A group of students are en route to the beach for spring break when their car overheats near a crumbling hunting lodge, leaving them alone and defenseless while an unseen force attacks them from all sides. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
The Eves torrent reviews
Vessela D (ru) wrote: A very good movie, full of suspense and unexpected turns... :) Many Bulgarian actors are playing in it and the final scene is shot in Bulgaria...:)
paul s (it) wrote: This film has at its core a really overused plot - the estranged young son forced to re-unite with a parent, who then, after a bumpy ride, learn to love each other. But by its gritty, low down tone, somehow the film manages to keep from becomming overy maudlin. What keeps Trucker afloat is indeed the portrayal of a female trucker and all that signifies - the yearning for independance and being your own person, beholden to no-one but yourself. This is what makes this film rise above a throwaway, as though, yes, you've seen this plot before, but never in this way. Michelle Monaghan is very solid and carries the film well and the child actor does an adequit job of portraying the bitterness and false bravado necessary of the role. But... a few things I found disconcerting. First, there's an overly long scene at the VFW with Monaghan and her neighbor dancing - ok, we get the message, now move on - no reason for a 5 minute segment showing the two having some fun - could have had the same effect in 1-2 minutes tops. Certainly a "filler" moment for me. Then there is the constant reference to Monaghan's "beauty" - including a bit of dialog about her chest. To each their own I suppose, but she's certainly not chesty and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so it didn't do the film any favors to keep harping on it. Besides, the film would be making a much better statement if it would have allowed that Monaghan's charactor was catnip because she was such a free spirit instead of some kind of beauty queen. It would have fit the flavor of the film much, much better; I'm just saying...
Murder C (ru) wrote: I do love films bloody horror movies and exploitation flicks with sex and ultra violence. Movies like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Clockwork Orange", "Evil Dead" and "Cannibal Holocaust" are all classic examples of horrifying movies that are well worth watching. And then there is "Murder-Set-Pieces", a exploitation slasher filled with sex, gore, violence and death all being turned up to 11 while the story is a big fat zero. "Murder-Set-Pieces" is badly directed (everything is very dark), horribly acted (except for Tony Todd who is doing a cameo I don't see anyone else in this having a movie career going for them) and there is no storyline to follow. The entire movie just follows a manic serial killer called 'The Photographer' (Sven Garrett) fucking and killing women. And scene by scene is him either fucking or killing someone, nothing more. If it wasn't for the 'cool' cameos by horror icons such as Tony Todd ("Candyman"), Gunnar Hansen and Edwin Neal (both from "Texas Chainsaw Massacre") and some 'cool' gore effects I would give this movie a even lower rating, but still this is a terrible movie that is nothing but a waste of time.
Tyler B (mx) wrote: all i have to say is chick flick
Stuart K (ag) wrote: Directed by Mike Nichols (The Graduate (1967), Catch-22 (1970) and The Birdcage (1996)), and adapted from the 1996 book by Joe Klein (credited as Anonymous), this is a biting political satire which came out when Bill Clinton was being scrutinised for the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The fact that it's stars actually resemble the Clintons make this a bit too close to home for comfort, but it's still a good film. It has political idealist Henry Burton (Adrian Lester) being asked to join the campaign of Governor Jack Stanton (John Travolta), who is running for the Democratic candidate of the U.S. Presidency. By Jack's side is his wife Susan (Emma Thompson), redneck political strategist Richard Jemmons (Billy Bob Thornton), Daisy Green (Mauria Tierney) and Howard Ferguson (Paul Guilfoyle). All seems to be going well, but when a sex scandal threatens to harm Stanton's campaign, Burton finds himself with tough "dustbuster" Libby Holden (Kathy Bates) to help clear up the mess, and there's a lot of it. It's a good film, and Nichols has fun with the cutthroat world of campaigning, even if it did alienate cinemagoers at the time. With Travolta and Thompson doing good Clinton impressions, Lester beautifully underplaying his part as the novice and Bates nearly stealing the film. It has brilliant support from Rob Reiner, Tony Shalhoub, Diane Ladd and Larry Hagman.
