Zombie Apocalypse

Zombie Apocalypse

A professor suspects that a vicious killer may have discovered a way to return from the grave and continue his violent spree. His fears are proved true when a group of teenagers decide to ...

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:88 minutes
  • Release:1985
  • Language:Spanish
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:murder,   police,   murderer,  

A professor suspects that a vicious killer may have discovered a way to return from the grave and continue his violent spree. His fears are proved true when a group of teenagers decide to ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Zombie Apocalypse torrent reviews

Ethan P (jp) wrote: Plummer's amazing performance is worthy of the Oscar and it does have an interesting idea, but the movie around him beats the "gay" problem to a pulp and is dull for almost its entirety. Ewan McGregor spends most of the movie wandering around aimlessly and mopey. The conclusion the film was very heartfelt and well done, though.

Remote G (gb) wrote: by Leon Conrad for remotegoat on 06/05/08 Jan Dte is a man who's set apart from others. What sets him apart is his height - he's short. He's also ambitious. Jan Dte wants to become rich. He starts out selling food to passengers at train stations. While honing his skill as a con artist, he becomes fascinated by observing people's attitudes to money. He cultivates a collector's mentality aligned with a talent for sniffing out opportunities. He works in a pub, then as a hotel waiter, acquiring bank notes, knowledge and experience by dint of his carefully honed voyeuristic talent along the way. Against the background of the German occupation of Prague, he falls in love with Liza, a Sudeten German. After a stint at the front, Liza returns with a valuable collection of stamps left behind as a result of the holocaust. After her accidental death, Jan sells the collection and invests in his own hotel. He ends up being sentenced to 15 years in jail, one for each of the millions he amassed. Everything he's built up is sequestrated by the Communist regime. He serves out most of his sentence in the company of fellow millionaires, a fellowship from which he is ultimately excluded. A few months short of his official release date, Jan is freed as a result of an amnesty, and sent to live in a deserted ghost town near the German border. He restores an old pub, during the process of which he collects mirrors and memories, out of which Ji Menzel's 2006 film adaptation of Bohumil Hrabal's tale "I Served The King of England" unfolds as a series of flashbacks and stories which he tells to a couple who become his neighbours for a while they are on a mission to source timber from the forest near the town. Hrabal wrote the story in 1975. It took eight years for it to be published. When it eventually came out, it appeared as an exclusive publication for members of the Jazz Section of the Czech Musicians' Union, to whom Hrabal dedicated it. In the heavily-censored Soviet-occupied period of Czech history, Hrabal's style of writing and his endorsement of the playfulness of the jazz musician's approach was seen by the authorities as the last straw. It took four years, but the Section's leaders ended up being tried and incarcerated. It was only after the so-called Velvet Revolution, the literary-led movement which overthrew the communist regime, of which the playwright and writer Vaclav Havel was a leading figure, that they were eventually released. The juxtaposition of the effects of ideological oppression and a sense of playfulness and play - of the Marxist Homo Faber as a counterpoise to Huizinga's Homo Ludens - spans and dominates the book, but is brought to life, and given a different dimension in Menzel's film. Although gambling doesn't feature, the play of beer in a glass, the roles people play, the playfulness of people at different periods in a hotel swimming pool, musicians playing, and playing with money all do. Play and playing are major themes in this film, which charts a trajectory of playfulness across a particularly intense period in Czech history, which spans Nazi occupation and communist rule. Across this time period, people play out their lives. People move differently, depending on the period in which they live. Over time, posture changes; as do gait and voice use. It is rare to find a period film which portrays these differences accurately. It is a tribute to Menzel's flawless direction of his perfectly-cast actors that these differences are brought out with such exquisite effortlessness. In this film, almost any theme becomes a segment in a DNA-like strand which connects to others. That connection branches out via wider references both within the film and beyond it. Light, glass, liquidity, solidity and absolute vs relative values are just five such themes. I could list others, but that would take away part of the fun for the viewer. It is this attention to detail and depth of metaphorical approach which provide much of the justification for the undeniable claim this film has to classic status. Whether you just watch it for the fun of watching it, or whether you watch it with an eye for detail; whether you watch it once or whether you watch it more than once; whether you have money in your pocket or whether you've spent your last coins to see it ... watch it. This film will creep inside your mind and play with you. Watch it.

Emily L (gb) wrote: Story portrayed well although I think a bigger budget and more support during production could have placed higher status actors in the film. Shame. Stephen Curry however, was a great choice to play Damien Oliver. Great.

