Jeong-won is a man with no memory of his childhood and his real family. At the beginning of the film he witnesses the deaths of two young girls. He begins seeing the girls dead bodies ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Jeong-won is a man with no memory of his childhood and his real family. At the beginning of the film he witnesses the deaths of two young girls. He begins seeing the girls dead bodies ...
You may also like
Uninvited torrent reviews
Joe F (ag) wrote: I hope this is better than Space Buddies! I think that Butters should join the Buddies team in the future, don't you?
Jennifer M (fr) wrote: This movie gets one star for the cast and no stars for wasting talent and making such a white trash flick.
Hannah J (br) wrote: Omj i love this Movie and Hold on by Jonas Brothers is in it!!!
Bobby M (ag) wrote: One of the worst movies ever
Steve S (ag) wrote: So apparently this movie teaches that if you're around any gay man, he immediately wants to have sex with you. Boat Trip is one stereotype after another; some funny, but most are hurtful to the gay community.
Brandon H (nl) wrote: I luved this movie growing upAnd that whole team up scene were the kids fight aliens and use amusement park rides as Vehicles I just LUVED this movie sooo much!
RiP M (au) wrote: Episodic collection of inconsistent vignettes doesn't feel cohesive. Has its moments and some great acting, but lacks oomph to make a real statement.
Maureen C (br) wrote: a real bore! waste of electricity
Derek S (au) wrote: It's funny sometimes, but boring overall.
Brendan C (es) wrote: --Spoilers-- (does it count for an historical stories' dramatization?)) Overall I found this to be a suffocating film. Indeed, this is clearly the intent of the filmmakers..As the working/living conditions/class expectations for these sisters, no doubt, were horribly stifling. So the viewer is exactingly transported into the climate of the time and household of the monstrous methodical mistress. But oddly, the relationship between the sisters seems oddly deprived of air as well. Furthermore, Reference is made to Lea's dreamy sensibilities, and Christine's hopes for an unbound future. However there is sparse exploration of the interior realms of the both of them, despite the strong efforts of the actresses. The tonality of the film is consistently stark, with only momentary flourishes of humor and color. Furthermore, though the Mistress and her daughter were clearly nasty and cruel, there seemed to be little explanation for the absolute brutality of their murders. Until the final scene, when their absolute viciousness is wrought upon the sisters. Ultimately it's a lack of multi-dimensional writing and pathos, in my mind, that detracts from any aim the film has of doing justice to the historical persons, and makes murky their story.
Harry E (ca) wrote: This movie ponders some pretty deep questions about what heroism really is and the price of being a legend. Here, Robin Hood is aging, past his prime, and wrestling with the need to live up to his myth. There's great poignancy to this film; it recognizes that violence is not to be taken lightly, that lives are actually at stake. This isn't all rollicking fun, since people are getting killed, and it doesn't really seem like there's much of a cause behind all the fighting; Robin and the Sheriff resume their fighting seemingly more out of habit than anything else. When the people join Robin's band, they do so because they want to be part of the legend - they expect the fun and excitement we associate with the storybook Robin Hood (and the most popular previous film versions) and aren't prepared for the very real risk of being killed. The final duel between Robin and the Sheriff is great: two tired men heaving blows at each other with all the might they have left. Battered, broken, and bleeding, they push on in a fight to the death. The reason for their feud, if there was one, doesn't matter; by now it's become fighting for its own sake, and it's soberingly effective. The downside to the film is that it's uneven. Richard Lester is too deeply rooted in fun and physical humor to abandon those things, so there are comedic fights in here too, and they don't really mesh with the seriousness - though he still laces them with a hints of brutality: the good guys don't just knock the bad guys over as in sight gags; Robin clearly dispatches one by slitting his throat. Lester did a better job integrating the funny with the serious in How I Won the War, in which the absurdity of war was exactly the point to highlight the tragedy. Also, the character of Robin Hood isn't fully cohesive: early in the film he seems to want to just stop fighting, weary of 20 years of bloodshed in the Crusades, but later on he's addicted to the warrior lifestyle and becomes the attacker. His development from the one to the other isn't adequately fleshed out. Overall, though, largely due to the magnificent chemistry between Connery and Hepburn, the film mostly succeeds as a wryly affecting elegy for popular myth and the people behind it.Random observations: I'm not a scholar on this, but I think that depiction of the Middle Ages in film changed a great deal after Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Since Richard Lester's crowd in large part paved the way for Python, I think it's fitting for me to make these observations while looking at this film, which he directed the year after Python's Grail film was made. The Python film gave Medieval outfits an irreversible sense of silliness; in Robin and Marian as well, you can't help but notice that those cylindrical helmets are awfully clunky-looking (in the opening scene, as two knights bend down facing each other to pick up a large rock, their helmets bump against each other - a wonderfully Pythonesque image), and that one guy's armor looks awfully like chicken feathers, which I'm sure Lester noticed, as it's very much in keeping with his style of accentuating - mildly, but just enough - the absurd little details in his scenes. (Perhaps the multiple close-ups of the heads of fowl in the film are meant to complement the featherlike armor.) This strikes me as a particularly Lesterlike way of making a point that the popular myths are a tad too rose-colored; real life just couldn't have been quite as smooth and dashing as those stories make it seem. (My other favorite touch was the prominence of Connery's balding head in his love scenes with Hepburn.) It seems to me that the alternative to embracing the silliness in depicting Medieval combat is to go the Ridley Scott route and be all-out brutal and hardcore. Since he and Russell Crowe are just now revamping Robin Hood, I think it may be apt to bring up a comparison.
Ben L (br) wrote: Sounder is a very simple tale about a black family trying to make ends meet in the midst of the Great Depression. In an effort to feed his family the patriarch commits a crime and is punished, which has an adverse affect on his entire family. I'm not 100% sure why the movie is named after their dog, since he doesn't have a very active role in the movie. The story focuses much more intently on the eldest child of the family. It's tough for a child actor to portray the amount of emotional turmoil that this kid has to go through, but I was surprised just how bland Kevin Hooks was in the role. He shows one minor moment of emotion, and everything else is flat and monotone. Cicely Tyson and Paul Winfield are great as his parents, and I like a number of the other adult actors as well. Sadly, the story of the movie is very bland and doesn't amount to much, which is why I didn't care for it I guess. I think they did a fairly decent job of portraying what it was like to live in those difficult times, but there's only faint rays of hope in the story. Even those small moments of hope are strictly for the oldest son, not the family as a whole. To be clear, I don't think Sounder is a bad film, it simply didn't do a whole lot. The story has very little progression, and the characters do almost nothing to influence the story. Similar to many people from that era, the characters simply endure the hardship, they don't really affect it in any way. It's just not my style of film I guess, even if it was made well.
Alex G (nl) wrote: A perfect 80s wonderland of buddy-cop and sci-fi charm. Fun through and through
neil L (es) wrote: One of my favourite new movies.
Russell H (us) wrote: Really cool idea but should have been way better. Started out great and then got out of control.
Johnson C (fr) wrote: A well known character for a family suitable comedy.