Life isn't easy for young Victor, who not only has to face a world full of stern grown-ups but also the town bully Freddy Frogface. Then, when Victor has the chance to perform in a talent ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Based on a classic Danish children's book by Ole Lund Kirkegaard.
- Stars:Mel Gibson, Kevin Hernandez, Daniel Giménez Cacho, Jesús Ochoa, Dolores Heredia, Peter Gerety, Roberto Sosa, Peter Stormare, Mario Zaragoza, Gerardo Taracena, Dean Norris, Tenoch Huerta, Fernando Becerril, Nikolaj Lie Kaas, Thure Lindhardt, Nicolaj Kopernikus, Katrine Falkenberg, Margrethe Koytu, Ole Thestrup, David Bateson, Cecilie Stenspil, Lars Thiesgaard, Lasse Lunderskov, Lars Ranthe, Tove Dystrup, Jamie Morton, Rikke Westi,
You may also like
Freddy Frogface torrent reviews
Jonathan C (es) wrote: Loved all the cameos and silliness. How can you not love Ray Liotta and Danny Trejo singing together? Good laughs, but not as enjoyable as its predecessor.
Nandan T (de) wrote: The story is set and the training for The Hunger Games has begun. The second part is definitely better than the first one.
Millo T (jp) wrote: Soderbergh is so realistic in his movies (many times close to documentary, as it does in this film) that they are sometimes cold. He dissects the oldest profession of the world so deep that it loses any possible interest. Probably it is close to the real world (a job as any other, in which you talk more about money than about any other thing), but it lacks of glamour, charm or anything bright. Even, it looks to me that famous Sasha Grey has a much attractive personality than her character, who looks quite dull -even very stupid. Only in the last part, some of the humanity of the main character comes out, but it is a little too late for that.
jonah k (ca) wrote: Loved it for it's story, from shamanism to Christianity,
Cherie N (au) wrote: Not scary, not about zombies, not even about wicked people in any real sense. Dumb.
Johnson Agustn P (es) wrote: Demasiada Buena!!!! La Realidad..
Cristy H (gb) wrote: I loved this movie! Lots of suspense, twists and turns that keep you guessing until the end! Can't miss with Sean Connery.
Douglas R (kr) wrote: One of my recent favourites. Tennant's rendition of the soliloquey is quiet, reserved & well-done. The look is great as well; Instead of doing like a movie, they kept it to a stage performance with 1 or 2 sets. But the sets are done in black glass & drapery all around, to convey the ideal of "Denmark's a prison". No privacy, everything is reflected back at you. Modernized, but still maintains the quality of the original play.
Ken S (ag) wrote: Totally irresponsible 70's machismo fun! Burt Reynolds plays the ultimate Hollywood stunt-man. LOTS of explosions and drunk driving ensue!
Smp M (es) wrote: A great Movie filled with humor and the od song
Tim S (au) wrote: As of this writing, Lord of Illusions is the final film from director Clive Barker. A lot of variables have gone into that, the main one being that his films were meddled with and treated poorly by the studios that funded and released them (save for Hellraiser, of course). For a man who has distinguished himself as such a unique writer and visualist, and had such an impact on not just horror films, but graphic design as well, it's astonishing that he only made three movies: Hellraiser, Nightbreed, and Lord of Illusions. The real shame of Clive Barker's relationship with movie studios is that he never truly blossomed as a filmmaker. He never got to make those all important mistakes, learning from them and making better movies. He had to, instead, settle on changes to his movies that he deemed unnecessary and detrimental to the work, especially on Nightbreed. Lord of Illusions, while not quite as tinkered with, also suffered some of this fate. Unlike Nightbreed, however, it was allowed to be released separately on home video (laserdisc) as Barker's director's cut of the film. It was a welcome treat, especially for fans. The story of Lord of Illusions is based on the noir-ish character of D'Amore, a character that Barker had created and written about before and since in both short story form and novel form. As far as the two versions of the movie go, my feeling about them is very much similar. I find them visually stimulating, but they lack any real dramatic punch or overly interesting characters and situations. Neither version really grab me as something unique like Hellraiser did when I first saw it. Not just that though, but the story doesn't really have an interesting place to go once the characters are in place with proper motivations. So the movie itself is simply ok, at least to me. Still, I'll take anything Clive Barker does over most of the horror films being released today. There's a real passion and genuine interest to Barker's work, as well as an attempt to create something different. This film doesn't quite manage pull that off, but it's an interesting film overall.
Tom B (mx) wrote: I never got to see the Mad Max movies when I was a kid. I saw everything else, but just skipped over these because the whole post apocalyptic desert environment seemed boring while growing up. I burned these to DVD about 6 years ago and just decided to watch them for the first time this week. I guess it's about time after all the well deserved success of Fury Road. The first one is weird because it's an seventies cop vs. biker gang action movie. Totality not what one would expect for an introduction to this series. Mel Gibson was 23 years old and still Australian. The family revenge sequence is about 20 minutes long and then it just ends. Very odd and surprising that such a successful franchise was born from this.
Lupinella w (gb) wrote: This is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. The acting was horrible and the actors were annoying, and the script was equally horrible and annoying.