A teacher on a Greek island becomes involved in bizarre mind-games with the island's magus (magician) and a beautiful young woman.
You may also like
The Magus torrent reviews
Ryan A (ag) wrote: What I got to say about "The Starving Games" is an insulting in every meaning of the word, that's how bad this movie is. "It's not funny at all.. It's horrendous." The performances by the whole cast is awful. The directing and screenplay by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer is unbelievable. The cinematography is okay but could have been much better. Finally, the score and effects are not good at all. "I have to report that "The Starving Games" is not worth watch at all."
Love M (es) wrote: A Dutch horror that consciously mocks the zombie genre. Humorous in parts, lackluster in others.17/6/2013
Mariko N (de) wrote: Made me cry when I saw his painting of his love with eyes.
Alex H (us) wrote: I am not going to lie to you, the only reason that I decided to watch this film was because I am a massive Nicolas Cage fan and this is his directorial debut. It is also the only film that he has ever directed and unfortunatly it's easy to tell why.The plot focuses on a male prostitute who has returned from the army and decides to be done with whoreing himself aboutm, agaisnt the wishes of his mother whom he has gone back to live with. He then meets his mothers "new girl" and develops some kind of strange relationship with her. I felt that the relationship wasn't really focused enough on during the film, leaving it feeling extremely underdeveloped. It almost feels as if the entire thing was added in just so the film would be able to have a way to end, which it does in a fairly predictible manner.What I like so much about Nicolas Cage as an actor, the manic and darkly comical intensity he brings to each of his roles, is tragicly the reason the whole film fails. He seems to carry the same idea's forward when he is directing, commanding each of his actors to overact and overusing slightly gimmicky camera tricks along with other narrative methods that have already worn thin. His own cameo performance as a crazy gay pimp is the highlight of the film, but also reminds you that you do need other actors to play it decidedly more straight to help balance out the craziness.I wouldn't say it's all bad though, there are some scenes amongst the mentalness that work and are fairly emotional when taken in isolation. Harry Dean Stanton in particular doesn't seem to have read Cage's brief and plays a rather poorly written character much better than it deserves. However, this could just be since everyone else is so batshit insane that it makes his performance look that more textured and controlled. Overall it's probably best to give this one a miss. Sorry Nicolas.
Chibi M (it) wrote: Own it, and like it a lot watch it all the time
David B (es) wrote: funny japanese film with a twisted plot, well paced, full of odd-balls with no sense of ridicule, old-school cars.. great!
Dre C (nl) wrote: This movie is one of my all time favorites and never gets old watching. this movie is better than the first and i think it still holds as the best terminator movie so far. if you haven't seen this movie then you better see it soon because your missing out.
Ryan V (ca) wrote: It's about the same as the first 48 Hours, only with a lesser plot.
Will B (mx) wrote: Great installment of the old Hammer Horror Frankenstein movies, mixed with some dark humour this old 70's movie had some great touches that added to the whole Frankenstein movie franchise... from what i was told this was made on a much smaller budget from the last .. and i think for the money they did have it turned out pretty well. Peter Cushing as always is fantastic in this and was his final apperance as Victor, cold.. collected and some great one liners... If your a fan of the old Hammer Horror Atmospheric Movies.. you should love this one!
Robert B (de) wrote: Bulldog Drummond Comes Back (Louis King, 1937) I can't find any evidence whatsoever that I reviewed Bulldog Drummond Comes Back, the first of seven Bulldog Drummond films featuring John Hammond in the title role, anywhere, though I know I must have; I distinctly remember writing the line "sensibly, Hammond jumped ship to accept a role in The Philadelphia Story". But I can't find the review anywhere, so I'll write another one. Oddly, Hammond's seven-film stretch as Drummond was not a reign; Hammond played Bulldog Drummond seven times between 1937 and 1939, but was not the only actor to do so during that period; both John Lodge (in Bulldog Drummond at Bay) and Ray Milland (in Bulldog Drummond Escapes) took turns as the pulp-fiction private eye. (If Milland's name causes raised eyebrows, Walter Pidgeon also took on the role for Calling Bulldog Drummond in 1951.) much of the modern criticism of the film seems to stem from the casting of Hammond, but given that he stuck around for six more movies, someone must have thought he was okay in the role. I didn't mind him all that much, truth be told; there are far more problems with the script and the budget here than there are with Hammond. Plot: Bulldog Drummond is about to get hitched? Say it ain't so! But yes, everyone's favorite cross between Nick Charles and Nick Carter (the spy, not the singer) is poised to wed Phyllis Clavering (Louise Campbell, whose three Drummond film appearances are by far the most prominent in her fourteen-film career). Until, that is, she's kidnapped by a bunch of durned furriners. (The Bulldog Drummond books are notable for their racism; the movies didn't do much to cover that up.) And thus, Drummond and his longtime pal Colonel Neilson (John Barrymore, slumming it) are off to rescue the damsel in distress from the durned furriners. It's a pretty darned good cast (I failed to mention Reginald Denny as a tagalong-think Constantine's cab-driver pal, here, whose name currently escapes me-and the incomparable E. E. Clive as Tenney, Drummond's butler, who does what all good butlers should: play the straight man), and they do the best with what they're given. Problem is, what they're given isn't much. Writer Edward T. Lowe and director Louis King were both silent-film hacks who came up the hard way, Lowe in mysteries and King in potboiler westerns of the Lone Star variety. (Oddly, both are best remembered for their work in the Charlie Chan series today, King for Charlie Chan in Egypt and Lowe for Charlie Chan at the Racetrack, but at no point in the franchise did the two cross paths.) While the crossing of those two genres, however ghostly it may be, in a pulp action film does lend it a certain air one doesn't really expect to find in a pulp action film, there's not nearly enough of that atmosphere to make it distinctive enough to do even the slightest patch job over the plot holes and other silliness. Still, if you're in the mood for a turn-your-brain-off action picture and Schwarzenegger never did it for you, the Bulldog Drummond films are only slightly politically incorrect (compared to the books, anyway), have a good amount of witty patter, and are only about an hour long apiece; you could do better, but you could do a lot worse. ** 1/2
David D (us) wrote: How is this entertainment in any way?
