Melissa has a bad case of sibling rivalry, only her competition is a fictional character in her father's best-selling novel about a teenage super spy. When her father is "dadnapped" by a group of overzealous fans, it's up to Melissa to help him by tapping her inner superhero.
- Category:Comedy, Action, Adventure
- Stars:Emily Osment, David Henrie, Jason Earles, Jonathan Keltz, Moises Arias, Denzel Whitaker, Charles Halford, Phill Lewis, George Newbern, Jennifer Stone, Seth Packard, Brandon Luke Bringhurst, Trevor Snarr, Kenda Benward, Bryson Kuan,
- Director:Paul Hoen,
- Writer:Alan Silberberg
When her father, a famous author, is abducted by obsessed fanboys and winds up in the clutches of two sinister brothers, a girl springs into action by cleverly tapping into her own inner "Zoome" to come to the rescue. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Dadnapped torrent reviews
(mx) wrote: I'm pretty sure this film was the reason star wars was sold to Disney
(au) wrote: Charlene Choi does a decent job portraying a girl with schizophrenia, however, the pacing of the movie is just too slow to be enjoyable.
(fr) wrote: We all know that Pixar is known for making so many great films, and almost every one of them previous to this film have been phenomenal. Since THE INCREDIBLES did so well, you'd think possibilities for story and characters would be endless for Pixar now that they know what to do with human characters. So, they thought it would be a great idea to do a movie about cars. Wait, what?From the basis of that idea, it sounds terrible. We've seen the idea of vehicles come to life so many times before. Maybe they could do something with humans and do something creative with it because we all know that we manufactured cars. Oh, everything is a car in this world? Then how were these cars manufactured? How did they manage to build their own cities and towns... or anything? Why do they have eyes on their windshield instead of their headlights, wouldn't that make more sense? Why are some of the vehicles animals? Tractors as cows, a combine as a bull, Volkswagen Bugs as... bugs? You know, if you're going to make a movie about cars, you could at least make the jokes clever. There aren't even that many car jokes in this movie. Also, the whole movie didn't even need to have cars come to life anyway, you could make them anything and it wouldn't matter. The film is basically your typical story of a guy who learns the value of hard work after getting dragged down from the high point of his career. I've seen that story and these characters so many times already. The moral has been done to death, too. The moral is that you should enjoy the values that life gives you and there's a lot more to it than just winning. So, the idea of having cars come to life was completely pointless and it doesn't make any sense with the rest of the story. And this movie is very long for an animated movie, almost two hours! It's easily one of the most boring Pixar films I've ever seen. I didn't even care about it as a kid, and this movie was aimed at my demographic.I'm probably sounding like I hate this movie, but I really don't. I hear that this is what director John Lasseter always wanted to do, make a movie where cars come to life. I can respect that. I know a lot of people like this film and I can see why. It's very harmless, there's nothing offensive in it at all, and there aren't really any bad morals. The animation looks really nice. You can tell that they really wanted the cars to look good and move right. And the landscapes are beautiful to look at. But for my standpoint, I just found CARS kind of dumb. This movie is from Pixar, they are a lot smarter than this and they've proved they can do so much better. But I guess I'm just not the target audience. The demographic is mainly kids 10 & under, or people who are obsessed with cars. If you like the movie, great. I just could not get into it.Grade: C
(nl) wrote: cool movie, sort of short
(jp) wrote: Tm oli huono, jopa Steven Seagal-asteikolla. Liikaa porukkaa, typer tarina ja liian vhn toimintaa.
(ag) wrote: Great movie! An instant classic!
(ag) wrote: The trailer alone is worth it. But I won't watch the whole movie.
(jp) wrote: Notorious as one of the worst sequels of all-time and by some considered one of the worst films of all-time. However, I tried to re-watch this film with a open mind, especially since it was directed by John Boorman, who is a director I highly respect and who's made some true film classics ("Excalibur," "Point Blank," "Hope and Glory," "Deliverance," "Hell in the Pacific," etc.). Even when Boorman goes off-the-rails with a film ("Zardoz") or even bland ("Where the Heart Is") it's still an interesting and worthwhile film. While this Exorcist sequel does not deliver the same kind of scares and or claustrophobic oppressive sense of dread that the first film so effectively did, it does have some striking visuals (photographed by William A. Fraker) and a terrific score by Ennio Morricone. Boorman said he was attracted to the project with the idea of of making a metaphysical thriller. He did do that, but that aspect of the film, at best, fell flat with dull stretches of priest Richard Burton going into the mind of still possessed Linda Blair (now possessed by an African demon), but at worst the film becomes simply ridiculous (i.e. Burton and Blair braving swarms of locust during her exorcism, endless hypnosis scenes with flashing lights that are supposed to be scary, and not to mentions Blair's sudden lack of acting skills, though maybe it was the scripts fault). However, this film does have it's defenders, such as Pauline Kael and Martin Scorsese, who both preferred this film to the original.Overall, this film features a classy behind the scenes crew and a highly respected cast (Louise Fletcher, Paul Henreid in his final film role, James Earl Jones, Ned Beatty, and Max von Sydow as Father Merrin, though only shown in newly filmed flashbacks [oh, Dana Plato apparently had an unmilled part]), but the overall film is not very good, but I would say it is worth watching for fans of John Boorman, mostly for some interesting visuals, but not for much else outside of ironic so-bad-it's-good enjoyment.
(ru) wrote: Some good themes. Bette Davis gives a frightfully good performance as a woman obsessed with her own youth. Claude Rains also does well as the poor fool who falls in love with her.
(au) wrote: This movie was so much more than I thought it was going to be. A very well timed movie when Islamophobia is so huge in our country.