Plaga zombie: Zona mutante

Plaga zombie: Zona mutante

A small town is the subject of some experiment with aliens where they were allowed to test some earth folks with some kind of disease, but of course it spread with disastrous results. And now, three oddballs have been dumped into the middle of this town as test subjects or something, and the race for survival is on. John West is a strongman, with a cowboy hat and leopard skin tights, Bill is a medical student, and Max is a mathematical genius, and it's them against the zombies.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:101 minutes
  • Release:2001
  • Language:Spanish
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:zombie,  

A small town is the subject of some experiment with aliens where they were allowed to test some earth folks with some kind of disease, but of course it spread with disastrous results. And now, three oddballs have been dumped into the middle of this town as test subjects or something, and the race for survival is on. John West is a strongman, with a cowboy hat and leopard skin tights, Bill is a medical student, and Max is a mathematical genius, and it's them against the zombies. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Plaga zombie: Zona mutante torrent reviews

Aila L (nl) wrote: psychopath katakot waaaaah! know ur fiance well lol

shawn W (us) wrote: Great movie one of my favorite Michael Bay movies

Zachery D (ag) wrote: A definitive anime film. The last act is arguably one of the most unsettling experiences I've had watching an animated film.

Ilsa L (mx) wrote: Dull and depressing!

Stian B (br) wrote: Veldig fin sndagsfilm!

Justin A (es) wrote: I was hoping for something similar to the first movie, just with a wild west setting. And it is like the first movie, if you took out 4/5ths of the action. It's just so boring for a tremors movie. It seems pretty easy to make. Show people climbing buildings/rocks/etc and running while the camera follows them from a low angle. You don't need a huge budget and state-of-the-art special effects to pull that off. Instead, there's just a lot of talk. The tremors look much better than the third movie (with some of the worst CGI ever), but there really wasn't much to enjoy from this movie. It wasn't offensive or bad, just pointless.

Sage D (mx) wrote: ugh. stupid once again. When will they ever get this right?

Keith C (jp) wrote: A very touching, realistic film featuring wonderful performances all around. Despite it's melancholy characters, there's a real sweetness beneath the cynicism. The unorthodox hybrid of documentary, dramatic and animated storytelling is an example of an interesting stylistic choice that is used not to show off but because it's the ideal way to explore Harvey Pekar and his world.

Sarah I (es) wrote: my fav movie of all time i lol and cried and fell in love with jason alexander

Tim C (mx) wrote: Not Bad But Not Great Either. Had Alot Going For It But Fell A Little Short.

