When college friends reunite after 15 years over the Christmas holidays, they discover just how easy it is for long-forgotten rivalries and romances to be reignited. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
The Best Man Holiday torrent reviews
Joey F (br) wrote: Talk about a waste of a great idea. I read the back of the box in FYE and was just so excited to see the film. Unfortunately it was about as predictable as possible. Not to mention filled to the brim with anime tropes. It's not god awful, but I wanted so much more.
Angie T (us) wrote: Can't believe they managed a sequel from Love in a Puff....Mini Yang is cute tho!
Ross K (ag) wrote: Whether you agree with the political narrative presented or not, the movie is captivating and offers food for thought from a little-known perspective.
Harry W (es) wrote: With George A. Romero returning for a modern day zombie film, Land of the Dead sounded like another fun zombie film.The thing which is interesting about Day of the Dead is just getting a look at precisely how far George A. Romero has come as a filmmaker. In contrast to his low budget 1868 film Night of the Living Dead which consistently serves as his breakthrough film, Land of the Dead is a lot darker, more violent and captured with a larger budget. On the surface, Land of the Dead sounded like a really exciting zombie film from the mind of a horror mastermind, but unfortunately it ended up being the same old slice and dice.Despite its potential and the large universe of the film, Land of the Dead ends up doing little to become anything more than another by-the-numbers zombie film. The film has a large universe and a lot of potential, but it ends up as another zombie thriller which fans of the genre are likely to have seen countless times before. The whole time I really felt like I was just watching the Dawn of the Dead remake but with darker lighting and less creativity or tension. Land of the Dead could have been a whole lot more and could use its high concept setting to tell a strong story about a legitimate war between humans and zombies in a post-apocalyptic dystopia, but the film is nothing more than a repetitive series of deaths and uncreative story dynamics which cannot compare to George A. Romero's superior films or the entire culture of zombie horror cinema that he has influenced. I appreciate his efforts, but the lack of creativity in his story gets in the way of what Land of the Dead really could have become.Usually, if a Zombie film is to succeed as creative it either has to take its story in a new direction or make use of plenty of entertaining action. In Land of the Dead, the same basic method of killing is used to an extent which is really overkill without being entertaining much at all. The amount of blood and gore is decent, but it is largely toned down by the dark lighting as is half of the other visual qualities of Land of the Dead. The setting for the film seems pretty genuine because even on a reasonable budget of $15 million George A. Romero is able to encourage the feeling of a large scale and big budget movie at times, but all in all most of the film ends up occurring in a lot of repetitive settings which means that the wider universe of the feature is little more than a tease of what could have been. All in all, it feels like a slack effort which is a shame because there really was an interesting society set up for the battle of humans vs. zombies, yet it was weighed down by weak plotting. The dark lighting of the film doesn't make it hard to see, but it doesn't pay any favours to the visual style of the feature. I guess really, Land of the Dead is a contemporary zombie film which means it lacks the silly fun and nudity which made the genre peak in the 1980's and 1990's and George A. Romero is really bent on taking the film seriously, and that's ok. But there is really no fun in the film at all, not even in the way the zombies are killed because it is the same basic method of shooting every time. Really, Land of the Dead is a zombie film which takes the most basic elements of the genre and stretches them over a slow period of 93 minutes without tension.The cast of the film fail to bring Land of the Dead to life due to thin characters, but the presence of certain cast members is enjoyable to a minor extent.Although I was never particularly big on the television series The Mentalist, I'm sure that fans of it will be happy to see Simon Baker taking on a leading role from before the series took off. He may be stuck with a bland character to work with and his performance may be rather monotonous, but he stands confident in the role and is able to establish a hard edge for the character. He doesn't have many challenging situations to deal with, but Simon Baker does what he is asked to in the role and that is all you can ask for.The presence of Dennis Hopper is a nice touch. Although Land of the Dead fails to really capitalise on having the Academy Award nominated veteran actor as part of its cast, the fact that he is genuinely there manages to create a strong sense of nostalgia. It barely uses any of his good talents, but it is just genuinely good to see the actor working again in mainstream cinema. He fits the profile of his role easily and delivers a middling but decent effort which stands out amongst the cast.Eugene Clark made a good zombie as Big Daddy. All that the role really demands from him is his physical capabilities as an actor, and he brings justice to the part by walking around without any life but a certain hungry passion for death. His stature is intimidating because he has a Ving Rhames type look to him which makes him the ideal image of intimidation. Eugene Clark remains one of the most memorable images from Land of the Dead.So Land of the Dead has plenty of potential and some decent set pieces, but with a lack of creativity in the way that it handles either the universe of the story or the way its characters are determined to defeat the zombie outbreak, the entire feature ends up being a lacklustre, slow and repetitive zombie feature which repeats the same scenes again and again while failing to capture the same horror that George A. Romero has a legacy for.
Sharli M (kr) wrote: some creative filming gives it an extra point.
