• Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:100 minutes
  • Release:2010
  • Language:Filipino,Tagalog
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:haunting,   ghost,   dream,  

For the sake of her son, Paolo, Stella is re-married to another man, Anton, in the hopes of a having a whole and peaceful family life. However, after the wedding, she experiences major haunting that endangers her life and the people around her. All the clues are pointing to her dead husband. Feeling guilty of her ex-husband’s death, Stella tries to save her family from the ghost’s wrath. Along the way, secrets start to unravel and Stella is now unsure of who is haunting her and why she is being haunted. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Dalaw torrent reviews

Nick T (us) wrote: itan toso megali epitixia to 2 pou viastikan na to sinexisoun... i malakia den exei proigoumeno k s afto...as kanei kapoios na einai afto to teleftaio

Nick G (es) wrote: I love it. My favorite of the trilogy, probably because I love the characters more in this one. And the robot's much cooler than the one in the third movie.

Jonathan T (jp) wrote: Seems Ben Shenkman, who played a gay character in HBO's Angel's In America, once again plays one here... exactly the same way... kinda weird and lame. Shots of the overhead boom mic were secretly hilarious although it probably wasn't intended that way.

Pol P (de) wrote: This is quite exceptional - but don't be misled to believe this is a film about trafficking.

Maruki A (ru) wrote: "When did paradise become hell? When we finally grasped the horror, it was too late"

Claudia G (gb) wrote: and Bishop was cut again!

Michelle F (gb) wrote: Feel good movies are fun, but this was a little bit boring.. Heather Graham was cute as Mandy, but this wasn't Colin Firths best performance..

Alexander C (jp) wrote: Will have to watch this one. Not necassarily good or bad. Will see. Want to watch!

Maki S (de) wrote: I love movies about people hating their jobs. Makes me feel better.

Buddy O (nl) wrote: I thought it was ok entertainment for a few hours when it first came out -- But would be much better and would have held up better with a better actress in the staring role. The ending, with their adult sons appearing, was seriously awful.

Toni H (kr) wrote: I have seen every John Wayne Movie just about!

Paul D (kr) wrote: Standard western story lacking depth. Jeff Chandler is a steady lead but the plot is mostly a yawn.

Darren R (nl) wrote: Overall, it's all about Mae. Everything else, even Cary, is nothing special.

Angela W (nl) wrote: the only thing is i thought he died at the end of the first one....interesting

Jesse O (fr) wrote: If you were to rank horror movie 'monsters', it'd be: Michael Myers, Freddie Krueger, Jason (with those all hovering around in the top spot depending who you ask), Leatherface and, unfortunately, last Pinhead. I know I reviewed a Nightmare on Elm Street 2 a couple of weeks ago and I said that Freddie was my favorite of the Big Three, if you will. That's not to say he's my favorite horror monster out of them all, but the discussion always boils down to Jason, Freddie, and Michael Myers. They're the three most successful horror monsters of all time, so it's only natural that the discussion would boil down to those three. Personally, out of the big three, I've always preferred Freddie because of the fact that he speaks, so, therefore, he has infinitely more personality than either Jason or Michael. But if you were to ask me which, out of every horror monster there is out there, I'd definitely have to go with Pinhead. What I like about Pinhead, and the franchise in general, is that while the others have embraced a more campy approach, Hellraiser was always all about the torture and abject suffering of its victims. While each sequel got progressively worse, at the very least, this part of the series was still intact. This film is no different, it's probably more horrifically violent than anything you would've seen in a Jason, Freddie, or Michael movie at the same time. While I lament the fact that Pinhead was made into a more sympathetic figure in this film, there's still more than enough grotesque violence, hellish creatures, nightmarish surroundings, etc, etc to satisfy the most jaded gorehounds. The story is certainly a little lacking, which is why it gets this score. I like how the film continues with the story set-up in the original film, rather than doing away with all of that to use a cast full of fresh faces and telling a completely different story with them. I appreciate that continuity and this does a good job at explaining the events of the original film, which I actually haven't finished watching. So there's that, but I wasn't particularly interested in this film's story either. I wasn't really invested. What can you expect, however, from a horror sequel? They can't all be Evil Dead 2. But I do like the film's surrealist visuals and nightmarish portrayal of hell. It is exactly what it should've been. I don't think many slashers are scary, or at least they don't intend to be, but I can find someone being absolutely terrified at the hellish sights. Because, believe it or not, a big chunk of American citizens believe that hell is an actual place that you get sent if you disobey god's rules. Yes, the same god who made you in his/her image and the one who proclaims to love you no matter what you do will condemn you to an eternity of suffering if you break any of his rules, even the really stupid and arbitrary ones such as getting a haircut or eating shellfish. So, because of that, I think a lot of religious, not exactly fanatical but not secular either, people might be scared by this film's representation of hell and the 'creatures' that oversee everything. I think this film benefits from something that some people think is real and that, definitely, raises it past the typical horror franchise. Of course this is talking about the first two films in the franchise, as the series falls off after this, never to recover. But I liked this movie, it might not set the world on fire as far as inventiveness, but it does have some really grotesque and gruesome scenes. Considering the darker subject matter, this is still a pretty fun horror movie. And it's even better if you're doing a Halloween horror fest like I am. Acquired taste, but horror fans will be more than pleased.

bill s (kr) wrote: One of Washington's worst movies but no actor could have saved this BS scripted movie.

Kase V (ru) wrote: An electric British gangster film with a slight grind house panache and a biting script. It's a lean and mean ride that is elevated by all the players involved, especially Kingsley and Winstone. Jonathan Glazer establishes himself as a unique voice with the engaging 'Sexy Beast'.

Karsh D (mx) wrote: Playboy who has it all cheats on his girlfriend who crashes the car on purpose and disfigures Cruise. All a bit weird to be honest and Cruise once again does not endear himself with an unlikeable character

Barb G (ca) wrote: One of the best movies of the year! Everyone should see it!

Ben L (us) wrote: I'm not a philosopher, and I think movies are a visual medium for a reason. So this is about as far from my area of interest as a film could possibly be. With that being said you have to know that 2 full stars is actually a surprisingly good rating from me. I didn't hate the content of this film one bit, however it was the way it was presented that makes me unhappy with it. I thought Andre sounded like someone who'd been dropping acid for a few years. My practical mind just kept thinking, "what's his wife and child doing while he's off living like a wood nymph?" I appreciated Wally's more level-headed look at life and he echoed many of my thoughts, but it's hard for me to take him seriously because I keep expecting him to talk about inconceivable things. I liked some of what they were saying, and for a while I thought they were hitting on some solid points. At the same time I couldn't help thinking this film was absolutely not made for me, or anyone with a similar mindset. I literally didn't watch three-quarters of the film, because the visuals were so uninteresting. I just listened to the audio while I worked (like I would any other podcast.) I feel nothing was lost when I was not watching their mouths form the words, in fact if this was an audio track only I might praise it for being an interesting debate between 2 playwrights with very different outlooks on life. I never want to see this film again (I barely saw it this time) but I wouldn't mind hearing more thoughts from Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory.