DVDs
Offers
Reviews
 |
Groundhog Day (DVD)
by SpiderJamb Groundhog Day (1993) Starring: Bill Murray, Andie MacDowell & Chris Elliott Directed by: Harold Ramis **FILM ONLY REVIEW** Groundhog Day tells the story of selfish weatherman, Phil Connors (played perfectly by Bill Murray) who is given the assignment to travel to the town of Punxsutawney in ... Pennsylvania, to cover the Groundhog Day celebrations of February 2nd. The town's superstitious ritual is to summon Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog, out of his hole and depending on his reaction, this will decide whether there an early spring or not. Accompanying Phil (the weatherman, not the Groundhog!) is his cameraman, Larry (Chris Elliott) and news producer Rita (Andie MacDowell) who get frustrated by Phil's ego and his downbeat mood. After a rather dour day, the trio find themselves trapped in a blizzard and forced to stay overnight. However, when Phil wakes up, he relives the events of the previous day...again and again and again. This film has had a massive cultural impact, coining the phrase 'Groundhog Day' to describe being trapped in a time loop and having to repeat the same tasks repeatedly. It also shone a huge spotlight on middle-america's crazy traditions, such as the eponymous Groundhog Day. It frequently tops lists of the 'Greatest Time Travel movies' and has been recognised as one of Bill Murray's finest movies, outside of Ghostbusters. Bill Murray's performance is the core of the movie, as we are with him throughout the whole journey, experiencing the same events and reactions of the townspeople as they are fated to repeat their days. Murray's gradual change of personality from Scrooge to Nice Guy feels natural and not forced, as he learns life lessons from the people he interacts with. For a comedy, there's a lot of heavy issues and drama here - Phil considers (and commits) suicide several times when he is at his utmost despair, and while these are played for laughs (of a sort), there is a definite feeling of sadness as he hits rock bottom. The supporting casts play their parts well, although for the majority of the film they are mainly foils to Murray's punchlines or have to react to his extreme behaviour. Rita, a pre-Four Weddings Andie MacDowell, has a lot more to work with and one of the strongest aspects of the films is the chemistry between Phil and Rita as they begin the day as bickering rivals and gradually become something more. It's such an unusual narrative device to see the constant 'do-overs' that Phil uses as he abuses his time travel curse to romance Rita, learning from each mistake and slapped face. Most of the humour comes from the way he can screw up a social situation, learn from it and then we see him retrace his steps. It does get a bit sickly sweet towards the end after Phil loses his emotional defences and starts to genuinely help the townsfolk, as opposed to using them for his own ends, but I think it really works. The final sequences where it all comes together at the party and we see the results of all of Phil's plans and plotting on Rita works perfectly and this bizarre love story seems realistic from both points of view. There's not much to complain about here - the script manages to be smart, funny and tells the story without getting bogged down in minutiae - we don't need to understand how the time loop works, as we're focused on the characters and their relationships. If you like light-hearted romantic comedies with a little something out of the ordinary then this is the perfect film for a cosy Friday night. It's available on DVD & Blu-Ray editions and can be watched on-demand through LoveFilm.com Read the complete review |
|
|
Life of Pi (DVD)
by TheSpaceBetween2 Life of Pi is a film released to cinema in 2012. It is directed by Ang Lee, who was brought up as a Buddhist (Source Wikipedia), who has had several diverse films such as "Sense and Sensibility" and "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon". In his short catalogue of films he has covered every genre from Drama to Action and ... everything in Between. Life of Pi genre wise is hard to class with the best description I could give it is that it's a philosophical fantasy drama but that's a rather ungainly way to classify things, perhaps apt though as life itself can be rather ungainly and nigh impossible to put in a box. ~~~Plot~~~ The story of the Life of Pi is told using various methods, the principle one being an adult Pi reminiscing on his life as a young boy and young man; he does so as he is talking over a cup of tea to a young man who is interested to know the story of his life. The story he weaves is outlined below. Pi begins by introducing us to the protagonist, himself, Piscine Patel a young boy in India with an eccentric uncle, whom loves swimming and strange clothes. He decides to change his name to Pi (played by Suraj Sharma at age 16 and Irrfan Khan as an adult) as his classmates call him "Pissing" Patel due to the homophonic nature of the French word for swimming pool "Piscine", which he is named after, and the word to pee "piss" which is obviously very amusing for young tweens and teens. Early on in the story the nature of Pi's personality is quickly apparent, we see a character who is very sensitive about nature and whom is very intellectual. He is raised a Hindu by his mother (played by Tabassum Hashimi) but his father (played by Adil Hussain) is militantly secularist and "rational" to the point of being "irrational". His mum explains this at one point where she