Five young friends head out to the country for a weekend at the family cabin and run afoul of a group of motorcycle riding madwomen led by the sadistic, knife-wielding plastic surgeon Dr. Fielding. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Dr. Chopper torrent reviews
Yolanda P (ru) wrote: Can't wait to see this movie!!!!
monica s (de) wrote: WTF. why does this movie have such a low score? Maybe it was a bad time for a movie to come out about people in the middle east. i thought the movie was great from beginning to end. the first half is an intense political drama, somewhat like a brit period piece about feuding royal families. the second half is a wartime action/drama. The only legit criticism may be around the casting of European actors in 2 out of the 3 main roles. If the movie was about frictional Arabic leaders you think casting could have found at least 2 leading men that could pass for Arabic descent. However, Banderas and Strong did fantastic jobs.
Joel M (ru) wrote: 5/10: Have not seen the first part, C+ Jing Taam (2007), but I thought this is actually quite good, a whodunit, murder mystery. Good atmosphere, visuals, and acting overall. Will definitely check out the predecessor before Part 3 is out.
Sung R (au) wrote: I actually thought this movie was alright. I didn't expect this movie to be good either because I was just utterly annoyed with Lucy Hale's role from the Pretty Little Liars, but I really liked her role in this movie. I've never joined the Sorority Girls so I don't know what it feels like, but I liked the part that the main girl chose to join what she feels for and wants to stand for. This movie is like inspirational as in advice to every students that were bullied in school. The idea of not revenging to do stupid stuff of what a bully would do, but do something better like for instance winning the competition, work hard! I thought this movie was giving out messages, that there will always be hope if you just work hard for what you stand for and believe that things will get better by choosing the right friends.
Danilo S (jp) wrote: Bette completamente en forma. Exelente y exedente!
Dylan R (nl) wrote: Characters are great.
Chris D (fr) wrote: Unfortunately, the talented and very pretty Alison Lohman is immersed into a plot heavy, cheap looking film that continually trips over its own feet.
Terry C (nl) wrote: So bad it's good! A campy cult classic
Omar A (fr) wrote: Mostly stupid and thoughtless, but enjoyable.
Samantha (it) wrote: OOh! Looks good. Looks a lil bit stupider than the original. Ecept what does the simpsons movie have in common??? LOL
Peter W (kr) wrote: You'll never look at the Kiwi fruit the same way again.
Jenny H (jp) wrote: Loved this movie when I was a teenager - not so much as a an adult LOL
Zachary M (ag) wrote: The grandfather of both the docudrama and the found footage movie. What this film lacks in acting, it more than makes up in atmosphere. The film drips in it. It's based on a series of true stories and the majority of it was filmed on the actual locations of the incidents and most of the 'actors' are the real life people who lived through and witnessed the events. The graininess of the film, along with the real locations make you feel like you're not watching a movie at all. It's like you're watching live news footage from the scene as the story unfolds. If you can get totally immersed in a story so ridiculous, then you have done something very right. Did I also mention this was the highest profit return for any independent movie for years? Not bad for advertising salesman who had never picked up a camera before.
Russ B (ru) wrote: 12/25/2016: Not as good as I remembered it, but still pretty decent. A good cast and an interesting story about life in the hood.
ArYa DarMa D (ca) wrote: 4,5/5 Ratings for The Fault In our Stars F : 81%R :19%Comedy :30% Drama 70%
Ken B (kr) wrote: I enjoyed this movie more than the half-star would make you think but that's b/c me'n a friend were mocking it as we watched. If you seriously tried to enjoy this movie alone you'd be in for a bad time. It seems promising when it starts out. A documentary about a girl w/anti-claustraphonia who overcomes it and something that's out to get her. But it falls apart as it tries to be scary. I've seen alot of good indie stuff so I suppose my palette's been spoiled. I was building the impression almost any indie film was better than something out of Hollywood. Now I've seen the bad side of indie.The faults of this movie can not be excused by a low budget. I've seen low-budget films and shit made by college students where every actor's on point, the soundtrack's good, editing and directing are good etc. Acting: Marguerite Moreau is pretty, reminds me of a couple girls I know, and can act. There's a scene in the documentary showing the budding relationship between her and the documentarian (wc?). With her smile and delivery of a single line you get the whole relationship. It wasn't him taking advantage of easy prey (as I first expected) as much as her going for the first guy to take notice/interest of/in her. Her counterparts were too bad for her to carry. Colin Hay just says his lines. His lazy eye occasionally sets in and sends his irises to the outer extremes of his eyeballs. This could be a creepy effect if it only happened when he said something possibly sinister. As it's uncontrolled, correlating to nothing, and the director was too lazy (or short on film?) to reshoot (and the editor too bad to edit these wandering eyes out) it looks really awkward and's really distracting. Joaquin Pheonix and Forest Whitaker each have a bit of lazy eye but I've never seen it damage their performance. The worst part though is that Colin's given some lines that call for emotion and he gives them deadpan. "I'll