Night of the Demons 2
Angela, the universe's most unpleasant party crasher, returns! Angela's sister, Mouse, is taken by her bullying Catholic school classmates to a party at Angela's favorite haunt, and before long, everybody's being turned into demons and only a butt-kickin' nun, who wields her ruler like a mighty sword of steel, can save the day.
- Category:Action, Comedy, Fantasy, Horror, Romance
- Stars:Christine Taylor, Robert Jayne, Jennifer Rhodes, Darin Heames, Cristi Harris,
- Director:Brian Trenchard-Smith,
- Writer:Joe Augustyn (screenplay), Joe Augustyn (story), James Penzi (story)
High-schoolers throw a Halloween party in a mansion haunted by a young demon but the party turns deadly for them when the blood-thirsty demon appears as the hellish hostess. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Night of the Demons 2 torrent reviews
(nl) wrote: ***SPOILER ALERT*** I love coming of age movies and this one involves Catholic altar boys. It reminded me a little of the movie "Stand By Me." I was all ready to give it 3.5 stars until they shot the dog. The ending was terribly unsatisfying.
(kr) wrote: Good plot and Snipes is always fun to watch in an action role. His skills always come across as believable and he carries himself really well. That said, there are plot holes big enough to hide the $100M the bad guys are after. The principal photography is good, great angles, good eye, however the editing is so overwrought (quick cuts, double exposure, overexposure, etc) and jarring that it continually takes you out of the story and quite literally ruins what would have been a decent action film.
(ru) wrote: wow i want to see this movie wowow
(nl) wrote: The true story of cellist Jacqueline du Pre' and her life-long relationship with her sister Hilary. Good performances by Emily Watson and Rachel Griffiths. Based on the memoir by HIlary. I wasn't so impressed by the story here as I was by the performances.
(it) wrote: A lovely feel good movie about dancing :)
(kr) wrote: As atuaes de Ingrid Bergman e Liv Ullmann so absurdas e ainda so beneficiadas pelo belo roteiro sobre mgoas e dores do passado.
(ca) wrote: WOW......WOW....WOW......WOW.....WOW.....SUCH A BEAUTIFUL, BRILLIANT MOVIE 2 WATCH WITH A FANTASTIC CAST THROUGHOUT THIS MOVIE IT IS SUCH A POWERFUL DRAMA MOVIE 2 WATCH, BUT IT IS SUCH A BRILLIANT MOVIE 2 WATCH WITH A SUPERB CAST THROUGHOUT THIS MOVIE....... WARNING THIS MOVIE CONTAINS STROBE LIGHTNING EFFECTS THROUGHOUT SOME SCENES THROUGHOUT THIS MOVIE.......
(jp) wrote: Hepburn and Perkins are great.
(gb) wrote: This 1992 version of "Frankenstein" tries to mix up the familiar story by changing a lot of details, with mixed results. Some of the changes are made for budgetary reasons, other stylistically and some just baffled my mind. One of the changes made is that the monster (Randy Quaid) is not pieced together from bodies collected from slaughter houses and dissection rooms, but is created in what I can only describe as a "duplication chamber". Also notable is that the creature learns to speak English by befriending a blind old man in the woods. The old man thinks it to be a foreigner that does not speak English and teaches him how to talk. It's an acceptable substitution for spying on a family that is teaching one of its members to read and write English, like in the original story. Some changes, like creating a psychic bond between the creature and Victor Frankenstein (Patrick Bergin) are problematic, create plot holes and huge leaps of logic in the story. It's too bad that it was handled poorly because if it had been executed well it could have been interesting. I also have to admit that while the duplication chamber thing is kind of a neat special effect, it doesn't work. The main problem I had with it was that because the monster starts off as a perfect clone of the doctor there had to be convoluted ways for the creature to become disfigured to make the rest of the story work. It just didn't lend itself well to this story.The film has some decent performances, but the plot is inconsistent in its quality and so loosely based on the novel it could almost be its own, unrelated thing. Some elements are introduced then immediately dropped or hastily discarded without much logic. Early on for example, Victor Frankenstein shows us that he is able to create entirely new species of animals by splicing a cat and a snake together and by creating a porcupine/rabbit hybrid. That entire scene comes out of nowhere and is never brought up again. I'm pretty sure it was only included to show off some special effects.Overall this 1992 film is more of a curiosity than a significant addition to the ever-growing amount of Frankenstein-related material. It might be enjoyed by hardcore fans of the book and story of "Frankenstein" that are simply looking for something different. If that's you by the way, check out "Frankenstein Conquers the World", that is one wacky "sequel" to the original novel. Unlike that film though, there isn't much remarkable about this version of "Frankenstein". At times it's hilariously bad so you can easily skip this one. (On VHS, August 31, 2012)
(gb) wrote: Despite being 30, Tripp (Matthew McConaughey) lives at home with this parents. To try and give him some motivation to move on, his parents hire Paula (Sarah Jessica Parker) to get him to fall for her so she will get motivated to move out. What she does not expect is that she will fall for him. This movie was pretty flat and shallow even for a romantic comedy. The chemistry between the characters and most of the comedic bits were quite sub-par.
