My Great Escape - "The Cure Movie"

Are you ready to start getting to sleep and. Insomnia wiki in HD Quality hd dvd Insomnia Movie hd Insomnia Movie. Online Insomnia Movie dvd. It suffers from a fatal overdose of melodrama and a running time that will wear down the resolve of even the most resilient filmwatcher. What is the cure for insomnia movie and Where to find the cure for insomnia?
Watch this one only if you have a particular interest in any of the actors. What is the cure for insomnia movie and Where to find the cure for insomnia? Optimise your vitamin D3 levels. I once heard there was a 27 hour long version.That movie was so boring I had to fight hard to stay awake. All inhabitants are forced by public. What is the Movie Called The Cure for Insomnia? Filmseite auf dem Planeten.
Despite the fact that it left audiences rapt and creeped out at the 1998 Toronto International Film Festival, and then again at Toronto in 1999, Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s Cure never hit with American audiences when it managed a small release in the United States a few years ago.That might be because the only Japanese movies that make it through the “free-trade” barriers that keep most foreign films out of the U.S. are either some of Beat Takeshi’s or the grotesquely violent and sadistic chop-‘em-ups that have developed a cult following.

Cure has its share of bloodshed (and one moment where the squeamish may want to shield their eyes from the screen) but this occult thriller thrives thanks to an atmosphere of dread and alienation which settles over it like a billowing, evil fog.
The plot is fairly simple, though bizarre: Police detective Takabe (Koji Yakusho, known to popular audiences from Shall We Dance and cineastes from The Eel) investigates a strange series of murders. A husband kills a wife, a policeman his station mate, and various other people their intimates and acquaintances all seemingly on the whim of a moment.  Some can’t understand how they could have possibly yielded to such a monstrous and fleeting impulse while at least one insists he was justified in the face of his victim’s annoying habits.
After a serious head injury in 1997, Rick Simpson sought relief from his medical condition through the use of medicinal hemp oil. When Rick discovered that the hemp oil (with its high concentration of T.H.C.) cured cancers and other illnesses, he tried to share it with as many people as he could free of charge, curing and controlling literally hundreds of people’s illnesses… but when the story went public, the long arm of the law snatched the medicine – leaving potentially thousands of people without their cancer treatments – and leaving Rick with unconsitutional charges of possessing and trafficking marijuana!

Return Of The Living Dead 5 Movie Review

I certainly didn’t LIKE Return of the Living Dead 4: Necropolis, but I will stand by my claim that it was a mild improvement on the 2nd film, which inexplicably brought back two actors to play different characters, focused too heavily on the comedy, and neglected to use the already established story from the original to create a faster pace – if anything it was SLOWER. Necropolis, on the other hand, suffered from some of the same problems… just in a slightly better way. However, Return Of The Living Dead 5: Rave To The Grave, is just as abysmal as ROTLD2, possibly even worse; the only interesting thing about it is that it actually mirrors that one in ways that I assume are not intentional.
The biggest is that it once again brings back actors from the previous film but doesn’t continue their actual character arcs. But it’s WORSE than 2, because there they were supposed to be different people in similar situations (how audiences were supposed to understand that, I have no idea), whereas here they are the same characters but have seemingly forgotten everything that happened to them in the previous movie! It’s Peter Coyote’s nephew and his girlfriend again, yet they have not only forgotten about Coyote’s attempts to kill them (he dies in the first 5 minutes of this one and the kid is actually broken up about it), but they seemingly don’t even recall anything about the zombies! Granted, I haven’t exactly stored the 90 minutes of Necropolis on my brain’s hard drive, but I’m pretty sure I’d remember if the characters were all brain wiped at the end of the film.
And again, despite the fact that the zombie problem has already started, we AGAIN have to start all over, which allows the filmmakers to keep the film from having any real action until the final reel. It’s a problem in pretty much every movie, which is unique to this particular zombie series – Romero only rebooted it once (in Diary), otherwise he always used the previously established problem as a means of getting into the meat of his story, which is what any intelligent screenwriter will do. But these two movies were written by Bill Butler, who also gave us gems like Demonic Toys 2 and Gingerdead Man, so telling a good story doesn’t seem to be something that concerns him.
But yeah, it’s Rave to the Grave – I shouldn’t expect wacky things like decent storytelling or interesting characters. Nor would I care that the movie lacked them, IF it was actually entertaining on some level, which it is not. Again, the zombie outbreak starts from scratch, so the promised “Rave” doesn’t even START until past the movie’s one hour mark, and then there’s a bit before the zombies start showing up there. The movie’s only good idea is that the Trioxin has found its way into some designer drugs, so all the idiots that are at the rave are popping the pills and turning, and no one else thinks much of it because they’re also high or just “feeling the music” or whatever it is that people at raves do instead of playing Skyrim like normal folks (level 26! Almost maxed on Smithing!). But even though they set up that pretty much everyone in attendance will turn into a zombie, it’s remarkably low-key, and even when “all hell breaks loose” they keep stopping the action to focus on two characters talking in a room or isolated, meaningless gags involving less than a handful of zombies attacking one dude.

