A woman suffering from multiple personality disorder tries to piece back together her life.
You may also like
Waking Madison torrent reviews
Karol P (ca) wrote: Absolutely Love it *****
Justin T (de) wrote: Kind of ridiculous and cliched, certainly doesn't stand up to the other Alex Cross films.
Jimmy J (fr) wrote: bonkers horror but good horror
Brenda D (au) wrote: Nice and natural, as birdwatching.
Alex K (gb) wrote: Good film, really moving at the end of the film. The only problem with the film is the trailer made it out to be a comedy movie and it is a really moving drama. This movie is good but it does have its ups and downs but the best part about this film is that it shows just how good Ryan Reynolds acting is.
Deray A (kr) wrote: hayatin gundelik akisina kapilip, tutkularimizi kaybettigimiz bir dunyada, yeniden kendimizi tanimak ve kazanmaya calismak anafikri uzerinde kurulmus duygu yuklu, yonetmeni turk, kendisi italyan olan harika film. viva ferzan ozpetek
Tero S (au) wrote: dull movie, only tom sizemore and atmosphere were good, but what you get to see is 2 dead chickens and pair of nipples thru wet shirt! so dont bother if you are looking for real horror or gore...
Sandra D (es) wrote: "A family reunion with some minor complications"This is a crazy movie about a middle aged man who lost his mother. He is in great grief so he makes a deal with a salesman to resurrect his mother. But there is a problem, the mother turns out quite different than they expected. This movie was very weird and very funny.
Keiko A (ca) wrote: Shojo no harawata (Entrails of a Virgin) was just one of those movie you just were not allowed to watch when you were a kid. I always remember asking if I could watch it but the answer was always no. I once stuck the VHS in and sat there watching it and turned it off half way because of how scared I was. But today the film is really dull. Back when I was like 6 or 7 it scared me but today the film is really nothing special just the gore makes it worth a watch. So the movie starts off with people driving along the Highway to an old abandon house in the middle of the countryside then they turn off the Highway and take one last look at civilization before they can return again. They are going to shot a Pornographic/horror film at the house when they get there like always the place is a run down dump. Inside is nothing special. One of the girls claims she saw something looking at her in the window. So let me just skip a head. They shot the movie, Go for a walk, Come back there cars have been destroyed, The phones aren?t working, And someone has just looked them in the house. Who is this someone why it?s a monster. When we were young we always use to call that demon the shag monster because it kills the men and has sex with the women. All I can really say is the movie is very disturbing and violent. The film as I can recall was always very dark on VHS witch really frightens you but on DVD you can see all the detail including the monster hiding because of how bright it is. So it really ruined it. But like I have said the gore is truly the only best part about the film. Besides its kind of interesting story. There?s no doubt in my mind this would have done very well at the Box office because of all the exploitation films. The acting I have to say is really nothing special I found it to be very poor a major downside to this movie. Sometimes throughout the film your always throwing a WTF because of some of the scenes. Not sure if I can recommended it. It?s really all up to you. Keiko?s score 32-100
Nicki M (ag) wrote: I can remember renting this one about 15 years or so, (no comments about my age, please!), and thinking it was not all that good. Have just now re-watched it as it was on Crackle, (that web site again, what did I say about bad news for me?!), and I couldn't really remember it too well. Have to say, I was pleasantly surprised. Yes, it is not the best movie going, but it actually as pretty enjoyable. Joyce Hyser (never heard of her!) does reasonably well as the girl posing as a boy - not entirely convincing all the time, but more a success than a fail. Clayton Rohner is also good as the friend she makes as a boy and then falls in love with. (Yes, full of cliches, but it's an 80's teen movie, no complaints here!). It delivers a few laughs, a bit of romance and plenty of cool 80's fashion.
John M (br) wrote: Okay, this is nowhere near as good as Saturday Night Fever. But there have been far bigger cinematic terds laid than this sequel (Beverly Hills Cop III, anyone?) What would have made it better? If it was written and made for an R rated audience. But what's here still works. Great 80's soundtrack with more Bee Gees, a committed, ripped John Travolta and Cynthia Rhodes and Finola Hughes are great as opposite interest in Tony's life. I like this movie. I think you will too.
D M (de) wrote: A team of astronauts travel to a distant planet to see what happened to an earlier team who landed there 20 years prior w/o reporting back to Earth. Upon arrival they are greeted by a robot who takes them to the two lone survivors, a research scientist and his teen daughter. That planet has a massive power station and many powerful pieces of equipment only the scientist can use because of his superior intelligence. Absolutely one of the best 1950s sci-fi films, especially for the scene the crew battles the Id monster. Starring Leslie Neilson as the commanding officer.
