A teenage hustler and a young man obsessed with alien abductions cross paths, together discovering a horrible, liberating truth.
You may also like
Mysterious Skin torrent reviews
Tyler F (ag) wrote: This movie sucked so bad.
Courtney S (br) wrote: Pretty cool movie (but not as good as a film as The Beach, an adaptation by the same author, who now writes for the screen - 28 Days Later and Sunshine). This proves that like Ralph Fiennes in that Hannibal Lector movie, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is impossible to 'uglify' unless he doesn't have a nose (Voldemort), J R-M is entirely too pretty to pass as an average person, not even with messy hair!
Matt B (us) wrote: A lot of the old jokes are lazily mentioned again, but Meet the Fockers still packs a lot of humor thanks to its newest cast members, Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand.
Alec B (gb) wrote: McKellen is good but the movie isn't. From the opening scenes the film looks promising, as it seems to want to sincerely explore psychopathy and Fascist obsession but then it ops for standard thriller conventions instead . . which kind of makes the whole exercise a little offensive.
Richard C (gb) wrote: There are more pointless concepts than unique ones here. The dialogue sucked dick. I hated it. And the actors can't act. Poorly directed and crummy. It was campy at the start, then it became schlocky, then boring. Let me just spoil the details of the movie cover so that you don't watch it: It's the ending. The gay masc rapes his boyfriend, planning a suicide via oral gunshot when he climaxes. Dumb BDSM presentation, right?
Carlos F (de) wrote: Not as sophisticated but no less effective than "The Manchurian Candidate". Edgy performance by Richard Basehart.
Calvin C (gb) wrote: Best Picture Winner for 1941. This will always be known as the film that beat Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon. While those two are masterpieces, this family saga about a Welsh mining family through the years is every bit as worthy of the same praise. John Ford once again is so good at social dramas and the times people live in. Roddy McDowall is what child actors should look like on film. I was engaged by this family and like all families, you are with them through the hard times and the happier times. With a strong cast and a legendary director, this very underrated film deserved all the accolades it received.Grade: A-
Anna C (it) wrote: If you are a zombie movie fan, this should be at the top of your "favorites" list. This movie challenges our concept of humanity with a brilliant cinematic treatment that still holds strong more than a decade later. This movie will horrify you, tug at your heartstrings, and challenge what your concept of a good zombie movie.
Augustine H (mx) wrote: A gripping modern spy story set in the beautiful Hamburg. This adaptation of John le Carr's novel is much absorbing and involving than the weird Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy in 2011.
Facebook U (jp) wrote: Excellent film with great animation almost fully bilingual. Great work! Good story a bit reminiscent of some french and pink panther comedies of the 70s. A smart group of sheep and friends want to save their owner after an accident they provoked by being a bit overly smart. What's not to love? First class animation and rendering. Intelligent story.
Angel P (nl) wrote: The Dark Knight is the best DC film ever made, but I do not consider it the best superhero film ever made because it separates too much from the genre, making it look like a crime film rather than a superhero film. I'm not saying it isn't good because this is in my top list of best movies I've seen in my life, not to mention the outstanding performance made by Heath Ledger.
Slee B (mx) wrote: Wolfen It was spring of May 2012 and the last chance to feel the beautiful moist air was almost over. The spring morning sickness was starting to wane, for the hideous and vengeful goddess of summer came was around the corner. However, the cruel and burning sun was on my mind because my head was somewhere else: school and graduation with an Associate(TM)s Degree. One class in particular was on the borderline between A and B. The class was for contemporary film with theme of diversity. I saw great films like The Joyluck Club, the tragic Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, and the delightful/tragic La Bamba. There was a chance for extra credit by choosing a film with a theme on diversity. There were several films I had seen including the disappointing Red Tails. Looking at the options, I chose an unlikely film called Wolfen because it was mixed the theme of diversity and an unusual genre. Wolfen is a horror film and represents the Native Americans, but not in the manner we have seen in the past films. Released in 1981, it was one of the werewolf films with subtext meaning to it, alongside was The Howling (wolves and werewolves in popular culture) and An American Werewolf in London (puberty). However, Wolfen(TM)s primary focus was on ideas with a philosophical riddle or moral/nature allegory to it as teamed the wolves and Indians together surrounded in mystery. However, none of the Native Americans could be the main character. It is a beautiful night in New York City where we see three people in a park. One of them is high profiled person and his girlfriend with a tough Haitian bodyguard. The two are having a romantic date while the guard is watching. He is tought and armed, but something is lurking in the shadow. This thing is advanced because we see through its perspective because it is stalking its prey from angles. We get chance to relax before boom! I mean snap! Limbs fly and splash of blood