An obliviously modern college student gets into a near-fatal bus accident, but is turned into a modern day Frankenstein through hybrid technology by her biotech father and his advanced lab. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Simple Creature torrent reviews
gnes L (nl) wrote: Remek sznszek, j humor. Igazi feelgood mozi! :)
Joe G (br) wrote: Excellent movie, needs to be seen on the big screen.
Dimitri J (br) wrote: Me suis tromp de Sang-soo. J??ai cru aller voir un film d??Im Sang-soo, alors c??est un film d??Hong Sang-soo dont je ne connais pas l'oeuvre? la loose...'fin bref, auto-portrait d??un cinaste plus intress par les femmes que par les films. Quelques scnes marrantes (la scne des bras de fer) mais le tout est assez creux et chiant.
Jon P (au) wrote: "Like the moment when your brakes lock, and you slide towards the big truck, you stretch the frozen moments with your fear" Roger Waters. This simple lyric could sum up this movie. We get to watch a man with an ego single handedly wreck a career before it had a chance to even begin. On the down side he pulled all of his friends down with him, on the up side he deserved every single little bit of it.
Kyle B (gb) wrote: An interesting biopic with a good performance from Liam Neeson and a great one from Alan Rickman. Great battle scenes
Guilherme N (au) wrote: If it your kind of vaudevillian 1980's movie, it's nice
Orlok W (br) wrote: Robert Ryan and Burl Ives are outstanding in this bleak, austere, frigid western--Snowy western melodrama!!
Tim T (de) wrote: The best of the Universal Holmes films. Tons of fog and atmosphere, with several creepy scenes. Highly Recommended.
Rick R (it) wrote: Susan Lenox: Her Rise and Fall (1931)This really early talkie stars Greta Garbo as the Cinderella-like Helga. She runs away from her father, Karl Ohlin (Jean Hersholt) when she's promised to Jeb Mondstrum (Alan Hale Sr.) While on the run she meets and falls in love with a young construction engineer, Rodney Spencer (Clark Gable).When Rodney leaves on business, Helga has to flee from her father and joins the circus. (WTF?) and to be the plaything of the owner, Burlingham (John Miljan). Of course on Rodney's return, he's crushed to learn what terrible things his girl has done and is doing and scorns her.Later, Helga has taken on the name Susan Lenox and has become the mistress of a rich politician Hale Hamilton (Mike Kelly). However, when she learns that Rodney is working in South America, she rejects all and travels down to see him and try to re-unite.Garbo plays her typical suffering, victimized, misunderstood character, who falls, rises to prominence, and then chooses to fall again for the man she loves, but I guess that her fans wouldn't have it any other way.
Cameron J (ca) wrote: Well, Hollywood, I hope that you had bid a fond farewell to Alfred Hitchcock, because with this film, he made his big comeback to British cinema for the first time since 1950. Granted, it's been much longer since this film's release, and we shouldn't be expecting a Hitchcock film in any country any time soon, so I'd imagine we're well used to the magnitude of the event, but hey, it's interesting to see how long Hitchcock waited before coming home, which is why he was the Master of Suspense. Well, I don't know about you guys, but nothing about this title, alone, sounds as though it pertains to suspense, because there's not much subtlety to a frenzy. Really, say what you will about the importance of Hitchcock's Hollywood projects in the '50s and '60s and what have you, but as "Vertigo", "Psycho", "The Birds" and, so help me, "Rope" told us, he was low on creative title ideas for quite some time. Hey, maybe Hitchcock was trying to tell us something with this particular title, for he knew that his time was coming, thus, he decided to throw away all of that suspenseful nonsense and really get crazy, like a frenzy. Oh, how I wish this film really was that exciting, but alas, you must remember that it is a British "thriller", and therefore pretty dry. No, the film is plenty slick, but it's not as much fun as its title might promise, for a couple reasons.Clocking in a little shy of two hours, the film has plenty of time to build suspense, and boy, it has a tendency to work a little too hard at keeping that up, not so much dragging itself out with filler, but still outstaying its welcome with much meandering material that slows down the momentum of rising tension, however limited it may be by inconsistencies beyond pacing. I don't know if the film is so much all that humorous, or even all that fluffy of a report back to London on the tropes that Alfred Hitchcock picked up during his time in Hollywood, Anthony Shaffer's script, on top of spending too much time with certain segments in material in general, spends too much time with inconsequential, almost tongue-in-cheek lighter