An evil yet adorable Gingerbread man comes to life with the soul of a convicted killer - this real life cookie monster wreaks havoc on the girl who sent the killer to the electric chair. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
The Gingerdead Man
An evil yet adorable Gingerbread man comes to life with the soul of a convicted killer, and this real life cookie monster wreaks havoc on the girl who sent the killer to the electric chair.
You may also like
The Gingerdead Man torrent reviews
Ilsa L (gb) wrote: Entertaining feel good musical featuring the songs of The Proclaimers.
Trevor C (jp) wrote: A very witty, humorous horror film about an idiotic kung-fu expert, who titles himself "Bold Cheung" when in reality he is a coward, whom's boss, Mr. Tam, has an affair with his wife. Fearful that Cheung will find out about the affair, Mr. Tam hires a master of witchcraft to kill him, as Tam knows that hiring an assassin would be pointless since Cheung is so good at kung-fu. However, Chin, the wizard (or "witch" in some translations) has a partner-wizard named Tsui who sees the wrongs in killing and decides to help Cheung. After surviving two nights in an abandoned temple inhabited by a hopping corpse possessed by Chin, Cheung is framed for killing his wife and then is both pursued by law officials and a still paranoid Mr. Tam. More spookiness ensues- all mixed with some pretty awesome kung-fu. The humor behind the "spooky" parts in this movie is so witty and entertaining that this film could have passed with those aspects alone. But, alongside all the hopping corpses, mirror ghosts, and talking urns, we are also presented excellently choreographed kung-fu sequences that add to the awesome ridiculousness that makes this movie so great. Also the characters are lovable, especially Cheung who from the very start is really just a pure-of-heart kind of guy who really loves his wife, though she ends up being so rotten and deceiving to him - though Cheung gets less and less pure as the movie moves along. Also the ending is perfect. I wouldn't be able to come up with a better way to finish such a wacky movie.
Matthew H (ru) wrote: A slick, fun and gritty genre piece that proves that having a small budget shouldn't stop on-screen quality. Justin Dix is an Aussie filmmaker to watch!
Katherine B (br) wrote: More incestuous lesbian vamp action. Kind of. Sacrifices and Satanism and dark mumbo-jumbo. Up to the level of what you would expect from Hammer. One of the Karnstein trilogy, quintillion if you cont Vampire Circus and Captain Kronos.
Amy M (es) wrote: It sucked me in, despite myself.
Lisa H (ag) wrote: Hooray for John Philip Sousa! I've been watching this movie every 4th of July since I was a little kid.
Don S (ca) wrote: Well, the chemistry is still there, but the story, not so much. The song/dance numbers are awful, as are the parts with Asta. And it has the same suspect group ending. Still, gotta love watching a young Jimmy Stewart!
Jesse O (kr) wrote: While I do think the film makes effective use of its atmosphere, for the most part, and it is well made with some solid cinematography, ultimately this movie did absolutely nothing for me. The main reason I didn't enjoy this movie was that there wasn't really a reason for anything that was happening. Of course if you're arguing for a more believable story, you could pull out the 'well, things in life happen for no reason sometimes'. And I think movies can get away with this if they're told effectively and you're at least having fun watching the movie, but when you're not really given a reason to invest in the characters or invest in the story, it makes it that much more of a chore to sit through. They do reveal some reasoning for what's happening at the end, but by this point you don't really care because everything has felt pointless. There's some cool visuals here and there, but that's not really enough to overcome the formulaic and uninteresting script that's chock full of cliches. Ultimately the film boils down to a slasher/evil kid horror genre. I do think there's an interesting concept here with the child being a murderer and whether that's due to his genetics or the environment he has found himself in for over 5 years. And I think the film tries to show that it is a combination of both things, such as it is in real life, that have made him the way he is. The fact that he cannot feel any kind of pain puts the idea in his mind that everyone must be like him, unable to feel anything and the fact that he's been raised by a homicidal maniac helps guide those thoughts in the kid's mind to its most extreme. And I thought that was actually a really cool aspect of the movie, an aspect of the movie you wouldn't pick up on if there wasn't a scene at the school where a teacher is discussing this same exact subject. Whether environment or genetics has an effect on how someone turns out. It's like they just STUMBLED onto this theme by accident and felt the need to point it out in one scene so they don't look completely clueless. It doesn't seem like something that was thought and planned out before the script was even written. It may have actually been intended, but it doesn't come across that way in the final product. And it's not like they do much with this concept, it's like they just PUT the idea into your mind, rather than doing something with it. Again if you don't remember that scene, you would miss an important part of Martin's development and a large reason for why he is the way he is. It's far more thought out than your typical 'evil child' nonsense. Regardless, it's not like THIS makes the movie really worth sitting through for an hour and 45 minutes of an uninteresting story that's more a chore than anything else. There's still some good ideas here, though and some cool visuals. But they're not enough to raise the movie from its slightly below average state.
F B (es) wrote: Very enjoyable film although it did go a bit mad and crazy.
Heather D (ca) wrote: the end just confused me but other than that i liked it
Daniel G (fr) wrote: I don't think most viewers realize how fun and intentionally funny this movie is.
Vance B (au) wrote: Stargate is an idea movie. As a standalone film it doesn't make full use of its concepts, but as the numerous TV spin-offs have proven the concept of Stargate makes for outstanding sci-fi adventure.
Akash S (br) wrote: Anand Gandhi's first feature-length film is an intriguing and thought-provoking piece of Independent cinema; it deals with life, purpose and philosophy. Gandhi's prior experience with short films helps him direct the three disparate storylines with certain finesse; the stories shed some light on Theseus's Paradox and give a transcendent look at consequences arising from individual actions.In Greek Legend, according to Plutarch, Theseus's ship was preserved, and the decayed parts were replaced piece by piece until no part of the original ship remained. Plutarch asks whether you would call it the same ship or not. The paradox might seem too confusing to discuss, but Anand Gandhi just uses this to connect the three plots through the theme of organ donation, questioning identity in the face of change. Rather than making a statement, Gandhi just raises interest and discusses various important philosophies and issues; having compelling arguments for and against the topics, it helps us being a part of the discussion.The characters are likeable and interesting. All the actors have done a commendable job, and Neeraj Kabi's brilliant performance as the Jain monk stands out. As the three stories go, the first one (with the blind Egyptian photographer) deals with behaviour to change, the second one (with the animal-rights supporting Jain monk) might seem more philosophically and intellectually orgasmic, but it's the third one (with a stock broker seeking justice for a kidney scam victim) which oozes with brutal honesty. The use of humour to lighten the serious tone of the movie is delightful.The cinematography is spectacular. Rarely have I seen such breathtaking visuals in an Independent film; the shots have a certain poetic and aesthetic charm. The blend of far-off shots and sudden close-ups gives us an intimate look at the characters' lives.The movie is really good, but far from perfection. 2 hours 20 minutes is too long for the movie; with better editing, it could have maintained the pace and momentum well. And as most movies with multiple storylines suffer from this, the characters lack enough depth and screen-time for us to invest ourselves in them. The first story, though the idea of a blind photographer is a bit farfetched, suffers from an abrupt ending. The second story has many interesting viewpoints and arguments, but part of them seem off-the-book and pretentious; it suffers from an illogical ending too. The third story, though quite honest and absorbing, is quite messy and detours from the main theme of the movie.From writing screenplay and dialogues for cheesy soap operas to an intellectual independent feature film, Anand Gandhi has come a long way; I guess his experience as a playwright and short-film director must have come in handy.