Cameron J (br) wrote: "I hope that someone gets my, I hope that someone gets my, I hope that someone gets my message in a bottle, message in a bottle. Sending out an SOS, sending out an SOS, sending out an SOS, sending out an SOS, sending out an SOS, send..." Hold on, all I did was type that and I need to catch my breath. Seriously though, I guess Kevin Costner could work Sting, with some work that is, but he's not about four years younger than Sting, so there's no way this biopic could work all that terribly well unless it were to cover events in Sting's life from the '80s or early '90s or something. Jeez, I wish this was as uncheesy as the origin story of the guy who would go on to write a song called "De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da", but no, this is the origin story of Nicholas Sparks, and sure enough, we're looking at a mediocre start to a mediocre series of film adaptations that still hasn't stopped Sparks from being about as frequently adapted as Stephen King, and still able to get more stars than space. Speaking of which, in the '90s, alone, you knew that Paul Newman was getting old when it got to the point to where he could play Kevin Costner's dad, but hey, I'll run with it, because it's still a pretty great casting choice, and decidedly more so than the choice of getting Costner to play Sting. Jokes aside, casting isn't the only thing done right in this film, for although this film is a mess, it's not without certain undeniable strengths that keep it from sinking.Only so much effort is put into dolling up this film, but we're still talking about cinematographic efforts by the great Caleb Deschanel, and sure enough, while the film isn't all that much of a consistent stunner, it is often quite pretty, boasting that distinctly Caleb Deschanel flavor that plays with lighting balance in a tasteful fashion, gracing the more naturally lit areas with a reasonably appealing warmth, while making the more glow-heavy spots near, if not decidedly gorgeous, particularly when photographic scope is played up to give you an attractive feel for the film's environments. When the film hits on a visual level, it hits pretty hard, not exactly looking all-out radiant, but mighty good nonetheless, and such aesthetic engagement value helps in getting it by, but not as much as the engagement value behind the performances within this colorful cast of, well, underwritten talents. Our performers don't have too much to work with, and it doesn't help that much of this script's dialogue is about as hard to sell as a copy of "Wyatt Earp" on VHS (Sorry, Kevin), but if these cast members deliver on nothing else, it is, of course, charisma, with the unfortunately underused Paul Newman stealing just about every scene he graces with his legendary charm, while leads Kevin Costner and Robin Wright Penn keep this romance story from slipping too considerably by sharing a commendable bit of chemistry. A leading duo's chemistry is, of course, key in getting a romantic opus like this by, and while Costner's and Penn's charismas aren't bridged by sparks, or at least not so much intensity that you can ignore the film's dramatic shortcomings, they supplement charm, this film's greatest strength. Now, that being said, the film isn't so charming that you have enough fun with it to walk away having fully enjoyed yourself, but whether it be because of its active attempts at charming the audience, or simply its somewhat endearing ambition, disdain toward this film is hard something fierce to sustain. Entertainment value gradually augments as the film unravels, and by the end, it's alright, with the final act being ever so shockingly pretty strong, and while decency falls upon this film much too late for the final product to, on the whole, battle back mediocrity, decency is in view enough for you to see what could have been, even if its not much. Still, make no mistake, the final product, regardless of its relative high notes, doesn't make it through and through, being almost enjoyable, but generally much too flawed to be likable, or even memorable, notably when it comes to pacing.It's not exactly all over the place, but the film's pacing is decidedly uneven, taking damage from repetitious fat around the edges that drags pacing down to the point of making the final product's gratuitous 130-minute-long runtime feel longer than it actually is, though not long enough for you to feel that the film is as meditative with its substance as it should be, as there are still enough slapdashed areas to thin out expository depth, and quite a bit of it. The charm within the performances help in getting you about as reasonably attached to the characters as you can be, but on paper, the characterization that is so very crucial in a film of this type feels undercooked, distancing your investment about as much as the cheesiness that isn't as considerable as I feared, but more pronounced than it should be, even in the music department. You may remember Gabriel Yared as the score composer of "The English Patient", "City of Angels", "1408" and many other films that were graced by tasteful, if a bit conventional original soundtracks, which makes it all the more unfortunate that Yared should fall so flat with his efforts for this film, because if a musical touch is not the occasional lame '90s soul tune, then it's a trite, weakly contemporaneous score piece, or at least that's the case until the film's latter acts, in which Yared strangely finds inspiration, but not quickly enough to be forgiven for the underwhelming efforts that corn things up, though not as much as the dialogue, which either gets better as the film goes along, or is gotten used to after a while, but is consistently fall-flat to one degree or another, ranging from underwhelming to just plain bad, failing to color up a story that desperately needs refreshment. From my understanding, this is hardly the most over-the-top Nick Sparks film adaptation, and I reckon I can see that, because this film isn't exactly Lifetime histrionic, but it is histrionic, tainting graceful subtlety and genuineness with disengagingly manufactured dramatic notes that are too superficial for you to fully run with. It's all too easy to deduce the outcome of this unlikely rom-dram, and that's if you take this story's conventionalism out of consideration, something that you're bound to have trouble doing, because, as you can imagine, this film is formulaic as all get-out, following the same beat and path that oh so many films of this type have hit, almost to a tee, to the point of not simply being conventional or generic, but just plain borderline trite. It's almost painfully obvious to see where this film is going, and that ignites enough blandness, and when you work in all of the histrionics and pacing issues, then you end up with a film that would be all-out dull if it wasn't for the charm that is still not strong enough to be overpowered by some degree of blandness. There aren't too many flaws to this film, but neither are there too many strengths, and when it's all said and done, the flaws outweigh the strengths, while what really towers over all is, of course, the mediocrity, for although this film has its high notes, it ultimately falls flat as just another paint-by-numbers, somewhat messily composed romantic melodrama that could have been more, yet is ultimately nothing short of utterly inconsequential and forgettable.When it's all washed up, you're left looking at a film that has its high notes, being very well-shot and reasonably well-acted, with a chemistry between leads Kevin Costner and Robin Wright Penn that supplements the charm that almost saves the film as decent, but doesn't quite make the cut, boasting pacing issues that drag out runtime and thins out expository depth, while cheesing things up with a flawed soundtrack, lame dialogue-heavy script, and disconcertingly dramatically manufactured story that, when exacerbated by overwhelming conventionalism, ignites a considerable blandness that makes "Message in a Bottle" an inconsequential misfire that borders on fair, but ultimately falls flat as mediocre.2.25/5 - Mediocre

