Buckaroo Banzai is caught with his trusted allies, the Hong Kong Cavaliers, in a battle to the death between evil red aliens and good black aliens from Planet 10. Now, it's up to him and his band to take on the evil alien invaders from the eighth dimension. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension
Adventurer/surgeon/rock musician Buckaroo Banzai and his band of men, the Hong Kong Cavaliers, take on evil alien invaders from the 8th dimension.
You may also like
The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension torrent reviews
Gordon H (ag) wrote: The Best of the Rebooted 'Star Trek' Adventures to Date!Originally Written July 22, 2016--A devastating surprise attack in outer space orchestrated by the villainous Krall (Idris Elba) forces the 'Enterprise' to crash-land on a mysterious world. Krall, a lizard-like dictator who derives his life force energy by literally sucking the life out of his victims, desperately needs an ancient and valuable artifact that's aboard the badly damaged starship. Left stranded in a rugged wilderness, Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), McCoy (Karl Urban), Scotty (Simon Pegg), and the rest of the crew must now battle a deadly alien race while trying to find a way off their hostile planet.Ok, so full disclosure -- I have not been a fan of the rebooted 'Star Trek.' Having loved the original television show, all of the spin-offs, and of course the original ten films, I have found the reboot thus far to pale in comparison. My biggest gripe has been the complete lack of originality in the new films. If the idea of rebooting the series was to provide the filmmakers with more freedom to introduce new story concepts without having to worry about established series continuity, why did they feel it necessary to show us the same things all over again? For example, why did we need to see the Romulans, Khan, and especially the famous Kirk/Spock death scene a second time? The Original Series and movies already gave us great storylines surrounding these plot elements, far better than the new films have. Why couldn't we see a new villain create this alternate universe and cause our heroes to have to come together? I mean, really, was redoing the iconic Kirk/Spock death scene really that necessary, regardless of who it was that actually died? What the rebooted 'Trek' has desperately needed in my opinion is an original idea that hasn't been shown on screen before, without having to copy or reinvent something that's already been done. Well, I'm happy to say, this new film does precisely that. Elba's Krall gives us a great villain we've never encountered before and the story provides a cautionary tale regarding what an extended tour in deep space might do to a person's psyche. Early on in the film, we hear a weary Kirk expressing frustration with the daily grind of exploring the final frontier, and his serious reservations about Starfleet's mission to seek out new life and new civilizations. Wow! I mean, a new idea presented on the big screen that's never been done before and that I and probably many others have always wondered about. Not to mention the introduction of a new starbase named 'Yorktown' -- an actual living, breathing city in space that quite literally took my breath away! Finally, a new film that takes some risks and gives us a great story on top of all those incredible special effects. This truly is the best of the rebooted 'Star Trek' adventures to date! Five stars!
Robert B (jp) wrote: Death of a Ghost Hunter (Sean Tretta, 2007)I really wanted to like Death of a Ghost Hunter, the first feature from Sean Tretta; the next year, he released The Death Factory Bloodletting, a slasher flick that never takes itself too seriously and ends up being a stupidly good time because of it. This movie, however, does not have that same attribute, while richly needing it; while it does have a few good-but-predictable twists, Tretta was still finding his cinematic feet here, and the end result is somewhat less than it should have been.Death of a Ghost Hunter is the story of Carter Simms (Machined's Patti Tindall), a paranormal investigator who's been hired to check out a house notorious for the mass murder of the family who lived there twenty years ago. When she and her cameraman Colin (Mike Marsh, who returned for The Death Factory Bloodletting) arrive, they discover an unpleasant surprise waiting for them in the form of Yvette (The Devil's Playhouse's Davina Joy), an investigative reporter who's as interested to get the full story on Carter Simms as she is to find out whether the house is haunted. As if that's not enough, a "spiritual advisor", Mary (Lindsay Page in her only screen appearance to date), shows up later the first night to do some Bible-thumping. It's a motley crew indeed, almost as if the homeowner hand-picked these folks to play off one another. (You saw this more recently in Episode 50.) When creepy things start happening, the crew try to get to the bottom of what actually happened in the house and whether there are ghosts haunting it.There are some very interesting pieces to this plot (warning: the backstory of the house ends up containing a lot of triggering stuff), and Tretta, in his first collaboration with screenwriter Mike Marsh, had some good ideas about where to go. Both of those upsides were hamstrung by the obviously low budget they were working with and the caliber of some of the acting (there's a reason, one assumes, Page has only ever appeared in one movie). Given that Tretta has since shown himself capable of better when he's got even a slightly larger budget, it might be an interesting exercise for, say, Megan Ellison to toss fifty grand at him and see what a remake of this would look like with some professional actors (and a few better effects). What's here is heavy on potential, light on execution. **
Pablo C (de) wrote: Simply put, this is a weird movie. Mike White (School of Rock) is a gifted writer with a penchant for quirky off-the-wall characters, and I?ve always felt that Molly Shannon is an underrated talent, but her character in this movie borders on creepy, and I?m not really sure if that was the intention. The film is a dark comedy about a woman whose life takes a dramatic turn when her dog dies, but the film puts more emphasis on the dark than the comedy, so there really aren?t that many laugh-out-loud moments. The film is ripe with good actors and performances, but none of the characters are particularly likeable. It?s not a terrible movie, just flawed and ultimately there?s more than a few missed opportunities at inspired comedy.
Frances H (gb) wrote: Decent action flick. Liked Holyphont's character and how he changed by being in the girl's company.
Lucas O (nl) wrote: One hell of a political thriller!
