You may also like
Het betoverde bos torrent reviews
Titis W (es) wrote: bentar bgt filmnya, di sini Kate dan Humphrey uda punya 3 cubs yg lucu2...
Michelle E (ru) wrote: I gave this a 4 simply because I really, really liked the story. It also made me jump a few times... It would have been 5 if it had been better filmed. Some things made me go, "huh?"... But I was easily able to shrug them off.
BabyNicky W (au) wrote: Luv it yall need to c it
Georgia T (mx) wrote: This is actually a really beautiful movie. I think there is a lot of negativity towards it because people just don't seem to get it. With the high quality comedic cast, you expect a lot of laughs and a funny story line but that's not what the point of this film is. Without the comedic actors the story would have been too heavy, they're there to deliver a deep script in a palatable way and portray serious issues in a way that keeps the audience engaged. Quite similar to Garden State but with a little less quirk and a little more reality. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Josh M (nl) wrote: Successfully got me hooked on the subject. I saw Tarantino's Grindhouse several times and loved it. I knew it was supposed to be done in a old, cheesy, B-movie style, but I had no idea what exactly that was. As a designer, I am deeply, deeply fascinated with grindhouse art/style. While I have yet to develop a taste for the sort of movies they advertise (I'm not in any big hurry to see "Slave Girls of the SS") I love their posters, title sequences, logos...I love the tone they convey. For the documentary itself, it isn't anything new; it's pretty vanilla and to the point and it's set up in neat sections that go from Thomas Edison in the 1920's to present day. I will admit that the ending of the American Grindhouse was rushed. I wish they would have more greatly explored the direction 'Grindhouse' and exploitation is taking today. Is there modern exploitation films? What do they think will be the next big thing that makes the masses squirm? They made a great point in saying that the graphic, independent essence of the style as been fully absorbed into popular culture; in 2012, we have seen everything and for the most part, are pretty numb to the bells and whistles that once made these exploitation movies a hit. Maybe the style is dead, maybe it will take a new form soon enough.
Koh M (de) wrote: sigur ros' music + icelandic sceneries = heaven!
Thomas D (ru) wrote: Looking at Underworld Evolution as a mindless action adventure, it's not all that bad. It doesn't take itself too seriously, there are some well-directed action sequences, and the characters are far more realized than they were the first time around.Let's just be honest, the first Underworld is garbage. There's no two ways about it. The dialogue is horrible, the performances are over the top, and the visual effects are dated. But with the three years in between the first and the second, something must have clicked within the writer's room. Evolution is about 30 minutes shorter and much less convoluted than the first entry. When there are exposition-heavy scenes, they add to the story, instead of making things more confusing. I've already spent a couple hours with Selene & company, so I was prepared with the lore and character history. Plus, wasn't it nice getting Kraven out of the way early on in the film? Horrible character.Len Wiseman isn't the most talented director in Hollywood, or the smartest (considering he wants to make a Die Hard prequel), but I think he knows what people want out of these movies. Kate Beckinsale and some cool vampire-werewolf action are the primary reason these movies make money. While the main villains are set up nicely through flashbacks in the opening scene, they end up having little differences to Bill Nighy's first film villain.Part of the appeal of this particular Underworld entry is that it's in many ways, a fantasy-horror-western. Sure, it doesn't take place in the wild west, but the way the story is set up is very much similar to that of typical westerns. Selene and Michael spend the entire film on the run and in search of a mystical artifact linked to the past of their species. At the same time, this film suffers from the same problems as most vampire flicks do, the untouchable nature of vampires contributes to a less visceral experience if you know they will ultimately survive whenever they die. In all, it's hard to think I would ever watch this film again, but it's entertaining enough for me to give it a positive review.+Solid action+Characters are more realized+Western-Villains are weak-So.. are they untouchable?6.0/10
Felicia H (it) wrote: It wasn't a terribly crafted film, but the script could have stuck to the original myth to make it better. Actually, it was sort of annoying how they picked out parts to keep with the original, but embellished upon the story in ways that subtracted from the movie. In any case, it was still nice to see Herakles minus the blonde hair and Disney-like charm.
Minh V (ca) wrote: I had to watch this for an English class. Better than expected but might be confusing if I hadn't read the play.There's a lot of meaningful symbolic elements in this movie.
Janetta B (jp) wrote: another great Stephen King Flick...
John W (ru) wrote: Good flick. I knew nothing about it until seeing it on Amazon Prime. Woods is at his lovably sleazy best. Oliver Stone's commentary on a bloody, complicated conflict largely forgotten by my generation.
Andr (jp) wrote: Review will be written when/if re-watched (Probability: Zero).First viewing: 24.06.1998
Anthony V (de) wrote: Nice little bit of Film Noir.
Jamil K (ag) wrote: very original in a brutally pompous way.