says, paraphrasing "science can explain the external, what's out there, but it cannot explain the internal, what's in the heart". There is tension in the film between father and son, and mother and husband, for most of the film there is a titanic battle of wits between one way of viewing the world, as emotional and mysterious, and another as being robotic, predictive, and absolutely determinable and knowable; and never the twain shall meet or shall they? As the film progresses we see Pi become first a dual Hindu and Catholic and next a tripe religionist when he becomes a Muslim, all the time his meal time rituals of prayer get a little longer, much to his father's annoyance. His conversion to Islam seems to most annoy his father perhaps even showing that although his father is atheist that some extra cultural tension still exists between atheists brought up as Hindu's and Muslims. Pi falls for a girl at a Hindu dance class, where he spots that she is not following the same routine as the others; that she has added embellishments which seem aimed at him. Just as the precocious love between Pi and the beautiful, nubile girl is developing Pi find's out that his family have plans to move to Canada because they are not making a decent living off of the Zoo Pi's farther owns. They then board a gigantic ship called "Tsistsum", and unlike one "professional" film critic who pondered why this film had "random" Japanese people in it, the name of the ship gives it away. Also on board the ship are all the various animals Pi's Father owns, including the tiger called "Mr Parker". Whilst at sea there is a massive storm which shows of the films stunning visuals and atmospheric music which causes the audience to feel rather on edge. Pi tells us that the ship sinks and he is left stranded on a boat all alone, or so he thinks, he discovers a tiger on board, whom we assume is Mr Parker although Pi's Father did have other tigers on board the ship when it capsized. Not only is there a Bengal Tiger on board the ship there is also an Orangutan, an injured Zebra and a Hyena. Much of the film then deals with Pi out at sea, and how he manages to Survive on Board with the animals and most especially the threatening Bengal Tiger. When at sea there are lovely scenes of Pi looking at shimmering, shinning jelly fish, scenes with Pi questioning God. Why he has left him to be on his own in the middle of a storm with no food and a tiger to feed? There are humorous scenes where he scatters from the tiger as he attempts to train it using fish and a whistle. We also, significantly see a scene where he jots down notes in a journal and reads a survival manual. The film manages to make us fear for Pi's safety early on even though we know he must be ok as he is narrating the story to us, I was still on the edge of my seat thinking the tiger was going to eat him! Eventually, when Pi is exhausted and losing strength, he wakes up on a beach. Pi is found by some Mexican men and though he is relived to be found he is worried about where Richard Parker has gone, he looks around and can't find him anywhere then he spots him looking at him before he wanders off into the jungle. On seeing Richard Parker fail to acknowledge him he breaks down weeping because he feels Richard Parker has abandoned him, that their time together meant nothing to him, mostly it's the lack of getting to say a proper farewell that hurts the most. The movie cuts to a scene where Pi is in hospital and is being interviewed by some insurance men who want to know what happened to the boat he tells them the story of the tiger, the fish, the magical floating island, and they find it all too much to take, so he tells an alternative, less fantastical and much more dark story, which they also do not like hearing and they tell him that they will go with the first story. The viewer is not told which story is really true or even if somehow elements of both stories are true. We do not know what Richard Parker would have done if his dad had not saved his son when Pi was trying to bond with it prior to setting sail to Canada. ~~~What's in a name?~~~ The name "Pi" is significant because it is a Greek letter used to represent an irrational number which appears many time in nature from the result of the circumference of a circle divided by its radius, to the average "meandering ratio" of rivers also approaches pi and the inclusion of the variable Pi in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (source: http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2761​-what-makes-pi-special.html). In the context of the film it is very appropriate as was described in the plot section and will be further exemplified and explored in the character development section. Pi is a philosophical thinker and intellectual and he takes the philosophical view that the ubiquitous nature of Pi is part of some deeper, magical, truth about the nature of reality, and not simply random, absurdist, chance as some philosophisers will assert. ~~~Character Development~~~ As mentioned earlier the film is highly philosophical, emotional and psychological. It ponders questions of such universal and unresolvable nature as what it is to be human and is the cosmos possible to reduce to a series of particles and random total entropy increases which somehow lead to paradoxical systems of ever more order in the macro and micro scale or is it only apparently random to the observer; and only measurable through a distorted lens, such that true reality is not measurable, and somewhat imperceptible. The