Anna's Eve Movie Review

Weird connection - some of the folks who worked on Anna's Eve were also involved with the 2002 movie Love And A Bullet, and select crew from that went on to make April Fools, the abysmal slasher movie. Perhaps I should seek out Love And A Bullet to see if I can understand the mystery of how the people who made it went on to make separate but equally amateurish horror films that seem like no one involved understood how horror WORKS.
But whereas April Fools had some lovingly stupid moments (and who can forget "People call me POOP"?) and had the good sense to come in at 72 minutes, this overlong (95 minutes) bore is free of anything that can be considered amusing. At no point do the actors seem to realize that the movie they are acting out is pretty pointless and dull and thus maybe they should try to spice it up a bit by over-acting. It's almost kind of remarkable in a way; the back-story involves a social work case gone horribly wrong, and Grayce Wey's script (in which she stars as the main character) manages to make the ghost/murder scenes just as uninteresting as the ones involving writing up follow up reports about certain child welfare cases.
And director Kantz (that's the whole name) is no help, botching the few scare scenes that are actually on-screen. Most just occur entirely in our imagination; at one point a character seemingly runs to safety only for some dialogue in the next scene to inform us that she was actually killed. A good director would at least show the ghost running after her or popping up in their path, which would be a "good enough" choice if they weren't able/willing to actually SHOW the kill, but Kantz doesn't roll that way, I guess. This also leads to plain ol' confusion at times, particularly in the opening sequence. The movie starts awkwardly anyway; I thought the DVD had somehow skipped the first chapter as it seemingly starts mid-scene, but then the main character goes into a house and sees... SOMETHING, which causes her to scream as we cut to the main titles. Then it's "eight months later" and she's now addicted to pills and driving a different car, so whatever she saw was pretty important - why the hell didn't they SHOW it then? Again, we just hear it through dialogue, as if Kantz had come from the radio drama world and hadn't gotten used to the idea of working in a visual medium yet.
Now, off-screen kills can be fine if they serve a more interesting or twisty story, but this one is just the usual "ghost seeks revenge for her death/improper burial" thing that you've seen in a million Asian horror flicks, and we even get a scare ripped off directly from Ju-On for good measure. Plus their attempts at twists just render the story incoherent - the "bad guy" is not actually the killer, and his actions/character motivations are constantly at odds with one another (without spoiling too much - though I don't know why I'd bother - he sure has a weird way of showing how devoted he is to the woman he loves). Worse, the ghost doesn't even seem to distinguish between who killed her and who is just kind of a jerk; it's almost like she SIDES with her killer because somehow deep down she knows the other guy is really to blame. It'd be like if the Poltergeist ghost confronted the Freelings and was like "Look, I know you didn't know that you built the home over my grave, so just give me the address of your boss and I'll go haunt him instead." In short, a rational ghost is not a scary one (and my example isn't even as stupid as what happens here).

