A New York University professor returns from a rescue mission to the Amazon rainforest with the footage shot by a lost team of documentarians who were making a film about the area's local cannibal tribes. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
A New York University professor returns from a rescue mission to the Amazon rainforest with the footage shot by a lost team of documentarians who were making a film about the area's local cannibal tribes.
You may also like
Cannibal Holocaust torrent reviews
Bryan P (mx) wrote: very interesting need I say more?
Damir A (nl) wrote: A promising beginning ruined by an utterly generic and to be frank quite stupid ending. What a wasted opportunity.
Stuart K (it) wrote: Directed by Ronny Yu (The Bride with White Hair (1993), Warriors of Virtue (1997) and Bride of Chucky (1998)), this is the debut of novelist Stel Pavlou, who got lucky in getting this enjoyable action thriller financed, he was in the right place at the right time, getting an eclectic mix of actors and a perfect location. It's still great fun to watch now, and it even sends up cliches of action thrillers, and there's some laughs to be had. In Los Angeles, master chemist Elmo McElroy (Samuel L. Jackson) cooks up drugs for The Lizard (Meat Loaf), but Elmo wants out, and he destroys The Lizard's base and flees to the UK, but The Lizard survives and sends assassin Dakota Parker (Emily Mortimer), to kill Elmo. In the UK, Elmo is in Liverpool, with local fixer Felix DeSouza (Robert Carlyle) as his guide, and Elmo goes to make deal with local crime boss Leopold Durant (Ricky Tomlinson) and drug distributor Iki (Rhys Ifans), but The Lizard decides to come over. It's a very good film, and it's well worth looking out for cameos for Denzel from Only Fools and Horses and Sinbad off Brookside alongside Jackson, it is very funny as well and well as being suspenseful, and Liverpool makes a great location for a shoot-out action film like this.
Wes S (es) wrote: It's dumb, but it's not without some funny moments. The crocodile is cheesy in many of the scenes, and there's no set-up for the characters which is somewhat refreshing. Nothing too memorable here, just another entertaining killer croc creature flick.
Robyn M (us) wrote: I'm a HUGE fan of Jet li, and finally getting the chance to watch this film i'm glad i did there was funny moments. But in comparison to his other legendary work it only touch the tip of an ice burge. I know he could have done better. "Romeo Must Die" over compensating Martial art sequences when the film began to drift away, specially the beginning trying to find a common ground.
Gena D (us) wrote: Not sure why the reviews are so low. This is a sweet (typical amount of predictability) movie revolving around a couple suffering from infertility. Not a lot of substance to it would be my only solid complaint.
Sue P (jp) wrote: good documantary, felt really sorry for her, she definately needed help, woth a watch
Brad S (us) wrote: Watched this again for the first time in years, it's a lot of fun. Caine and Kingsley play off each other so well.
Charlie G (de) wrote: Thought this was entertaining.
Isaac H (au) wrote: Though it's aged a bit awkwardly in an era where espionage films are expected to deliver thrills, Hopscotch remains an amusing comedy bolstered considerably by the presence of Walter Matthau.