father believes himself to be a rationalist and thinks his son and wife are misguided for taking a different philosophical take on the nature of life where they believe the external to be of worth but so too do they believe the internal to be of value and they see it as a different aspect of reality than that which is tangible and knowable. Although for much of the film we are portrayed with a very hard Father figure who is in conflict with his son and his wife as the film develops we see occasions where he temporarily disposes of his almost robotic like personality in order to help his family. He shows that intangible quality he would regard as not existing; love. Such an occasion in this film, which is a very poignant moment in the flim, is where Pi is looking into the eyes of a tigers his father owns called Mr Parker and he seems to be bonding with it, as he feels the tiger has a soul, when his father deeply concerned for his son's well-being rushes in and shows his son the tiger eating a goat to hammer his point home about animals acting purely out of instinct. And yet whilst this is shown to be correct on one occasion, it was also not proven to be false in the prior occasion as the film leaves you wondering what if the father had not rushed into "save" his son. It does show that despite his father's attempt to deal purely in rationalism, beneath it all there is still a human who loves his son and wife very dearly and who just wants what he sees as best for them and who is acting on emotions not rationalism as if he was truly rationalist he would not want to save people from their supposed "irrationality", because in many absolute rationalists world such feelings as love are all just chemical illusions and there is no distinction between the external and internal, between observation of reality and its absolute nature. The Father also shows such endearing human qualities of love and affection in the scene where he stands up to the cooks derogatory comments about his son and his wife. These help to form more of a bond between the audience and Pi's Father as well as acting as a self-expose of the flaws of absolute rationalism, in an absolute rationalists world there is no place for human emotions and empathy as such things are not "real". As for Pi he goes from being an idealistic religionist believing in a magical universe and unknowable cosmos to a pragmatic religionist whom sees a darker side to the world and the cosmos and to his own nature. His faith is undoubtedly questioned throughout his ordeal on the boat yet he says, in answer to the man he is having a conversation with in the film asking him if he has any doubts, "Oh plenty, on every floor. Doubt is useful; it keeps faith a living thing. After all you cannot know the strength of your faith until it is tested". One point or two in the film which I did feel needed more flesh to the meat of the characters where the characters of the brothers and uncle. Personally I did not really fully get the uncles purpose in the film other than to let us know why Pi was named Piscine and what kind of man his uncle was beyond the superficial. As for his brothers they looked fairly similar to Pi and seemed to often joke at his expense however their characters felt a little hollow and hard to identify with. ~~~Graphics and Score~~~ The film is visually stunning, especially when Pi is shipwrecked on the boat with the Bengal Tiger, Mr Parker. We see luminescent jellyfish, flying fish, a massive shark (or is it a whale? I'm not down on my wildlife) and a magical, mystical starry sky which looks just iridescent and a daytime sky which also looks very pretty and inviting. I watched it in 3d and it was a magnificent visual feat, which really draws the viewer in and takes them to a magical, magnificent, majestic world and what's more it paints a fantasy landscape really well whilst feeling so real you can touch it and being just ever so slightly beyond human experience that you can reach out and say "yeah this could definitely happen". It's a bit like faith itself, to those people who have faith, it is often described as beginning with a small step into the unknown and so to do the magical visuals take the viewer into a small step into the unknown yet are not so overblown such as to become off putting or unrealistic. There are points in the film where the sky actually looks like an eye, and rays come down as if influenced by the divine itself. The music is just superb, it fits the given scene's very well with tense scene's having dark foreboding music and sentimental scenes having emotional, profound, heart lifting music, indeed the music adds tremendously to a film which was already a ferocious assault on the sense and it even won awards, apparently, for best score 2012 (source Wikipedia). It's not hard to see why, to be honest! ~~~My take on the meaning of the film and its enjoyment factor~~~ This was a film I just loved; I loved the early, slow build-up of the film and the later rush of adventure that was injected almost out of nowhere. I really identified with the lead character Pi as I saw a lot of myself in him to be honest. The early scenes had a very French cinema vibe to them which was nice and quirky. I found myself laughing at him being called "Piscine" and likewise with the antics of him and his fellow pupil's at school and the funny scenes with the tiger as he tries to train it. I found myself being drawn in by the brief love story and hoping he succeeds and intrigued by the ideological clashes between him and