Abel D (au) wrote: Proving that simplicity can be a virute, Radford's Italian tale of poetry and love is a sweet and moving tale of a friendship between two very different men, and how they grow from it. Helped by a very fine cast, Noiret and Troisi in particularly solid form here, a playful yet touching score by Bacalov, and a healthy sprinkling of light, verbal humour here and there make for quite a comforting film about growing one's own confidence and thus, bettering your life.
Kelly (fr) wrote: This is not a comfortable movie to watch but I enjoyed it very much. The colors are wonderful, the sets are intense, and the acting is pretty good. This movie is bizarre to say the very least but that can be a wonderful thing. This movie won't be to everyone's liking but for those of you who lean towards "different" films then you'll probably enjoy it.
Darren H (de) wrote: Antonioni past his expiration date.
Tnu K (de) wrote: simple and unpretentious . one of the most authetntic portrait of NY art-scene in 80's.
Jessica G (kr) wrote: It's OK, not really my kind of stuff.
Gareth D (kr) wrote: Did nothing for me first viewing. I only saw business. Second time, it hits like a leviathon. Deserves all its praise. I've learnt to trust cinema consensus. If I can't see the viewpoint on initial take, and every critic says it works 100%, then I must watch it again and again until I share that pov. Or, at least, until I appreciate their evaluation sufficiently to disagree like an adult.
Helen S (au) wrote: Some lovely Broadway hits, but the true stars of this movie are the stunning gowns by Adrien. The color palette is strongly hued in lovely purples, lavenders, orchids, amethysts, mauves. Sparkles galore, frothy overlays, a few lookbacks to the narrow 30s styles in stark contrast to the bouffant skirts and scarves that dominate. The stage sets are also striking and elegant. Oh yeah, there was a pretty predictable plot on which to hang all the yummy visuals. 2-star plot, 4-star artistic elements.
Cameron J (mx) wrote: Ah, yes, the family plot thickens, and with it, Alfred Hitchcock's kidneys. People, the man went out in 1980, and it's not like we weren't seeing it coming for many, many years by that time, so we may as well have a morbid laugh, something that Hitchcock apparently believed in during his final days. Yup, people, for his last realized stroke... of creativity, that is (Seriously, speaking of "morbid"), Hitchcock decided to go a more comedic route with this film, although he was sure to keep in plenty of dark elements, and I mean plenty. Yeah, folks, don't go thinking that this film's title is short for "Family-Friendly Plot", unless your part of, well, the Bates family, because this story is a "grave" one. Don't worry, this film is a little bit funnier than that pun, and you can gather that from looking at the title, which does, in fact, feature a much better pun. You know, like, a family plot is where they bury relatives, and this film is about a scheme involving a family... right? I don't know if that's more reflective of my being inaccurate about calling this film funny, or a reflection of just how unfunny my "grave story" pun was, but in all seriousness, this is a fair note for Hitchcock to go out on, despite its flaws.Whether it be because it's even self-aware about its dramatic thinness, or simply because of whatever, this film doesn't put much thought into developing its characters, whose unlikable traits are hard to deny without being veiled by some extensive characterization, and loosen your investment about as much as the many moments in which the film jars in its focal shifts. Something of an ensemble piece, this film juggles several plots, and messily so, giving you time to detach yourself from certain characters the longer the film focuses on others, something that it didn't have to do, and probably wouldn't have done if Ernest Lehman's script didn't go dragged out my meandering bits in material which break up a fair deal of tightness. Yeah, there are plenty of places in which the film feels tight, but in plenty of other areas in this ultimately unnecessarily two-hour-long affair, things outstay their welcome, and such pacing inconsistencies challenge engagement value, not unlike the tonal unevenness. The film opens with a sance sequence that is so cloyingly scored, overacted and lamely written that it, quite frankly, is rather embarrassing, and after that, the level of cheese takes a serious drop, yet it admittedly rarely, if ever truly dissipates, as certain missteps in dialogue or overblown aspects to humor distance, particularly when they break a certain relative seriousness through tonal inconsistencies that limit a sense of weight to this narrative. I don't suppose the inconsistencies in pacing and tone are as severe as I make them sound, being not much more glaring than the developmental shortcomings that