Paul Z (gb) wrote: One of the most truthful moments I've seen in a film in a long time: We hear MLK speaking on TV, a professional cameraman watching. We hear King's immortal words which have resounded through the decades, and when Forster finally speaks, he says, "God, I love shooting on film." Medium Cool is full of moments like this, where we see or hear something that plugs into what we're truly thinking, disconcertingly enough, at times when what we're thinking seems to obviously be something else. In Medium Cool, we respond to these things and, some forty years later, aren't quite sure what's real and what's not. This most head-on and seemingly makeshift of films was released in 1969 to reaction and surmise. Five years before, it would have been deemed unintelligible to the general movie audience. What happened, I suppose, is that by then we'd become so trained by the quick-cutting, idea suggestion and stream of consciousness of concepts in TV commercials that we process more quickly than feature-length movies can move. We get cinematic fast-sketch. And we like movies that recognize our intelligence. Traditional film narratives pronounce themselves: We know all the main techniques/content and archetypal characters. Haskell Wexler's Medium Cool is one of several movies of the late 1960s and '70s that's conscious of these things about movie audiences, like Seconds, Easy Rider, Mean Streets, Who's That Knocking At My Door, The Graduate, The French Connection, etc. Of the bunch, Medium Cool is probably the most visceral. That may be since Wexler, for most of his career, has been a cinematographer, and so he's conditioned to see a movie pertaining to what's being shown and not shown on-screen more than its dialogue and story. Wexler fabricates a fictional story about the TV cameraman, his passion, his profession, his girl and her son. There is also documentary footage about the riots during the Democratic convention. There is a chain of conscious scenarios that supposes reality (women taking marksmanship practice, the TV crew confronting black militants). There are fictitious characters in actual documentary scenes and vice versa. The misstep would be to segregate the real-life elements from the made-up. They're all equally meaningful. The National Guard troops are no more real than the love scene, or the artificial collision that ends the film. All the images have significance due to the way they are connected to each other. Wexler induces our recollection of the zillions of other movies we've seen to import things about his plot that he never elucidates on screen. The essential account of the romance (young professional falls in love with war-widow, eventually obtains companionship of her resentful son) is surely not innovative. If Wexler had formalized it, it would have been commonplace and dull. Rather, he specializes in the emblematic and important features of this histrionic (the boy likes pigeons, the woman is a teacher, the location is Uptown, the time is the Democratic convention, the woman feels more authentic to the cameraman than the model he's living with). And these are the scenes Wexler shoots. The leftovers of the relationship are implicit and never shown, eschewing the often essentially unnecessary 2 on our way from 1 to 3. And Medium Cool also sees not images but their purpose: Wexler doesn't see the hippie kids in Grant Park as hippie kids. He doesn't see the clothes or the folkways, and he doesn't hear the words. He distinguishes their purpose; they are there completely owing to the National Guard being there, and the opposite. Both sides have a purpose just when they encounter one another. Without the encounter, all you'd have would be the kids, dispersed all over the country, and the guardsmen, dressed in civilian clothes and spending the week on their daily grinds. That's interesting too, but it's not what they are that's significant in this film; it's what they're doing there. Medium Cool is ultimately so seminal, and engaging, owing to the way Wexler braids all these components together. He has made a nearly consummate model of the movie of its time. Since we are so conscious this is a movie, it feels more pertinent and authentic than the graceful fictitious artifice of most other films, including better ones. This befits the last scene all by itself, that chance event that occurs for no reason at all. Chance events are invariably chance events, not fate, not God's will, not karma, and they never occur for a greater purpose. When we get it, it hit me that it's the first movie collision I've ever seen that we weren't anticipating for five minutes before.
CJ C (kr) wrote: A forgotten fav. With a cameo by Shemp lol.
Jake A (gb) wrote: With a decent twisting plot this film is elevated above averageness by the cast, the performances, the score and the direction. Just a shame the plot didn't intrigue me all that much but it was at least entertaining enough to be watchable.
Rip V (ru) wrote: The nightmare of consummate carnivorous: a mature, fresh piece of reality.
Nathan M (us) wrote: Stylish direction and wacky performances allow this film to revel in its ridiculous nature. It's not a great film or a very timeless one, but it's enjoyable for what it is. If you can get past the stupid script and just enjoy Pearce and Carlyle go against one another, you can have some fun with this.
Martyn E (gb) wrote: So bad, it's actually good. "...I am your mother Kalvin...". Love it!
Leslie C (kr) wrote: "Jane Got a Gun" is not a bomb but it's not the western I was hoping to see. The draw of seeing a woman in the lead role in this type of film isn't enough to overcome a somewhat weak storyline. There are also some annoying, needless lines in the movie. Take for instance when Jane Hammond (Natalie Portman) and her hired gun Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton) take her outlaw husband Bill "Ham" Hammond (Noah Emmerich) down into the cellar when John Bishop's (Ewan McGregor) gang show up hell bent on killing the three of them. Dan puts a gun in Ham's hand and says, "Anybody ain't us opens that door, you gotta start shooting." This happens literally sixty seconds after Ham has already killed one of John Bishop's men while bedridden.Still "Jane Got a Gun" is worth seeing for the scenery. The story takes place in New Mexico and the movie is loaded with impressive views of mountainous terrain, buttes, billowy clouds and awe inspiring sunsets. There is a scene that occurs just after the title card of the film is displayed which pays homage to the last shot of "The Searchers," and it really is a nice touch. Portman is most convincing in the visceral scene when she learns the fate of her daughter Mary, and is pretty kick ass with her Walker firearm.