Spiderhole Movie Review

However, apart from the squatting backdrop, the movie is largely indistinguishable from a dozen other flicks, and director Daniel Simpson’s script squander its few interesting elements, so ultimately the title is the only thing that gives it any identity. If it was called, I dunno, “Death House” it would be impossible to remember anything about this movie in a week or so. I should note that there are also a few random shots of Daddy Long Legs crawling around to add to the “theme”.
As I was joking about on Twitter, this is one of those movies where a news report foreshadows an event that will pay off later, and our heroine is inexplicably interested in the story even though it has absolutely nothing to do with her. Early on, as she sits in a sort of daze because she can’t pay rent (me too!), she suddenly perks up when the newscaster points out that today makes the 10th anniversary of the disappearance of a little girl. As far as I can tell, she never knew her or anything, so why this would catch her ear over the other news stories is beyond me… unless you’re well versed in horror movies. Then you’ll know perfectly well that the bad things that are about to happen to them JUST MIGHT have something to do with the girl’s disappearance.
So it’s sort of funny that Simpson more or less forgets about this plot point until the final 30 seconds, when our final survivor is tossed into yet another room and we realize (spoiler) that the little girl is still alive and is now feral, living in the walls and eating the victims of our killer. Points for the grim ending, but why wasn’t this stuff brought up earlier? It doesn’t work as a twist if it’s shoehorned in like that – a less astute viewer might not even remember the first scene’s newscast part by the time this comes up at the end. If anything it just makes matters confusing: why did the killer hold on to this particular girl, when he kills everyone else pretty quickly? Was this his house, or was he a squatter himself? Why are these kids so hellbent on living in this shithole? I’d also ask what the odds were that four good friends would find themselves homeless simultaneously, but why bother?
The kills aren’t even that impressive (most of them are off-screen, in fact). The best is a telegraphed bit where two of the heroes beat one of the others to death with spiked 2x4s, thinking that he is the killer (Valentine provides the best one of these), because it’s visceral and over the top – which just makes the climax all the more obnoxious when our heroine DEFINITELY has the killer in her grasp but settles for merely conking him on the head once with a non-spiked piece of wood. What, did killing her friend take all of her energy? Does she no longer have the heart to at least make a guy bleed?
And how’s this for depressing – I actually fell asleep during the following scene, even though the movie was 5 minutes from ending (believe me, I was keeping track). Part of the movie’s dumb gimmick is that they are trapped in the house (that they had to break into in the first place! Clever!!), because he’s boarded everything up and has multiple locks on everything. So of course, when she gets to the door with his keys, she has to open a few locks and doesn’t know which key is which. The scene goes on so long that I actually “rested my eyes”, only to wake up when the movie stopped a few minutes later. Granted, I fall asleep at movies a lot, but it’s usually during the middle act when things are in between being set up and being resolved. Falling asleep during what should be the highlight of the movie is pretty much unheard of for me; even at midnight movies that I’ve seen 10 times I can manage to wake up for the finale. So I had to go back and rewatch this nonsense, which also included the big “twist” that wasn’t worth the effort.

The Devil Inside 2012 Movie Review

So basically, their problem is that the movie just cuts out at a point where it seems like a big climax is about to begin, before an on-screen epilogue tells you to visit a website and then an Asylum-esque end credits sequence begins, which means this 85 minute movie is actually a 75 minute one. But I think the real problem isn’t the actual ending itself – it’s that the ad campaign focused on a subplot that is left unresolved, which makes the movie understandably feel incomplete. If you stand back and look at the movie as a whole, you realize that it’s actually about the two documentarians and the two priests they follow around – not the girl’s mother, and thus the fact that the mom’s story isn’t satisfyingly concluded isn’t THAT big of a deal – she was only in two or three scenes! The fates of the four real main characters are definitely resolved, so it's got one up on Last Exorcism.
Also, how I managed to watch TWO movies this week with misleading trailers, I have no idea. Can we PLEASE try to market the movies truthfully? If they’re not easy to sum up in two minute (or less) spots, that just means they are more interesting and less generic. Embrace that, don’t hide it.
Like last year’s underrated (but similarly flawed) The Rite, the movie is more about the exorcists than the ones possessed. Our actual heroes are a pair of priests who engage in “rogue exorcisms” when they feel they are warranted but are forbidden to act upon them by the church. The church doesn’t just do an exorcism for anyone who claims they’re possessed – they must undergo strenuous investigation and evaluation and get approved by the higher-ups (not the pope – that’d be kind of awesome though), and our guys rightfully think they’re too strict. However – and this is what the movie is actually about – they might have a point about being so strict, as we learn that maybe had our protagonists just left well enough alone, a lot fewer people would be dead. Certainly, a movie with the message “Maybe the church is right” isn’t going to go over well with everyone.
But it’s also an independently produced horror movie being put on thousands of screens by Paramount, which means that it’s another found footage movie (two of THOSE this week too!). The other two main characters are the ones making a documentary; Michael the camera operator isn’t seen too much (but plays more of a part than say, the guy who filmed [Rec]’s events), and our heroine, Isabella, whose mother is in an institution after a suspected possession. They’re not quite as interesting as Ben and David the priests, but it creates an interesting dynamic, with everyone having clashing goals: Isabella wants to help her mom, Michael wants to make a movie, Ben wants to prove himself right to the church, and David just seemingly wants everyone to be at peace. So many found footage movies lack genuine conflict amongst the characters beyond squabbling about whatever is happening at the time (Mike throwing away the map, for example), it’s nice to have that extra bit of dimensionality for a change.
In fact, as with the far more problematic Apollo 18, I’d argue that the verite approach is a handicap in some ways. Along with the constant “stop filming” issue (partially solved with a bunch of mounted cameras inside their car – a goofy workaround to say the least), the genre has become overcrowded – this is actually the 3rd or 4th “found footage” exorcism movie – and thus the audience has grown accustomed to cheap jump shocks (which the film offers, though not too many) in place of the more story and character-based horror that the film is actually going for. Also, the shaki-cam might turn off the older viewers who might be more interested in this kind of story (granted it was midnight, but I’m pretty sure I was the oldest person in the fairly packed crowd). That said, they did a fine job of recreating 1980s style news footage, and even left a couple of moments off-screen to keep up the realism – if they caught EVERYTHING of note it would be ridiculous. Also, without spoiling its actual contents, the anger over the ending is overclouding that it’s a terrific mini-setpiece in its own right, nearly justifying the choice to go with found footage on its own.
As with other religious (read: Catholic) based horror movies I’ve watched, I think my upbringing may also contribute to why I enjoyed it more than most. 200 days of the year I spent 6-7 hours a day looking at the icons and images, hearing about miracles and damnation and the Devil and whatever else. And then every Sunday (or Saturday afternoon) I’d be taken out of my preferred element – sitting around playing video games or watching horror movies, usually – to listen to a sermon and read about the same sort of stuff. Even though I don’t think about it too much anymore, you can’t spend that much time being exposed to something without it leaving an impression (especially during one’s formative years), so perhaps I just have a subconscious attachment to this sort of material. I mean, I’d probably really enjoy a horror movie that took place in the fascinating world of end credits design, too.
But to be fair, the movie DOES drop the ball in a few areas. In addition to the mother, there's another subplot regarding the Ben character that is left unexplained, and given the movie's super-short runtime I can't help but wonder if these elements (which would be dialogue driven) were excised in favor of a version that got to the scares more often. They also don't do enough with the "exorcism school" - a few more scenes there might have helped explain why Ben and David were so driven to go against their practices. In fact, I'd still love to see a whole movie centered around this exorcism school - even if it was a straight up drama, I think it would be kind of fascinating, seeing these guys train for a job that their superiors don't actually want them to do (but there's a dog-based jump scare! Can't get enough of those!).