Andrew D (jp) wrote: An Interesting idea, let down by poor script and a poor cast. I Don't blame any attempt to revive the Carry On Series, there a bit of British film history in which we should be proud of. Columbus on the other sufferes from so many problems, as mentioned above the script is just terrible. The script however was written by Dave Freeman who'd be known for writing funny classics like Benny Hill and Bless This House along with that he also wrote another Carry On Film, Carry On Behind in which wasn't a bad film. As explained by Freeman in commentary for Behind he was given the impossible to come up with a script within in a two week deadline. Also as Freedman mentioned he didn't know who he was writing the parts for, unlike the previous Carry On Films where he knew who would be playing the Sid James role or Kenneth Williams role. Alot of former members of the Carry On Gang were approached (the few that were still alive) but a lot declined. Barbara Windsor apparently quoted saying she thought the script was "sh*t", Kenneth Connor was too unwell, Joan Sims was unhappy about lack of presents from former members of the gang, Terry Scott was too unwell, Bernard Bresslaw was less than happy with the script. So with all that, that can't be a good start. There is a select few from the original gang present one being of course, Jim Dale is only realy the capable person of taking on the lead. In which he does try his best with what he's got. Bernard Cribbins returns in somewhat a very poorly written role in which time round of course he plays an old man and the dialogue he's given just woeful a much different style to when he was last in the gang. Leslie Phillips does return who was minute replacement for Frankie Howerd who actually did agree to play the role of the King Of Spain, sadly Frankie was too ill and the role was recast, Frankie did sadly pass away just two weeks before production began. June Whitfield returns aswell as the Queen of Spain who I think actually gets best out of this and doesn't look like she's aged a bit since her last Carry On, Carry On Girls which was nearly twenty years before this. Peter Gilmore is there aswell in an extermely poor role, where plays the governor of canaries. Just a brief two minutes and he's gone. Jon Pertwee as the worst role as the Duke Of The Costa Brava. Blink and you'll miss him. As you can see some of the suriving members of the gang who are present in this are relegated to really weak poorly written roles, oh and how could I forget Jack Douglas who plays the part of a prisoner. You see him in the film now and again but barely given any dialogue only one brief scene with Jim Dale and one other scene and that's all you get and you don't see any of his prevouis antics either. Supposedly Jack had more scenes in this which ended up on the cutting room floor! Yet some of the crap they kept in. A lot of new faces are present in this and most look out of place. Starting with some Peter Richardson playing Columbus's brother, first of all whose Peter Richardson? well whoever he is. He isn't that Memorable. Originally this role was offered to Harry Enfield who despite being a huge Carry On declined due to being dissapointed to hear so many of the original gang absent. Good Move by him! Julian Clary is there clearly playing the Charles Hawtrey, he's okay to be fair but at times I just get that feeling he's one those who looks at of place in a Carry On. Richard Wilson is here to, though he's not in film as much as you think. It's unsure if he's playing the Kenneth Williams type role or is Rik Mayall doing that. But whatever Richard is underused and given little to do. Once again another who looks out of place, in some ways he was playing the role he was playing Victor Meldrew from One Foot In The Grave. As mentioned Rik Mayall is in this who is totally wasted! The first person you see in the film but he's only in the film for the first five minutes, despite being the main villian. I always wonder if this more stuff on him that ended up on the cutting room floor. Nigel Planner is there who has the problem! Alexi Sayle is there! hang on there's a pattern... The Young Ones.... well if looking to get same crowd from that then why didn't they get Ben Elton to write this. Ben Elton of course also wrote Blackadder and would have been perfect for a writing period comedy. Was he approached? Speaking of which this another good thing to mention about the comedy, since the Carry On's were absent comedy had changed. Alternative comedy by this time was top of it's game, shows like Bottom, The Young Ones, Blackadder, The New Statesman, Monty Python. Family comedy's at this point were strugging the only surviving one I could think of was Only Fools and Horses. Speaking of which was even David Jason considered? I can remember there was talk about him being linked to the unmade Carry On London project. But anyway my point getting is with all these alternative comedians they had you would have thought they would have took advantage of it. Okay I'm not saying they should have done it in the style of The Young Ones, but I was thinking of mind of more Blackadder. That should have been the style, it's not quite so wacky as the Young Ones but it's catchy and funny. Instead the producers try to use the humour they used back in the 60's and 70's which I'm afraid was old hat by then and in any case the ones they used in this, weren't even half as funny. Going back to the few faces we've got Maureen Lipman in there, yeah I know she's never appeared in a comedy so I'm still what she's doing in there and to be honest she's probably the one with biggest miscast. She's great actress, but she totally struggles with the comedy. Holly Aid's in this too, hadn't got a clue who see was at the time best known for a role in Fever Pitch. Keith Allen's there too can believe, who looks totally bored stiff with this. Okay enough with the new cast less just face it, there some really good stand up comedians there but some are just wasted in this and look out of place. Jim Dale and Bernard Cribbins both mentioned the biggest problem about this movie which was, it didn't feel like a team. Too many people split into groups who had different vision to take this movie plus some actors only caring about there own performance than others and the film itself, if you get what i mean. By the sound of this, unlike any other Carry On no one enjoyed making this. A lot only agreed to do this in loyality to Gerald Thomas. Unlike the prevouis Carry On's despite being confined to a small studio and a very small budget, the sets always looked bigger and realistic than they were. In this you can its a small studio set. In Carry On Jack you really did believe they were at see and on a real boat, in Columbus you never felt that. On to the plot, its very weak basically the story Columbus wanting to sail to the new world in search of treasure and discover new land (though of course more bothered about coming back with treasure) On route they come across some problems, like crashing into another boat and mistaking into thinking it's a ghost boat. Though really it's a boat in port preparing for depature for the Countess Of The Caneries for there voyage. Typically they decide to randomly set fire to the boat, unknown of who it belongs to. Eventually they arrested and given ordered to change there voyage back to spain in order to countess and the family back there. Instead Columbus tricks them and continues his own voyage. While in the mean time the Turks are unhappy about Columbus and his voyage and fear that if the new world is discovered no trade will pass through Turkey anymore so instead they sent two agents to sabotage the voyage. Basic plot and after a while it becomes boring once in America, the film tries to pick itself up but overall it does still feel anti climatic. Did I mention the love interest in this film is girl from the butter advert! oh and she went onto marry Jim Dale's son so that's nice. But anyway Columbus is quite an forgetable film, as a seperate comedy its just boring. Every time I watch columbus I try to like it and find some postives but there just isn't, the whole thing feels like a cheapened attempt. In fact it was on a budget of just over 2.5million which was quite a lot for a Carry On Film, so you could argue it had no excuses. Maybe it was because the rushed production by the sound it of the project was on and off for some time, when they eventually got given the green light to make they were only given short time to get it done. Perhaps more time for the writter and a better cast Columbus may have worked. Movie 1.5/5 for me.

Gavin P (au) wrote: I think it's a kids movie, but it has pretty bad morals if that's the case! Sure, all's well that ends well, but it just seems to encourage bad behaviour! Not very many funny moments, with most of it being juvenile snot/bodily function humour. Needed more Carrie Fisher!

