Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat

Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat

Reclusive vampires lounge in a lonely American town. They wear sun cream to protect themselves. A descendant of Van Helsing arrives with hilarious consequences.

Reclusive vampires lounge in a lonely American town. They wear sun cream to protect themselves. A descendant of Van Helsing arrives with hilarious consequences. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat torrent reviews

bill b (nl) wrote: Its not a bad film but there is something lacking....

Holly V (fr) wrote: I really want to know what happens

Chris Z (es) wrote: Almost another Johnnie To masterpiece. A film ripe for an American re-make. A detective investigating the disappearance of a (murdered) policeman enlists the help of a formerly brilliant police profiler who has gone mad, and now claims to be able to see people's inner personalities as real people. He tracks his delusions on the case, but as he goes deeper and deeper, the young detective begins to reach the conclusion: this man is simply insane. Is he on the trail of a true criminal? Or is he simply tracking his own paranoid delusions and hallucinations around his imaginary and psychotic world?Misses some of the raw style and unique technique that Johnnie To is famous for, but the guts are still here. Ultimately not as great as his various Triad films, but still a very solid film.

Devon B (fr) wrote: An uptight med student gets kidnapped by a bunch of dirty pot-growing hippies. No, really. Not that I have anything against dirty hippies, but these dirty hippies are also obnoxious and arrogant people who treat the uptight kid condescendingly. For some reason, the uptight med student likes the upheaval these unpleasant hippies bring to his life, and stays with them in the woods. The hippies all live in the woods like children, throwing random temper tantrums, but is that the point? Is Humboldt County a horror movie, revealing the ugly truth about escapism? Is it an indictment of the 60s generation? If the film had had a little more depth, had the characters not been so universally repulsive, the lesson might've had more impact. But these so-called "real" people are more self-centered and less empathetic than the worst stereotypical yuppy. As it is, there's very little to actually like here, outside of the under-used Peter Dogdanovich.

Nathan M (it) wrote: You got to watch those undersea archaeologists... they are sooo good looking. Negative 5 stars.

Maggie L (fr) wrote: What the heck is this?

Jussi M (fr) wrote: Outo ja jokseenkin hiriintynyt leffa. Turhan hidastempoinen ns. taideleffa. niraita tuki mainiosti vinksahtanutta tunnelmaa.

Russ V (es) wrote: Mortal Kombat Annihilation is bad enough to be mistaken as a parody.

Moriah F (au) wrote: Waste. Of. Time. Why did Shane make me watch this movie????

Wes S (es) wrote: Not very good. The story is a bit lame, and it ruins the sad ending of the 1976 film. Characters aren't very interesting and the Kong suits are pathetic. Way too much monkey love in this one and some terrible scenes, but there are some good parts as well.

Shalanda S (es) wrote: Man I so totally love this movie, its a great horror classic! Okay so its kind of low on gore but Catherine is raped by a severed murdering Hand!!!

Isla B (us) wrote: Too much naked Clooney.

Blake P (de) wrote: I've found that some filmmakers make their best movies when working outside the genre they've come to be acclaimed for. Woody Allen scoffed at fanciful comedy for arrant drama in 1978's "Interiors," Alfred Hitchcock walked away from the straight thriller for the malevolent slasher flick with 1960's "Psycho," and Adam McKay turned a blind eye from silly comedy by making one of the most acclaimed films of 2015, "The Big Short." A test of talent can solidify a director's notoriety. Known mostly for screwball comedies ("The Pink Panther," "The Great Race"), Blake Edwards defied preconceived ideas circling around his works by broadening his strengths in 1962, through "Days of Wine and Roses" and "Experiment in Terror," both starring Lee Remick. Dramas of high stature, they came at the beginning of Edwards's enduring professional career yet aren't what normally comes to mind when his name is uttered, surely because Audrey Hepburn vehicle "Breakfast at Tiffany's" came only a year before them. But "Experiment in Terror" is perhaps the most overlooked of the bunch, being that it is more evasively escapist than it is glowing and confessional. A psychological thriller of the film noir camp and starring a wrinkled Glenn Ford, it is nothing more than a big screen TV-movie-of-the-week in the mood for a couple chords of suspense. But, being murkily stylish and innovative in its inky imagery, it convinces us that it is a pulse-pounder of more merit than we'd like to admit, partly because it reminds us just what an alluring genre noir can be (visually, that is) and partly because we are tempted to succumb to the stocky artifice of its dialogue and acting. We've seen it all before, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a few tricks up its sleeve. Its success has much to do with its story, which, while being TV-movie-of-the-week in concept, is still effective in pulling us into its web of intrigue. The film opens with the stunning Kelly Sherwood (Remick) pulling her white convertible into her California home's driveway, the night sky clear and unassuming. But her otherwise routine day is stabbed in the throat when the garage door seemingly closes by itself; seconds later, an asthmatic intruder lets himself be known. Grabbing our heroine by the neck into a chokehold, he makes his intentions clear: in a few days time, she will steal thousands from the bank in which she works, delivering the money to him without pause. Cause trouble, and she, along with her teenage sister (Stefanie Powers), will die. But while Kelly is understandably terrified, she is no fool. Immediately contacting the FBI and using conversational tactics that avoid suspicion (her terrorizer always seems to be listening, watching), agent John Ripley (Ford) is assigned to the case, which initially seems simple to its core. But because Kelly never had a good look at his mug, the criminal's identity is impossible to decipher - and it doesn't help that he is much more than your dim-witted bad guy, ahead of every step, every precaution, the FBI takes to protect Kelly and her sister. Admittedly, "Experiment in Terror" is too long (at two hours) and doesn't bear as many plot twists as we'd hope it'd have (we become convinced that Kelly might know more than she lets on, which is, unfortunately, not the truth). It's a decently average game of cat-and-mouse told with top-notch style, brought to life by actors who could go through the motions of the plot in their sleep. I especially admired Ross Martin's portrayal of the mastermind behind Kelly's predicament, which is wheezy and menacing yet somehow contains a hint of humanity. It doesn't hurt that the film is also aided by a Henry Mancini score, which has the power to make any movie have the aroma of something metropolitan, something regally dangerous. Edwards's direction is rigid, and the climactic chase, set in Candlestick Park, showcases noir filmmaking at its most grandiose. Just don't expect a masterpiece - take away its style and star power and you get unimpressive formula. Good formula, though.

