The Cat and the Canary
Ten years have passed since the death of millionaire, Cyrus Norman. Cosby, Cyrus' attorney, has gathered Cyrus' 6 remaining relatives to his New Orleans' mansion for Cyrus' "reading of the will". To the others disappointment, Joyce is the sole heir, but, due to a streak of insanity running in the family, a second will has been made in case Joyce falls victim to it. This puts Joyce in danger. Suddenly, Miss Lu, Cyrus' maid, appears and warns them that the spirits have told her that one of them will die that night. Following this, Hendrick, a prison guard, warns them that, "The Cat", a homicidal maniac has escaped.
- Stars:Bob Hope, Paulette Goddard, John Beal, Douglass Montgomery, Gale Sondergaard, Elizabeth Patterson, George Zucco, Nydia Westman, John Wray, George Regas,
- Director:Elliott Nugent,
When an eccentric family meets in their uncle's remote, decaying mansion on the tenth anniversary of his death for the reading of his will, murder and madness follow. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
The Cat and the Canary torrent reviews
(es) wrote: my respects for Simon Pegg. A movie with a very sharp humor...
(br) wrote: the premise was good, shot in the style of amores pereros set in mumbai ... but certain characters lacked the punch and i felt having too many plots kinda ruined it in the end when it could have been an pretty good effort
(it) wrote: What a movie.... I want to head to Paris right now! This movie captures the charm of the city...
(ru) wrote: Bollywood :) There is no dancing around coconut trees but around some street lamps here...
(ag) wrote: It was different. But was it good? Not really. The ending fight and end sequence is fine. And so are the credits, but that doesn't make a movie. I don't even really get this storyline. It was weird. There's a splash of good old schizophrenia to round up the tale and a crazy guy that looks like Lil' Wayne. Like a lot of other space flicks that take place only a ship, there is some journey through the gigantic ship required to reach some means to some ends. You have homicidal alien creatures, as usual, their presence and existence and purpose makes no real sense at all. And chock it up to either me not paying any attention or it was poorly explained. Anyway, it's nothing to write home about.
(mx) wrote: Totally clever parody, spot on target writing. Pays a good deal of homage to the movie, "The Blob" which is even interwoven in the plot. The monster itself was perhaps a bit too hokey, but given the style of the day, it was still hokey. What counts is that they did it the old fashioned way, minus CGI (with the exception of the ship taking off, which was well done.) The Musical scoring, the inspirational closing speech, the makeup and hair, period props and vehicles all meticulously observed and mimicked. The cinematography was a bit too good,, for example; The shot of the vintage car, with the lights reflected off the roof was above and beyond what was called for in the shoot, it seemed more a tip of the hat to Director Zemeckis who features these trick shots in his movies. The opening "newsreel feature" was a good touch. I stayed up way later then I should have, enjoying this film.
(nl) wrote: Without Clavier as Asterix, Dpardieu now is the only real star in the film and he is the bright spot in an otherwise numb film. After Mission Cleopatra they again adapted one of the comic books but again didn't use much of the original material except for the title. The stupid and worthless cameos at the end of Tony Parker and Zinedine Zidane are hopefully the last nails in the coffin of this movie franchise.
(ru) wrote: Dominic West's performance as a joker proxy is forgivable in this languishing tribute to violence for violence sake.
