Andrea spend many time for her new environment at her new boarding school. One day, she uncovers the unwontedness of students preyed upon by a special group. She tries to find the way to avoid the wrong and save other students. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Zombie High torrent reviews
Kurt B (ag) wrote: A beautfuly shot rustic countyside isn't enough to save this story from itself.
Loreen B (de) wrote: I love all Riddick movies
Alyssa B (nl) wrote: Looks like a great stupid movie...so of course I want to see it.
Jim C (gb) wrote: Ryan Donowho is unwell and needs strict attention. Fortunately I'm available. Beyond his acting ability, he has that look that very few actors achieve without resorting to homelessness and eating Pop Tarts as meals, except that he's homeless...and probably eats Pop Tarts as meals. I can think of 2, maybe 3 others who have or had it: James Dean, James Franco...and Ryan Donowho. I'm tempted to think that there's something of himself in this movie; some part of Eddy was wrought in Ryan's angst. He reminds me of someone I knew in my late teens and early twenties. Someone very good looking, very out there, artistic, edgy, cool and miserable. But misery loves company and I loved his company, too. Our losses weren't corporeal death like Eddy's was, but separation from familiarity is a kind of death itself. Like Eddy, there wasn't much solace for us that didn't involve someone else getting hurt, and that was usually me.I liked this film, as I've liked all of Ryan Donowho's films, but this one made me cringe a bit...from familiarity.
Harry W (au) wrote: Though critically panned and based on terrible source material, I had some slight hopes that Eragon would deliver some visual panache.Eragon was not a book that I enjoyed reading. Written by a 15 year old and completed by 17, I felt this was too obvious due to its derivative and thinly written story which was backed up by frustrating language. And on top of that, there was nothing in terms of character being offered as everyone is some kind of generic fantasy archetype. And the way that the novel leaves the protagonist interacting with a dragon through a telepathic link was not just an underdeveloped and overly simplistic concept, but not something which could be adapted and remain sensible. The only way this could transfer to film is through the use of voice-over narration which everybody knows is the easy way out. Basically, all things considered the source material is just too much of a juvenile construction of weak writing and I expected the film to be the same. Yet I hoped to find greater success in the film adaptation so that the action envisioned in the narrative could be presented to me with $100 million production values. Alas, the story, or lack thereof overwhelms the viewer with its incompetence.One of the most common criticisms of the Eragon film is that it feels like a massive rip-off of Star Wars. I don't know what audiences were expecting when they saw the film because that's exactly what the novel was. Eragon is a book that attempts to cross over the universes of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings by combining the fantasy context of the latter with a plot device identical to that of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. In that sense, it delivers on some of the promises of the novel. But that is nothing to boast about, and neither are the changes that occur within adaptation. With a story condensed into a mere 99 minute running time, Eragon is clearly more concerned about appealing to a commercial audience than pretending that it has any substance. In a sense this is good because really there was none and I'd rather the film get to the point, but it also cuts through any slight potential for the film to actively transcend the thin scripting of the source novel. This is made most obvious in one particular scene. After Saphira is born, she is at first characterized as a driving force behind a wider narrative but rather as strictly a gimmick that Eraon can enjoy the idea of possessing. But soon after, she flies off into the sky and then returns momentarily to have aged a great many years. This is a weak plot substitute for an already weak story that was given by the source material, but at least the novel made an effort in this part. Christopher Paolini wrote the story out so that Eragon and Saphira establish a bond by growing up together, and though it was characterized with weak writing, it at least made more of an effort than Peter Buchman's script. Essentially, in an effort to condense Eragon into a period of a meagre 99 minutes, much of the story is rushed. This forsakes the notion of any narrative transcendence whatsoever. And on top of that, when Eragon's uncle dies nobody could honestly care less. It's not even played off as a subplot, it's less relevant to the story than the many Varden that die in the final battle.But like I said at the start of this review, I came into Eragon with the hope of some visual panache. Despite costing $100 million, Eragon even failed to deliver on that. The scenery used in the film is overly basic while the production design feels somewhat cheap. Most of the film simply depicts characters running across the land aimlessly, as if the film was shot by John Ford in a forest. The difference is that John Ford films are about the land and not the journey yet Eragon thinks at has a story, and as a result is more focused on the actors than the beauty of the landscape. There is a lack of innovative cinematography utilized in Eragon, but it doesn't really have that much to capture anyway. Even the visual effects are not transcendent despite being arguably the best part of the film. At least director Stefen Fangmeier saw fit to give Saphira a good appearance because she is cute as a baby and majestic as an adult. Yet her movements seem a little too animated at times, and the sight of Eragon riding her becomes commonly all too obvious as unfolding in front of a green screen. This doesn't