Brandon W (gb) wrote: Disney's Mulan is a really great movie that it's nice to see a new location that's not your typical Disney movie. It's a bit refreshing for a Disney movie to have no princess character. The animation is impressive to look at and at times, it even shows some grand scales of the scenes which is really cool. The characters are really good and fun to watch. The acting is great, and the writing by tons of people is pretty solid. It was off for Mushu to to be voiced by Eddie Murphy which you can tell that it's him, but he was pretty funny and kind of a riot to watch. The songs are very memorable, especially "I'll Make a Man Out of You" which is probably one of my favorite Disney songs. The action is good, and the plot is nicely well putted. The only problem I had with this movie, is the main villain. It's not the acting or the design which he looks menacing and sounds like one too, it's the character development which I know nothing of this guy except that he wants people to bow to him, that's it. As is, Mulan has a lot of heart, and good humor to entertain both the kids and adults.
Chris R (de) wrote: What is a 'good' movie and what is a 'bad movie? The answer depends on what the point of a film is. I choose to take the lens that movies are works of art, but that can itself create more questions than it answers. Not every filmmaker is trying to make art, just like every author isn't trying to win the Nobel Prize in literature. So which is worse: a mediocre 'artsy' film or an Adam Sandler comedy? The former may have artistic merit, but is poorly executed. The latter lacks deep substance, but accomplishes its goals of trying to be a broadly appealing, money making, forgettable comedy. In this circumstance the notions of 'good' and 'bad' become somewhat troublesome. This has always been something I have thought about, but after watching Mulholland Dr. for the first time, the question has more weight. I have seen other David Lynch films in the past, but haven't particularly enjoyed them. I can sort of understand his cult following and why he is respected, but it just doesn't seem to be for me. After the BBC came out with a list of the best movies from the 00s as voted by critics and Mulholland Dr. topped the list, I thought it would be best to give Lynch another shot. For two thirds of the film I was on the precipice of boredom. I just didn't understand the appeal. The film is eccentric and weird and doesn't even have the counter balance of deep characters or breathtaking visuals to entice and engross. There were a few moments here and there that resonated with me, but overall it seemed like overwhelmingly mediocre.But then something amazing happened. I will not go into detail, but once the movie was over once I had gotten the complete picture, suddenly everything made sense. The disjointed, almost incoherent collection of scenes suddenly all fit together. Mulholland Dr. is the very definition of being 'more than a sum of its parts'. So, the question arises: is it a good movie or a bad movie? I did not enjoy the experience for the most part. Then again film isn't meant to just be pure entertainment. Some movies are utterly depressing and there is an entire genre of film which purpose is to cause dread, fear, disgust, and revulsion. Does the non-enjoyability, the non-entertainment factor make these movies bad?David Lynch had a clear vision with Mulholland Dr. and he accomplished it masterfully. I am still left wondering if perhaps there was a better way to go about it, something where the minute to minute of the film could've been more inviting. If you look at a painting, you aren't supposed to look at it square centimeter by square centimeter and judge those pieces separately and independently of the rest of the work. The same should be true about film. Of course there is inability with film to observe it all at once, but I think the film should be judged by its complete picture as a whole.It is difficult to give a numbered rating to Mulholland Dr. Forgiving its 'faults' by saying 'that was the point' seems too easy, too dismissive. Yet not recognizing the brilliance of it by 'nitpicking' is also unfair. Though I would not say that his is the greatest film of the 00s, I am not surprised or disappointed that it topped the critics' list. It is a film with a clear, ambitious vision and a film that fully utilized visual medium (this story wouldn't be nearly as effective as a novel).
Jess L (de) wrote: This was a fascinating movie. It is extremely slow paced but gradually builds in tension to the climax and a rather annoying ending. This film resonated in my mind long after watching it; the golden hue of the film was at first annoying but soon added to the overall feel of the film. When Anacleto paints the golden peacock 'in whose eye the world is a mere reflection' it all begins to make sense, and the golden colour of this film becomes an essential component of the film. The performances are all wonderful, Taylor is quite subdued until the final scene. She holds a firm control on her character as does Brando as his character teeters on the issue of homosexuality. We are told at the start of the film that a murder was committed so we eagerly watch to discover who, where and why and although it becomes obvious who it will be it is a slow journey to discover why and the ending though ultimately satisfying is let down somewhat by a day time soap feel as Taylor shrieks her lungs off and the camera moves speedily between the three characters in the room a few too many times. Apart from that an enjoyable and certainly different movie experience from what I have been watching lately.