After her mother's death, New York City fashion designer Lisa Rayborn (Natasha Henstridge) returns to her hometown and family farm. Due to a weak economy, her brother Jim (Harry Hamlin) has converted the family business from a cattle farm into a sheep farm, despite their father's (Lawrence Dane) objections. To help out, Lisa decides she will stay to help on the farm. She adopts a border collie from the local animal shelter and trains it as a sheepdog, naming the dog Lucky. Jim and Lisa decide to enter Lucky into a sheep herding contest, but when a severe thunderstorm sparks a forest fire, Lucky helps rescue trapped children and bring them to safety. While doing so, Lucky gets her leg burned, and it looks as if she will not be able to compete.
Jim Rayborn has for years been doing most of the work of his grim father Clay's farm, yet couldn't convince the patriarch to switch from cattle to sheep because the warmer climate favors ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Jesse O (br) wrote: Do you have a Greatest Hits albums from your favorite band? I'm sure some of you do, considering the fact that I don't really see many modern artists releasing Greatest Hits albums yet. Hell, when you go to a concert, your favorite artist usually plays what he/she is most famous for, maybe they sprinkle in some new material so they're not bored performing the same old songs. This happens in horror movies as well. What I mean by that is that some movies are really just a greatest hits collection of scares that other films pulled off to far more effect. And then there's this movie. Where do I even begin with this movie? Let's just say that this is like a cover band version of the greatest hits collection. Look, as much as the genre is getting old by now, I genuinely do like found footage movies, when they're done well of course. Look at Rec as the perfect example of how to do found footage films right. Or Trollhunter. Hell, even Chronicle (which is more mainstream than the previous two films) is pretty great. This movie borrows, to me, heavily from a superior movie Grave Encounters, which was followed by an awful and insufferably self-aware sequel. Now, of course, not every found footage movie that focuses on a paranormal investigation team is copying Grave Encounters, but this film is clearly inspired by that. You can almost see The Vicious Brothers' (writers and director of Grave Encounters) specters in some scenes. That's how shameless this movie can be at times. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad movie. I'd say that it was ok at best, it was certainly better than the awful Grave Encounters sequel. But there's a lack of originality here that, I think, hurts this movie more than it would hurt others of the same ilk. I guess that lack of originality wouldn't be so much of an issue if I thought the movie was good, but I don't know, I still think it would have detracted from the overall experience when you consider just how much this movie borrows from other sources. If you hate found footage films, this really isn't gonna change your mind in the slightest. It might just do the exact opposite, it just might entrench your hatred of the genre even more. The cast of characters, while meant to be comical in a douche-y sort of way, are honestly kind of insufferable, with the minor exception of Julie. Roger is an annoying ass. Tim is kind of a dick. Chad isn't so bad, since he's behind a camera a lot of the times. Julie is really the only likable character in the entire movie and she's not even given that much to do other than just be the guys' butt of sex jokes. That's not to say anything for the actors, who are all perfectly decent in their roles, I just found the scripting of the characters to be really bad. The movie starts out fairly slow which, for a movie that lasts less than 80 minutes, is never good. And I understand why they started out this way, you can't just hit the ground running in this type of flick. You need to establish the characters, who they are, why they're filming and all of that. That's another thing, the only reason (there's a guy who's shooting a documentary on the team) there's someone shooting is everything is so stupid. This guy broke up with his girlfriend, so his friend, trying to make him focus on something else, lets him shoot a documentary on his paranormal team. Mind you, this is a paranormal team that uses a special effects guy to fake all of the ghosts that appear on their 'show'. So, let me get this straight, this guy ran the risk of his friend exposing to the world that his show is a fake just to do him a favor. I mean, that's what friends are for I suppose, but talk about idiocy. If I tried to pass off my fake paranormal show as real, the last thing I'd do is have someone document all my fakery. It's quite stupid. Anyway, the point is that I understand they have to start out slow at first, setting up the atmosphere and teasing certain things that will pay off later, but I think this movie took it too far. Perhaps that's hyperbole, but I just felt the pacing was way off for a movie that, realistically, probably runs like 76 minutes. The horror is all the same found footage shit you've seen elsewhere. There's some cool moments here, but those are few and far in between. But, again, those cool moments feel ripped off from other, and superior, films. Because of that, there's no real weight or strength to the scares. It's a whole lot of 'been there, done that'. And that's not to say that people didn't work hard, behind and in front of the cameras, in order to make the best movie they possibly could. I don't think they set out to make a purposely terrible movie. But sometimes all of that effort simply just isn't enough to elevate a derivative script into a good horror movie. This is proof of that. Again, I can't stress this enough, I didn't think that this was a bad movie, but it's one that just doesn't have enough good ideas of its own to make it worth a watch. This is ok at best, and even that may be generous. You can do worse (Grave Encounters 2 for example), but there's no real reason you should watch this when there's so much better stuff out there.
