International students enjoy exploring an abandoned basement that has been abandoned for long. But what starts off as an exploratory séance ends in bloody mayhem when a malicious entity is summoned. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
The Basement torrent reviews
Tim S (br) wrote: Since the disappointment of the first film (shaky cam, lack of character development i.e. Rue) I'd been hoping that the second film would be better and I wasn't disappointed. No shaky cam, emotional impact, and a touch of humour. Made all the difference for me. Even so, it still helps to have read the book first.
Scott M (gb) wrote: When I was quite a bit younger, I was always impressed by family films and/or kid-pics that acknowledged harsh truths of life and/or dealt frankly with darker subject matters. Of course, in today's marketplace, what we consider 'kids films' are basically the same PG-13 rated blockbusters that everyone else sees and/or the mass-market PG-rated animated pictures that attempt to entertain adults and kids at the same time. Since there are fewer and fewer big-studio films made for adults, it stands to reason that there is less of a need for explicitly kid-friendly movies of this nature. Nonetheless, if you have young kids and want some middle ground between Cars 2 and Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Snowmen will likely fit the bill. It is a throwback of sorts to the kind of movie that seemed tailor-made to be screened in elementary schools during 'movie day'. It is a product of an age where kids still needed movies that were appropriate for them and didn't always have to talk down to them. The plot, slight as it is, concerns the plight of young Billy Kirkfield (Bobby Coleman), a young boy who has been suffering from a reoccurring cancer for several years. After overhearing word from his doctor that his health is not improving, Billy sets out on a quest of sorts to give his life some meaning in the time he thinks he has left (he wants, to paraphrase Roger from Rent, 'one great song before he dies'). Spurred on the local media coverage when Billy and his friends discover a frozen corpse in their backyard, Billy sets out to set a record, any record, that will get him into the Guinness Book of World Records. Billy quickly settles on setting a new mark for the most amount of snowmen built at one time, and thus the proverbial clock is set. While the film is less overtly morose than something like One Last Thing, the picture never shies away from the reality that Billy may not have much time left. His father, Reggie Kirkfield (a fine Ray Liotta) slowly realizes that he has been playing the role of the obsessively positive patriarch not for Billy's sake, but for his own, while Billy's friends are relatively casual about their friend's condition. Aside from the obvious undertones that exist, the film works as a relatively amusing, if occasionally generic coming-of-age story (confrontation with bullies, dealing with first crushes, etc). At its core, writer/director Robert Kirbyson's obvious labor of love comes off like a toned-down, somewhat more realistic variation on Mark Steven Johnson's often fantastical Simon Birch. To its credit, it does contain a glorified cameo from Christopher Lloyd in a wonderful scene which contains the actor's best theatrical role since, I dunno, Angels in the Outfield. Snowmen is a simple pleasure, an unpretentious and generally charming kids' film that will remind you of the kind of stuff that your parents used to force you to watch instead of letting you watch Robocop or Silence of the Lambs. It is unapologetic about its subject matter and only occasionally goes for the easy emotional beat. It earns points for not pandering to its younger audience members, as well as kudos for not drowning in time-sensitive pop-culture references (as such, the film has a timeless quality that will serve it well). It has simple and small-scale goals and achieves all of them with a token amount of class. Come what may, Snowmen is a fun little movie for an audience that no longer has films made specifically for them.
Brian R (gb) wrote: "Three Times" is a very slow pace picture based on three different stories and three different time periods. Hou Hsiao-hsien's main focus here is the growing fondness of love, communication, and human emotions. All done almost effortlessly.
Tadamori Y (br) wrote: Yeah. at first I thought it was real but then it just got more and more bizarre. Good acting.
Alexander Z (br) wrote: You know, I could deal with the mean-spiritedness of this "comedy" if the two main characters weren't so goddamn fucking stupid. Like, insanely dumb. Unbelievably moronic. There's no way in any reality that anyone could be so imbecilic, and it kills any humor to be found in Duplex.
Kenneth L (ru) wrote: Shows what Dog Day Afternoon Sony would have done if he was a super spy Mossod agent on the scale of a 911 type operation.
Kyle R (fr) wrote: Woody's segment is great; the other two are awful.
Jeremy B (it) wrote: Horribly dorky. Definitely not worth the time.
