Beverly Hood

Beverly Hood

A poor black family from the South win the lottery. They move to Beverly Hills to live the good life, but find it hilariously difficult to fit in.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:0 minutes
  • Release:1999
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:urban,  

A poor black family from the South win the lottery. They move to Beverly Hills to live the good life, but find it hilariously difficult to fit in. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Beverly Hood torrent reviews

Vincent L (jp) wrote: Too many plots and characters.

Anthony T (nl) wrote: Decent little film, I guess I recommend it.

Josh B (ca) wrote: From the director of 2001 Maniacs comes an absolutely awesome movie that I LOVED to death. In the vein of Holes, a young man gets sent to Driftwood, a camp for juvenile delinquents. He soon discovers that much more is going on than he originally anticipated. Raviv "Phil of the Future" Ullman is the main player in this awesome throwback to the 80s ghost pictures.

Morris N (au) wrote: Much funnier than I expected, and much more faithful to Chinese folklore than I expected. Excellent film

Ashley A (us) wrote: Very well executed and thought out film. The director clearly knows what he wants and how to get it. It's witty and funny - everything you expect from a parody! Great watch!

Adam S (kr) wrote: I really, really liked this film, which marked Paul Verhoeven's return to the Netherlands after a very successful stint in Hollywood.Starring Carice van Houten as a Jewish refugee who infiltrates Nazi ranks in Holland to avenge the death of her family, this is a WWII thriller with an incredibly generous dollop of mystery and suspense. Warning for those who care about such things: you see more of van Houten than even "Game of Thrones" dares to show.Probably providing inspiration for later films like Quentin Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds", this film will keep you on the edge of your seat, and is incredibly entertaining.

Jonathan G (ca) wrote: Plenty of entertainment here in the Barbershop. Some fun life stories and lessons here. A worthy watch. Rating: 7.5 / 10

Adrian Z (ag) wrote: Seinfeld's co-creator, Larry David, writes and directs a comedy that pits two cousins into a delicate situation when one wins a jackpot at a casino with quarters borrowed from the other and feels he does not need to split the money. David's script is sharp, and as would be expected, produces situations that are amusingly awkward, but where David's comedy works best in Jerry Seinfeld's sitcom, largely due to the sitcom's cast chemistry and the level of energy they put into their performances, Sour Grape's Steven Weber and Craig Bierko are comparatively deflated, merely acting passably.

Paulie S (ru) wrote: The Cabin Boy is not a movie to be taken seriously, unfortunately however, many people do not see it how it was meant to be seen; as a purposely crappy film. The fact that it's crapy adds immensely to the hilarity of the film, along with all the classic, crude and crass jokes. This is obviously the way the director wanted the movie to be and I just can't understand why people try to see it as being serious. This film is very underrated, but if you're looking for a retardedly hilarious time, check it out. Just keep in mind the way the movie was meant to be seen.

