Stream in HD   Download in HD


Wishcraft

Wishcraft

Life is about to change for Brett Bumpers, Martin Van Buren High School's resident brain. Socially inept and head over heels in love with Samantha the school beauty. Brett receives a mysterious package, a talisman, and the power to make three wishes. Brett makes his first wish - for Samantha to be his date at the school dance, then makes a second wish for Samantha to fall in love with him. But evil forces have been awakened by the use of dark magic. A sinister force appears and methodically and viciously begins to torture and mutilate members of the senior class... with its final and ultimate target the destruction and death of Samantha. Now Brett needs to protect the woman he loves but can only do so by using his last wish turning the dark power of the sinister force upon himself!

A high school student named Brett Bumpers receives a mysterious package one day. He does not know who gave it to him, but after a while he finds out that the totem within the package can ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechersSize
Download   Wishcraft 2002 DVDRIP [HYPERDRIVE25]DVDRip4333557.75 MB
Download   WISHCRAFT.2002.DVDrip.Swesub.XviD.AC3-Mr_KeFFDVDRip48431.24 GB
Download   WISHCRAFT.2002.DVDRip-Morsan(SweSub)DVDRip3733699.93 MB
Download   Wishcraft (2002) DVD9 NTSC WS [MM]DVDR50284 GB

Wishcraft torrent reviews

Joe T (de) wrote: Possibly the worst Tom Cruise movie ever!!!

(gb) wrote: Simple but touching.

Tim A (gb) wrote: awesome movie love it

Max G (au) wrote: Despite most reviews... This is a good film that definitely is better than Live Free or Die Hard (AKA: Die Hard 4.0). This was an enjoyable, funny, action-packed film. The acting was good. A Good Day To Die HardDie Hards 1-3Overall 8/10 or 4 stars (GOOD)

Jacinda M (it) wrote: kids are calling it by name...

Facu S (us) wrote: Una pelicula sobre los primeros casamientos homosexuales en Espaa. Dentro de todo es entretenida, aunq no es la gran pelicula.

Deborah M (us) wrote: Had characters and motivation been more fully developed, it could have risen above mediocre. Clever premise and solid cast with uninspired execution.

Chanelle R (ca) wrote: it annoyed me that the girl ended up with the chauvinist man. the main character did my head in and so did the pushy Jewish mothers. drop kick them all!

Carlos M (au) wrote: Definitely better than the previous installment, this fourth Alien film doesn't add anything new or relevant to the series but neither does it disappoint. It has plenty of action and scares, a mildly interesting plot and a particularly grotesque ending that works just fine.

TTT C (gb) wrote: Here's another film rating.

skinny t (ca) wrote: After making 'Silence of the Lambs' and being accused homophobic, Jonathan Demme tries to prove everybody wrong by showing a story about gay lawyer dying of AIDS. I, personally, have always considered 'Philadelphia' to be really 'cute' movie. The story about successful lawyer who gets AIDS is, in order to be approved by mainstream cinema audience, written in a very safe and nice way. Andy comes from the upper class, his family loves him and does not mind that he is gay, he has a beautiful apartment and loving boyfriend. The only way we find out that he is gay is because he says so and his, played by Antonio Banderas (which can also be considered stereotypical or racist), boyfriend Miguel calls him 'honey'. To make the movie 'perfect' and politically correct we do have Denzel Washington - an Afro American lawyer, who completes the 'package' needed to make a successful, mainstream movie with a message. Unfortunately, the message the director tries to send is different than the one a viewer actually gets. The only conclusion I had after watching 'Philadelphia' was that no matter how successful you are, where are you coming from and how wonderful your family is, if you are gay, you are going to die. So, again, nice try Mr.Demme, but maybe next time.

Carly G (de) wrote: An inspiration to anyone and everyone. I don't even care if you like her music!

Graham M (fr) wrote: Makes Scary Movie look like a classic by comparison.

Trae K (br) wrote: One of the most underrated and overlooked movies ever made on the face of the planet. Peter Jackson is my favorite director of all time, and he put in a lot of extreme craft, passion, emotion, and spirit into this remake of the 1933 original, which is the movie that had inspired him to be a filmmaker ever since he was a young child. I also don't see what some people have against Jack Black...like, at ALL, because not only did I bought into his character and fully understood his motivations in this film, but he has shown that he is NOT always just a goofy comedian! He gave some excellent dramatic acting chops in here, and I even felt for the guy at times throughout. What are you people complaining about, really?