John P (es) wrote: Kitty Berman: Does it ever go away?Jake Gittes: What's that?Kitty: The past. This rating may change, but I feel like I'm being generous here. I mean, a sequel to Chinatown? With pretty much the same cast, and written by the same guy? How could things go wrong?Well, I was deterred from seeing this movie for the reason that apparently things did go wrong in the making of this movie. Things that drove the triforce of actor Jack Nicholson, writer Robert Towne, and producer Robert Evans apart, and ended up being directed by Nicholson himself.And that's where the problems lie, I think. That's because Nicholson's not much of a director, and it shows. First of all, I'm not sure if Nicholson chose to rewrite Towne's script when he (allegedly) left the project, but there are several instances of wonky storytelling that only make the already convoluted plot harder to follow. Chinatown had its twists and turns, but that movie felt sharp and focused. This one? It's all over the place. There are so many peripheral characters that overshadow Nicholson, and the movie takes its sweet-ass time getting to the climax, making what could have been a slow burn seem more like a slow drip. Also, I know this is a noir, but there's some heavy-handed voiceovers by Nicholson that seem like afterthoughts implemented in an attempt to make the plot easier to understand. Despite the intentions, they come off as forced, and don't help anything. In fact, the movie stops cold whenever Nicholson tells us what's on his mind. Whether this was done to mimic the hard-boiled narration trope so famous in noir or to truly clear things up may never be known. All I know is that it sucks. A lot.As for the plot, there's definitely a "here we go again" feeling throughout, and the ties to the first film seem gimmicky and tenuous. I understand this is a sequel, and deals with Jake Gittes' inability to let go of his past even after ten years, but the way they work in the elements from the previous film are completely inorganic, and worse, they sort of ruin the ending to Chinatown. I don't understand why Katherine Mulwray, a completely incidental character in the first film, is given so much weight in this story. I think it would have been better if the film's connection to Chinatown was the land the story is driven by, limiting the Mulwrays' presence to exactly that, a presence to be felt, rather than shoehorning those characters awkwardly into the story.All of the acting's good, but there are too many characters. Actors like Eli Wallach, Frederic Forrest, and Ruben Blades are all great, but their characters are all given too much attention, and it makes things seem like a crowded mess. Madeleine Stowe probably gives the best performance out of all the actors, and it seems like she had the most fun as the unhinged widow Lillian Bodine.As for Nicholson? Well, he clearly had his hands full directing the movie, so his performance comes off as half-baked and lazy. He was the best part of Chinatown, portraying Jake Gittes as an energetic smart-assed rogue with some world-weariness. In this movie, he's overweight, tired, and even more world-weary. He's not exciting, and worse, his character is overshadowed by the enormous supporting cast.The movie's shot well, but I do have a (small) bone to pick about its aspect ratio. This movie's aspect ratio is 1.85:1. Chinatown, on the other hand, is 2.35:1, which reflects the aesthetic design of making a period noir with modern technology. Shooting in 1.85:1 makes the frame look taller, and closer to the "Academy Ratio" of 1.33:1, the exact ratio used to make films around the time this movie takes place. I don't know if that was intentional, but it would go a long way of trying to make the sequel into a more conventional noir film, as opposed to the genre-bending nature of the first film. Kind of a stupid aesthetic change, I think, but that's probably overthinking things.So, here's a movie that started out with the best of intentions, has all of the elements of a good movie, but sort of collapses under its own weight with all of the extra characters and subplots. I think with some better editing (this movie's editing sucks, by the way. The timing's all off, and it looks like the assembled cut somehow became the final cut), it could be a worthy sequel to Chinatown. As it stands, it's not as bad as its reputation would have you think, but it's still not essential viewing, especially when you compare it to its superior predecessor. The past never does go away....

Daniel K (ca) wrote: 1.5: Pretty pitiful performances, at least through much of the film, especially considering it's Bridges and Close. The script and story are ho-hum, the cinematography makes everything seem artificial and as if even the outdoor scenes were shot in an indoor studio. It just seems like a throwaway, sloppy B-movie. Not that court rooms are normally accurately depicted on screen, but this seems a particularly ludicrous Hollywood portrayal of a murder trial. Things did pick up in the third act and at the conclusion, but not enough to make the picture worthwhile. It could have worked with a different vision guiding it though.

Don S (ru) wrote: Absolutely one of the worst slasher movies I've ever seen. Apparently the production had problems from the start - actresses dropping out over nudity (though there was hardly any in the movie), going over budget (how? looks like they probably had a shoestring budget to begin with), etc. The movie moves slower than a slug and makes little sense. The acting is atrocious and the effects are nearly nonexistent. Garbage.

Mike W (de) wrote: Tense and action packed film!