(kr) wrote: this is a love sory about weddings
(au) wrote: Though I never had the slightest belief that a second cinematic adaptation of Solaris could transcend the success of Andrei Tarkovsky's 1972 adaptation, with Steven Soderbergh as director and George Clooney as the star I figured it couldn't be too bad.Although Solaris will undoubtedly draw comparisons to Andrei Tarkovsky's unbeatable adaptation of the text, Steven Soderbergh respectively makes the decision to focus his efforts on creating his own adaptation of the text rather than a remake. His adaptation is his own work and does not try to be anything else. Steven Soderbergh's adaptation of Solaris puts the focus on the relationship between the two main characters as it is essentially the heart of the tale. Unfortunately, it gets so caught up in doing so that it ends up ignoring a lot of the more complicated science fiction and psychological plot points that Andrei Tarkovsky's version touched upon. The visual effects and production design of the film do an impressive job of conveying the nature of the setting, but the central point of Solaris is that it is a science fiction concept for the mind and not for the eyes. Andrei Tarkovsky's adaptation only touched upon the concepts of the titular planet lightly to the disappointment to the author of the original text Stanislaw Lem, but Steven Soderbergh's does it even less. There is no sight of the supposed ocean that is the planet, and so the film really neglects its potential to expand upon what the author would have wanted, and it lacks enough psychological elements to stand up too high. Instead of focusing on the melancholic emptiness of being in space, Solaris constantly reminds viewers that the protagonist has constant human contact with the other character Doctor Gordon. Since the film has less running time than the original and limits its material to a mere 99 minutes of cinema, the movement of everything is a lot quicker and so the sense of emptiness is not felt, except for in the limited exploration of the material that Steven Soderbergh puts into the film. While Solaris has been criticized for its slow pace, it moves along at a quicker rate than Andrei Tarkovsky's adaptation, largely because among other things it only runs for around half the running time. I hardly felt that the pace of Solaris was anything but necessary because it once again worked to capture the intricate and humane nature of the premise. Unfortunately, there is just not enough of it. Frankly, Solaris is a stylish adaptation of its text, and I may not be the perfect person to critique it as I have never read the novel itself but I was very fond of the complex psychology presented in the 1972 adaptation which was not found in this version. Perhaps the adaptation feels a bit too contemporary and perhaps it is an unnecessary film as the ideologies and themes in the film were already proposed 30 years prior by Andrei Tarkovsky in a superior manner and by this point it just doesn't feel as intelligent. The screenplay itself maintains strong dialogue and there are some smart aspects to it, but it just feels all done before.But even though there is not too much new to learn from Steven Soderbergh's adaptation of the classic text, he still handles the film gently. As well as ensuring that the language in the film is intelligent and the atmosphere of the film is emotionally atmospheric in a gentle fashion, Steven Soderbergh really has Solaris looking and sounding good. With the use of the aforementioned production design and visual effects as well as strong cinematography techniques, Solaris is a very good looking and detailed film which is thoroughly convincing which is illuminated further by the use of colourful lighting. The simple yet effective production design of Solaris manages to depict a not too distant futuristic setting. And the musical score of the film is also strong, even though it cannot compare to the work of Eduard Artemyev, Cliff Martinez manages to create an appropriate mix of emotional and science fiction mood for Solaris. The film is a treat on the eyes and the ears as well as the mind, though the third option is determined by whether or not the viewer has seen Andrei Tarkovsky's version.The one area that Solaris actually succeeds at being better than the original is in the casting of its lead actor. George Clooney is perfect for the leading role of Dr. Chris Kelvin. In a performance which transcends the one given by Donatas Banionis in the original Solaris, George Clooney manages to approach his role in Solaris with a strong sense of emotional involvement in his role. Facing a complicated character but doing it with such humane dedication to the role, George Clooney manages to bring his role to life by convincing viewers that he truly understands the complicated concepts behind the narrative and then developing the character as he faces the emotionally complex nature of the narrative. George Clooney does not play his role as an archetype, he actively pours his heart and soul into the performance by slowly but surely exploring the emotional pain of his character and rendering audiences easily able to sympathise with him for all his suffering. He really puts a lot of depth into the role which single handily makes Solaris a very character driven feature, also meaning that his role in the film is one of the finest aspects of the production. George Clooney proves once again that he works well alongside Steven Soderbergh, and his leading performance is one of the much more sympathetic efforts of his career and potentially one of his finest.So while the 2002 adaptation of Solaris lacks the originality, depth and flair of Andrei Tarkovsky's superior 1972 adaptation Steven Soderbergh's directorial work ensures that it is an intelligently written, emotionally gentle and stylish film which looks and feels good all while it is anchored by an extremely touching lead performance from George Clooney.
(gb) wrote: Esto de las series B es la pura onda, excelentes efectos a cargo de Harry Haunhausen!
(fr) wrote: Beneath the Planet of the Apes is a fairly good sci-fi drama, but lacks the craft of the original. The story follows Brent, an astronaut sent to rescue Taylor, who ends up marooned on the same planet, but is taken captive by human mutants who live in the Forbidden Zone. James Franciscus, Linda Harrison, and Kim Hunter lead the cast and give solid performances. However, the poor effects hinder the film and (with the mystery of the planet revealed in the first film) it's hard to recreate the same suspense again. Still, the film finds an interesting place to take the story and expands the mythology. Ultimately, Beneath the Planet of the Apes fails to deliver on the promise of first film, and instead delivers a mediocre sequel.
(de) wrote: Reak mix modern London and Thor universe. This movie has plenty easter eggs on Marvel library, even far as Guardian of Galaxy are there on end. Great movie to rent.
(fr) wrote: The first one is usually the best one, and this is it.