crush this baby's skull" should be an exclamation. Brittany Curran's acting is HS grade. She's making a genuine effort, emotes, and is more convincing than Colin but you're working with her trying to believe her character as opposed to forgetting she's playing a character. That's the whole cast aside from some lines from the psychologist and the lead's friend. I don't have a complaint about their bits but they're such a small point of the movie they don't count for much. Directing: Bad. It's in part the director's job to get a good performance from the actors. It's also in part his job to give the editor useful material to work with. Robert Rodriguez set up shots in El Mariachi with later editing in mind that successfully made the finished product look like it was shot with multiple cameras. To some degree, what's on the film might've been the best he had to work with but he had to find the terrible acting and editing satisfactory. There are plenty of good actors looking for work this movie could afford or kids who might just want some promotional recognition. The movie relies heavily on Marguerite Moreau's performance and has her staring at walls. I never felt the tension these scenes were meant to convey. Sound would be very important in such a set up: having the camera closely cropped in on her and hearing the creaks of a house, branches tapping a window, wind howling outside, and other noises that make you want to look at the source but instead you hear her breathing quicken, building the audible tension. It would also help to see more of her facial expressions and less of the back of her head. The worst part of the directing is it (he) is completely to blame for the bad story. I got the impression there was more to it than was being delivered to the audience and the director, with these facts glaringly obvious in his head, forgot to convey them. There's a lot of elements that don't make sense. We keep cutting to her childhood memories of playing with a boy so you think there's some traumatic experience or secret she'll get to but nothing comes of these flashbacks. Colin mentions that if he doesn't deliver the baby to the demons they (he and his wife) wi'll be in an acid bath but that's how living humans would dispose of a body and it's never explained what he meant by that. Just an inappropriately unique phrase to mean they'll be in deep shit? Colin's working with the ghosts but ends up fighting one inexplicably. The greaser waits for him outside (isn't it bound to the house?), drags the lead back in (what does it care?), and is shown writhing on the bed inexplicably before it comes and kills Colin. The lead's character has it all figured out how Colin was binding the creature or something but we never see an indication he's doing this, or how, or why they're fighting, or how the creature breaks his hold or anything. All the relevantly informative events are apparently happening off screen or were deleted scenes. Also the spirit was supposed to have the baby delivered to it but then stole it so was it trying to cut Collin out? Couldn't the ghost perform the ritual themselves? If they needed Colin and had the baby why didn't they hand it to him? If the greaser was trying to save the baby why didn't it leave it in the car? Actions aren't dramatic when they're nonsensical. For there to be tension we've to've some feel for what a situation's building towards. An unpredictable character can be very dramatic but several make a clusterfuck. The action's awful. What should be intense moments of attempting escape are very awkward. A ghoul will put his hand on the lead's head. Instead of pulling violently while she struggles we see it kind of rest there. Every few seconds it'll move around and change positions. It doesn't look like he's trying to hurt or capture her. It doesn't look like she's trying to escape. It looks like a director who doesn't want his actors to get hurt and doesn't know how to fake violence through his directing. Have an overhead shot, the ghoul pulling punches just above her hair, and her pushing her head into the grass everytime the ghoul presses her calf with his foot off-camera. Even that would be more convincing. Editing: Lordy, the worst part of the film. Every time a jump scare is set up it's dragged out until it's not scary. You know how you'll see a flash of a monster that's less than a second and it startles you? You're not sure what you've seen. This movie opted for leaving it's poorly makeuped actors onscreen for 3-5 seconds. Long enough to get fmiliar with the scarred boy in a hoodie. Not intimidating at all. He's just standing there too. A jump scare can't be subtle. Subtle building fright (like seeing someone stand and watch you) and a jump scare (like someone jumping out at you) are scary for opposite reasons. When you combine them you get no fright. It's like if there's a pH scale of fright, 7's neutral, 11's shocking and 3's dreadful than this movie's mixing acids and bases to make something tame as water. When there's music it does not mesh with what's happening on-screen. The composer's fault? Not completely. There're times when the music has its' loud, unison, accented notes and they are not synced with the most forceful movements of the monster. It's like the editor just added tracks without looking to see how they fit with the visuals. We've a scene showing Colin use FCP so we know the movie-makers can do better.
Ashley H (es) wrote: Tower Heist is a decent film. It is about working stiffs who seek revenge on the Wall Street swindler who stiffed them. Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy give good performances. The screenplay is a little slow in places. Brett Ratner did an alright job directing this movie. I liked this motion picture because of the action and humor.