Eric B (au) wrote: Actually pretty dam funny. Stupid funny
Victor M (jp) wrote: A delightful comedy, this Argentinian film. A tender story about an old man that wants to honor his wife, suffering of Alzheimer, now at an asylum, marrying her in a religious ceremony.
Ryan S (br) wrote: Nothing special, at all. The plot was very unoriginal and really nothing that hasn't already been done before. It was just slow and boring, for the most part. Really not thrilling in the least and the ending was very predictable, and I had it figured out pretty much at the beginning of the movie. It had a pretty decent cast, but that's about all it had going for it. It's not completely terrible and is alright for a one time watch, but it's nothing original or memorable.
Matt R (es) wrote: This is one the worse movies I have ever seen. I don't want to know what kind of director would just sit there and have take after take of dead dialogue with no remorse for what he's putting the audience through. I've seen better acting from the mannequin ads for Old Navy. Most of this film doesn't make any sense. It's like Sinyor shot the whole film piece by piece and then forgot how it all went back together. There's one scene in particular in which Tom Green prepares a meal for the family and the mom is upset (you can't tell by her horrible acting, but we're suppose to gather that she is in fact pissed), but then it takes nearly 50 minutes for you to find out why and it really had no relevance or purpose to the plot. Tom Green was somewhat toleratable, but it sucks that this movie is kid friendly and the Tom Green I like is not. The premise itself is interesting, but wasn't done right. In the film, Green's character is a loser that can't hold a job for more than a couple of weeks, and he just can't seem to find his way in life. Since he goes through so many jobs, he just started at the beginning and is literally working his way through the phone book when he comes across "Butler". Don't even consider watching this film. You won't laugh at all unless you're laughing at the ridiculous acting and plot developments that come at you from all directions, none of which will steer you in a sensable direction. Horrible.
Kathryn B (mx) wrote: Quiet, lovely movie.
Stina G (us) wrote: amazing biography beautifully performed by the elegant Eleanor Parker
Marah R (gb) wrote: Great movie that perfectly captured the beauty and hardships of Mandela's life and journey to freedom. Idris Elba plays his character perfectly and gives justice to his role.
Ryan H (fr) wrote: America- the 1940's, post World War. The dawn of the age of the Beatnik. "On the Road" is based on the Jack Kerouac novel of the same name, which is still loved by many as one of the great American novels. The film follows a young writer named Sal Paradise as he criss-crosses the country, his life often intersecting with the charismatic Dean Moriarty. They do things. They take copious amounts of drugs. They have a lot of sex. They never stay in one place for too long, because there is always that pull to go back on the road.I tried reading "On the Road" once. I honest to God tried. I couldn't finish it, because it bored me to tears. There's a lot of rambling musings of strung out poets that sound a lot more profound than they are. These are the kind of guys you meet at parties that are sitting in the corner, surrounded by a small crowd of half-plastered listeners, as they drone on about how "light is darkness man. We're all just on a cosmic loom. You're all zombies, man! Somnambulist droves of ambulatory automatons (etc. etc. etc...)" Stuff that sounds deep and meaningful that will end up on some stoner's dorm room poster one day. I was hoping that the film would perhaps capture my attention in a more meaningful way. It did not. But at least I was able to finish it this time.I understand that this story is loved by a great deal of people. Its all about experiencing life, letting go of your inhibitions, finding true freedom, yadda yadda. What bothers me the most is that through the whole meandering 2-hour runtime, our main character never has any real goal, except for a vague search for Dean's father, and from beginning to end, none of the characters really change all that much. Maybe that's all fine and good for a story that is "like real life," and this just captures a few moments in time, but for crying out loud, this is a movie, and we need SOMETHING to hold on to to keep us invested in this plot. We only seem to jump from meet up to meet up between Dean and Sal, where they then proceed to get wasted, talk to each other in ways that no humans actually speak, listen to music, get seriously lit up, then have an orgy.Maybe its a metaphor for the free-flow of creativity. These little wispy nuggets of inspiration come careening out of the infinite and onto the page, seemingly from nowhere, and we all just need to hear about it in a movie. Ya dig?It's not all bad, though. The movie is filmed very well, particularly the sequences when they are traveling. These scenes actually do make me want to pack up and hit the road, just for the feeling of an open highway and unknown destination. That IS fun. I get that. The music was subtle and beautiful, orchestrated by the talented Gustavo Santaolalla (Into the Wild, Brokeback Mountain, The Last of Us) and accompanied the travel sequences well.Garrett Hedlund as Dean channels an early 90's Brad Pitt (which is interesting, considering that at one time, Brad Pitt was in talks for this very role.) He's very charismatic and charming, but also kind of a sleazy weasel. That's fun to say.Sleazy weasel. There is a surprisingly strong performance by Kirsten Dunst, of all people. I've always had a soft spot for her since I saw "Drop Dead Gorgeous" years ago, and Jumanji before that, but I hadn't seen her in anything recently, so that was a welcome surprise.But then... there was Kristen Stewart. Oh, Kristen. When will you make a good movie? Yes, you were better in this than in Twilight, I'll give you that. But my goodness, you are not great at this acting thing.There is also a disappointing and inexplicably weird role by Viggo Mortensen. At one point, he strips down and climbs into some kind of cupboard in the woods, claiming it has healing properties. Meanwhile, Amy Adams uses a broom to sweep lizards out of a tree. Wasn't quite sure what to do with that. This is not a great movie. I insisted on giving it a fair chance, but it's not any better than the book, and it made for a somewhat meandering waste of time. It looks nice, and wasn't terribly acted by about half the cast, but you can find a better way to spend an evening. Check out Game of Thrones or something. Have you watched True Detective yet? You should, it's super great.Ok.