(fr) wrote: really bad, i do not know why they make movies like this.
(es) wrote: Ray is undeniably a good film. Some areas are great and most areas are good. Although some not so much, it's definitely a worthy film to witness.To explain the areas where Ray isn't so strong, much of the story of Ray doesn't explore any kind of territory that would separate it from most biographical films about musicians. I mean, Ray Charles experiences the same drug addiction, musical criticism and acts of adultery that many musical figures have already gone through such as Jim Morrison and Johnny Cash. We've already witnessed films about these figures and their issues in the same essential vein, and Ray introduces nothing new to the same basic formula except for the fact that it's main figure is blind and portrayed by Jamie Foxx. It's difficult to criticise a film which follows someone's life yet remains formulaic, because then it's like I'd be criticising Ray Charles for living a formulaic life. But I guess the main problem is that it isn't dramatised as best as it could be much of the time and doesn't take on any sort of eccentric film style which would have made it more memorable. It's script is similarly formulaic as well, and although it isn't damaging at all, like the film style it just isn't anything special.Since Ray doesn't have too much in its story that's contrasts it from the standard musician biopic formula, it also feels rather long and stretched out over a period of 152 minutes, so it doesn't always have sufficient constancy in maintaining viewer interest.But what saves Ray is that it has the greatest lead anybody could ask for to play the role of musical legend Ray Charles.Jamie Foxx has all the kindred spirit of Ray Charles without ever opening his eyes, but even a man as blind as Ray Charles himself could tell that Jamie Foxx is absolutely perfect for the role. Jamie Foxx plays the piano as flawlessly as he sings, and even though he cannot see what he is doing in the film, any blind man could know that he is nothing short of the ideal Ray Charles embodiment. With his glasses comes a certain smile which has all the groove and strength behind it that Ray Charles can be iconic for, and to know that behind those glasses lies Jamie Foxx is to know the true extent of a man's talent as an actor. Had Ray Charles been alive to hear but not see Ray, it's unarguable that he would be impressed by Jamie Foxx, the same way the Academy Awards were.Curtis Armstrong is at some of his best work ever in Ray. With so many notable actors and characters, he was one that seriously stuck out for me because his portrayal of Ahmet Ertegun was an excellent visual embodiment of the character as well as a meaningful performance of him, even in the short amount of screen time he received. He had such passionate spirit in him, and it made Ray more of a great film which also gave nostalgic memory to his days in Revenge of the Nerds by reminding us that he was once a successful actor from an 80's comedy and still has such electric talent, even in a small role in Ray. Kerry Washington, Sharon Warren and Regina King also all supply fine supporting performances to Ray.Even Warwick Davis' small role capitalised on his charm and talent as an actor very well.So Ray is a bit long and rather formulaic, but Jamie Foxx is too perfect for the lead role and it puts a good name to everything.
(mx) wrote: While an initially intriguing and comparatively early take on the voyeuristic capabilities of cameras, it turned into a cheesy, half-baked, sex thriller with the creepy William Baldwin and fresh from Basic Instinct Sharon Stone. There isn't anything to enjoy, really.