prove of any assistance when the film reaches what should be its greatest point, the climactic battle at the end. The final action scene is plagued by poor lighting and overly quick editing which bury the battle beneath an incomprehensible visual experience. It's the lighting that really damages it because the choreography is decent and some of the set pieces are used well. It's just that there is too much damn shadow to actually embrace it.So with everything buried beneath overblown yet underedeveloped direction, it is no surprise when the cast is left to falter.Edward Speleers is another person making a debut on Eragon, but not making a credible effort. The boy has his handsome charms, but for a first film role he is given too much of a burden. He has to carry an incompetent film on his shoulders, and he does not have the experience to prove close to succeeding. For one thing, he has a problem with facial expressions. While the voice over work depicting the telepathic communication between Eragon and Saphira plays out, Edward Speleers fails to depict any engagement with the character. He simply stares stiffly into the distance while a voice happens to play in the background, displaying no emotion whatsoever. But when he does show emotion, the experience is even worse. Whenever Saphira is aorund, the only thing he can do is smile. This happens regardless of the context, regardless of the fact that someone close to him may have just been killed or of the fact that the situation is too intense to be happy about. Edward Speleers seems to be having fun in his role which is reflected through the gleeful nature of the character, but it is the furthest thing from the appropriate intense nature of the character. Edward Speleers is simply thrown into the deep end with his first film while Stefen Fangmeier puts less emphasis on giving the actor an actual character than he does on repeatedly displaying the man collapsing in slow motion which ultimately becomes laughable by the end of the film. Edward Speleers delivers a performance as thin as the character himself, and whatever potential charm he has becomes buried under misguided direction.John Malkovich is condemned to the role of the underdeveloped antagonist Galbatorix. In the novel, nobody ever encounters Galbatorix as he is simply an unseen force believed to be the epitome of all evil. In that sense, there is no character to adapt and so Galbatorix is an entirely new reation for the film. Since Patrick Buchman had no idea how to adapt the novel, expecting him to create something original is not promising. So when he delivers a character who simply drags down the presence of accomplished actor John Malkovich, the experience is depressing. John Malkovich is an actor who was able to turn the role of Cyrus Grissom from Con Air into an actual memorable character, and so the fact that he cannot do the same thing to Galbatorix really says something about how poor the writing is. Never in a million years would I blame a talented actor like John Malkovich for the performance that he gives because it could not be the fault of a man of his talent. In the film adaptation, the narrative cuts back and forth between what Eragon is experiencing and what is happening in the home of Galbatorix's empire, as well as his own experiences. This removes the sense of mystery and unpredictability that was present in the novel, the one unpredictable thing that came from a book that took everything from Star Wars. John Malkovich's screen time ends up too short to actively have any effect, so I couldn't help but ask "What's the point?". I would guess that he did as well and that's why he couldn't be bothered with the character, but there is no sense blaming him when his lack of interest overshadows the melodramatic attempts of the other actors.The natural presence of an accomplished actor like Jeremy Irons should benefit Eragon, but with the film determined on ruining the efforts of every cast member there is ultimately nothing to boast about. In his second appearance in a dragon mythology film that rips off Star Wars following 2000's Dungeons & Dragons, Jeremy Irons sinks into a lesser character which leaves him delivering all this uninspired dialogue as such. Jeremy Irons is likable strictly for being Jeremy Irons, but not for being Brom. And he fails to convey anything close to the supposed wisdom that is meant to come with the archetype, even though he proves capable of contributing to a sword fight.And in terms of Saphira, the voice of Rachel Weisz is of no benefit. Saphira is supposed to be a dragon, not a pompous British girl. And as much as she tries, she is simply miscast in the role and therefore unconvincing from the get go. There is nothing beastly about her, and so the contrast in her voice to the appearance of the character is too much to look past.The only cast member who really delivers any charisma is Garrett Hedlund. In one of his earliest screen appearances, Garrett Hedlund manages to do for Murtagh what Edward Speleers should have done for Eragon. He remains intense the entire time with physical engagement with the action and even a touch of likable youthful charm as part of his natural spirit. His brief appearance means that he leaves before we see anything majorly wrong with the character, but either way Garrett Hedlund is able to deliver a charismatic effort which brings out some much needed spirit in such a dreary feature.So due to the case of Eragon being a film director making his debut with a $100 million to spend on an adaptation of a novel written by a 15 year old that casts another newcomer in the titular role, the surface value of Eragon's production should obviously predict the resulting failure of the movie. And the lack of experience in everyone is reflected in a narrative which embraces all of the bad elements of the source material and none of the potential.
Sarah M (fr) wrote: pretty funny but not really...
Frances H (au) wrote: The pointlessness of the lives of losers? What is the point? Well acted.