Richard W (fr) wrote: While Burton's 'Returns' was not exactly a box-office bomb, it made half the ticket sales of its' predecessor at double the production cost: not the most promising numbers when you're talking about the sophomore release in what a big-time studio like WB intends to turn into a blockbuster franchise. To top it off, WB put the final nail in the coffin when they made a deal with national theater chains to take a *much* larger cut of ticket sales than ever before, namely under the assumption that 'Returns' would far outsell the original '89 film. Also, WB gave Burton full creative control, but spent ludicrous amounts of money on a kid-friendly marketing blitz that dwarfed even the hype of the original film, with little to no oversight during production. When the film finally hit theaters and turned out to be *far* darker than anyone had previously imagined, there was an enormous moral backlash.Tasked with making Batman a more family-friendly silver-screen superhero, while keeping the film cinematically stylish and 'edgy' for MTV and Nickelodeon-era teens, Joel Schumacher's first effort in the Bat-franchise was a monumental one, and one that has not exactly aged well (although it does fare far better than its' 1997 follow-up, 'Batman & Robin'). 'Batman Forever' is a little too cartoonish to be a film for teenagers, and a little too visually bombastic to be a film for kids - and while it boasts perhaps one of the most stellar casts in a Batman film to date, a lot of the roles feel like so much wasted potential under the screenwriting of Akiva Goldsman and Lee & Janet Scott Batchler.Indeed, Val Kilmer was at the height of his popularity, Jim Carrey was an enormous box-office draw, Nicole Kidman looked to have all the makings of a leading lady, Chris O'Donnell made for an extremely marketable Robin, and anyone who has seen Tommy Lee Jones act knows that he could have easily made an excellent Two-Face. As it stands, Kilmer makes a serviceable Batman, and even gives some small measure of gravity to the role, even if it is mostly superficial. Tommy Lee Jones trades in an opportunity to paint one of the dark knight's most troubled foes in a sympathetic light, instead opting to merely treat Two-Face like an angry impersonation of Jack Nicholson's Joker. Jim Carrey, on the other hand, does exactly what Jim Carrey did best in the 90s': in short, spastic slapstick. It's a little more toned down in comparison to movies like Ace Ventura, The Mask and Dumb and Dumber, but the obvious flair for physical comedy is still there, and it all feels very much like the trappings of a Saturday morning cartoon, which is both its' biggest flaw and its' saving grace.Indeed, as a film, it's largely inoffensive to the tastes. In this day and age, where we're used to superhero movies being set to a slightly higher standard, it's sure to upset quite a few people; but more than anything, it was merely a product of its' time - and to its' credit, the formula paid off. At the end of the day, its' story and performances are no worse than an expensively-produced Saturday morning cartoon. Kidman plays a love interest that is sorely lacking for depth and dimension, but fills the role of damsel-in-distress and eye-candy extraordinarily well. And Chris O'Donnell's Robin is, like the rest of this film, enjoyable in the right mindset; not particularly noteworthy, but not particularly bad either. The costumes and set design are a little garish, even when compared to 'Returns', but are still well-designed (bat-nipples notwithstanding, although I don't seem to have the problems with them that most people do).When all is said and done, even with Kilmer trying to wax poetic about the origin of Batman - a Batman that is actually fairly well-developed - 'Batman Forever' is a shallow-yet-enjoyable 90s blockbuster that can be worth a watch if you're willing to not take it so seriously. But in comparison to the types of superhero fare produced in this day and age, it couldn't really hope to stand up to any kind of major scrutiny.

Craig W (de) wrote: Van Damme is the bad guy, his first film i think.

Vic V (jp) wrote: Good solid western that actually show what life was like back then - "...kinda slow pardner..." Its well written, acted, and directed evolving into a tight polygon of emotional baggage resulting in a tight family drama among them all with a nice twist. Excellent emotional scene with dad and mom and daughter. True-to-life ending. Good flashbacks tell the story well. Panoramic cinematography - almost makes you want to hold a bottle of water its so dry and hot. Most of all it makes one appreciate that they did not have to live back then.