In this comedy, Atouk becomes leader of the misfit cavemen. Disgraced and cast out of his tribe for lusting after Lana, the mate of tribe's head muscle man, Atouk stumbles along gathering other misfits and learning a bit about the world outside of his cave. Eventually he and friends Lar, and Tala learn the secrets of fire, cooked meat, and how to defend themselves from the brutal, yet very stupid
The film tells a story of Atouk, a bullied and scrawny caveman. Toda is a leader of their tribe. He always bully and impose others. After being banished along with his friend Lar, he discovers many new things such as fire, cooking and weapon. And he uses these advancements to beat Toda and becomes a new leader. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Caveman torrent reviews
(it) wrote: Coldplay Live 2012 is a psychedelic, entertaining and mesemerizing graffiti experience that both excites and invokes emotion.
(fr) wrote: This cast is fantastic. That is the reason I had to scope it out. The story feels a bit small and self indulgent, but the leads really do shine... and manage to play against type to great surprise. Toss these names a more deserving script and you have a winner.
(de) wrote: Love this movie. Okay, I think it's more than a bit a rehash of The Wedding Singer, but I can excuse that because it's just such fun to watch! I love the Pop song too, even though Hugh Grant probably shouldn't sing. I have to admit after my first rewatch in years, I upgraded this to five stars and got on eBay looking for the soundtrack! Cora is a great character too, I enjoyed her parts. Drew Barrymore need I say more. She does these funny rom com roles so well, and her clothes are beautiful here too. The bit where Hugh's washed up rock star nearly puts his hip out doing his moves on stage gave me a laugh.
(au) wrote: I foolishly decided I wasn't going to like this film much within the first few minutes, even the opening credits made me think "oh no". Well that just shows that I don't always know best!! This is an absolutely brilliant film, following the life and loves of a foul-mouthed, hedonistic film director who is most definitely an alcoholic. I didn't know the story before watching the film and would recommend that anyone who hasn't seen it and wants to see a fantastically acted and plotted film doesn't find out too much before watching it.
(ca) wrote: provocative and there's not really a great deal of incest in it so don't be put off by that. it's worth a watch. just a shame about the very rushed and shit ending. i found it funny at times actually. call me crazy but a mother telling her son how much of a slut she is just seems hilarious to me! i think there's black comedy in there somewhere if you have a bit of a sick mind
(it) wrote: Very cheesy with poor acting and effects, but I did like the story.
(us) wrote: I forgot about this movie. Pretty funny Korean gangster movie.
(ag) wrote: Viewers who haven't had their suspension of disbelief thoroughly worn to its core by the conclusion of Milkyway Image's "Running out of Time" may be few and far between. What begins as a composed, slickly edited, even momentarily affecting cat-n-mouse struggle between an intuitive cop and a terminally ill thief gradually looses its way midstream succumbing to a heavy-handed script co-authored by French writers Julie Carbon and Laurent Courtiaud who could only dream of being likened to Melville. Director Johnnie To, nonetheless, is an experienced enough filmmaker to keep "Running out of Time" moving along all the way up until the film completely goes for broke with an over-the-top finale that borders on high camp. The film's excellent primary cast ultimately prove the only consistently likeable component in "Running out of Time."
(it) wrote: A lot of reviews refer to this as a horror movie. I think those folks missed the point. I would characterize it as social commentary regarding humankind's insatiable drive to conquer and consume. Thanks to the delicious and outrageously talented lead men, the film has a dark homoerotic quality that subtly stirs up ones senses, which might make some more uncomfortable than does the cannibalism.
(de) wrote: Since the first From Dusk Till Dawn was all about subverting our expectations about the genre that it initially laid out for us, it makes sense for the sequel to do the same thing. Here, we're initially promised a heist movie, with all of the tropes that this genre carries. We get to meet the crew, see their different skills in action, and so on. But something happens in Texas Blood Money that we do not expect -- or do expect, considering you've probably seen the first one. This is no ordinary heist movie, you see. There is still a heist element, but Texas Blood Money is far more interested in being a low-grade knockoff of The Thing, which isn't a bad horror film to take inspiration from. One by one, group members become changed into (spoilers if you haven't seen the first movie) vampires, and end up waiting until they can get another member one on one so that, yes, they can also be turned. That entire idea might not be unique to The Thing, but it's pretty clear what's being ripped off here, especially because certain scenes play out in exactly the same fashion. The problem is that what made The Thing worth watching was the tension caused by never knowing exactly who was infected. Here, we know who is and who isn't for the entirety of the time, so any potential standoff carries little thrills for us. We already know that the main character isn't infected, so anyone accusing him of potentially being so isn't going to have much of an impact. And there's no tension generated from two uninfected characters going into a room and staring one another down, because we know that neither is a vampire and therefore nothing will come of it. That's not the only issue with this, as it disregards what the vampires did in the first From Dusk Till Dawn. There, as soon as the transformation from human to vampire was complete, the new vampire became a savage beast, unable to control emotions or thoughts -- at least, while the moon was out. Here, they all still go through with the heist plan until, I wager, they'd all be infected, at which point they might just give up. Or, as a couple of characters reckon later on, maybe they'd still go through with the job, because sentient vampires would still need the money. I wager that it's still a plus that the film doesn't just become another terrible genre flick, and instead becomes two terrible genre flicks, each of which isn't given enough time to develop or really do anything besides being there. Sure, it's nice to not have our low expectations matched (I guess?), but it grows tiresome once you realize that Texas Blood Money has no aspirations above being a worse version of The Thing. Apart from the vampires, there are a couple of other things that you'll notice that return or are referenced from From Dusk Till Dawn. