Consenting Adults

Consenting Adults

Richard and Priscilla Parker are an ordinary suburban couple whose lives are invaded and rocked by their hedonistic, secretive new neighbors, Eddy and Kay Otis.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:99 minutes
  • Release:1992
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:murder,   prison,   pianist,  

Richard and Priscilla Parker's lives take a turn for the better when Eddy and Kay move into the house next door. Eddy's a risk taker and shows his new neighbours how to enjoy life at the ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


You may also like

Consenting Adults torrent reviews

Steve F (fr) wrote: Terrible! Acting is the worst, especially by Sharon Stone

Philip N (gb) wrote: Samuel plays a character Tom an ex cop that cleans up a messy crime scene in your house that you can't stomach yourself. It's a bit of a creepy job to have but I guess someone has got to do it. You can guess what's going to happen to Tom due to his kind of work. There are a lot of close up shots of various things to get across Tom's attention to detail or perhaps he has OCD. Sam doesn't have a great relationship with his daughter and that probably has something to do with his wife not being around anymore. Things start to spice up towards the end with Ed and Eva's characters getting heavily involved with the case so enjoy the journey that it takes. Renny did well with his directing as it is beautifully shot. Give it a watch if you want to see something a lil different an surprising

Ryan R (br) wrote: no, i really can't believe i watched the whole thing

cody n (gb) wrote: another good sequel this one however dosen't fit in with the other two films he does. i like the movie and it's better than part 4.

nika k (jp) wrote: Remember when vampires rose up at night and killed infants and cause illnesses and raped women (or sometimes men)? Remember when they were scary? Sadly, during my lifetime the majority of vampires the screen had to offer were romantic heroes, oh they were undead and drank blood, but all of that was unimportant because what mattered to them was to find their one true love (I'm looking at you, Coppola). Then, for some unimaginable reason, a few people on the BBC had an interesting and, dare I say, revolutionary idea: to make an inhuman vampire. The film follows the usual story, but with a slight twist. Arthur Holmwood is infected with hereditary syphilis (how he could have lived for so long without having any symptoms is a question) and in despair contacts some cultists, who have been worshipping Dracula (without the vampire knowing of it, I suspect). The leader of the cult, Singleton, promises Holmwood freedom from the illness telling him that if he was transfused with Dracula's immortal blood then nothing would ever touch him, in exchange Arthur must buy the properties around London and give them to Dracula. I have to say that I liked how the story had been taken back to its roots, this is after all a monster we are dealing with. The syphilis idea, while raises some questions, is still nice because it lets us see a man in a hopeless situation, how everything around him is suddenly falling to pieces. There was also a nice use of filters, so the audience got a bit more than the usual blue. Overall the film looks pretty and one doesn't have to remind oneself that if it was real life then they wouldn't look so clean and shiny, because they don't and it's refreshing. Effects were used to a minimum, (if it doesn't make sense then don't do it, I always say) mostly putting in short clips of footage to get the point across. As far as actors go, this will probably be the most disappointing bit. The actors seem weak and everyone can tell that even David Suchet is just having fun. One the other hand the actors are playing it "down to earth", as it were, when Mina Harker starts crying then she doesn't have dainty Hollywood tears she has proper sobs, with lip quivering and chin going into a rather nasty shape and her mumblings are a bit hard to understand -- realistic crying, believable and something the pampered audience might react to negatively at first. The one who does fill his role is Marc Warren, in anyone else's hands the blood drinking monster would have been too nice, too civil, too human. Even when Dracula speaks you get the feeling that he has learned all the words but quite doesn't understand what they mean, which is logical because these are human words and he hasn't been human for a very very long time. As he rips a man's head off Dracula stares at the audience with big innocent eyes. Anyone looking for something a bit different and who hasn't yet comepletely gone off vampires is welcome to this. While a matter of taste, it is certainly intriguing even to the lovers of romantical variation on the upirs.

Brian G (de) wrote: Certainly my fave Kurosawa movie & far removed from Samurai epics and very heartwarming. It deals instead with a Mongolian wilderness hunter who lives so close to nature that when he's invited to live in town by his Soviet friend cannot survive there. A comment on who is civilized and who is not, one can never forget this gnome-like wrinkled man with all his natural wisdom up against an ever encroaching new world.

Aaron M (gb) wrote: Last Passenger is a gutsy thriller on a small budget punching above its weight making it a pleasant surprise. Involving a couple familiar but non house hold names, who perform admirably together on a film which isn't about the motives of the villain but about the victims. The suspense created here is mostly through solid character work, believable scenarios and relationships built on fear amid some really gripping scenes creating real tension. I feel the ending could have done with some work but overall this was a raw thriller which doesn't ride on glitzy hollywood action or cliches.

Keegan F (ca) wrote: Awesome film so well done