Corpse M (br) wrote: not scary, not funny, and not gory. personally the thought of a psychopathic giggling doctor sounds like it could be creepy as hell but this movie misses its mark. the doctor is nothing but lame and annoying.

James C (de) wrote: One of Keitel's best roles. I've got one of my nicknames from the title character.

Timothy C (gb) wrote: Pleasant romantic comedy about French social mores with Barrault and Lanoux starring as cousins - by marriage - who first become friends who eventually fall in love. They finally have an affair, flaunting it beautifully to their entire family. Some early development of farce, but not taken far enough, although there is a wonderful funeral sequence where everyone seems preoccupied with other things, rather than a deceased member of the family. (Pascal incessantly looking at his watch; the children assuming the funeral is another party.) Great performances from Barrault and Lanoux highlight the fun.

Kevin R (fr) wrote: If I were a wealthy manTevye is a poor Jew in pre-revolutionary Russia. He is married and has three daughters that are of marrying age. In their culture, the father selects who his daughters marry. He tries to pick places where they will have money and live well. But traditions are changing and his daughters will try to make Tevye keep up with the times...especially when they do not like the husbands he has selected. Will Tevye give into his daughters and evolve or will he stick to the traditions?"We're going to Chicago, America.""We're going to New York, America. We'll be neighbors."Norman Jewison, director of The Hurricane, Moonstruck, Other People's Money, The Thomas Crown Affair (1968), In the Heat of the Night (1967), and The Cincinnati Kid, delivers Fiddler of the Roof. The storyline for this picture is awesome and amazingly compelling. The characters are mesmerizing and the script and soundtrack is brilliant. The cast delivers captivating performances and includes Topol, Norma Crane, Leonard Fray, Molly Picon, and Paul Michael Glaser. "He'll beat you every night.""But only when he's sober.""So you're alright."I DVR'd this picture during Turner Classic Movies' (TCM) Oscar week. This just felt like a film I should see and it definitely did not disappoint. I loved every minute of this film and it surely did not feel like a 3 hour plus film. I can tell you that you get wrapped in the storyline so quickly that it is like reading a good book that before you know it, it's over. I strongly recommend seeing this movie and adding it to your DVD collection."If you spit in the air it will land on your face."Grade: A+

Justin B (ca) wrote: As daring as it is forgettable. Mel Gibson returns in form as his typical wild card type of character in a familiar but perfectly passable thriller with bouts of very graphic violence.

Tanvir M (ca) wrote: Solid and intense sports drama, and transcends the typical underdog film genre to become a mirror to the capitalist mindset of winner takes all and the incredible pressure that is associated with it.

Ethan L (mx) wrote: Charming, but where are the laughs?

haley d (mx) wrote: is this the real greys anatomy cuz it doesnt look lik it

Grant H (nl) wrote: Fairly good movie. Pretty funny, good messages, and good performances from its cast.