You may also like
Copley: An American Fairytale torrent reviews
Tiffany P (kr) wrote: Terrible- The only thing I liked about it what some of the story line but it was put off by the action
Paul C (jp) wrote: This is a good example of taking a great idea and crapping on it. The whole background to this story is great. A haunted house gets possessed by a statue and whoever is in there, gets attacked by their fears. That is great. But if you have a bad cast and a lower budget then you can say forget it. I mean even with a low budget you could of pulled this off, but I guess the writers and director just didn't have the right mindset. I don't need to talk about the cast. I mean I understand being young and wanting to be in Hollywood, but if these people got in, then maybe I have a chance too. The thing that really bothered me was how there was really no real excitement to the characters being attacked or killed by their fears. You would expect more scare or more gore. But there was really nothing and the death scenes were short. The only thing the film had going for it was a cool concept and some interesting monsters.
Kyle C (es) wrote: Um....Ya....No Comment
Laura S (de) wrote: i wanna watch it !!!!!!!!!!
William M (ca) wrote: This was actually a cute and funny movie, although it isn't for everyone since well, the topic is about younger men having relations with older women. :) And the two main characters themselves are a little different in their attitudes, which adds to the humour. First off, there is Hogan which is the friend who's a total sex hungry guy who loves the older women, and honestly, that provides quite a few of the laughs. The other main character is Spence, who has aspirations of going to Yale Law School. The movie starts off as the two friends are graduating from school and during a graduation party thrown by Spence's parents, Hogan is caught sleeping with a person's wife who happens to be a law partner at a firm that was going to hire Spence for the summer, but because of this, he isn't going to work there now.The boys then have to get a position at another law firm for Spence to get a recommendation to get into Yale Law School but the place they work for, the three titled bosses with their names on the company letterhead are assholes and it goes from there. :)This movie can provide some good laughs but as I said, as there is nudity and the subject is about cougars, it won't be for everyone. So if you get to see this movie, I hope you enjoy it. ;)
Brent G (br) wrote: Lame jokes, boring story line, cheap actors and poor photography; need I say more?
Paul Z (mx) wrote: Drawn from a novel anonymously posted on the Internet, Stanley Kwan's admirably audacious gay-themed Chinese film was filmed in China without the approval of officials, who surely would have been less than consenting to sanction the filming of a script which included frontal male nudity, sexually straightforward dialogue and allusions to Tiananmen Square and unethical businessmen.As the second most populous country moves more into the realm of capitalism, homosexuality is still underground, yet in the bar favored by Handong, the central character, for shooting pool and picking up boys things appear more or less on the face. He picks up a country lad, architectural student Lan Yu who needs money to bankroll his education and welcomes Handong's overture just for the money until as expected he discovers that he too is gay, falls in love with the urbane exec, and gets dumped. Dumped, until, naturally, there is an about-face in Handong's situation which backpedals the roles.The movie, set in Beijing in the late 1980s and early 1990s, is opulently crafted, but it is also more or less superficial and creatively stilted. Hu and Liu lay consistent, realistic performances at our feet that glimmer with grief, yearning and sentiment, but their characters feel skin deep, and the film will in all probably prevail in appeal almost exclusively to its target gay audience. The very elementary story appears too obtuse and the progression of the narrative essentially optional. For a film as concise as 86 minutes, this is considerably tardy material.
Bethany A (ru) wrote: This is my favorite movie...ever. I loved it. I had it on VHS, I watched it so much, I wore it out. It can make me laugh for days.
Allan C (ag) wrote: This came out the same year as "The Truman Show" and suffered greatly by comparison, but this is still a likable film with a very good cast, although it's still not as good as "The Truman Show".
Janetta B (mx) wrote: this is a funny movie...
Erin T (au) wrote: I love this movie!! It is a great, fun movie to watch.
Denise A (gb) wrote: A very good film. Great cast as well. A heartfelt movie.
Kenny N (au) wrote: The name of this band is Talking Heads and they are one of my favorite bands of all time. The name of this movie is "Stop Making Sense." It is one of the greatest concert films of all time. Whether you've been getting Head for a long time or have never had Head before, this film is worth not only seeing, but hearing as well.
Stuart K (de) wrote: The 4th Frankenstein film made by Hammer after The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958) and The Evil of Frankenstein (1964), this one touched upon a more supernatural, metaphysical aspect, and it seems to work, with a title lifted from Roger Vadim's And God Created Woman (1956). Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) is working in a small town, working with Dr Hertz (Thorley Walters) and young assistant Hans Werner (Robert Morris), Frankenstein has discovered a way to harvest the souls from people's bodies. Hans is in love with Christina (Susan Denberg), whose father Herr Cleve (Alan MacNaughtan) is the local innkeeper. When Christina is taunted by thuggish dandies Anton (Peter Blythe), Johann (Derek Fowlds) and Karl (Barry Warren), who Hans stands up to. But, when the dandies murder Cleve, Hans is beheaded for it, and Christina commits suicide by drowning. Frankenstein uses Hans' body to harvest the soul, and he puts the soul into the body of Christina, who, you've guessed it, goes on a rampage after the dandies for doing this. It's a very good Hammer film which goes in a different direction to the other Frankenstein films. It's engaging with a good story, mixing an old European setting with a good revenge story throughout, it has a good cast too, made up of old regulars and new faces. It's even one of Martin Scorsese's favourite films as well.
Simon D (nl) wrote: An interesting insight as to how the Carry On films began. Too early for Sid n Babs but Charles Hawtree provides the comedy in abundance. You can see the beginnings of the smuttiness creeping in, although it is a lot tamer in this than it became in later films. The film itself is alright, not great but perhaps a forerunner for many more with the same set up.
Jake B (us) wrote: I used to think that They Live was Carpenter's last great film. It's not.
Sally S (jp) wrote: A very convoluted plot..
Spencer H (ag) wrote: I am so impressed with Radcliffe, he went from being a teenage wizard to being an demon killer. He gave a great performance in a pretty good movie with comedy, romance, and drama. There were a few things that did not work for the movie, but other than that I was impressed and entertained.
rocknblues 8 (kr) wrote: WOW... It seems the reactions to this film are pretty mixed. It's true that the story is not properly fleshed out, and the characters don't always react how you think that they should, but it's a solid adventure film. The acting is a tad stiff and it seems that neither Mitchum or Monroe are always giving it their all. If you read up you will learn that Monroe nearly died when making this film, but her performance improves when she is performing musical numbers. Mitchum is nowhere near as good here as he is in films like Night of the Hunter and Cape Fear. There seems to be a lack of chemistry. My guess is that both of the main stars probably consider the material beneath them. Which is understandable. We get the typical scenes where the Indians foolishly allow themselves to get picked off one by one, and we have a scene where Mitchum's character forces himself on on Monroe's character. It's pretty disturbing and seemingly uncharacteristic of Mitchum's character. But the action on the river is pretty solid. This scenes are obviously dated by today's standards, but if you put yourself back in the 50's you will probably enjoy them. It's just too bad the script is mediocre or this might have turned out to be a classic.
Stephen C (au) wrote: Spasmodically interesting more like.Lamentable Giallo not some much directed by Umberto Lenzi as just turn on the camera and shoot.Despite the presence of an Ennio Morricone soundtrack the film is hampered by a deadly dull hour of exposition and wooden acting which means by the time we get to the climax your so bored you just want ANYTHING to happen which will wake you from your torpor.I am a huge fan of giallo films but this one is a serious disappointment.