A book that belongs to the Hindu god of death, Yamadharman, accidentally drops to earth. Getting Back the Book is the Story.
You may also like
Lucky Man torrent reviews
Alex A (ag) wrote: The horror genre has outed many pointless gore fests, but this one sticks out like a sore thumb. A bunch of slimy disgusting looking creatures going around eating and literally raping people, and even sodomizing cats.....yeah, I said it, in one of the sequels that literally happens....stupid pointless trilogy. I did unfortunately see the sequels because I was dragged to see it by one of my friends, and both sequels were equally terrible so there's no point in reviewing them.
Philly K (it) wrote: I couldn't wait for it to be over! I enrolled in a Women's Studies class because I'm a feminist, and my professor puts this shit on. Don't waste your time because it'll only make your life worse.
Allan C (it) wrote: Writer/Director Andrew Bergman ("The In-Laws" and "The Freshman") would seem to be the right director to bring the offbeat humor of a Carl Hiaasen novel to the screen. However, the tone of the film wasn't quite right and it send up nowhere as good as Hiaasen's book. Similar to Elmore Leonard books, which for years had failed film adaptations until "Jackie Brown" and "Out of Sight," Hiaasen mixes humor and crime stories, often with a wide menagerie of colorful characters, in a way that's hard to translate to film. In a story that mostly revolves around Demi Moore having to strip in order to make a living wage in order to get her daughter back from her crazed ex-husband who has custody. There are also plot threads involving the various characters at the Eager Beaver strip club, a cop (the underused Armand Assante), but the best is Burt Reynolds as the lecherous Senator Dilbeck. Compared to "Jackie Brown" and "Out of Sight," those films weren't playing for laughs, whereas the actors in this film were. The other films let the situations create the twisted laughs, whereas this film had characters with silly haircuts and broad performances that made the film seem pretty lightweight.
Don S (jp) wrote: Unimpressed with the original, I had not sought out any of the sequels. I recently bought a 10 movie collection of "cult classics" (at 50 cents a movie), and this was included. It was straight to video which is not always a sign of its quality, but in this case it is. Most of the victims die off-camera; the first werewolf transformation also occurred off screen. To say the effects are bad is an understatement. Werewolves appear very little in this werewolf movie. The story is mundane and very similar to the original. There is a religious aspect to the story, but it goes nowhere. The acting is awful. Heck, the movie is awful.
Dan H (it) wrote: I dont understand how anyone can like this movie. sure some of the music is good and acting was alright but the story, set-up and jokes are terrible. Julie Andrews is always a good actress, i just had a problem with why a girl who grew up in Nowhereville Kansas has a british accent. Carole Channing was too annoying to be taken comically. full of non-sequiturs that dont have any rhyme, reason, or humor value. The storyline is mildly racist. how they expose the villian still baffles me in it's absurdity. The music was hit-miss, some songs were good and others hurt the ears. It was like watching a dumber musical "Great Gatsby", where every character is selfish, spoiled, and unrelatable. I know this review is all over the place but there was so much wrong with this movie that i cant think straight. The GOOD was acting/singing, and a few songs. But everything else about this film is ROTTEN
Codie E (kr) wrote: Anyone that's ever grown up in or regularly visited predominantly working class areas of the north will appreciate the level of authenticity of the film. But, what really takes this above the majority of the British new wave is the intellectual and intelligent approach taken to making the film. Director Karel Reisz and others give the film a level of poetry that underpins the brute and muck.
Jeff B (ca) wrote: Bizarre first act featuring POV camerawork with Bogart only providing voiceover (or doubles hiding in darkness.) Still, once the real Bogart finally shows up this movie is quite good. Lauren Bacall is the highlight here, as, for once, I see why people consider her a screen legend.
Jos M (gb) wrote: Tena mejores expectativas, al final termin aburriendome, en todo caso vale por ver a Katharine Hepburn y Cary Grant.
Zane U (br) wrote: Total camp, but it can only be appreciated on that level since its frustrating depiction of frustrating women (and the men who love them) grows tedious very quickly. Edward Everett Horton is a bright spot as the only one who always seems to know that the film is kind of ridiculous (sometimes it appears that Dietrich catches on, but other times I questioned it).
Philip Z (au) wrote: It is so disheartening to watch these legendary actors finally team up but in something so utterly worthless. It's nothing more than a direct-to-video quality flick, with a script that is about as interesting as that sounds. It must have been a thrill for these two guys to team up at feature length, and it should have been a great moment for a film fan like me, but it wasn't. I felt sad, this film made them seem like hacks, and the director of the film should be ashamed.
Claudette A (ag) wrote: A bad war movie. I give it that.
JustSomeGuy R (fr) wrote: A shameless cash grab.
Wilman A (es) wrote: Penuh tendensi yang membuat tidak bosan, maybe one of the portrait of cooking movie.
Paul D (de) wrote: In terms of unstable chefs in cooking drama films it's a decent effort.
Petros T (us) wrote: It's a hilarious, all-star, human film. Harvey Keitel is excellent in the leading role, while the supporting cast is also notable (particularly Madonna, in her most memorable role). Nostalgic, sweet, funny, "Blue In The Face" is simply great.