Harry W (nl) wrote: As with any film released under the Monster Pictures label, John Doe: Vigilante sounded lke a fun experience of exploitation.John Doe: Vigilante has a trifecta of hooks for me; not only is it a Monster Pictures film, but it's also an Australian production and a story of a vigilante. Given that I'm an action junkie who has proven a sucker for films such as Death Wish (1974) and Hobo With a Shotgun (2011), there was a real generic contract being offered by this film which seemed to be targeted directly at me. Alas, it didn't take the path I was expecting. Instead, John Doe: Vigilante takes the route of the television series Dexter (2006-2013) and tracks the story of a serial killer who picks off his enemies based on a moral compass, opting to pursue more of a content-driven film than an action one. Given that Australia has a good track record for crime cinema there is a lot of potential with John Doe: Vigilante. Unfortunately, its ambitions are blunted by a script which is a little too amateur to capitalize on its concept.John Doe: Vigilante is a film which really has potential. Injustice in the crime system is a concept which will never stop being relevant because it's an issue which has an endless existence in the world, and there have been films that have attempted to confront it many times. With John Doe: Vigilante, the film attempts to do that while also functioning as a spectacle of violence. Clearly a low-budget film, John Doe: Vigilante manages to capture some stylish moments of violence which use a variety of camera techniques to give audiences an intense voyeuristic perspective on things where our perspective is taken from diegetic cameras much of the time. With a small collection of locations illuminated by the use of shadow and mediated lighting, there is an effective backdrop to the film which provides a dark locale while there is a slight touch of blood and gore to confront the violent concepts without getting excessive. For its budget, there is certainly an effective use of imagery during the more intense moments of the film while the subtle touch of the musical score helps to enrichen the atmosphere. However, this provides a modicum of value to the film when considering that it lacks much finesse in its actual narrative. John Doe: Vigilante does not idolize its titular character. While the story clearly sides more with the notion that criminals deserve harsher punishment, it isn't a one-sided tale. We are reminded that criminal is a type of behaviour perpetrated by human beings, and each human comes with their own story or family. This is only touched upon lightly in the film so it doesn't drag the film into territory of excess sentimentality, but there are still an abundance of ways that the story crumbles into mediocrity. Above all, its the annoying story structure that really burdens the film. The story cuts between the sight of John Doe committing crimes on people and others discussing the morals of it all, and this gimmick prevents the narrative from ever developing. We don't get an understanding of the titular character, just an idea of him. Everyone in the film is an idea without having any actual characterization to them, so what is being said proves to be more interesting than who is saying it. But even then, it just feels like we're getting the same basic message drilled into our heads again and again. With one-dimensional characters putting such a black and white perspective on the idea of crime, the entire experience feels like a series of disjointed lectures against the backdrop of sporadic violence. There is always room in the world for a discussion like that which John Doe: Vigilante approaches and the fact that it touches upon the idea of a movement being influenced by vigilantes has room for some really insightful social commentary. Unfortunately, nothing is done with this theme and it is played off as an arbitrary plot point. There really could have been a lot done with this because audiences should be encouraged to ask the question of when a movement turns into a terrorist organization given that contemporary society is consistently held under a threat of media reports of Islamic State activity. The fact that John Doe: Vigilante mentions this and then tosses it aside is a display of wasted potential; a lollipop given to a child and taken away after one lick just so that they may suffer the loss. Why Kelly Dolen and Stephen M. Coates would tease us with this is beyond me as a logical thinker but plain frustrating as a viewer. Ultimately, the film cannot decide what is the correct thing to do about changing crime and simply tells audiences to do the thinking for them without providing much of a thought pattern to follow. The entire message in the film is epitomized by John Doe's final speech; a cry for help to audiences to realize that there is a real problem in the justice system and that its up to the public to take a stand. But much like the dialogue in the final speech, the entire experience of John: Doe Vigilante is too uninspired to set off any major motion in viewers. The fact that the film falls back on its dialogue all too often means that John Doe: Vigilante is essentially Australia's answer to Robert Redford's negatively received drama thriller Lions for Lambs (2007). Both films oscillate between characters caught up in an intense life-threatening situation and others talking about the politics involved. Neither films hit their mark all that well and simply stretch on to feel far longer than they actually are, and this says a lot when considering that John Doe: Vigilante only runs for 93 minutes. In the end, John Doe: Vigilante has some decent ideas and displays that Kelly Dolen knows how to use style to a film's benefit. Unfortunately, the film spends too much time falling back on its boring dialogue to drive things, and it affects the potential of the performances. Nobody really makes any kind of an impact with their performances in John Doe: Vigilante. Jamie Bamber's effort as the titular character is largely blunted by the disjointed structure which keeps cutting between points in John Doe's life and never providing much insight into the actual person he is. The man displays a modicum of intensity at the right moments, but there are far too few of them in the film. And Daniel Lissing's most memorable moments are the news reports he delivers with such campy dialogue that it seems to be a self-parody. If it is, the humour doesn't work. And if it isn't, then the standard for dramatic content in John Doe: Vigilante doesn't sink much lower than this.John Doe: Vigilante has some stylish imagery in its more violent moments and touches upon a concept worthy of discussion, but its reliance on concept prevents it from sourcing any intelligent content in the screenplay which bogs the narrative down into a poorly structured series of lectures delivered by one-dimensional perpetrators of boredom.
Stephen B (fr) wrote: Not great, but not bad
Lotus E (us) wrote: This movie came out years ago. It is deeply disturbing with graphic violence. I do not think it is good enough to be shown in theaters again. I just watched it on Crackle last week.