The Iguana with the Tongue of Fire

The Iguana with the Tongue of Fire

In Dublin, a young woman is brutally murdered in her home by a maniac that throws acid in her face and then slits her throat with a razor. Her mangled body is later discovered in the boot of a limousine owned by the Swiss Ambassador Sobiesky. The Ambassador, who was the dead woman's lover, refuses to cooperate with the police due to his diplomatic immunity. John Norton, an ex-cop famed for his brutal working methods, is brought in to help and gets too deeply involved when he stars an affair with the Ambassador's beautiful step-daughter, Helen. Meanwhile, the brutal killings continue...

In Dublin, a young woman is brutally murdered in her home by a maniac that throws acid in her face and then slits her throat with a razor. Her mangled body is later discovered in the boot ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Iguana with the Tongue of Fire torrent reviews

AJ R (jp) wrote: Absolutely bad my 4th worst film of all time

Catarina B (us) wrote: It's a fun movie to watch, don't like the ending too much...

Mandy K (de) wrote: Loved the movie! Loved Aaron Kwok. Great story. A must-see!

Jesse O (nl) wrote: I remember watching the first Hatchet, but I do not remember reviewing it on this website. I mean I did review it, I just have no recollection of it. But apparently I really enjoyed that movie. I would honestly have to watch it again in order to see if I still have a blast as I seemed to have back when I first watched it. But, honestly, I didn't really think this movie was that good. I honestly don't remember much from the first movie, but I would not doubt that this is very similar to that. I mean it's a sequel to a cult slasher that had some comical touches. You know exactly what you are going to get when your movie is named Hatchet. Lots of incredibly gory and bloody deaths. And this film does not disappoint in that regard in the least. But the film has this idea that it wants to be so bad that it's good, and in some respects it works. But, by and large, it hits more than it misses. For a film that is a little over than 81 minutes long, it's a really slow-paced film all things considered. It's like they press the reset button in order to start over again and they feel the need to give you a, somewhat, long expository period before the shit goes down. There's deaths sprinkled in here and there, but it's a movie that regresses as opposed to progresses. Then again you cannot expect much progress from a lot of slasher sequels. This is, partly, an "origin" story, if you will, in the sense that you get to see what made Victor Crowley the way he did and why he seems to come back even when it looks like he's died. The latter part of that is interesting, but it's not like they do much with it. They just say that he's a repeater and leave it with a simple 'if he gains vengeance on those who murdered him, he can finally be killed.' I suppose you can't expect much of an exploration of interesting concepts in what boils down to a mindless, bloody slasher film. I will say that the gore itself is definitely ridiculous and over-the-top. It doesn't have the best practical effects, but they're purposely campy, so it works in this film's favor. I will say that the movie does have one of the funnier sex scene deaths I've ever seen in a horror film. It got a hearty laugh out of me. The acting isn't great, but it's entertaining in, again, a campy way. Which is what this film intends to be. It's honestly mostly a tribute to old-school slashers and it does that fairly well, even if I wouldn't say this was a good movie, in the least, but it's a fitting tribute. That's about it really. Not a good horror movie, but I can see this movie being more fun to watch with a group of friends as opposed to watching alone. Some great and gory deaths are not enough to make this worth watching though.

Shannon B (fr) wrote: This movie was SO CHEESY!!!!!!!!!! Sean Connery was very good looking in it.

Ian M (kr) wrote: A hellish halfway point between documentary and surrealist horror, and certainly an animal lover's worst nightmare; it contains images sickening enough to make me seriously consider vegetarianism. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, but there is something undeniably potent going on here.

Art S (jp) wrote: Michael Caine's third go-round as British spy Harry Palmer, directed by Ken Russell no less, is pretty much a dud and ended the series. Caine has turned Palmer into almost a non-entity - the cogs turn inside his head but there is no outward sign of this. He gets the job done. This time he is in Finland trying to figure out what Karl Malden is up to (assisted by or thwarted by Francoise Dorleac). It turns out that Malden is working for crazy Ed Begley, a fervent Texan anti-communist, painted in broad strokes, who wants to destroy the USSR by provoking a Latvian uprising. Possibly Ken Russell's hand is seen in some of the over-the-top montages but otherwise he is relatively restrained. I struggled to pay attention.

Jamie C (ca) wrote: Boring, Need I say anymore?

Gary D (fr) wrote: While it's a watchable movie, I was expecting more philosophy to accompany the extra-dimensional perception, along the lines of Incredible Shrinking Man, but was disappointed. Ray Milland thrashes around dramatically to good effect though, and those contact lenses are really cool. Not a total waste of time.

Andy R (kr) wrote: I don't see the value in this movie. Couldn't finish it.