Maggie R (it) wrote: At least for me, this was too easy to figure out, the movie's villain was the first person I figured it could be, there were not real plot twists, it just seemed very eh to me.
Mike B (jp) wrote: The Hunger Games Catching Fire is the best hollywood sequel I have ever seen. In the continuation of the Hunger Games franchise, Catching Fire shockingly outdoes the beloved Hunger Games in almost every way, with amplified suspense, story telling and effects, there is no wonder why this movie made it big in the box office. Jennifer Lawrence, I might add, made an incredible performance along with the rest of the cast. Catching Fire is no doubt, one of the best movies of 2013.
Leigh C (es) wrote: Wellington looks so good on the big screen - especially at The Embassy. I struggled with the story a little - cos all the women looked the same?! Some classic Tom Scott & co lines. And of course the most compassionate, open minded, best buddy who-will-stick-by-you character in the film was the journalist. How true to life is that?!
Alyssa N (mx) wrote: After the first few scenes of this movie, I was hooked. It was scary, visually provocative, and, like most of Shinya Tsukamoto's films, unlike anything I'd experienced before. Plus there was Ryuhei Matsuda's remarkable portrayal of the disturbed title character. But as the movie continues, it goes consistently downhill until the generic and lengthy finale made me somewhat relieved when it ended. Matsuda's character is tragically underused, and instead we spend most of the movie following the true "main characters" who, by contrast, are boring. This is not a bad horror film, but in spite of having such a talented director, it does turn out to be surprisingly average.
Love M (fr) wrote: This is a slow, meaningless, boring film. Only reason why i wanted to watch it, was for Michael Madsen and even this wasn't his best performance! I don't understand the reason behind this movie, but its not worth watching!! Asia Argento always looks like shes on drugs!!
Agatha A (fr) wrote: "a must-see for anyone interested in film noir and psychological mysteries," begitu review yang tertulis dan sempat saya baca sepintas.alhasil, karena itu pulalah saya berniat untuk segera ikut menikmatinya pula. namun sayangnya, ternyata film ini tidak seperti yang ada dalam bayangan saya. mmm... agak mengecewakan sih, sebenarnya.ide untuk mengangkat tokoh religius dalam suatu konflik sih memang okeh, tapi sayangnya tidak didukung oleh pembuatan alur dan akhir cerita yang... mencekam, seperti yang diharapkan.but anyway, menghibur kok untuk ditonton.
Thrse F (br) wrote: Not interested in seeing this.
Ma R (kr) wrote: Didn't really get it then, don't get it now.
Peter W (es) wrote: This important movie, among Kieslowki's most intense, shows that there is not much difference whether a killing is perpetrated by a murderer or by a state officer executing the law.
Daniel Q (us) wrote: This movie is hilariously bad. I picked it because I found it in a bargain bin:-P
Stella D (br) wrote: weird film. i think bowie may have been miscast, tho he does as well as could be expected. tom conti is kind of annoying with his perfect preachy character. the synthy soundtrack is good but kind of dated. +3 for beat takeshi in his first dramatic role
StarrySparkles (gb) wrote: cute movie..cheesy and about dumbass kids trying to be cool and adults.
David S (nl) wrote: Not nearly as bad as I expected it to be. Perhaps I am just happy because it is a movie for girls that is somewhat unique. The movie is deeply flawed but not in any traditional boring way.
Fabio V (kr) wrote: very great movie! except I didn't really liked the ending I felt like it could've gone another way.
Andrew M (mx) wrote: Rush Hour is action packed and hilarious. Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker are hilarious together. This movie was brilliant and successful. I would suggest this movie.
Cynthia M (nl) wrote: Great acting - good story - beautiful scenery