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, Danny Trejo is back as the bartender of that trucker bar that really shouldn't still exist, and the Texas Ranger that was murdered in the first film's opening is mentioned briefly, I think by the actor's actual son, James Parks. Oh, and there's a Terminator reference or two, because the lead is played by Robert Patrick. That's just kind of neat to see, I guess. I suppose it's kind of admirable that Texas Blood Money does attempt to deviate from the plot of its predecessor. It doesn't go for the "bigger is better" approach to sequel making -- in large part because it's a direct-to-video affair with a much lower budget -- and instead does its own thing ... which just so happens to be a poor ripoff of The Thing, but at least it's trying, and I have to give it credit for that. It easily could have tried to top the final to From Dusk Till Dawn, even on a lower budget, and it would have been even worse if it had. Another positive that Texas Blood Money has going for it is that Bruce Campbell is in it. He's only in the opening scene, which is a movie within a movie, but he's always fun to watch, and opening with him -- much like the first film opened with Michael Parks -- is a good way to begin. And, hey, don't you just feel compelled to see anything that has Bruce Campbell in it? Apart from Campbell, and perhaps Trejo, there's nothing memorable to anyone in the film, and especially not in their characters. You can remember some of the actors, I suppose, but when it comes to defining character features, I drew a blank. And that's with entire scenes dedicated to the character, as we learn what he or she is good at when it comes time to pull off the heist. But, no, there is no genuine characterization here, and by the end, I would have a hard time telling you any given character's name. From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money isn't necessarily a terrible sequel, but it's just a generic heist movie crossed with a poor version of John Carpenter's The Thing. If that sounds interesting, well, then you'll probably want to check it out. If it doesn't, and you have no affinity for straight-to-video sequels to B-movies, you'll want to avoid it. It does its own thing, but it's not memorable in the least, and it's not even that enjoyable in the moment.
(jp) wrote: This movie gets major points for being original and yet plausible and insightful, without getting insufferably self-serious--assuming that much of the dialogue is a realistic portrayal of sometimes awkward, corny, narcissistic self-seriousness. But don't get me wrong--the characters are quite likable in their own ways.
(ca) wrote: Where Scorsese found his voice
(es) wrote: One of my all time favorite kids movies.....i still hold it quite high
(ru) wrote: A step-down from Borat, but it has enough laughs (though not as many).
(gb) wrote: One of my top favorite horror movies! Campy and fun. I think peoples problems are they go into Leprechaun movies expecting something serious/ flat out horror.
(gb) wrote: Both Bond and Blofeld let this movie down as neither feel convincing in their roles. The plot seems to just happen with huge parts unexplained. That topped off with the fact he gets married with not much love built up means this film does not fair too well. Some decent actions scenes help it but they are few and far between.
(fr) wrote: An almost narrative-less film that is better than some of Allen's 'heavier' works, 'Radio Days' is an endearing paean to the golden age of the wireless. Gorgeously filmed with a naturally great soundtrack, this is a film that's just a pleasure from start to finish.
(br) wrote: No kissing. Don't be gross.Ribbit is a frog in the Amazon jungle that doesn't particularly enjoy hopping or water. His best friend is a flying squirrel and the two of them set out on a journey to uncover why Ribbit is so unique. One day he is hypnotized by a bat and comes to believe he is a prince trapped in a frog and just needs to kiss a human. Is this fortune true or is Ribbit just unique for his species?"I finally found my purpose.""Your purpose is to kiss a human?"Chuck Powers, director of 24 episodes of Initial D: Fourth Stage, delivers Ribbit in his first major motion picture. The storyline for this picture is just okay, but the animation is beautiful and very well done. The movie comes together well . The voices are surprisingly well selected and include Sean Astin, Tim Curry, Chuck Powers, Russell Peters, Cherami Leigh, and Valentine Cawley."I'm a flying frog?""What? No. Something but different."I came across this film recently on Netflix and decided to add it to the queue for my daughter and I to watch together. We actually sat and watched it as a family and was mesmerized by the animation style (it's really underrated). Overall, this is a pretty average movie that steals ideas from SpongeBob, Rio, and Madagascar, but is still worth a viewing."That's what I call some serious splash!"Grade: C
(au) wrote: An old-fashioned, feel-good film with uniformly fine performances set against a gorgeous backdrop. No wonder the critics don't like it. And no, it isn't completely predictable....and even when it is, ithe events feel "inevitable and necessary," as good old Aristotle suggests in Poetics. Listen to the audience on this one; not the critics. [Full disclosure. I love Virginia]
(es) wrote: Flashly and splashy and exactly what 50s musicals are. Most numbers were visually appealing and catchy. Not all, but most. The story was pretty nice too even if a little dull and contrived at times.