his father and enjoying a portrayal where religion is not stereotyped as being a source of division and where the secularists are not stereotyped as being somehow more compassionate and necessary for humanity than religionists as both have their flaws and positives. I however especially liked the message of the film, which to me was vaguely "you need both science and emotion, prediction and hope to live in a peaceful, enlightened world." ##########Spoiler, Only Read if you have seen the film########## The twist in the film really challenges you and my take is that both stories are true, instead of the simplistic assumption that the second story was reality and the first story sheer fantasy. The first story tells us how one can psychologically change when put under great stress and is a look at the inward emotions of Pi, the second story is a look at the outward actions of Pi. So really the story is more a metaphor for Pi's emotions, in my view, than it is a straight allegory of the actual events. Yes the actual events happened but so to do did various changes in Pi's emotional and psychological state. #####################End Of Spoiler##################### All throughout the film there are loose ends and open ended questions, does Pi marry his girlfriend? How true is either story? What is it to be human? Is the film against or for religion or spiritualism? What was his uncle really like deep down? The film very much feels like it gives validity to those religions or logic systems who state "you create your own reality" as with this film the viewer's perception of the film is key and I have seen everything from people who take the film as promotion of religion to those who think it belittles it and these two views are held by people on either side of the argument; who think it either promotes or belittles there stance. My own take is far more inconclusive, and perhaps more realistic, that is it is quite neutral on religion with possibly it being slightly pro spiritualism and certainly at no point does the director disparage nor aggressively promote religious belief. In a world full of films with blatant propaganda messages for or against a given subject, it's nice to have an open minded, tolerant film which asks the person to challenge themselves, why is it they believe in a god or why is it they are so sure one can't exist? I feel such an unresolved tale is very much like the nature of the subjects the film explores, unresolved and very likely unresolvable. As adult Pi say's "Why does it have to have any meaning?" ~~~Summary~~~ Life of Pi is a beautifully crafted film with good humour, magical, engrossing visuals and a fantasy world that feels so real and plausible you could touch it. Though the impressive CGI and stirring sound track are elegant and imposing elements of this film, the dialogue and relationships between characters is just as impressive and the acting is of a high standard. The most enjoyable part, for me, is the life at sea part which really makes the film although the early character development sets the scene for said adventure brilliantly. It is a film which captures the imagination of childhood for me as Pi as a child is very funny and bursts with personality yet by the time he is much older as an adult this has died down somewhat yet is still there more subtly. I'd thoroughly recommend this film as it takes you into a world full of wonder, beauty and hope yet it is also incredibly dark, dramatic and tragic. It's like life itself, great yet depressing, beautiful yet horrific. The film offers no easy, clear or tripe answers, as like life itself the nature of the subject material this film ponders is ungainly, challenging and almost impossible to make conform to one way of viewing and interpreting things. Perhaps the greatest achievement of this film is its quite admiration of the unknowable which reflects very much the Buddhist philosophy that director Ang Lee was brought up with. If you want a film with stunning visuals, characters you can relate to, and with a serious, deep story behind it, then this is one I really, really can't emphasise enough that you should go to see this film. For me it's a five star master piece, and I loved nearly everything about it. ~~~Cost~~~ I paid seven pounds for it in my local 3d cinema and found the price to be well worth what I saw. If you can get it on DVD or Blue Ray for less than 10 pounds I'd say go for it! ---Disclaimer--- This Review also appears on Ciao under my "newprideexperiadj2" user name Read the complete review |
 |
Zardoz (DVD)
by Mildew82 Before I begin my review I would like to place the blame for my actually watching this film squarely on our fellow (if somewhat absent) reviewer mattygroves10 who compelled me against my will with her devious Jedi mind tricks to seek this film out. I must confess to streaming it so this is a film only review, but you can get hold of this ... DVD if you so desire for at the most just over £5, where it looks like you will be treated to a few extras as well in the form of a Still gallery, Radio Spots, Audio Commentary and a Theatrical Trailer. So, it was with some trepidation that I began to watch Sean Connery prancing around practically naked dressed all hairy chested in only in a bizarre loincloth to protect his modesty in John Boorman's 1974 cult classic Sci-Fi/fantasy extravaganza "Zardoz". As the film began with a creepy floating stone head landing from the sky complete with an omnipotent booming voice I knew this was either going to be so bad it was unavoidably