You may also like
Tierra de escorpiones torrent reviews
Jinx C (mx) wrote: Nothing like an good ol fashioned horror flick...no cgi....lots of the old filming tactics that will get your mind n heart racing.
Gil G (mx) wrote: This looks beyond terrible!
Robert S (ru) wrote: See how a bunch of Good Christians gave us the "Camps" Some real Christians did stand on higher ground.Makes the News we hear today sound different.
Jack Y (fr) wrote: Great animated feature with the cartoon Rover Dangereld having many of Rodneys mannerisms as well as his voice. Everything is nicely drawn and the 1950s settings give a nice sense of the old Vegas. Fabulous and since its aimed at kids, its far less blue than a lot of Dangerelds other works. The lead animal characters and their love put this right up there as a little-known kids classic.
Jordan K (it) wrote: I saw Ghost Dad and expected a ridiculous cheesy Cosby flick like Leonard Part 6, but actually wasn't that bad. It wasn't great, but, really, anything with Cosby in it is a treat to watch.Cosby plays a workholic who, when with a reckless driver, drowns in a taxi. He dies, but he is a ghost and he can talk and be seen only in darkness. The rest from there is seen of Cosby not getting along with his kids, which really isn't needed, but who cares. Cosby does ghost things, and that's kinda entertaining. The whole time I watched it, I was indeed entertained.The film does have some flaws, but like said...it's entertaining. It's hard to not like anything Cosby does (well, except for Leonard, Part 6). That's pretty much all. It's a ok film with some flaws in between but I actually enjoyed it.
Michael C (ru) wrote: I expected a little bit more from this documentary, which in the end may be unfair to the film and may hurt the rating a bit. I believed this was going to be a history of the manned moon missions with lengthy commentary from those who actually walked on it, with footage interspliced in. Instead, it is a collection of footage from the nine manned moon missions with occasional comments from those involved. This isn't necessarily a loss though; the footage itself is amazing. It really did a great job of illustrating how much of a miracle it seems that anyone has ever been shot into space, let alone actually walked on a lunar body. The opening sequence of the shuttle launch is exhiliarating; I guess I hadn't thought of how destructive a shuttle launch really is, with the breakers snapping off the sides, the chunks of ice and debris falling away, different sections breaking off as it gets higher and higher, and the massive amount of fuel that is ignited to make it all happen. REMARKABLE technology. I also appreciated how some of the footage was played to background instrumental music, and some was shown in silence; some of the images really do work better without music as the images can say more themselves than any music ever could. I also enjoyed the shots of the astronauts just goofing around on the Moon and doing backflips and things of that sort; while these were scientific missions, they weren't immune to the wonder of what they were doing. Overall it was amazing footage, I just wasn't ecstatic about the presentation the director chose to use in providing this footage.
Jim H (es) wrote: The Genius that is Satyajit Ray
Scott S (mx) wrote: What a Way to Go (1964) -- [5.5] -- Shirley MacLaine plays a jinxed woman whose four husbands meet tragic ends in this satirical comedy about money and passion. There are a lot of great moments in "What a Way to Go," but the sum isn't greater than the parts. The disjointed narrative is made nearly tolerable by screenwriters Betty Comden and Adolph Green, who also brought together the fractured tales of "Singin' in the Rain" and "Auntie Mame." The film consists of four stories, one for each husband -- Dick Van Dyke, Paul Newman, Gene Kelly, and Robert Mitchum. These guys each have fun with their roles, and MacLaine does, too. But it's not enough to sustain the movie for two hours, especially when you already know how each vignette is going to end.
Ken S (gb) wrote: Decent werewolf film from Hammer, there only take on the horror staple, starring Oliver Reed as the titular monster. It isn't great, but it has t's moments. It does sport a good performance from Reed, as well as strong wolf make-up, and that great classic Hammer visual look. The story isn't spectacular, but it is a mostly solid Werewolf effort.
Jacob M (ag) wrote: okay first off; Why is the setting so different?! what the heck are they doing in thailand? i'm *pretty* sure they don't have samurai there o_Oand secondly.. they are apparently using Chinese actors for this movie which makes loads of sense. cause the first thing you think of when hear Samurai is obviously China o_o.sigh, i had high hopes for a awesome remake too -_-
Anna D (jp) wrote: sooo funny, an absolute must see
Garrett C (ag) wrote: This is easily one of the very best movies I've seen recently and I highly recommend it. Just hilarious! Babe Ruth appears as himself in a cameo playing a victim of Speedy's reckless driving. It was shot on location in New York City, and for lovers of the city and its history the film provides a very revealing portrait of what it looked like in the late 20's. This is just about as fun and joyous as movies get. Definitely a must see!