Monsters, Marriage and Murder in Manchvegas

Monsters, Marriage and Murder in Manchvegas

When a homicidal madman begins slaying young women in the idyllic New England town of Manchvegas, it's up to a trio of cunning local freelance businesspeople known as M.O.S. -- the Manchvegas Outlaw Society -- to get to the bottom of the crime spree. Meanwhile, a band of hairy forest monsters also menaces the village.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:80 minutes
  • Release:2009
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:new hampshire,  

A maniacal slasher is on the loose in the normally peaceful town of Manchvegas. Will the Manchvegas Outlaw Society (M.O.S.), a spirited group of adventurous entrepreneurs, be able to solve ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Monsters, Marriage and Murder in Manchvegas torrent reviews

Tempest T (nl) wrote: If you work with the public, this movies says it all.

Mark K (us) wrote: Nowhere near as bad as critics make it out to be.

Petter W (jp) wrote: JOE STRUMMER 4-EVER!!!

Debbie S (us) wrote: I quite liked this little movie because it was cute, funny and sad. I imagine it wasn't popular because there's so much infidelity.

Mark W (nl) wrote: Toolbox Murders is somewhat a secret confession of mine! I do quite enjoy this movie! I've always loved slashers, especially those will a little mystery and suspense and this film gives just that! It goes to prove that Tobe still has what it takes to make a good horror film., especially since the slasher genre hasn't exactly been stellar since the close of the 80's, he done a great job of reminding us!

Bec E (ag) wrote: i remember watching this film ages ago. haha i love how demi's friend put rat poison in the sugar for her husband. haha. bruce willis looked so different in this film. recognizable but looks so different. maybe because he actually has hair in this film haha.

Al M (mx) wrote: Shame is not one of my favorite Bergman films, but I still cannot give it less than 5 stars because it is an immaculately crafted cinema masterpiece. As with so many of his other films, Shame demonstrates the creative force that Bergman wielded throughout the 60s--even if he had not directed anything else, his 60s films would mark him as artist to be remembered eternally. Shame features Liv Ullmann and Max von Sydow who also starred in The Hour of the Wolf, a film that I rank much higher in the Bergman canon (but then I am a horror fan). As per usual, Ullmann and Sydow unite with Bergman in a way that is truly magical. Bergman makes their faces and their most minute expressions shine with the depth of a thousand emotions. In Shame, Bergman probes the effects of war and invasion while simultaneously depicting the steady collapse of a relationship, a collapse that is based on similarly inexplicable causes. Ullmann and Sydow's characters generate a genuine feeling of warmth and love at times before they plunge into utter hatred in subsequent moments. As their country is invaded, their petty quarrels are put on hold in favor of helping one another to survive. Eventually, Bergman pushes the film into genuine ethic and psychological conundrums by having Ullmann's character submit to sleeping with an army officer in order to receive clemency for her and her husband. Over the course of the film, Bergman uses his hyper-personal style to investigate the effects of war upon this couple as they discover that their petty squabbles signify nothing in the larger scheme of things. A powerful and haunting exploration of war's effects on the individual and of the hard yet tender kernel that lies at the heart of any true relationship.

rocknblues 8 (it) wrote: Guns of Diablo is a western/drama starring Charles Bronson and a 14 year old Kurt Russell who has playing only the second role of his career. Bronson is a wagon scout that runs into an old flame in a town he once visited, but is efforts to rekindle the relationship and broken up by the sons of a cattle baron that never liked him. It's a pretty simple and typical straightforward B western. Nothing fancy or great about it. The acting is average and it's borderline boring. In fact, outside of it starring a young Kurt Russell I will not remember anything about it.

Steve W (ca) wrote: John Sturges' film is wracked with tension and suspense, but the thrills begin to lessen when more is revealed. It then has a decent climax with some bangs and pops, and then end on a quiet note. Only for big Spencer Tracy or John Sturges fans.

TaeSun K (fr) wrote: The mother of all "tragic mulatto" films for sure. A scathing commentary about the dysfunctional lives and relationships formed in and around the u.s. military base in South Korea. The theme of self-induced mutilation and impulsive violence towards others permeate throughout the film. And folks wonder why Koreans tend to be the most violent of the Asian ethnicities.

Jose Luis M (au) wrote: Notable versin sobre la leyenda del rey Aturo, Camelot, Merln y todos los dem s personajes. Dirigiendo John Boorman, ya se prepara un remake de Bryan Singer para el 2012.

Nelson M (mx) wrote: F for Fake isn't exactly a documentary as it is a film essay on trickery. While I know the term film essay is used to describe this film a lot, it's probably the best word to use. Although, it's also a light conversation that Orson Welles has with us as well, just using film instead to do it. It's a very fun film that, while experimental, is light and very enjoyable. Welles is clearly having a good time with himself and so should the viewers. Instead of scratching your head with yours mouths open, just listen to the words. This is a high point in experimental and avant garde film making, it blends a bit of the mainstream with the documentary and mixes monologues in between. In some instances, even, the film is autobiographical so it doesn't exactly fit in one genre or the other. However, it remains a testament to just how gifted a film maker Orson Welles really was, and not just in the conventional standards.

Keira S (ca) wrote: this movie is so scary

Kyle E (ru) wrote: Bad attempt at delivering a comedy horror flick, but still the best in the series (if that says something of importance to you) Leprechaun is a cheesy, poorly made comedy horror film about a killer leprechaun. Starring a very young Jennifer Aniston, in one of her first films roles, Leprechaun is a mess of a horror comedy film. The film is amusing, but it's still a misfire in the genre. I've seen better horror comedies than this, and this one is forgettable. The performances are questionable and the mood of the film is laid back and silly. This could have been a memorable film, but it doesn't do anything memorable. The acting is horrible, and the gags are boring and repetitive. The film has an unimpressive plot that accompanies the absurdity of this film. Leprechaun is a failure as a comedy horror flick, and it's funny, but only because it's such a bad film. The cast are terrible, and the direction of this film is unfocused and flawed. Director Mark Jones's attempt a comedy horror flick fails on all levels. Leprechaun could have been much better than this, but instead it fails to be a memorable comedy horror flick. This is one of Warwick Davis' worst performances, along with the sequels to this train wreck of a film. However this is the better film in the series, despite the fact it's still a bad film. Leprechaun is the type of film that is almost embarrassing to even call a guilty pleasure.