Brett C (ru) wrote: Review In A Nutshell:Wise Blood would be the first film I have seen that was directed by John Huston. I was expecting to come out of this film highly satisfied as the film's premise seems darkly comedic and digestible. Sadly I was left disappointed, and has possibly lowered my expectations for the next film that I would be seeing from Huston.The film tells the tale of a man who came back from the war, and has decided to start his own church/religion called The Church of Truth Without Christ. I found the story to be funny at first because the protagonist shows so much dedication and ambition to something that was clearly going to fail, but as the film went on, it became much darker and things don't seem as hilarious as it was at the start, therefore having me feel distant with the the road that the lead character has taken. The film's protagonist, Hazel Motes, somehow reminds me of Alexander DeLarge from Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, due to their unlikable nature and having "different" views and values than the common society. The main difference between the two is the, presence of a redeeming quality. Hazel Motes was kept as an unlikable person until around the last 15 minutes of the film, and even in those last 15 minutes when the film was supposed to bring something out of a character or at least make some sort of statement of it, it kept us at a distant view instead. Huston makes it difficult to empathise the rationales of Motes' actions.The film doesn't so much judge Christianity, but instead it judges the people that use it for personal gain. As we follow Hazel Motes, we see particular individuals who have used religion to either gain financially, celebrity, or self-importance. This idea would have made a much bigger impact if the film's protagonist isn't flawed like the others. Hazel Motes has personal issues of his own that he is subconsciously trying to cover up/repair, and he is doing it through his ambition to start a religion. I personally believe that one is truly religious, regardless of which one as I also think all religions are just as important equally, if they demonstrate blind faith.The found the film's cinematography to be quite satisfying but I felt it could have been used better in emphasising the film's themes and creating more layers for it's protagonist. The film's score on the other hand was top notch; it successfully draws you in to the land of the south and the people that fill it. The beautiful sound of that guitar strumming and the striking violins that give that sense of relaxation and sweetness. I found it quite ironic, how the film's score comes off as heartwarming and very sympathetic but the characters that are shown on screen shows no shred of that quality at all.The film's acting was actually pleasing with a good performance from Brad Dourif as Hazel Motes. It's due to Dourif's acting that the audience was able to get that sense of dedication and egotistical nature found in the film's protagonist; making the film's plot seem more convincing than it actually is. Dan Shor as Enoch Emory was decent in the role, but I found his character to be dismissive and not really adding anything to the film's ideas; he is instead used as a plot driver for our protagonist. Harry Dean Stanton who I last remembered seeing with an amazing performance in Paris, Texas, again showcasing in this film just how great and essential he is as an actor. Though his role doesn't have much of a screen time as I have hoped, nevertheless better than none at all. Amy Wright and Ned Beatty were also great in their roles but suffered the same fate as Stanton's character, shown only in a limited amount of time; but at least their characters proved to be more valuable than Dan Shor's role.Wise Blood had potential but sadly fails in having me caring for the protagonist's attempt to reach his goal. At least the film contains a wonderful score and top notch acting.
James H (jp) wrote: Surprisingly pleasant musical. Doris Day is delightful. Good songs, enjoyable and clever story. Well produced, some great sets. Nicely photographed.
Aidan S (ru) wrote: The reason I dislike this movie is because why did they kill off "Satori Imada" played by the chick from Rambo 2 and that Chuck Norris film "Sidekicks" yeah I know she had to sacrifice herself but what was the point of having her in the movie if you just killed her off. But really... 2007 is where Andy Dick is a Weather Reporter and there are gangs hitting the streets of New Angeles... Weird!!! But yes I love this movie.
David J (mx) wrote: An amazing film best boxing film of all time.
Sean G (au) wrote: I know I shouldn't like this movie (predictable plot, formulaic) but it was so stupidly funny, I had to love it.
Larry Y (us) wrote: One of the most thoughtful, creative films ever. It doesn't hand you a detailed explanation of everything that transpires; rather, it crafts an amazing, creepy, exciting, scary world and then allows you to live in it, and sometimes you have to find your own meanings. Incredibly well acted, by everyone involved. And the eeriness of Robin Wright playing herself (yet not herself, of course), and bringing such great depth to the character adds enormously to the film.I think the pace of the film may have turned some people off who might otherwise have appreciated it. It's *not* an action-adventure kind of science fiction (SF). It's an inventive and contemplative kind of SF. In literary SF you'd be tempted to call it "idea SF", except the characters are so well drawn and well acted here that it goes well beyond that. If you decide to try the film, drop all expectations and just go with it. Let it wash over you and go live in it for a while. It's a pleasantly mind-bending experience if you let it be.
Wendy M (us) wrote: One of my favorite movies of all time. No, it isn't the most realistic spy movie of all time but it's frickin brilliant. It's funny, witty, and the two leads just pull off their role with pure style!