you kind of get used to after a while, thanks to storytelling's and acting's shining a light on the color of this ensemble piece, yet those issues stand, and the more they stick around, the harder it gets to be to ignore how kind of overblown the telling of this story is, for although there's plenty of intrigue to the idea behind this pseudo-thriller, it's natural shortcomings that really hold this thing back. There's only so much momentum and sense of consequence to this not-so lighthearted fluff piece, and while the entertainment value is there, it can't quite make the final product all that memorable, through all the inconsistencies. Consequential shortcomings are almost as recurring as natural shortcomings, but just as recurring as anything are the strengths, of which there are enough to sustain a decent amount of entertainment value, with the help of lively score work.At least notable as the meeting between two legends of the offscreen aspects of filmmaking, this film sees Alfred Hitchcock employing the great John Williams to compose a score that isn't all that special, is formulaic, and isn't even all that prominently used on the whole in this mostly unmusical film, but it's most certainly rich with much of that classic John Williams color, which, while subtle, helps sustain liveliness, when actually played upon, that is. Needless to say, more recurring than the score work in this ensemble piece is, of course, the ensemble of performers, for although Barbara Harris, maybe even a few other people, gets carried away with some of the film's more cheesy material (Like I said, that opening sance scene is a bit of a challenge), most everyone in this perhaps overblown cast charms, with the leads nailing their morally questionable characters' sleaze with enough realization to help win you over, despite expository shortcomings. As with many of your trademark dark comedies, this film is driven by thoroughly flawed and often unredeemed characters, and in order to sell them as driving forces in this ensemble piece, it needs the charismatic performances that are found just about across the board in this heathily sizable collection of talents, and might also require some inspiration to writing. Ernest Lehman's script is perhaps the relative weakest aspect of the film, as it bloats its interpretation of a somewhat thin story concept with uneven pacing, while limiting development and control on tonal dynamicity, however limited, yet Lehman still delivers on plenty of wit to dialogue, as well as humor that is never broad enough to be riotous, but still amuses, to some extent, time and again. Cleverness is pretty prominent through the script's dialogue and subtle humor, but also applies to the handling of this narrative, which is dramatically thin, yet tells an interesting tale about several people's varying investigative takes on a case involving a dark family secret, sold in no small part by the colorful acting, scripting and direction. Not counting the ultimately unfinished "The Short Night", this film marked the final project by the legendary Alfred Hitchcock, and no, it's not a terribly worth testament to the late, great filmmakers groundbreaking abilities, yet Hitchcock's direction still carries the final product's engagement value, however limited, as much as anything, framing the film evenly enough to immerse you into the setting of the film, if not immerse you into a degree of intensity, while utilizing a certain steady pacing that, while a little too limp on occasion, thoughtfully soaks up the subtleties that make the film so interesting in so many places. Alas, were the film a little more comfortable in its storytelling, it would have bordered on rewarding, and if the story was a little meatier on top of that, then the final product would have gripped as a grand finale in Hitchcock's career, yet Hitchcock, joined by a team of other talented filmmakers, holds enough of your attention with entertainment value, if not tension, to keep you going, at least up to a point.When it's all done and buried, limitations in development and an excess in material beget focal inconsistencies in this ensemble piece, while cheesy occasions and a hint of tonal inconsistency reflect the plot's being kind of thin secure the final product as rather underwhelming, but a colorful score, charismatic performances, clever writing and a reasonably well-structured final directorial performance by the late, great Alfred Hitchcock dig up enough intrigue to endear you to "Family Plot" as a serviceably entertaining affair, improvable as Hitchcock's grand finale though it may be.2.5/5 - Fair
Elijah M (br) wrote: Taylor shows us his parkour skills and decent acting, but a bad plot and cliche ending its nothing new or refreshing. That's not to say that the movie is terrible. If you have nothing better to do you should sit down and watch some awesome stunts.