You may also like
The Bachelor Weekend torrent reviews
carrie c (us) wrote: This one has a false title there is not even a ghost in this movie.
Jason C (ru) wrote: A sci film that had promise, but got lost in its murky story. The ambiguous ending left me wondering if the script writers ran out of ideas. Interesting to have seen once, but not sure that give it a second viewing.
natalie j (au) wrote: Saw this years ago and it scared the crap out of me. Didn't quite live up to that first time when I watched it more recently, but it's certainly worth watching if you like gruesome horror films.
James D (mx) wrote: I own it, so I might as well see it once.
Collin P (mx) wrote: Alien Resurrection definitely falls into a category of bad with Batman and Robin. With cartoonish violence and design, awful dialogue, bad acting and way too much slime, Alien Resurrection is one of the worst movies ever made.
Mereie d (ru) wrote: In Under Fire (1983), Roger Spottiswoode succeeded very well in portraying the grim realism of the dictatorial regime in Nicaragua in the late seventies, focusing on the experiences of American journalists in particular. I was impressed both by the graphic insights he gave us on political matters and by the way he depicted certain unsavory characters in the story (Trintignant is excellent, and so is Ed Harris as an opportunist mercenary and Ren Enrquez as President Somoza). Like many directors, Spottiswoode tends to take a left-wing stance. In topics like these, this is understandable and only just, though I prefer a slightly more balanced view on things. Thematically, this movie is not unlike Salvador (1986), in which Oliver Stone depicts the political goings on in El Salvador in roughly the same period, also on the basis of the fieldwork activities of American journalists. Stone also takes a clear stand against the regime, but unlike Spottiswoode, he leaves some room for other views: at one point a (right-wing) American explains to James Woods that the regime may be objectionable, but the alternative (Communist dictatorship) would be ten times worse. In Under Fire, the Sandinistas revolutionaries seem to be glorified, but never criticized in any way. In Salvador, Woods is at least shocked to see that the victorious revolutionaries do not hesitate to execute possible adversaries just as easily as those they have just overthrown did in the recent past. The only ones with more nuanced views in Under Fire are Trintignant (a creepy individual) and Harris (a shameless opportunist), both of whom we are not supposed to sympathize with. For the above reasons, I prefer Salvador to Under Fire, although Under Fire is not at all a bad film. It is instructive and realistic (and perhaps a bit too idealistic, but who cares). The duration could have been shorter, but that would have taken some of the realism away, I should imagine.
Anatoly S (ag) wrote: - Look, do you want to be leader of this gang?- No, we agreed: No leader!- Right. So shut up and do as I say.
Kevin R (jp) wrote: A dreamy and interesting film, based on a book which had an additional chapter the publishers decided not to include it claims to be in some small way based on actual events but is complete fiction. Well worth a watch or two this film is artsy and sort of eerie.
Christopher A (mx) wrote: Most of the time you'll smile or chuckle.
deep d (de) wrote: A thriller from 1964 featuring the great Olivia de Havilland and introducing James Caan. It's about a lady who gets trapped in her home elevator and these thugs who break in and cause all kinds of trouble. Great black & white cinematography, very suspenseful screenplay that keeps you on the edge of your seat. Mr. Caan is wonderful as a horrible character, and the film was definitely ahead of its time. Apparently its graphic violence led it to being banned in Britian. For 1964, the movie is graphic. I was expecting "Lady in a Cage" to be a campy melodrama, but instead I was pleasantly surprised at how effective a thriller it is.
Mike M (us) wrote: Lacking nearly every element that made the first "Damned" movie so memorable (the blonde children; the claustrophobic village; the near-omnipotence of the kids mysterious power; the stilted, unaffected speech pattern) "Children of the Damned" eventually plays out as bad melodrama. A sequel that, unsurprising, pales to the original. If this had been the opening entry, it's highly doubtful there'd have been a second.
Nicholas L (nl) wrote: The Bourne Legacy has a few interesting fight scenes, but it is no Jason Bourne movie and you can't help but feel this is a slap in the face from Tony Gilroy to the real franchise achievers, Greengrass and Damon.
Ashley D (au) wrote: Im not at all a Wes Anderson fan but this attempt at mimicking his style and trying to be artsy is poor add this to the fact that I don't like movies of this style even when Wes anderson does them I really don't get these types of films barely watchable I struggled to last the 82 minutes a waste of a decent cast