Asian Horror Films Are Becoming All The Rage In The West

Asian horror films are becoming all the rage in the West, especially with the popularity of “The Ring”, “The Eye”, and the “Battle Royale” series. So it goes without saying that “Ju-On” has an awful lot to live up to in terms of audience expectations. The shot-on-video film rises to the challenge impressively, and becomes one of the most bizarre and macabre releases in recent memory.
The film is primarily an anthology, a ghost story broken up into four acts that all revolve around the same subject. The opening tale concerns a worried teacher who goes in search of a missing student. He finds the boy abandoned and underfed at home, with the child’s mother murdered and wrapped in plastic in the attic. Things essentially go downhill from there. The second and third entries revolve around an unfortunate family that has moved into the home, and how the house’s supernatural influences consume them. The finale deals with a man who has the unenviable task of trying to sell the house, and how he attempts to exorcise it of its powerful demons.
Director Takashi Shimizu works miracles with a scant $4 million budget, and gives the film an atmospheric and surreal quality. It is this dark trait that makes the film so effective, and allows the audience to suspend whatever disbelief they had when they started to watch the movie. Shimizu also gives the film the perfect pace — first starting out slowly, then later wringing out every scene for its shock value. It is commendable that Shimizu uses surprisingly little gore, but even so the images of the crying ghost child and the jawless ghost may haunt you for weeks. Sadly, Shimizu is less successful as the film’s writer. While he’s working with an inventive premise, the script feels unfocused and lacks clarification on important plot points. It also seems a bit too short, as the story might have been told better if the running time wasn’t a brief 90 minutes.
Yuurai Yangi, who previously appeared in “Ring”, gives a standout performance as the young boy’s teacher. He displays a convincing array of emotions — first concerned for his student, then fear and confusion at being trapped in an unearthly situation. His performance demands sympathy from the audience, especially at the moment he realizes he is trapped with no escape from the horrors unfolding around him. The rest of the cast gives serviceable performances, but no one is particularly memorable.
Cinematography by Nobuhito Kisuki is excellent, and contributes to the film’s foreboding feel. The music credited to Gary Ashiya and Shira Sato is fairly eerie, but you get the impression the film would just be as scary without it. Creepy piano music and some pop music are not entirely original, and while adequate they are nothing remarkable.