The Evolution of Andrew Andrews

The Evolution of Andrew Andrews

30-year-old Andrew Andrews has never had a friend, unless a 3 foot rubber alien doll counts. In his quest to be a somebody, this clueless "man child" ruins a full length feature film in one... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Evolution of Andrew Andrews torrent reviews

Lisa K (gb) wrote: A decent thriller that presents an interesting scenario, but is ultimately unable to overcome its narrative shortcomings and predictability.

Brad O (ca) wrote: Didn't know what to expect from this movie. Interesting ending.

intuciic (de) wrote: pretty good, interesting story..

Victor Y (mx) wrote: This movie possibly has the best martial arts scenes that I have ever seen.

Lester Y (ag) wrote: every fuckin professional review of this has some sort of beer related tie-inthis movie is a flat light brew made of the lowest quality hops and improperly fermented and does not go down easy and leaves a stale, undesirable aftertasteuuuuggghhhh

Joyce V (fr) wrote: This was an OK movie, there were a few mistakes in filming that were easy to spot, the acting could have been a little better on some of the actor's parts, sometimes the crocs looked a little too fake. Aside from the fact that this one followed the basic storyline of the original way too closely, it was entertaining and not a complete waste of and hour and a half of my life.

Jonathan G (mx) wrote: This sequel feels like it based the script on an online survey of 30-something single women about what should happen in it. "Yes, another fight scene between Darcy and Cleever!". And for the sake of preventing any more spoilers, I'll stop there. Where the first film, Bridget was an adorable, yet bumbling idiot. Here, she's just bumbling on the verge of being incredibly annoying. Rating: 6 / 10

Tim W (au) wrote: Can't say I liked it. Another no-reason sequel, but even less interesting. Taking itself not serious enough, which had its charm for sure, but meh.

Harry W (nl) wrote: Poltergeist III seems like nothing but a cheaply constructed star vehicle for Heather O'Rourke that attempts to cash in on the commercial success of its predecessors. However, I'm largely glad it was made.Not because it adds to Poltergeist, I mean the second one was enough and the third one is basically an improvisation with minimal horror themes that aren't overused cheap paranormal themes from every paranormal horror film ever made, as well as cheap elements from teenage horror films combined in. Mostly, it features a sub par cast and a series of confusing plot dynamics which leave them little to work with, and it really seems like nobody really bothered with Poltergeist III aside from Heather O'Rourke. And I don't know if Zelda Rubenstein was good or bad but either way she could have been better.Also, it has an unimpressive script and a lack of sufficient narrative structure and is just no excuse to put together a second sequel, and lastly it's just boring and slowly paced, and it seems like 93 painful minutes that take forever, and leaves its subplots to disintegrate around the characters and make the audience forget them too fast. So altogether, Poltergeist III is an unimaginative bludge that sufficiently lacks in every area except one, the one reason I'm happy Poltergeist III was created.That of course, was because it provides a star vehicle for the talented young Heather O'Rourke at age 12 in a role where Carol Anne Freeling has developed into a wise talking pre-teen girl still burdened with paranormal problems, and Heather O'Rourke's line delivery is surprisingly confident and excellently executed, more so than you'd expect from a girl this young. Her work on the first two and on Happy Days has really paid off, and now her talents are flourishing in definitely her best performance yet. She makes use of childish sweetness and charm as well as strong acting techniques such as implementing tears in to add emotional intensity which pays off because, but she doesn't get enough screen time after the first half of the story and it relies more on Tom Skerritt and Nancy Allen who aren't impressive. But Heather O'Rourke is sufficiently great.Also, I enjoyed Lara Flynn Boyle's performance, I part because I've grown to like her work on Twin Peaks and in part just because she was convincing.So it's safe to say that Poltergeist III sucked, but Heather O'Rourke was great in her final performance. May she Rest in Peace.

Janetta B (de) wrote: this is a good movie.....I love tom berenger

Bill B (de) wrote: Once again introduces a rag tag group that a ton of movies copy off of today but execution is really bad.... Did I mention really bad?!?

Simmons C (ag) wrote: I laughed so hard I had abs by the ending credits.

Anthony P (ag) wrote: I watched this thinking it would be another good movie by Charles Bronson but this is not one of is best, though a little funny at times still not a top movie.

Reece L (kr) wrote: Quick, absurd, and endlessly witty, "Love and Death" is one of the funniest entries in Allen's prolific career and features a great performance from Diane Keaton,

Kevin N (br) wrote: It's an original gangster flick, with a few strong things going for it, but its drive for redemption becomes way too watered down.

Shane J (de) wrote: This films got pretty much everyone that is great from 80's action movies apart from the main stars. you will recognise almost everyone from some of the best action films of this time. Its got carl weathers in the lead playing a complete bad ass with the ability to jump super heights!! no reason why he just seems to be able to. firstly this films awful but i dont care the film knows its awful everyone involved knows its pretty awful but by god is it fun. Its comedy gold!!!

Daniel S (br) wrote: It's really hard to describe this movie, it takes places in a quasi reality, essentially just within the mind of the main character in the way that he views the world, you really can't use logic when watching this, you just have to go with it and experience it, all the acting is very good, and there are several very poignant/tender scenes, just as the ones with hoffman and morton early on, and the ending scene, and tom noonan's last scene, it's very different yes, as are all of charlie kaufmans films, but also very real and human too, more in the vain of his recent anomalisa instead of say being john malkovich, also the score is very good too, from jonze/kaufman regular jon brion, it does go on a bit long, near the end for sure, but overall it's another quality kaufman film, and i def recommend for fans of his

Kevin J (nl) wrote: Vertigo can get a little creepy and possessive at the end of the film, but until then, it is an undeniable classic. Director Alfred Hitchcock knows suspense and here, he demonstrates his immense skill. A suspenseful, thrilling, and occasionally scary film that really pulls you in and leaves you on the edge of your seat waiting to see how it all plays out. Though, as I said, the ending is not scary, but decidedly creepy instead of being charming like it may have intended. This holds the film back a bit, but aside from this, Vertigo is a phenomenal film that has certainly aged visually, but its story is just as good as when it came out.

Spencer S (fr) wrote: This sick, twisted little comedy is sweet in many ways and yet demented in all the ways that matter. The premise revolves around John Cusack as a hit man (so believable) going back to his ten year reunion in Michigan, and he gets back together with his ex-girlfriend. I will say that the chemistry between Cusack and Driver is off the charts, and in the end I actually found them to be a very cute couple. Though there's an evolution for Cusack's character, I still didn't see the awe factor in the grand romantic gesture. He is a trained, government employed killer! I don't want quirky, doe-eyed Driver ending up with someone who will be hunted down later in life, their happy ending nothing but a far off mirage in the dust! When it plays into its dark humor, Cusack works incredibly well as an everyman. Still, trying to get us, the audience, to sympathize with you when you've killed how many hundreds of people? That's stretching my imagination a little too thin.