn't let me down on watching it again

Gregory M (br) wrote: I loved this movie and the story it told.Somethings just can't be explained.Magic cannot be explained.You have to believe.And I believe.Muggle parents just annoy me.Amazing animation and music.Great plot and great lesson taught.All you need is faith and trust and Pixie dust.The best movie of the fairies franchise.