Two young men strangle their "inferior" classmate, hide his body in their apartment, and invite his friends and family to a dinner party as a means to challenge the "perfection" of their crime.

Two young men strangle their "inferior" classmate, hide his body in their apartment, and invite his friends and family to a dinner party as a means to challenge the "perfection" of their crime. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Rope torrent reviews

Linda B (ca) wrote: Moins ptillant que les premiers

Keith P (it) wrote: Without watching a minute of this, I can still assume the lackluster quality of this film starting with the fact that I learned about it from someone on Facebook, & then reading quite a handful of negative reviews about this American movie from British critics.

Henri J (fr) wrote: Let me start the review by saying that if there was the option I would have given the film 2.75 stars, but since there isn't I'm rounding down to 2.5 which I will explain. Let me say what the best parts are of this film. The best thing in the film is the set design and the costuming. Right below that is Sam Shepard's performance in the film. Now let me break down the rest of the film for you. The first half of the film I really didn't like. I didn't like how the language would change back and forth, which I know sounds stupid of me but I think the director should have either picked entirely Spanish or entirely English, instead you get the second problem which is the acting of Eduardo Noriega. Now really his acting was fine and I'm sure that he is a good actor in his home country, but in this film I just didn't like him. I feel like his English was not great at the time and it is something that distracted me from the film. The first half of the film I really didn't like, I found most of it quite boring and uninteresting. At that point I thought I was going to give the film 2.5 stars out of five. Then I got to that half way mark, at that point the film picked up and it got really interesting and pretty good as well, the characters started to get pretty fleshed out and some development started to happen. At that point I thought that I would give it 3 stars because there were still problems with the beginning but if it continued like this I would give it three stars. Unfortunately the ending I was not happy with. First of all the film ends of a low and depressing note, which kind of came out of no where I thought it was going to end on a happy high note after the scene previous. And also the villain, who I won't reveal, I honestly didn't hate, which as a member of the audience I was suppose to. Now the villain wasn't a good person, but I still felt some sympathy for the character. These are the two main problems in the ending and because of this I have to give the film 2.5 stars. I would have loved to give it more, and the concept is really interesting and has a lot of potential, but the film just ends up falling flat.

Joseph C (it) wrote: If you're a seasoned fan of horror movies who is looking for a fresh and interesting scare... then this is not the movie for you. In fact, if you are up to date with the horror genre you might as well skip this one because an awful lot of it is going to feel familiar. Where do we start? Let's start with the cast and acting performances. We have two main characters in the movie, one of which is a small child who can't speak. So I suppose he gets a pass for not bringing a lot to the performance. The other is Kristen Stewart whom I generally despise for her utterly wooden delivery and perpetual open mouthed unchanging expression. I'd hoped the remainder of the cast could liven things up, but it just doesn't happen. Everything feels forced and there isn't any real sense of terror or drama. The other characters pop in and out of the story as convenient, each time delivering a line or two of dialogue as if reading cue cards. "I liked it where we used to live. I do not like moving. I used to have problems with alcohol. I am all better now and will do my best for my family despite the emotional stress this is causing me. My family has issues though and because I had problems with alcohol I think they might not believe me if I were to tell them about something strange happening." Okay, so what about the plot then? Sorry, not much to speak of here. A troubled big city family moves out to an old abandoned farm. There are some ghosts. I don't really have a whole lot to add. It doesn't help at all that the movie deliberately tries to be deceptive and mysterious which only results in a muddled confusing mess. In particular, there is a mysterious shady character who shows up several times throughout the movie. Is he a ghost, you ask? Maybe he is someone with ties to the previous owners? How does he fit into the plot? Well, save yourself some time wondering because he disappears about 2/3 of the way through the movie. He is never seen or addressed again. I Googled the character to see if I had missed some subtle plot point, but the consensus is that he is simply a random mundane character that isn't related to anything at all. Why does he show up several times and get built up as a shady mysterious plot figure? Nobody knows. When the movie begins, the little boy can see the ghosts but no one else can. Soon after, the sister can see them but they are still invisible to the rest of the family. Eventually, the mother begins to see them too. So, what's the explanation here? The little boy being the only one who can see the creepy ghosts is used as a major scare point, but as soon as it is used it gets thrown out the window and the movie forgets its own rules. The story really wants to be mysterious and creepy but winds up just being confusing and nonsensical. Now we are moving on to the effects and execution, which make as little sense as anything else. We again see things done arbitrarily or in ways that don't really make sense. In one of the earliest ghostly appearance the mother is putting a sheet on the bed and we get a glimpse of ghostly legs standing up in the bed. It's one of the creepier shots in the movie but it raises some serious questions. For one, why the hell is a creepy ghost standing in the bed? It isn't lying down or actually doing anything. It's just standing there; straight up on top the bed. What's the purpose of posing like that? Was it playing The Floor Is Lava? Second point, from this and other scenes we can determine the ghosts can be solid or not at a whim. The sheet doesn't take the ghosts form, it passes right through (though, then why isn't the TOP of the ghost visible? Where the hell is the rest of the ghost?). So, we have established the presence of several ghosts who have some sort of wonky invisibility. They can be solid or insubstantial at will and are shown to pass through walls. They have ghostly control over the environment and they also have a swarm of murder-crows. These are pretty capable, potentially lethal and aggressive ghosts. So, why the hell do they wait SO long? Over the course of the movie we see the family arrive, move in, fix up the farmhouse and complete an entire harvest. We can assume that at LEAST several months have passed (though the weather never seems to change and no one ages). So what took them so long? What were they doing for all those months, did they go on vacation? Why were they so hateful and active toward the sister but more or less completely ignored everyone else for so many months? It makes even less sense once the big "twist" is revealed. After watching them harass, abuse, frighten and attack Kristen Stewart almost exclusively the only logical conclusion I can come to is that they watched the Twilight movies. Another major problem I have is the way the ghosts move. If you've seen The Grudge (or any number of similar copycat films) I'm sure you will be familiar with the ghost that crawls along the ceiling in cut-motion filming that creates a jerky "creepy" movement. Unfortunately, it's just poorly done here and feels out of place. The minimalist ghosts feel artificial. The movement isn't creepy; it's just disjointed and distracting. My big, big problem here is that when the plot is exposed later in the movie you really, REALLY have to wonder what the hell was going on here. What in the absolute hell was that ghost doing crawling along the ceiling like some kind of zombie Spider-Man, not to mention WHY and HOW. The atmosphere at least succeeds in being very vaguely creepy, in that most of the movie occurs in an old overgrown farmhouse. The problem is that nothing is really done to develop the atmosphere. Most of the shots are simple and you don't really get any kind of fear or chill from it. There are several shots of farm tools in the opening credits, but unless you have a very specific phobia these don't have much of an effect. Despite having what seems like a lot to work with, most of it is never used. The house is large and at least two stories, but we never see most of it. It winds up feeling small, cramped and not particularly interesting. It doesn't help that there are a number of blatantly obvious goofs with the house itself. In one of the action shots you can clearly see a wall wobble and shake. The worst offender is the cellar door. For most of the movie the cellar door is a side door about halfway down a connecting hallway. However, in one of Stewarts ghost action scenes the cellar door appears as a dead end at the end of a long straight hallway, completely different from where it is the rest of the time (but convenient for a dragging / chasing scene). At any rate, I suppose if you're looking for a simple, shallow scare movie this one might work for you. I can't really recommend it on any level, but it isn't unbearable to watch and is a decent enough "scare-lite" film. As bad and bland as it is in many ways it is at least watchable and does manage to avoid being truly painful, so points for that I guess?