Harry W (ca) wrote: Hoping to find some impressive Australian cinema, Canopy sounded to me like a film worth a go.I can't begin to tell you just how underwhelming Canopy was.I can't necessarily say that I hated the film, I just don't have luck finding a reason for it to have been made.Canopy came out around the same time as life-threatening survival films Riddick, Gravity and All is Lost, so it seems to be attempting to capitalise on the genre during a resurgence period. And so on behalf of director Aaron Wilson, Canopy is an ambitious move since the idea of a soldier surviving in the wilderness of a Singapore jungle during World War II has a lot of potential. Unfortunately, he is too inexperienced as a filmmaker to ensure it succeeds.For one thing, the film is not convincing. Despite capturing the great look of the Singapore jungles to ensure that audiences believe the setting, there is one major flaw and one minor flaw. The minor flaw is that if you look closely, you can see that the visual effects are fake. The major flaw is that the jungle is not the slightest bit convincing as being a war torn land. Considering the fires and crashes that are going on around the wilderness that the two main characters trek through, there is not a single sign that a war is going on in the setting. The jungle is completely untouched and there is not a sign of wreckage, a bullet hole or a single damaged tree anywhere. All I saw was a man walking through grass and trees in a soldier's suit, and so I didn't feel anything believable. All I saw for 84 minutes was a man waking through a jungle, I didn't see a soldier facing the despair of a war torn fight for survival. Considering that I'm a big fan of the survival genre because I enjoyed the aforementioned three films with All is Lost being one of the finest films I have ever seen in my life. Canopy is a new low point for the genre handled by an ambitious but inexperienced filmmaker. The best thing that Canopy presents is the ambitions and potential of Aaron Wilson, but not his best talents or his eye for detail. While the cinematography is decent because it captures the appeal of the setting, it does not help to make things any more convincing. For me to feel the true intended effect of Canopy I would have to find the film convincing or feel that everything was intense enough to believe, but it was neither of them. As well as not being convincing, there was no tension for me in Canopy. Usually the cinematography could have enhanced the intended atmosphere by taking the right angles and moving along quickly when the characters run. In actuality, the cinematography moved along too smoothly and gentle to capture the intended atmosphere and instead it just slowly reminded me of the film's lack of convincingness by slowly revealingly more and more the way that the jungle was untainted by the war. Seriously, not even one fallen tree. I mean the atmosphere didn't feel threatening so as a survival film, Canopy was a failure. It is clear that the film was crafted on a low budget, but it could really stand to use some of what little money was in the budget to actually make it more convincing. There was nothing intense for me in Canopy, and to add to that was the acting.Khan Chittenden takes on the lead role of Tim, the Australian soldier fighting through the Singaporean wilderness, but he never feels like one. The entire time, his performance simply felt artificial. I mean he faces a limited character who says nearly nothing due to the lack of a script, but the majority of the time his physical reactions to situations seems like all he is doing is experience a prolonged walk through the jungle. He never convinces viewers that he is in any threatening situations because he just seems constantly tired and finding the work tedious. Canopy does not serve as a front for his talents, and by the end of the film I has forgotten what his face looked like or cared enough to find his character compelling whatsoever. Khan Chittenden simply does not make Canopy any more convincing than it already fails to be, and so watching him tiredly walk through a jungle for 84 minutes does not constitute sufficient entertainment or justify its short but slower than glacially paced story movement or the fact that the musical score is not effective enough to help the atmosphere at all.Also, the film is not entertaining. As a survival film, the focus of the story is simply on protagonist Tim trying to survive, but this time around the drama wasn't compelling enough for me to care, and the visual aspects of the film were consistently repetitive without showing many threats in the environment aside from a few Asians wandering around with guns. The next minute Tim and his Chinese pal are sleeping in the most obvious place, then they've gotten busted and next minute the entire film is over. What an underwhelming 84 minutes that was. Nothing really happens in Canopy, and the atmosphere of the film couldn't justify its lack of dramatic stimulus, ineffective visual experience and the fact that it is so goddamned slow that when I walked out of the film I felt like less had been covered in 84 minutes of Canopy than in 10 minutes of Riddick. If audiences haven't been taught about the nature of World War II, then the lack of historical context in Canopy will drive viewers to further disappointment. I was already disappointed enough though, so this part find really bother me. It did reinforce the lack of intelligent writing in the film though.And third of all, Canopy was thoroughly confusing. For a film where nothing whatsoever happens, Canopy managed to create a structure to it where the lack of dynamics even made things collapse on itself. Towards the end of the film, the protagonists are sleeping in a ridiculously obvious place, and suddenly the narrative path just collapses. Things begin to senselessly jump around in a random time warp which adds nothing to the film and just makes it worse and less of a film than it already was. This isn't an act of art, this is the act of a senseless filmmaker attempting to kill time by creating a moment where literally nothing is sensible. I can't even begin to explain how stupid things became at that one moment, and that is when I took away the final star from Canopy. Everything was confusing and pointless, and since more than an hour of boring nothingness led up to only this, it is safe to say that Canopy was terrible. It didn't have a plot, it was bereft of thrills, the story wasn't convincing and the visual experience was weak.So while not as bad as the average Baz Luhrmann film, Canopy is one of the worst Australian films I have ever seen. I don't hate the movie, I just find it boring, unconvincing and unnecessary to have even been made in the first place

Don S (jp) wrote: Eddie Murphy makes me laugh, plain and simple. Families are the intended audience, and I think this can be enjoyed by any age. The concept may be a bit over the head of tiny ones though. Banks and Union give nice supporting efforts (and look great doing it). The jokes don't always work, but I found myself laughing quite a bit. Some were so stupid/corny that you had to laugh. Worth a look for clean entertainment.

Mark R (us) wrote: On an IMAX screen in 3D, this documentary about life in the most extreme conditions of the oceans was undoubtedly spectacular. On 2D TV, even on a HDTV, it comes across as nothing more than an above-average Discovery Channel special. The film was probably a bit more ambitious than it's short, 47-minute running time could accommodate, focusing both on the bizarre sea creatures that inhabit the superheated water emerging from seafloor vents, and the prospect that life might be found in similar conditions elsewhere in the universe. If the doc was twice as long, both could have been adequately addressed, but here, both topics get a short shrift.