A Cry in the Night

A Cry in the Night

A police captain's emotions get in the way when his daughter is kidnapped.

A deranged man kidnaps the nubile daughter of a police captain. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

A Cry in the Night torrent reviews

Siri B (fr) wrote: I think I might have seen this? Or given up cos it was baaaaaaad. Probably the latter.

Fernando P (br) wrote: The one star goes to Matthew Fox. I have to give him credit for losing all that weight and being able to play a crazy villain. On the other hand Tyler Perry disappointed. He is creative minded when It comes to making comedy movies and sitcoms. But he really did not belong in this movie is an action figure. You could tell from the start when you took a look at him with his dyed black hair is dyed mustache. His character was not believable especially when it came to seeing him go from good cop to desperate! And by the way, the plot felt really rushed. I would not recommend this movie.

Denielle W (kr) wrote: Great visuals and great story. The voice acting is superb and the film has a great heart. Great premiere film from South Africa's Triggerfish Animation Studios.Overall: 8/10

William T (de) wrote: Not bad, but the end boss fight was a let down....

Brittany R (jp) wrote: Absolutely loved this. Watched because of Michael Weatherly, but a thoroughly enjoyable movie all around.

Tina B (br) wrote: VERY COMPLAINING MOVIE! GREAT ACTOR'S AND GREAT STORY LINE!

Tyrus L (gb) wrote: an average tv movie.... low budget n the acting and script had a lot of room for improvement... but the story was kinda fun... seemed to borrow a lot of ideas from similar movies though..

javier l (ru) wrote: the last time I saw this movie was back in thee 8th grade

Brian K (ru) wrote: A harrowing war drama that mixes coming-of-age tropes for a truly underrated gem.

Shota K (mx) wrote: At first felt discouraged a little bit, but not a standard movie at all. Sometimes simplistic but still good metaphors, will genius philosophical ending.

Kathryn D (br) wrote: oh yeah, I wanna see this!

jen k (jp) wrote: I like the whole revenge thing

Faisal A (au) wrote: The film never quite manages to figure out what it's actually about. Veering wildly from madcap farce to social satire to sentimental family drama, it just doesn't seem to know what chord to strike. As much fun as repeatedly punching yourself in the face.

Phil H (es) wrote: Back in 2005 Frank Miller hit the big time (in the movie world) with 'Sin City', a lavish living graphic novel with lush visuals. So clearly not one for sitting on his new found success he went ahead and made another living graphic novel which utilised the exact same visual style. Now one the one hand it worked because like 'Sin City' the film looked terrific, on the other hand it basically felt like a poor sequel of sorts to that better movie.The Spirit is another typically suave suit wearing crime fighter very much in the same vein as The Shadow, that now cliched 30's/40's pulp comic/novel type avenger. Apparently his nemesis The Octopus created a serum that could grant people immortality, and he tried it on murdered police officer Denny Colt (The Spirit). Colt then somehow escapes The Octopus and for some reason decides to fight crime in his city, Central City, now that he is invincible. The Octopus now needs the blood of Hercules (called Heracles for some reason) to perfect his serum so he can use it...I think.The main problem with this movie being the plot and characters. The plot is...is...I honesty have no real idea what the hell was going on with this plot. Something about The Octopus trying to get a hold of these two trunks, as is sexy femme fatale Sand Saref, one containing the blood of Hercules and the other the Golden Fleece...eh? The entire movie is really quite a mess and didn't make much sense to me. The Spirit is suppose to be immortal I think, he can regenerate after being injured, yet he keeps having near death experiences and nearly dies on a few occasions. He does come across as quite vulnerable to be frank and has these dreams where the Angel of Death taunts him presumably because he escaped her grasp...its weird. At one point Colt wears body armour too, I guess this is too limit damage because it takes time to regenerate? I'm still not entirely sure why The Octopus wants this special blood seeing as his serum worked pretty well on Colt, and I don't know how the Golden Fleece fits into all this either truth be told.After reading up about this character I can see why many fans didn't like it and why it bombed. The movie is completely different from the original source material in virtually every aspect. The Spirit has a sidekick in the comics, The Octopus doesn't bring Colt back and you never see The Octopus in the comics, they could have done that easily so I dunno why they went with Jackson like they did. On top of that the plot is so convoluted and never really explains itself as far as I can recall.Other issues that spring to mind would be the simple fact this character is way too similar to other shadowy heroes. For any viewer who isn't a fanboy of the comic and knows nothing (like me) then this will all look very familiar and very dated. The whole facet of the character has been done many times, hell even his look has been done to death (The Shadow, Darkman). Running around from shadow to shadow in a dark crime ridden city full of seedy dark alleyways isn't anything new. This hero even has a police chief on his side who is the only person to know his secret identity...oh geez! Admittedly this character does date back to the 40's and back then this kind of stuff was fresh, but even so The Shadow had been around since the 30's so its easy to see where the inspiration came from. Unfortunately this movie just came along too late and has lost out, beaten to the punch by various other similar characters.Of course the film looks good no one is gonna dispute that. That classic detective crime genre soaked in heavy film noir visuals that have been amped up with the same use of digital backgrounds/foregrounds we all saw and fell in love with in 'Sin City'. As I've already said these two movies are visually identical with their colour palette and stark images. Thick blacks, thick whites, bold lines, lots of angles, inverted colours and images and the slight hint of colour on certain objects like The Spirits bold red tie. To watch and show off your new bluray player with...its the business, but again you could say its been done already with Miller's last flick.The cast are a poor choice right across the board with the exception of Dan Lauria as the hard nosed gruff Commissioner and honesty Macht isn't too bad as The Spirit, he looks good in the role. Again I firmly believe Jackson was cast purely because he's a big name and will attract a wide audience despite the fact he just doesn't fit the role. I will say the same for Johansson too...yep that's right, too many movies suffer this fate these days and Jackson is the biggest culprit.You kinda get the impression Miller was just riding on the coattails of his previous big success to be honest. Thinking that everybody would lap this up purely because it looked like 'Sin City' and that's all it needed to succeed. To a degree he was right, these visuals are delicious and I'd like to see more and this film is really nice to look at...its just everything else. It pains me to say but this is one of those films that I really wanted to enjoy but I just couldn't. If it wasn't for the fact it looks so good it would have been a complete write off.

Gena D (fr) wrote: I think the main reason people give this such a bad review is it came out alongside madagascar and so people either go in expecting the same movie or go in cynical saying one was a copy of the other.They are NOT the same movie, no where close! Yes they start off at the same zoo and due to circumstance end up in the wild. But that's pretty much it.Each has their own good and bad qualities.The wild is meant as heartwarming while Madagascar is meant as humorous.The wild doesn't address things like refuelling and food while Madagascar touches on both.Soundtracks for both are great but the animation for the wild beats out Madagascar. Long story short if you want constant jokes you want Madagascar if you want jokes with a touch of typical Disney sensitivity and are capable of ignoring things like fuel for a ship, coast guard ignorance, humans jumping overboard so close to the dock rather than turning around, chameleons with super insane powers, super sonic roars and animals not eating for days yet somehow surviving ... then you want the wild.All joking aside (who was joking? I was serious!) it really isn't a terrible movie, especially if you go in treating it like an individual movie.