In a gripping true story set during the height of the Cold War, American chess prodigy Bobby Fischer finds himself caught between two superpowers when he challenges the Soviet Empire and its greatest player, Boris Spassky, for the 1972 World Chess Championship. You can read more in , , Quality Links HD Rangan R us wrote: From the streetlight to the spotlight. I know who's the director, but not the actors. Maybe that's the reason the film did not do as expected at the box office. But still theirs performances are not forgettable. Every one of them was amazing, they are the real singers and so the jobs done easily. I mean the filmmaking who understood the story and its characters and delivered accordingly. You might have seen many similar biopics and this is almost the same, but still there's lots to inspire from what you see. Since this music genre is different compared to the todays trend in the music industry, this film quite clearly brings back the 50s, 60s eras for us. So that's how this story appeals to its viewers. It was about the four member music band and their journey through the success and struggles for decades. What inspires is that, they are nothing like we see in todays musicians like drugs and sex stuffs. But the story had its share in those things, which might have been a huge for that time. The family, friends and music, the films very beautifully defines the differences. Between professional and personal life, how they lose grips is what obviously we see regularly in all the musician's biopics, but I'm talking about 50 years ago society and lifestyle. The things are different and how they managed or did they is the film to reveal. I really liked it and I wanted to rate higher, but I was bored a bit because it was a very long film. The pace was okay, so I managed and I think it is worth a watch, but only for the selected audience. This is done on a much more slim budget, which is not to say that May was a big budget movie. It's nice to see the roles reversed and have Lucky McKee being directed by Angela Bettis. The acting could have been better, but the whole thing is very stark, which I like because it leaves room for uncomfortable silences. Jesse O kr wrote: I didn't do an in-depth review of the original Creepshow, where I go over every short in a little mini-review, and I won't do the same for this one. The original Creepshow actually deserved a more in-depth review, where I look at every short individually, but I just didn't do it for one reason or another. The reason I won't do an individual review for each short in THIS sequel is because the movie is so much worse than the original Creepshow, that there's not even much that I can sink my teeth on to actually review. While the original film still had its inconsistencies, given that it is an anthology film, I still think the film focuses on the higher end of King short stories, only two were used for the original film, King wrote three others specifically for the film. Because of that, even the shorts that weren't that good to begin with, like the short that Stephen King himself acted in, still had a bit of a campy charm that made watching them a lot of fun. This time over, in my opinion, other than the last short, called The Hitchhiker, they chose some of the lesser known Stephen King stories to focus on. I know horror geeks revere Stephen King, as well they should, his influence on horror, in all its forms, will never be forgotten. But let's be honest and say that not every one his short stories was a winner. There's nothing wrong with that, as prolific as a writer as King has been, he's bound to have a couple of stinkers, I think even he would admit this... The film moves at a much quicker pace, given the fact that there's only 3 stories profiled and it only comes out to 89 minutes long, including the lame animated segments in between the shorts. So this movie will come and go fairly quickly, I have to give them that at least. But there's just something lacking from this film. While the first movie certainly paid tribute to the horror comics Stephen King grew up reading, it was also a lot of fun to watch because of its dark humor and just sheer energy. The first Creepshow is an absolute blast. It's al This film, while still having some lame gallows humor from the Creep, has just had its life and personality sucked out from under it. Being that that was such a big part of why the original film was so good, making a sequel without that same personality was really a big letdown. I'm assuming they just didn't have the same budget and had to make do with what they had, but still, it's a big disappointment. The first short, with the wooden Indian statue outside the general store was pretty lame. The statue kills some dudes that killed the old people that own the store. The gore isn't particularly that good either. The second short, The Raft, wasn't really any better. These teens get stuck on a raft where they then get killed by this strange oil slick monster that looks like it's a bunch of plastic bags stitched together. The gore is a bit of an improvement there, but nothing to write home about and this ends up being another