good or a steaming cow pat. It will soon become clear which way it went. So, a little background to try and make sense of this film - the year is 2293 (so some 320 years in the future since the film was made) where a bunch of seriously dissatisfied Eternals rule the earth from within their vortexes. In the Outlands the chosen ones aka The Exterminators follow their god Zardoz and obey his demands for them to kill the Brutals i.e. the non-chosen survivors of some unmentioned apocalyptic event. Zed (Sean Connery) is one such Exterminator but he develops doubts about the true nature of Zardoz and begins an investigation which takes him inside one of these vortexes that house the Eternals where he must uncover dark truths and try to fulfil his destiny against a tide of Eternals that basically want the exact opposite. If that all made sense to you then jolly well done, as to a person that actually watched the film comprehension was but a distant dream. If Sean Connery was trying to shake off any James Bond stereotyping I'd say he did an excellent job. Should he be embarrassed by this choice of film? I would have to suggest a resounding yes. Anyway, down to business, any film with such an incomprehensible plot filled with abstract concept after mismatched concept that would give Sigmund Freud pause for thought intermingled with bizarre psychedelic fantasy moments that were clearly stolen from left field is going to struggle with credibility. In this respect, Zardoz is simply marvellous. To prove my point - the opening gambit from the giant stone head: "You have been raised up from Brutality, to kill the Brutals who multiply, and are legion. To this end, Zardoz your God gave you the gift of the Gun. The Gun is good! The Penis is evil! The Penis shoots Seeds, and makes new Life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was. But the Gun shoots Death and purifies the Earth of the filth of Brutals. Go forth, and kill! Zardoz has spoken." Cue a large quantity of guns being forcibly ejected from the giant stone head (and if you look really closely you might even spot the odd arm or two from the crew doing the chucking which really attests to the quality of the production) and then Zed turning around and shooting the camera. Are we impartial witnesses to the events of this odd, dystopian future or are we ourselves Brutals or...umm...sheesh I give up! Is it ever explained why Zardoz wants these poor Brutals to be exterminated? No, not really...something about keeping the population under control... A glimpse inside the stone head reveals lots of naked women all vacuum packed with nothing better to do than stand idly around in stasis. Why? Who knows? Inside the vortex we have these rather elite Eternals with amazing psychic abilities and astounding intellect and knowledge but who, over the last 200 years since they became immortals have lost the ability to sleep so instead meditate, and due to their immortality and therefore a lack of need for procreation have also lost the ability to achieve penile erections (what the...!) and yet, despite being reborn in an embryonic state if they ever do "die", they all still require nourishment so have to tend to their own farms with lots of manual labour. Ooookay. Oh yes, also as punishment Eternals can get "aged" by months or years and may become Renegades (or senile people seemingly constantly at a ballroom dance) or some Eternals simply became so bored with life they become Apathetics and basically spend all day in a catatonic state. I'm almost positive this is deep and meaningful with some immense social and religious commentaries highlighting human flaws. Throw in a living Tabernacle, some mind-bending crystal entrapment and other long drawn out psychedelic shenanigans, randomly pointless gratuitous nudity that only 70s films seems to be able to get away (and that includes outfits designed for men to solely show off their nipples) with and lots of hilariously un-gory massacre/rape scenes you've got yourself a real mindblower of a film. With such an utterly baffling and non-cohesive plot with more holes than at Wentworth and less explanations than at the Leveson Inquiry, it's no surprise the acting was confused at best. Connery as Zed seemed strangely wooden yet oddly a little too comfortable in his scanty attire and slightly nauseating ponytail/moustache combination, perhaps arguably portraying the vacuous nature of his character to perfection, but more likely having no idea what the devil was actually going on and thus he lacked any real chemistry with any of the other cast including a random romance that popped out of nowhere and had zero impact. Charlotte Rampling (why Charlotte why?) and Sara Kestlemen played Consuella and May, two Eternals at loggerheads that were deadly serious when it came to portraying the hugely significant scientific importance of learning about what makes Zed tick especially with sexual arousal (Ring ring. Is that you Dr Freud? Hold the line please and I'll get back to you...) but otherwise seemed completely out of it. Niall Buggy as Arthur Frayne and John Alderton as Friend were two other Eternals but at least they were quirky and had a bit of personality albeit completely insane in nature to boost the film even by just a small amount. As for any sense of character development with any remote feeling of likeability and actual interest - hah! - not in this film suckers! What we basically had were a collection of crazed savages going about their business clearly on steroids or nutty Eternals slipping on