The film takes off from the point where a wounded man is left to die in the desert. He survives the ordeal but loses his Identity. He then resorts to robbing solitary car drivers traversing on this highway. He becomes a Thug and finds an abandoned shed as his hideaway, where three troubled individuals Harry, Toto and Pali find him. They take him to their home in a nearby village and name his Baba, the beleaguered stowaway makes a deal with Harry that he will fight for his property seized by a local brute and in return Harry would help him find his real identity. When Harry is not of any help, Pali steps in. Baba and sympathetic Pali embarks on a very long journey to solve his mystery. Flashes of his wife, visions of being stabbed and then betrayed come rushing to his mind. His relentless search leads to something more diabolic than his expectations.
Cat T (mx) wrote: My goodness, this is bad. In a forgettable way. Unsympathetic and idiotic characters, beat-for-beat plot retreat of the 'Blair Witch Project', and I actually laughed aloud at the monster reveal.Better than some found footage movies, but only watch if you're bored or curious (even though the reveal is spoiled by both title and poster!).
Shakira C (de) wrote: love grown ups 2 and one its my fav comedy also Alex sandal is my favrote
Tibor B (ag) wrote: A very engrossing, poetic and visually impressive documentary from Chilean filmmaker Guzman, which takes two main themes , namely the Government cover-up of the murders of political prisoners in the 70s and the ongoing pain of the families and the perfect Astrological exploration site of the Atacama desert region, and explores their juxtaposition. The emotional heart of the movie is the painful sight of mothers, wives and sisters combing the desert for mummified remains of their loved ones. The intellectual spark is the comparison between astrologers and archaeologists as, technically, both camps have a passion for examining the past, eloquently explained by some very insightful scientists. Somehow Guzman finds the unity in these seemingly disparate themes, creating a very accomplished and fulfilling film.
SovaN M (gb) wrote: another wanna be american pie....nothing in it in the end....a comlete waste of time i think
Kyle M (ru) wrote: "Transporter 3" should've gotten a better gig even though it was character Frank Martin's most challenging of his delivery career.Frank Martin (Jason Statham) is now on a break from delivering packages. But until his younger, newly recruited replacement came to him to finish the delivery he was supposed to do, he was put into predicaments. He woke up with an explosive bracelet that'll explodes if he's too far away from his car. (Sounds like a similar concept being used in a sort-of good way when the character won't be away from the car that he always uses in the trilogy). He was forced to deliver a package and to be accompanied with a girl (newcomer Natalya Rudakova), another predicament when she's distractedly annoying throughout the film until her improved characteristic at (and only) the climax.This probable final installment of the trilogy was a trial to see if it'll be the best. It was generally helped by the usual traits of its predecessors such as Statham's performance in character and the action he brings to the pack. But this time the action was at a swooshing speed, faster than any action-packed moments to see single-handedly with few added thrills to some. Also, the film was going in three different paths following the same direction with one of them has the purpose of the forceful delivery and the girl's character.The girl, Valentina, represents the film's flawed energy that threatens the level. We viewers can relate to Frank's judgment towards the girl: stubbornly annoying, too much to handle. (Of course he was keeping this to himself while he's nicely cooperating with her since they're stuck together in this forceful gig). But Frank suddenly left his character when he forcefully fell under her attractive magic, showing his weakness when it comes to forceful love. She's like the witches in "The Crucible" putting viewers under their spell to like the horrible movie. I don't know why Natalya Rudakova wasn't nominated for Worst Actress (no offense)."Transporter 3" shows weakness in its flawed energy, but it's luckily a 4-star by benefiting from its usual traits of Statham's character and better action. However, it deserved a better gig while the car is hanging over the edge of the cliff towards a 3.5-star rating - on the verge of falling. (B+)
Steven M (us) wrote: Surprised me. Acting was actually pretty solid throughout and I found a lot of the characters to be quite interesting, even if a plot based on mutant wasps remains about as ridiculous throughout the film as it does when first heard. Okay, I love wasps, so I'm quite biased being for this movie.
Lovro H (ru) wrote: This movie feels more like a remake of the original, than the actual remake did. It has more similiarities with the original than the remake had, but it still isn't better than the original! This is supposed to be a prequel to the remake, and while we do get some answers for some things that we saw in the remake, this doesn't feel like a prequel. This could've been a sequel, as well, since the story is the same as in previous installments. A couple of kids going on a roadtrip, they get captured, tortured, eaten, all the usual things. The characters this time are okay, but again, careless. They made some very stupid decisions and for their outcome you don't even care. The atmosphere and the feel of this movie is great, though! It's really nasty and disturbing. It captures the atmosphere of the original really well. The acting is quite nice for this type of a movie. There is a lot of gory scenes, probably the most in the series. While it can be hard to watch sometimes, it's really cool at the same time! The ending is almost as in the original. The dinner scene is great, really loved that they decided to add that in this movie, since the remake didn't have that scene. The twist at the end is, well... It's quite lame. I wasn't really amused by it. All in all, a good horror film worthy of the name Texas Chainsaw Massacre and a must-see for fans!
Corey V (de) wrote: Real Gangst, but something is lacking for sure.
Lee B (it) wrote: I?ve been burned before, so that?s why I looked into this movie before watching. And it appeared to be landing more on the high-brow. But this movie really didn?t need to be a supernatural kind of ?scary? movie. Or even lumped into the ABC-horror category. It would have probably been a better movie as a teenage drama about lesbian love with a non-linear mystery narrative. The supernatural stuff isn?t necessary. And that is not a spoiler, that?s kind of how it is sold. And I guess it was controversial when it came out. But I thought the horror stuff would be more prominent. I was more surprised by how well they handled the other stuff.But, damn that score. It is really annoying during the climax. And some ill placed kung-fu flick sound effects had me laughing. And the movie really killed everything when it was trying to kill everything. But it is a nice story that is stuck in a bad movie.
Freeman M (ca) wrote: Sloppy, predictable and incredibly forgettable mid-90s teen comedy that never once tricks you into thinking it's interesting. Ever.
Grant S (es) wrote: Silly and badly made.The original Re-Animator was a mixed bag. It started well and was even plausible for a while. From a point, however, the plot lost focus and goes from silly to ridiculous and cheesy.Bride of Re-Animator pretty much picks up where Re-Animator left off. That is, plausible, focused plot has been dispensed with and it is in Stupid mode, from Minute 1. Production values are as bad as Re-Animator, if not worse. Bad sound quality, bad synching of sound with video, very cheap props.Really nothing to recommend about Bride of Re-Animator, except the appearance of Fabiana Udenio...
MaDavitu R (nl) wrote: ichiban never gets old.
Leah Z (us) wrote: My all time fav JC movie. I'm still waiting for it to come out on DVD.
Alexandre R (es) wrote: Suspense hitchcockien superbement ralis, dont l'excellent travail de direction photographique souffre d'une restauration bcle qui ne fait pas honneur aux qualits esthtiques du film. Toutefois, l'intrigue est tellement bien mene que a n'empche pas le spectateur de s'immerger.D'excellentes performances de la part de tous les acteurs, avec un petit coup de coeur personnel pour Gloria Grahame que j'adore dfinitivement. Joan Crawford est bien entendu la hauteur du talent qu'on lui connat, et Jack Palance (jeune!) est tout fait monstrueux. Une finale puissante.
Teana Y (it) wrote: Very good acting by Clive Owen and Natalie Portman. Jude Law was also perfect for his character. Loved the lines.
Thomas T (fr) wrote: I read the book like reading any book, but I watched the film like watching any classic masterpiece.