incredibly lame segment. I'm kinda glad that they saved the best short for last, but it's almost pointless by the time you get there. You already know what you think of the movie, and one great short isn't gonna change that. But, goddamnit, did The Hitchhiker really try to change your perception of this film's overall quality. The story is practically nonexistent, if we're being honest. It's about this woman, on her way home, who accidentally hits a guy, and kills, with her car. She drives off, fearing the consequences. She starts to debate whether she should go back or if she'll turn herself in to the police if she can't take the guilt. After this she sees the guy she just hit and he's completely fucked up from the initial hit. Every time she thinks she's finally rid of the guy, he comes back looking even worse, and it keeps on going like that until the end. To be honest, if it wasn't for the gore effects, which were outstanding, this wouldn't have been much either. But I think the short itself was so gleefully violent that it did somewhat elevate the film, which I would've given a much lower rating if it wasn't for The Hitchhiker. I honestly think that I would've given the film 1 star, if it wasn't for the last segment of the film. Story-wise, it wasn't great, but the gore was pretty incredible. I think that should, at the very least, receive some appreciation even if the rest of the film absolutely blew. To be honest, I expected this film to have a much lower audience reaction than 40%. But here's the thing, that 40% isn't people who gave the film 3 stars. That's 40% of people who gave the film 3. That is impossible for me to believe. Everyone is, of course, entitled to their own opinions and allowed to reach their own conclusions of a film, but I can't imagine 40% of people actually thinking that this was 3. And Cabin Fever: Patient Zero, a film that isn't as bad as the professional reviews point out, only got 13% of users to give it 3. I wouldn't ever given Patient Zero 3. I realize I gave this film and Patient Zero the same rating, but that is deceptive. Creepshow 2 got one star added to its rating because its last segment was so much better than the first two turds we were given. For all intents and purposes, this would've been a 1 star film if it wasn't for the copious amounts of gore in The Hitchhiker. I felt Patient Zero was a solid two stars from beginning to end, it wasn't a film that hinged on its climax or anything like that, which Creepshow 2 did. That's why it's incredibly deceptive. Long diatribe out of the way, this movie is pretty terrible. It just looks really cheap, like it was filmed for a low-tier premium cable network that needed content to fill in airtime, it just has that look. If you're intent on watching this, then just watch the last segment and then turn it off. Don't bother with the animated bullshit either, it's terrible as well. Hugely disappointed, it isn't even so bad that it's charming, like something from a bygone era, like so many 80s horror films. Please watch the first Creepshow instead, you'll have so much more fun. Blake P mx wrote: Career criminals wear fedoras and trenchcoats like its 1945 and they're attending a Robert Mitchum impersonation competition. Rain isn't weather; it's sexytime music for a cocaine heist. The world is covered in an uncompromising azure mist that squeezes the life out of every possibility of beauty, whether that beauty is reaching Catherine Deneuve's white blonde demeanor or an enticingly French city street. A Jean-Pierre Melville directed crime film rests in a middle-ground of romanticization and adamantine realism; it climaxes at the nearest sight of a Humphrey Bogart photograph, but it's also interested in telling a story where a robbery can be delivered with seamless perfection... There's something uneasy that leaks from the ghost blue of the cinematography and Richard Crenna's depressed eyes; the placid slickness of it all can only reach so far before someone is shot. In so many other crime films, there's a notion that once the main villains are locked up, the heroes are left satisfied, ready for their next big adventure. The chasing and capturing of criminals is tiring, redundant even. Who is having more fun: the sinners, or the rule-followers? Initially, the film seems as though it's going to transform into a full-fledged exercise in film noir style. Cigarettes are tossed around, liquor is spilled, and femme fatales are easy to come by. But the closer we get to the conclusion, we begin to realize something: Delon's character, Edouard Coleman, isn't a James Bond or a Frank Bullitt or a Harry Callahan. He is a man, a man who was intrigued by enforcing the law many moons ago but is finally growing restless from the unavoidable sleazy details he sees on a day to day basis. Behind his eyes is a glassy emptiness; if he were to throw away his badge this very moment, what difference would it make? The story is too complicated to easily follow and the style is one and the same with Melville's other films. But that blue, that blue, is disturbing. Unlike black-and-white, it gives reality a grit never seen by the naked eye.
