When financial woes threaten their church's future, a group of teens, led by one talented performer, enters a song and dance competition in hopes of winning a heavenly cash prize. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Sunday School Musical
Two competing groups of high school students must rally together and enter a song and dance competition in order to save their church from closing.
- Stars:Devin Bowie, Christopher Burnham, Cuffs, Jaz Garewal, Raj Garewal, Chris Chatman, Candise Lakota, Krystle Connor, Robert Acinapura, Amy Ganser, Millena Gay, Dustin Fitzsimons, Cliff Tan, Mark Hengst, Rae Silva, Kesha Ealy, Shane Carther Thomas, Debra Lynn Hull, Justin Spanko, Daniel J. Roberts,
You may also like
Sunday School Musical torrent reviews
Stefan G (it) wrote: You'd think that by 2013 Hollywood would have figured out that there's simply no room for the old action films, but apparently somebody actually wanted a "Die Hard 5". I can think of so many reasons why a fifth Die Hard film was a terrible idea to begin with, and most of them exemplify a central problem - Die Hard as a film franchise was only good for a few meritorious films, and then it hibernated for over a decade, and immediately lost steam as soon as the producers tried reviving it. Essentially, Die Hard was a film franchise that died, and was quickly forgotten, and the producers honestly thought they could just bring it back without even trying to make it relevant to a newer generation of cinemagoers. Needless to say, they failed spectacularly, and right from the beginning it's painfully obvious that they couldn't hide from that. Even the title sequence tries using trendy graphics to make gullible viewers think that this is a next-generation Die Hard film, but really it's just a Steven Seagal movie with Bruce Willis filling Seagal's shoes. Making matters worse is a clearly uninspired story plagued by wildly liberal use of outdated action film clichs, and an extremely frail script. This could be forgiven in a low budget straight-to-DVD production, but for a film intended for cinematic release, there should have been higher standards. Despite this being a by-the-numbers Die Hard film, the most jarring aspect of the film, believe it or not, is how much of an insufferable jerk John McClane became in this film. If you loved him in the classic Die Hard, get ready to hate him as he shouts at a Russian man because he can't understand what he's saying. Is that the action hero audiences came to love in the late 1980's? Also, he and his son are quite horrible to each other, but then again, I highly doubt that any of the actors playing them had any interest in the plot. As for McClane's son, who is played incompetently by Jai Courtney, his character doesn't surprise me that much. In fact, one could say that the apple didn't fall too far from the tree. The other characters simply blend into the background due to bad acting and even worse writing. Another thing I should talk about is the film's poor presentation. For a film that apparently needed an excessive $92 million to make, it looks absolutely appalling. There's a noticeable absence of colour here, to the point that most scenes look like they were coloured with a bad mix of grey and blue. The production values are beyond awful, and it just makes me wonder how the producers spent their money. Did it go towards marketing, makeup, drugs? It seriously begs an explanation, since I find it hard to believe that a project this expensive looks so cheap. Even the action scenes look badly done, to the point that it's extremely obvious that the producers were hoping to compensate for a badly written plot with guns and explosions, as if the producers had no idea that 1980's are long gone. Overall, it's definitely the worst Die Hard film ever made, but somehow it goes beyond just being that. In fact, I'd say this is undoubtedly one of the worst action films of all time. In fact, we'd probably be better off if the Die Hard franchise would simply stay dead.
Mary C (it) wrote: Good acting but the film needs to be longer because the momentous events of WWII and Churchill's life are glossed over. Nothing is explored in depth.
Eleonora E (us) wrote: I've never seen such a brilliant comedy about love. The film is original and extremely unique in its style. Through multiple couples, the film narrates the different stages of love, from the sexy meet cute to cheating after years of marriage. If you haven't seen this movie, go rent it now!
Ken M (ag) wrote: It's not just a good, well-written comedy movie; it has great characters, as well as an engaging storyline that prevents the drama from ever being boring.
Chris G (es) wrote: Well directed and sharply written, the self aware noir masterpiece is brought to life the perfect performance from the three leads, particularly Kilmer.
monsieur r (gb) wrote: Not a terribly exciting or intriguing romance drama for most of the movie, the film does get some traction 2/3rds of the way through. Has lots of Miami Vice qualities, not the least of which is the use of the band Tangerine Dream in the soundtrack to great effect. A local diner provides a common meeting ground for these two long time friends who's frienship is sorely tested over a common female relationship. As a matter of fact, this eighties film uses all the same locations, moodiness, colors, pacing, camerawork and noirish qualities of the TV show Miami Vice. While not a crime drama, this one is a romantic love triangle between two very good friends and a woman. A coming of age film but not with teens, but with mid-thirty something guys. There is really nothing really memorable, remarkable or gripping about this movie. It was Carol Waynes'(of Carson's Tonight Show fame) last film before she mysteriously died in Mexico. The plot is based somewhat on the real life artist Robert Blue. A struggling artist loses his long time girlfriend over money squabbles but does eventually become successful. His friendship is incredibly strained with a now love seeking businessman and childhood friend over a woman (Carol Laure) at the art gallery. She flirts with both causing predictable, terrible results. The word: Heartbreaker, the title, is used once by Carol Wayne in the film to describe the artist. This film is definately not to be confused with the later Heartbreakers with Gene Hackman made in 2001. Two totally different plots. Not really able recommend this, as it seems a bit rambling until the very end. See it yourself and decide. Soundtrack includes tunes from Pat Benetar, Itta James, Otis Redding, Tangerine Dream. It may take two viewings to fully appreciate. Directed by Bobby Roth Starring Peter Coyote Nick Mancuso Carol Laure (as the common love interest) Carol Wayne as Candy Music by Tangerine Dream (of TV's Miami Vice soundtrack)
Garry M (mx) wrote: What a knockout ! Saw it last night on SBS Australia, and could barely sleep for its effect.
Marisa S (us) wrote: Yes, yes... we have superman, batman, the x-mans... who ever pops up... But, lets admit it... Indiana Jones is Indiana Jones!
Allan C (ag) wrote: Another fine piece of 1970s exploitation directed by Jack Hill (Spider Baby, Switchblade Sisters) and starring the always great Pam Grier (Coffy, Jackie Brown).
Donald D (fr) wrote: It struggles a little, but it has this strange feeling like the writer/director knows what he's doing more than we do. It's a big step up from your average thriller, and I'm honestly inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, even if it has some weaker or strange moments. Some of that strange is good.
David H (br) wrote: This was an exceptional film. Robert Downey Jr. has Chaplin down to the very finest detail. I thought for 1993 it would have easily won one of the Academy Awards it was nominated for. It moved rather fast in some spots but most people didn't know a lot of Chapin's life in general and there is quite a lot that went on! Loved the film.
Michael O (gb) wrote: Absorbing zombie flick that nearly deserves its cult status.