Harry W (ca) wrote: In a long search for a slasher film I would consider truly great, My Bloody Valentine managed to catch my attention as a cult classic.When it comes to slasher films, there are simple demands to make an enjoyable feature: plenty of violence and nudity. This means that My Bloody Valentine has minimal expectations to cater to, but the resulting feature turns out rather meandering. The opening scene depicts two people preparing to have sex in a mineshaft for some godforsaken reason. The general idea of it is ridiculous enough to bring laughter into the film, but unfortunately the sight of a half-naked woman is the most nudity the film will get. Though there are plenty of stupid teenagers in My Bloody Valentines, they don't entertain viewers with sex and nudity but are rather just plain stupid. Occasionally this is played off for comedic results, but it doesn't have the same extent of appeal within a slasher film that boobs do. It's as simple as that, but that's not how director George Mihalka sees it. After the intro, My Bloody Valentine kicks off with gleeful energy and idiotic characters as a means of adding the elements of aforementioned humour. The film is able to consistently oscillate between this and horror to ensure that it takes itself seriously without neglecting the need to have some moments of silliness for the first act of the film. This keeps things mildly entertaining between the murders until the film hits its killing spree climax. Among all this, My Bloody Valentine takes only about 10 minutes before it explains who its antagonist is. Though this takes away the trope of mystery common in slasher films, it reveals the motives of the killer to audiences and offers a valid reason for the killer to be angry. However, this also leaves the potential for audiences to experience a twist which combats their expectations and plays with their certainties. My Bloody Valentine follows the simplistic conventions of a slasher film enough to cater to fans though it has some slight elements of innovation. However, none of them end up being all that transcendent amid the utter simplicity of the entire film. For one thing, the predominant setting eventually becomes the mineshaft seen at the start of the film. This is good in the sense that it provides viewers with a sense of claustrophobia which combines which confines the characters to a setting of no escape, but the visual appeal of this gets old really fast and so the setting ends up as repetitive. Why the characters end up choosing to enter the location still baffles me, but the film does not encourage intellectual stimulation and so I didn't find concern in determining why. The fact that the film uses on-location scenery boosts the credibility of the narrative since its genuine nature works to make things convincing.There ends up being a lot of blood in My Bloody Valentine which ensures that it lives up to the promises of its title and its generic contract as a slasher film. There are a large number of victims in the film who are given the unsuspected execution with a pickaxe before bleeding everywhere. One of them is a burn victim, but she is the exception and features some effective prosthetics. The killer goes through essentially the same method of killing every time, coming out of unsuspecting places to kill whomever with the same pickaxe. He digs into them with enough strength to deal a blow which doesn't require the actors to deliver melodramatic reactions to the generic stabbings of standard slasher fare. And thanks to the way the story is set up, the killer in the story is able to appear freely on the screen within the confines of his costume and yet maintain a hidden identity for the sake of mystery. Frankly, amid the countless generic slasher films to come out during the heyday of the genre, My Bloody Valentine rises above many of the low standards. The quantity of nudity in the story is not one of them, but the fact that the film manages to capture so much on a minimal budget means that it keeps to its low-budget roots but never ends up feeling all that cheap. It's made with a higher standard of filmmaking than the creation of Friday the 13th (1980), but more simplistic ambitions than A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984). Director George Mihalka clearly set out to make nothing more than a genre picture which he most certainly achieved, and he did it with plenty of blood of gore to keep the visual experience rich in colour. And the plot of the film ends up stretched to little more than 90 minutes so that it doesn't overstay its welcome. To keep things engaging, the pace of the film moves along at a relatively brisk speed without obsessing over its story or taking things all that seriously. And to top it off, My Bloody Valentine is a standalone film and does not have its credibility disregarded by an endless array of unnecessary sequels, even though the conventions of its story leave it open for one. It eventually ended up with a remake which was more critically and commercially successful in a rare case for remakes, but My Bloody Valentine still maintains its credibility as a standalone cult classic by not having a story which has churned out a ridiculous number of different stories about how the antagonist can't be killed.There are no cast members who make any kind of a serious impact in My Bloody Valentine because the film is short on characters as slasher films tend to be. Since there is also no nudity, the actors cannot be immortalized for their appearances either. They are all generic players in a thin story which is of no challenge to anybody, though this is probably a good idea since viewers would never have heard of any of the actors in the film. My Bloody Valentine is a half-decent slasher film: the story is generic, the method of murder is repetitive and there is no nudity but it still offers an original antagonist and plenty of blood to boot.
Jason J (us) wrote: A brilliant family adventure involving a lost colony of Vikings in the Arctic.
Jessica M (ca) wrote: This has to be my favorite movie in the whole for so many reasons!
Brandon D (ru) wrote: Boring but the Stop animation was cool
Jed D (it) wrote: "One of the worst films, I've ever seen." Thumbs down!
Cristina G (ag) wrote: this was amazzzzzing