Edith N (es) wrote: Seriously--Who Steals a Penguin? Typecasting is a remarkable thing. Netflix gave me a plot summary and a top three cast list, and I knew before starting the movie who was going to be playing the crazy person. And who was going to be playing the former thug who was now a pacifist. This despite the fact that either one of them would be capable of playing either part, and indeed I'm pretty sure they both have. But if you put them into a movie together, only one is likely to be the one who is following the teachings of Gandhi. And we all know which is going to be which, even people who aren't entirely sure who either of them are just based on the names. And this is true even though both men are "quirky" actors, men who act in odd little independent films more often than big-budget Hollywood blockbusters. Though both men have been in the odd blockbuster. Heinz (John Turturro) has just been released from prison. I kind of missed what he was in for, but it wasn't anything like a misunderstanding. His ex-girlfriend, Linda (Jodie Foster), is worried about it, but she doesn't think her most recent ex-boyfriend, Jamie (Todd Graff), will do her any good. Instead, she seeks out another ex-boyfriend, Harry (Tim Robbins). Unfortunately for her, Harry has, in recent years, started absorbing the teachings of Gandhi. He has a dog named Buddha and is meeting with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee to see about going down to the South for Freedom Summer. This seems to have started when he whacked Heinz over the head with a beer pitcher, leaving a nasty scar. But Heinz loves Linda, or anyway is obsessed with her, and is determined to win her back. Meanwhile, a teacher has been killed with an arrow, and two wacky boys take five dollars to take two stoned girls off someone's hands, and there are hijinks. In the end, the hijinks do connect back to the main story, but it's so ridiculous and tenuous that it's almost as though these are two separate movies which just happen to take place in the same neighbourhood at the same time. The main characters never talk about the murder which let Castro (Rodney Harvey) and Willie (Daniel Jenkins) have the day off school and hook up with Melanie (Elizabeth Berridge) and Brita (Cathryn de Prume), and those four never mention Heinz. Really, it seems as though screenwriter John Patrick Shanley had an idea, but it was only about twenty minutes' worth of film and he padded it out with a wacky subplot and a conclusion which kind of comes out of nowhere. That isn't just the eventual fate of Heinz; it's basically everything past his presentation of the penguins to Linda. The subplot and the ending seem to stem from not quite knowing what to do with the situation he'd created. It's an odd movie, really, and while I'm not sure I'd watch it again, I don't mind having watched it the once. For one thing, I am continually fascinated by the career arc of Jodie Foster--it kind of looks like a sine wave sometimes, doesn't it?--and this was just as she was breaking out not as a serious actress but as an [i]adult[/i] actress. This was just ten years after [i]Candleshoe[/i], which I must admit is my favourite Jodie Foster movie. It's eleven after [i]Freaky Friday[/i]. Tim Robbins has never been a huge star, but the year before, he was in two of the most iconic movies of the '80s--[i]Top Gun[/i] and [i]Howard the Duck[/i]. John Turturro? [i]The Color of Money[/i] and [i]Hannah and Her Sisters[/i]. Despite being set in 1964, this movie resonates with the '80s. I can think of a dozen, a hundred ways to improve this movie; I'm actually kind of curious as to how it would have played had they actually switched the stars for one another. Played with our expectations some, although of course they had not yet been formed in 1987. I suppose, given [i]Top Gun[/i] and [i]Hannah and Her Sisters[/i], that's what they thought they were doing. Even though beginning and end are explicitly connected, the beginning seems tacked on so that the end doesn't come across too much like a [i]deus ex machina[/i]. It doesn't work. I don't entirely hold to the "statute of limitations on spoilers" rule, as you may note--there's no excuse for not knowing about [i]Citizen Kane[/i], but a lot of other movies are more obscure. But I'm hoping someone will watch this movie and talk it over with me, because I want to know if that sense of randomness is just me, and I don't think you can say that for sure if you know how it's going to end going in.

Caleb M (ru) wrote: Meh. I love Fred Ward, but this was dumb.

Anna K (jp) wrote: People who give this movie bad reviews are unfortunately ignorant and close-minded. As a Russian person, I can say that this movie is beautiful in showing the humanity of a lost Soviet culture. Not only that, but it portrays people, love, and friendship in the most poignant way. This is one of my favorite movies, if you want to see beauty in the world watch this.

Matthew S (br) wrote: What gives this film some merit is the approach Elias takes in presenting psychological horror. This movie could easily have become a gore-fest, but instead attempts to provide "tension" and "horror" through the use of his two principal actors and a series of uncomfortable and awkward situations. The problem is that there is not enough information from which his two actors can utilize to better understand what is going on. Actor, Jason Vail, gives it all he's got in capturing not only his character's ever growing dilemma and paranoia. However, is in an all-too vague insight into whether what "Tom" sees grips him because of "repulsion" or "twisted eroticism" --- this might have been the director's goal. But I didn't find the film interesting enough to really care. However, one must give Elias credit for making a film that deals with "the snuff movie" -- which one can only hope is "urban myth" --- without ever resorting to the depravity of applying the typical level of perverse glee that often sneaks into such topics. There are some very strong indicators here that Elias might turn out to be great filmmaker. But it won't be because of this film.

Ayrton Anthony C (es) wrote: Es mas para nios, y no tiene calidad suficiente para disfrutarla.

Waleed A (jp) wrote: LOL! everything about this movie was hysterically bad. Everything! story, acting, dialogue, special effects, numerous obvious scientific inaccuracies. it was ridiculous to the point of being entertaining. the only good part about this movie was Gary oldman who did an awesome job. so awesome that it felt out of place amongst the rest of the "actors." Mimi Rogers was the worst for sure. the best part is when I was a kid this was my favorite movie, so it was kind of nostalgic and funny to think about all the parts that fascinated me then and how dumb they actually are. I reserved the vhs at fyi store before it came out!SPOILERSit took them 16 hours to reach the sun from earth lmao. later they didn't have enough fuel to break out of the planet's gravitational pull so the plan was to fly back down into the planet and go all the way through it as it's breaking apart, in order to pick up enough speed. that is illogical on six different levels (about 5 viewings)