all their spilt marbles whilst tripping on LSD so the acting was a little hard to critique on account of there not really being any. To be fair, it would probably be hard in any situation for an actor to be taken seriously with dialogue along the lines of "I confess to the charges, but plead mitigation. These thoughts are constructive criticisms. Pyramidical. I try to suppress these thoughts, but they leak out in Second Level through the head-wound of my third death. I was imperfectly repaired. No. That is not true. I think what I think!". I can only assume this is writing of such high quality of such a poignant nature that it has breached my metaphysical world to sit on a higher plane above my comprehension levels. Or it's just random, pretentious crap. One or t'other. The film just kind of plodded along at once pace despite there being obvious attempts to make it dramatic and exciting with a strangely gothic orchestral score in places really ramping things up albeit completely at odds with what was going on at the time, as well as lots of chase scenes with brutal killings somewhat spoilt with ridiculously hammy death scenes straight out of Monty Python and the Holy Grail and long non-speaking scenes punctuated by curtain pulling and jack-in-the-box pop up moments obviously designed to make people jump but in fact simply adding to the continual pointlessness of...well everything. The actual production itself, whilst looking a bit tacky in places, wasn't totally awful, especially considering it was made almost 40 years ago, and there were a lot of beautifully sweeping landscape shots from Ireland where it was filmed but it didn't feel like a huge budget was available ($1,000,000) so special effects did look a bit laughable and don't hold up particularly well by today's standards which meant obviously the film relied on characterisation, excellent dialogue, first class acting and a stunning plot to excel...ah...wait... I think the real problem, and what probably contributed to it being a box office flop, was I'm not sure this film had any notion whatsoever of what genre it was trying to be - the Sci-Fi was limited to discovering immortality and having weird machines with wires and strange rooms with mirrors, the fantasy involved a talking Tabernacle, the romance consisted of 5 seconds between two people sans chemistry and the action was basically a few blokes on horses and a village mob with pitchforks approach. Suffice it to say, I didn't get it. However on the bright side the comedy element to this film was superb with lots of chuckles and laugh out loud moments at seemingly regular intervals, the downside being these were all completely unintentional. I think this film was simply trying to be too clever for its own good and ended up being a grossly grandiose mess and yet despite everything negative aforementioned this film has an unexpected charm to it that has probably contributed to its cult status in the fact that you will probably sit mesmerised and slack-jawed the whole way through wondering if you were either watching something so masterful that mere mortals could not grasp its full complexities or you were in fact being subjected to one of the most unbelievable tripe-fests ever to grace the cinematographic world. I'm going for the latter, but there's no shame in going for the former. In good conscience I can only recommend this film for its moments of hilarity on account of it being nothing short of bonkers, but as Sci-Fi/Fantasy films go it flounders like a flounder out of water gasping for its last breath. Worth seeing, but only so you can tell people you have. Read the complete review |
DVD |
||
|---|---|---|
|
2 reviews Actors: Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney / DVD / Directors: John Moore / Studio: 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment |
|
|
2 reviews Actors: Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, David Schwimmer, Sacha Baron Cohen / DVD / Directors: Eric Darnell, Tom McGrath / Classification: PG / Studio: Paramount / Run Time: 93 minutes |
|
|
9 reviews Genre: Science Fiction & Fantasy - Fantasy / To Be Announced / Director: Ridley Scott / Actors: Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Patrick Wilson, Noomi Rapace, Idris Elba ... / Features of the DVD: PAL |
|
|
Actors: Vanessa Hudgens, Selena Gomez, Ashley Benson / Director: Harmony Korine / Studio: Universal Pictures UK / DVD Release Date: 12 Aug 2013 / Run Time: 93 minutes |
|
|
2 reviews Actors: Dwayne Johnson, Bruce Willis, Channing Tatum, Adrianne Palicki, Walton Goggins / DVD / Director: Jon M. Chu / Studio: Paramount Home Entertainment |
|
|
2 reviews Actors: Nicolas Cage, Ryan Reynolds, Emma Stone / DVD / Director: Kirk De Micco / Studio: 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment |
|
|
1 review Actors: Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman, Matthew Goode / DVD / Director: Chan-wook Park / Studio: 20th Century Fox |
|
|
Actors: Alden Ehrenreich, Alice Englert, Emma Thompson, Emmy Rossum, Jeremy Irons / DVD / Directors: Richard LaGravenese / Studio: Entertainment in Video |
|
|
2 reviews Actors: Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone / DVD / Studio: Warner Home Video |
|
|
2 reviews Actors: Chris Pine, Alec Baldwin, Hugh Jackman, Isla Fisher, Jude Law / DVD / Director: Peter Ramsey / Studio: Paramount Home Entertainment / Released: 25 Mar 2013 |
|
| DVD recommendations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... back next | ||
| dooyoo Results 21 - 30 of 11691 | ||