Mae N (gb) wrote: I didn't want to watch it (because of Milo), but it's quite okay.
Jessie D (nl) wrote: My favourite bit was when Bella (perhaps the most pathetic female character available for young girls to idolise) was thrown around in the ballet studio at the end because it made me feel better about sitting and watching her be miserably inadequate throughout the rest of the film.
Mike A (jp) wrote: I wish there was a LOWER RATING on this thing!!!
Leilani B (gb) wrote: It was ridiculously funny. Pure, blissful silliness.
Jonathan F (br) wrote: Before Rocky Horror Picture Show: There was simply, Paul Williams...
Ryan M (gb) wrote: **** out of **** A Satanic cult of hippies enters a small ghost town. They're looking for trouble; assuming that it won't dare confront them, knowing the kind of things that they're in to, and what they practice. On the night of their first ritual, they rape a girl that comes from the town outside the woods in which they gather. She runs back home; injured, and before long she is bedridden. Her grandfather is broken-hearted and vengeful; approaching the hotel that the hippies now inhabit with a loaded shotgun. His attempts at revenge fail, and he is force-fed LSD. His grandson walks him home; whilst he is still suffering under the influence of the drug, mad, and in tears. This will not stand with the grandson. He must do what his grandfather was incapable of doing; and he aims to put these hippies to rest once and for all. He does so by shooting a mad dog that was snooping around in the woods and taking some of its blood and storing it in a needle. He then injects the rabies-infected blood into some of the meat pies that his employer - a woman who runs a local bakery - has already made; causing the hippies, unaware that their food has been spiked with nasty fluids, to inherit the traits of a rabid animal and go absolutely bat-shit insane. To my surprise, "I Drink Your Blood" doesn't get to the bloody (AKA good) stuff until the last forty minutes or so. The rest is some sort of attempt at build-up; and a failed attempt from the looks of it. But when the side-effects of consuming rabid dog blood with your pastries start to kick in on these vile souls; the fun begins, although in my opinion, it had already begun long ago. Just think about it: a film that begins with a hippie cult leader proclaiming "Satan was an Acid Head!" can't be that boring, can it? I believe that the writer and director of the film - David E. Durston - is entitled to a round of applause. He has successfully created a film that is beyond being "so bad it's good". This is "so bad it's great". Yes, you heard right; I loved "I Drink Your Blood". Every last moment of it. It's a great shock feature; a classic in the field of horror movies that are just so poorly done that they're, well, kind of awesome. A lot of people will hate the film for its undeniably poor quality - and for its lack of "taste" - but if you can make a movie bad - yet good - enough for people to keep coming back for more, I'd say your movie is at least somewhat abnormal. Thus, whether you like it or not; "I Drink Your Blood" is pretty much a landmark, must-see piece of entertainment from the Grindhouse section of cinema. Yeah, it's not going to get much respect from any major (meaning mainstream) critics, but I loved it. Durston certainly has direction, you know, for a guy who has made a movie as corny as this. His movie is absolutely loopy, trippy, tasteless, and unrestrained. The original, uncensored version of the film had been kept away from the American public for years; but now, "I Drink Your Blood" can be seen as it was always meant to be seen: uncensored and uncut. In a movie of uninspired dialogue and absurd situations; it's kind of difficult hand-picking my favorite scenes since in all honesty, there are just so many of them. I'll give you some examples from the insanity on display here: there's a random scene where the hippies go about having a rat-killing-and-catching contest in the hotel that they invade and proceed to trash. Such a scene is just very abrupt; and that's why it has a certain charm in the context of the film. Everything in this movie must be absolutely random and unexpected; or else it isn't interesting. Good thing Durston doesn't disappoint when it comes to whacky scenarios and memorable lunacy. Here's one thing that I can't get off my mind: why was it that the rabid humans had a severe phobia of water? Sure, they'll take the flesh if it's on display; but point a hose in their direction (and use it), and look at that, they cower in fear. It's illogical; completely illogical, but then again I suppose it is not the job of this film to make much sense. It is adored by its fans - and me - because it is completely and utterly ridiculous. It's a stupid, brain-dead rip-off of "Night of the Living Dead"; just a lot more violent and, well, reviled by its critics. I personally found it hilarious, immensely enjoyable, and yes; one of the best ways to spend a movie night I've come across in a long time. If you share my demented sense of humor and endless appreciation of cinematic freak shows; then this might do something for you as it did for me. But if you're uptight and you like your films with some form of substance; you'll see nothing but trash and emptiness. But...for those who care; long live this masterpiece of sleaze, long live the Grindhouse/Drive-in revenue (this film was shown along with "I Eat Your Skin" as a double-feature), and long live the films that I love and you don't.
Jo Y (de) wrote: It's on Straz this month
Cameron F (us) wrote: We meet the guys parents this time and they're tree hugging hippies. This sequel has a few laughs but nothing special.