logo
VidMate
Free YouTube video & music downloader
Download
Bullfighter (2000)

Bullfighter (2000)

GENRESAction,Adventure,Family,Fantasy,Western
LANGEnglish
ACTOR
Olivier MartinezMichelle ForbesAssumpta SernaDonnie Wahlberg
DIRECTOR
Rune Bendixen

SYNOPSICS

Bullfighter (2000) is a English movie. Rune Bendixen has directed this movie. Olivier Martinez,Michelle Forbes,Assumpta Serna,Donnie Wahlberg are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2000. Bullfighter (2000) is considered one of the best Action,Adventure,Family,Fantasy,Western movie in India and around the world.

Jack is a wanderer whose aimless roaming leads him to a number of interesting locations and into the company of many interesting people, and despite his fascination with bullfighting he leads a largely peaceful existence. When a crime boss' daughter is accidentally gored to death, Jack is implicated in the unfortunate event and singled out for termination by a seemingly unending army of lethal hitmen. As Jack wages an uphill battle for survival against the harsh desert terrain and a hail of gun smoke and lead, his will to live depends on his ability to exercise his demons and come to terms with the fact that he may not live to see another sunrise.

More

Bullfighter (2000) Reviews

  • Incoherent

    tarbosh220002005-01-01

    "Bullfighter" was made in 2000 but it is being released on video 5 years later for some reason. I wonder why? Could it be: The confusing storyline, the incomprehensible dialogue said by Oliver Martinez, and the annoying editing? It's got to be. I think the plot was Mary (Michelle Forbes) and Jacque (Oliver Martinez) go on a mystical road trip. They meet a lot of wacky characters and avoid some evil ones too. The movie looks great and there is a lot of style, but there is no substance. Most movies, when trying to subtle, don't call attention to themselves with unanswered plot developments, and weak special effects. Don't be fooled by the cover: Willem Dafoe is in it for 2 minutes at most. For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com

    More
  • utterly the worst film in 20 years

    mannoe2005-11-01

    I didn't know Willem Dafoe was so hard up for bucks that he'd disgrace himself with such shocking hamming in this monstrosity. Hell: I'll donate that money that I was going to send to Ethiopia if he's that desperate. I have never seen such a pathetic and disgusting film for a long time...who paid for this? They are either pulling some tax scam or insane. A 5-year old would be ashamed of the plot, and I'd rather get cancer than sit through more than the hour I suffered already. Everybody involved should be locked up for a year in the sodomy wing of a third world prison. Avoid at all costs. I'd give it minus 10 if possible...unbelievable.

    More
  • Well, the camera-work is good....

    winner552006-11-01

    Some very interesting camera work and a story with much potential. But it never comes together as anything more than a student's graduate thesis in film school. There are two primary reasons for this. Fist, there is not a single likable character, not even a villain we might admire for his/her chutzpah. Secondly, all the acting is awful - even from veteran Willem DaFoe. The ham is so plentiful here, you feel like you're at a picnic - but one of those wretched company employee picnics where you drink too much cheap beer and get your hangover before you even stop drinking. Then you eat an underdone hotdog and throw up. All right, I'm being a little rough on a young director who might still go places - as I said, the camera work is quite good. But I feel cheated - the blurb for this film suggests we will get to watch a "Modern western", and the DVD packaging has pictures on it that suggest this as well - but nobody actually connected to the film's making seems to know that this is the kind of film they're supposed to be making. That betrayal is what hurts; but even without it, the fact remains that we don't like these characters, we feel embarrassed for the actors, the story is hopelessly muddled, and in the last analysis, we just don't care. I took it out of the DVD player about half way through. but the rental store wouldn't give me my money back. Now, that really hurts.

    More
  • Why would Robert Rodriguez lend his name to this?

    iheartdoingyourmom2005-07-29

    I only rented this movie because of promises of William Dafoe, and Robert Rodriguez. I assumed that upon seeing RR's name on the cover (as an actor) that this movie would be good. It sounds like a movie that Rodriguez would of made so if He's going to lend his name to it, than it has to be good right? WRONG WRONG WRONG. By far the worst editing since "Manos Hands of fate". The way it was edited made no sense and made the movie impossible to follow and after the first 30 minutes you wont even want to try to follow it anymore. I have no idea how Dafoe and Rodriguez got involved in this film, maybe they owed somebody, but they are way to good for this. Besides they were only in this movie for a couple minutes apiece and Rodriguez didn't even talk. So if you wanna see a movie with Poor editing, poor acting, and confusing storyline than be my guest but don't say you weren't warned.

    More
  • Terrible.

    michellewebster2006-02-26

    I rented this movie due to Robert Rodriquez, Willem Dafoe and Michael Parks being involved. I thought that with these 3 in it that I would be watching a good film...Wrong!!!! Like another review said the first 5 minutes start out alright then it just goes on to be a bunch of incoherent scenes. Michelle Forbes is terrible (as usual). And the camera work and editing was some of the worst I've seen in as long as I can remember. Rodriguez and co must have owed someone some favours by agreeing to appear in this mess of a film. This has got to be the worst movie I've seen since Boogeyman. (and Boogeyman was so boring I thought I was going to go nuts watching it!)

    More

Hot Search