segments, broken up by moments of tension that would be more effective if they weren't so forcibly driven into the midst of borderline fluff. Tensions certainly aren't helped by the film's lack of originality, being at least consistent in tossing whatever pacing or tone it's following upon a traditional muder and wrong-suspect tale that is all too predictable to feel all that momentous, just as it's too histrionic to fell that grounded. I don't suppose Shaffer's scripted storytelling is all that far out there, but it's a bit questionable, drawing a borderline barely probable thriller narrative whose holes in full buyability are conceptually problematic enough. Of course, what ultimately secures the final product's underwhelmingness through the story concept is merely natural shortcomings, because the near-two-hour runtime, and the jarring incorporations of more serious tonal aspects, wouldn't be so unreasonable if this story concept wasn't so light in momentum to begin with. I feel that something could have been done to carry this story a fair distance in execution, and highlights in storytelling stand as evidence, yet the consequential shortcomings - of which there are many - ultimately reinforce limitations in intrigue enough to hold the final product back as a relatively underwhelming, somewhat fluffy thriller. There's something ultimately lacking here, but not so lacking that the final product doesn't entertain just fine as a fair penultimate opus in Hitchcock's career, and one that looks good along the way.Really, Gilbert Taylor's and an uncredited Leonard J. South's cinematography is hardly all that special, but it pays a nice compliment to Alfred Hitchock's distinctive visual style with a lovely pronunciation of color and some subtle plays with lighting that do a decent job of drawing you into the looks of this character piece. Of course, this thriller thrives more on the portrayers of its characters, and while there's not a whole lot of material for anyone to utilized as standouts or anything of that sort, most everyone has a very English and distinguished charisma which sells each individual character, while the occasional dramatic beat reinforces a sense of consequence. The performances are solid, never really standing out, but having a certain realization to presence to help keep you invested, with the help of some pretty decent material, in all fairness. Anthony Shaffer's script gets to be rather uneven in tone and pacing, and quite frankly, it's perhaps a little too blasted British in its overt dryness, whose somewhat subdued approach to heavy subject matter further limits a sense of weight, yet through all of the shortcomings, Shaffer's humor is generally clever and amusing, while characterization proves to be well-rounded enough for you to get a grip on the characters, and the conflicts which follow them. True, there's only so much weight to get a grip on within this somewhat narratively thin and very unoriginal story concept, but potential is here, intriguing as a classic, if sometimes probably questionable study on the hunt for the wrong man in a serial murder case, anchored by the aforementioned charismatic acting and clever script. Of course, what really brings storytelling to life, about as much as it can be with material so thin in concept and uneven in execution, is Alfred Hitchcock's direction, which not only flaunts a handsome visual style, as I said earler, but keeps fairly focused in that classic Hitchcockian manner, focusing on writing wit enough to keep the slow spells from descending into blandness, while playing with a sharp atmosphere during the more intense moments in order to thoroughly chill, and provide glimpses into a more effective thriller. Needless to say, the heights in intensity are few and far between in this sparse affair, and in between that is a thriller that is too held back by predictability, inconsistency and other issues to be all that thrilling, but entertainment value is not lost, sustaining enough intrigue to keep you going, even if it's for only so far.Bottom line, the momentously and tonally uneven, as well as unoriginal and sometimes histrionic telling of a slightly thin story concept hold the final product back, but decent cinematography, charismatic acting, clever writing and thoughtful direction prove to be enough to make Alfred Hitchcock's "Frenzy" a pretty entertaining and sometimes pretty tense, if underwhelming penultimate project in the career of the Master of Suspense.2.5/5 - Fair
Nayita 2 (us) wrote: Mucha ideologa para un nio pequeo!
Ted W (nl) wrote: I love it!! It's so funny and crazy. Love animal movies!
Jeff T (gb) wrote: You don't have to think like a man to like this one. Kevin is hilarious.
Matt A (au) wrote: Amazing entertaining movie!! Loved it even more as an adult as i did as a kid :) Its definitely worthy of a remake.