Trinity C (us) wrote: *grumbles*Oh great...

Michelle G (ag) wrote: want to see it again good movie

Brett C (mx) wrote: Review In A Nutshell:Mystic Pizza is a disappointing film that tries to capture the difficulties found in youth, particularly the ones that aren't well off financially. This would have been a film that I think I would have liked easily as films like these tend to creep up on me, but after going through it, I was left disappointed with a story that lacked the ability to keep me remotely invested, aside from JoJo's as her tale was the only that I felt executed well in its ideas and beats but sadly it's the one that contains the least amount of focus with the rest of the film heavily exploring the romantic relationships of the two sisters and the drama that goes on between the siblings. The film tries to say something about the idea of class and wealth, and how difficult it is when one doesn't have it, but this was handled quite poorly, lacking in any scene or moment that would create a sense of impact which then left me feeling dismissive about it. The film is more concerned on hitting the notes right that it doesn't show the slightest attempt on making it something unique of its own, if the story doesn't convince you of this then try listening to its score, as it flows the way as one would expect it to go and at the same time it tries to manipulate you into feeling things which it clearly failed to do. It's sad because the film has a terrific cast who did elevate certain elements of the film, particularly Julia Roberts and Annabeth Gish. I cannot generalize and establish the fact that this film is not worth anyone's time, regardless of my score, as this type of film definitely has an audience, and I think if you are within that audience, which are the romantic coming of age film enthusiasts, then this would definitely benefit you more than it does for me.

Dawn S (ca) wrote: Cutest, fun movie to watch with the kids. I loved this film as a kid myself. Very sad that the little actress in this movie died so young.

Lewis C (ag) wrote: An anthology of three short stories, each starring Sophia Loren and Marcello Mastroianni and dealing with sex in some manner, and each amusing in a different way. The first story is about a woman who continuously had children in order to avoid going to jail, the second is about two new lovers taking a car trip, and the third concerns a boy preparing to enter seminary, a prostitute, and a very frustrated man. I thought it was worth watching, especially for Sophia Loren fans.

Alex R (jp) wrote: i watched this with my grandpa

Kat K (jp) wrote: Just excellent! The story quickly develops well as you get to know the main character, Lily Powers, played by Barbara Stanwyck. Hard-knock life from an early age, she worked at her father's speakeasy catering to drunken lowlifes and prostituting herself through his coercion. When given a chance, she and her friend Chico move to New York City to start a new life, and under the advice of her former Pennsylvania friend, Adolf Cragg, she uses men to get what she wants. It seems to work at first, as Lily easily sleeps her way up the corporate ladder, until she meets Courtland Trenholm, played by George Brent... What a wonderful story. It spends not too much and not too little time setting up the character development; has wonderful acting, script and pacing; is very engaging, from start to finish; and winds up being an unforgettable film with a happy ending. Very recommended pre-code classic. Must see, if not must own! - 9.2/10. Side note: Due to the era in which this movie was released, there are some shamefully forgotten and painful unacknowledged performances. That part is taken by Theresa Harris, who plays Chico in the film. Sadly, Theresa suffered this misfortune of being a side character throughout her career, but for a moment you will get the rare privilege to hear her remarkable and very talented singing voice, which is not to be missed.

Zach S (es) wrote: I thought the acting was quite decent for actors I've never heard of before and this movie took the original zombie film and added a pretty well thought out plot with a twist near the end that really caught my attention. Definitely worth a watch but not a buy.

Arslan K (ag) wrote: The acting was outstanding and so was the story

Lachlan D (au) wrote: Brad Anderson's "Transsiberian" is terrifically thrilling and engaging from start to finish.