Three children and their uncle find a magic painting in the uncle's attic. When they pronounce a spell, a lady named Esmeralda emerges from the painting. The lady must return to the painting, unless certain conditions are fulfilled. A magic drink, which makes them invisible, should help them. Two thieves (who seem to like nothing but cakes) kidnap one of the children to require a ransom. And it is found that a man, the father of Peter Faber (that's the name of an actor too, but not in this movie) is needed for help. That is not easy, since the they are not on friendly terms with Peter and his father. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Uncle Fred and the Magic Potion torrent reviews
Norm d (it) wrote: The ratings here must be the result of stuffed balloting. This title is a mildly interesting watch but, overall, not good.+ Marion Cotillard reading a phone book probably would be worthwhile & interesting. And she gives a lot to this. Amazing that such a glam actress can play downscale so well. + But after watching for awhile one begins to wonder if they're watching a video of case studies for a psychology or perhaps community college business class, not a movie. The DVD extra materials reveals this is almost exactly the case, from the non-narrative book upon which it's based - as revealed by a couple of actual brother filmmakers who are slow-mo interviewed about their nebbish navel gazing for almost an hour. The premise of this low budget meander is strange, a company delegating personnel staffing to a vote of the workers - part of why it seems like a hypothetical case study. It's mildly interesting because of Cotillard; but otherwise ... a sad yawn. + The production itself is shimmy shake until 20-mins in when a P.A. shows-up with a tripod for a few scenes. The problem with mostly handheld production in a drama - like for the bathroom or kitchen or bedroom scenes - is that there's an invisible additional person in every scene - the cameraman - & every shot is at a wobbly shoulder level. That's the case here. Again, not good.+ The RT ratings are curiously inflated. Cotillard must privately regret the time spent on this, or else was somehow well paid anyway by the hapless financiers.
Alaine B (de) wrote: More entertaining than I expected. Too bad the critics were lukewarm on this one. I recommend it, though.
Jadrien D (nl) wrote: I wish I could give this a negative rating! I made it through about 10 minutes and had more than enough.
Josh K (gb) wrote: i have always wanted to see this. it looks like an excellent film.
Luane G (mx) wrote: What a pleasant little film! Very interesting characters, realistically protrayed. I've met each of these people at some point in life - most of them in the UK not surprisingly.
Alex K (it) wrote: 1972's The Godfather Is My Fourth Favorite Film Of All Time.
trevor p (fr) wrote: Best Adam Sandler movie I've ever seen. Happy Gilmore was a hockey player who had several outbursts when he was a child and after living with his grandma he finds out from the irs that if his grandmother doesn't pay the loan in 3 months, they're selling the house. So Happy by accident figures out how to pay them money, and of course, it's golf. In an odd time it had some silly moments but most of this I found, absolutely funny. Those were the old days when Adam Sandler was really funny, unlike most of the movies that he's been producing, writing and performing, his movies like the Waterboy, Big Daddy, Little Nicky, Mr Deeds, Deuce Bigalow sequels (produced by Sandler for Rob Schneider), Chuck and Larry, Grown Ups sequel, Pixels and the Ridiculous Six were totally the worst. But Happy Gilmore and the Wedding Singer was the only time Adam Sandler was really funny.
Alexander P (kr) wrote: Expected a lot more from a Nielsen comedy especially lovijng most of the others had seen. Some cheap jokes and poor acting and set-pieces not much to like really.
Ross M (br) wrote: (director's cut) Solidly made horror/ adventure hybrid with impressive makeup effects. Plot is a little predictable, but enough cool stuff to keep it interesting. From what I've read this cut is far better than the theatrical cut.
Becky F (mx) wrote: Jabberwocky is a great example of Gilliam's early work. Palin is his usual hilarious self playing Dennis Cooper who sets out on a quest to the city where the fierce Jabberwocky is terrorising the Kingdom. He bumbles through many misadventures, getting beaten up by a barman, having to dress as a nun and exposing his bottom to a crowd of people. It's a cracking little British gem and one of Gilliam's finest. Any Python fan surely loves Jabberwocky!
Sean N (us) wrote: The title itself sounds and suggests sinister actions as it's a realist insight into corrupt practices by City officials. Everyone works for personal gain and it's not just to put money into their pockets but to manipulate the people for better positions within office. We discover that there are no moral boundaries, sympathy, or even humanistic thought as even acts of kindness by said officials are only to cover up or save their own organizations. It's a very inhuman cycle of power that we witness and it's backed by a wonderful score and actors.
Ryan T (us) wrote: If you are looking for a silly movie where Andy Samberg gets to basically be himself, then you will like this film. If you were hoping for a little bit more, then you will probably rate it as I and most critics did.
Grayson W (nl) wrote: Marilyn Chambers gets in a motorcycle accident and the doctors perform an experimental treatment on her that leaves her with a desire for blood she infests via a phallic tissue from inside her armpit. It leaves her victims with zombie-like psychosis and soon the town is overrun. I preferred Shivers, his previous film, and it's pretty similar in the sense of a disease quickly overrunning a small population and largely taking place around a high rise apartment building.