and all three people are brutally murdered. Morning, sun has risen and cops are everywhere. A phone rings and retired Captain Dewey (Albert Finney) answers and is then sent back to work on the grisly murdered couple and bodyguard. He is baffled when he learns from coroner Whittington (Gregory Hines) that there is no possible weapon to match the damage the victim suffered. Domestic terrorism is suspected which several people are questioned. He is partnered with a criminal psychologist Rebecca (Diane Venora). However, Dewey(TM)s looks into another path pointing to a Native America, former activist and militant, Eddie Holt (Edward James Olmos). The meeting puzzles Dewey because Eddie talks to him about shape shifting which earlier in a scene Dewey receives word that the culprit may be a wolf. He starts connecting the idea between grisly murders in South Bronx (looking like a Beirut) and the murder of a high profile person are all connected with mythology. Not ready to quit, Dewey decides to follow certain people of interest before going hunting. Will he succeed and discover the truth about the murders or will he become puppy show. Wolfen is very intricate to interpret because it is not the usual horror film especially in the time it was released. Slasher films were all the hype with the prestigious Friday the 13 and Halloween to dreadfully slow Don(TM)t Go in the House and Silent Scream to the utterly inept Prom Night. Yet, Wolfen was released before resurgence of werewolves in popular media led by American Werewolf in London and the Howling. Yet, what separates Wolfen from those two films are no onscreen transformation and it gives a voice (rare in horror film!) to the long and forgotten Native Americans. Based on the novel by Whitley Strieber, its director Michael Wadleigh (Woodstock) has suggested (in Fangoria) that this film was a political thriller, a thinking man(TM)s film. I was skeptical, so I analyzed it for simple clues. I manage to succeed in what Wadleigh was stating Wolfen. I have written about this although it contains a few spoilers, so I have to tell you what I thought about it. Wolfen is a very interesting film because not only are the plot, subtexts, and characters good, but it makes you think. Is there a threat out there that we not only know of, but is the answer to all the disappearances? Albert Finney is fine here as mumbles his lines like a drunk. He even has hair for it. Supporting cast is pretty good here with comic relief of Hines and Venora. Yet, Olmos steals the spotlight and is absolutely fantastic as the antagonist. The suspense kept was above average thanks to the mysteries provided here with a climax and ending I really did not expect. As oppose to using special effect to see transformation, Wolfen never falls into that gimmick. Instead, we are given real wolves! They are angry and ferocious. The shots of the wolves are pretty magnificent. The film has nice screen shots of the wolf(TM)s perspective using infrared. The location is excellent as well the shooting. There were several problems watching this film like pacing in the beginning. It took me awhile to get ahold of Dewey and some of the problem was the volume. It was pretty low and had to turn up the volume pretty high to get what the characters where saying. Luckily, the problem did not burden the film. Other than that, the DVD is pretty much fine product to rent or buy if you are crazy enough. The overall important thing is to watch Wolfen. It is a really interesting thing film with ideas about a creature superb than humans. Now, the following paragraph will talk about the subtext and comments the film may have. There are a few spoilers. The complexity of Wolfen and being a representation to Native Americans was not quite easy. The Indians and wolves share body and spirit which allows the Natives to shape shift into a wolf. First, one has to wonder how wolves and Indians managed to team up together. Well, look back in history and one will learned that the first settlers of New York where the Dutch. Okay? The Dutch would be very frightened by wolves thanks to the mythologies they had in Europe. They saw them as violent and evil, but very intelligent. Meanwhile, they probably saw the Native Americans as subhuman and rejected the idea that they were human at all. This view managed to be carried out through history as politicians depict in a negative view that would lead to massacres and depletion of not only entire population, but destruction of the environment.Hollywood would then arrive and exploit the theme of Indians as evil and savages, but in doing so they manage to belittle them like the Dutch have. The tables are then turned when Eddie and Old man tell Dewey that we (society) are the savages?. This revelation comes to the explanation about the grisly murders in the Bronx when a beat up Dewey makes his way in a bar inhabited by Indians. It is acknowledge about murders, but justified only as a matter to survive by eating the people that will not be remembered by society: winos, drug abusers, homeless, outcast, and so forth. I guess this is a side-effect of the Wolfen. Yet, does it make them villains for acting out as nature intended them meanwhile society has abandoned these types of people living in the South Bronx, hunting location. The motive over a high class person is also revealed. It is very similar to the history of the Natives when settlers began to cross the plains and would kill their buffalo out of game. One of the film(TM)s subtext involves government vs. corporate which Dewy represents the government. You sympathize with him as oppose to the private security that handles the investigation. Yet, one scene is very symbolic involving Albert and the cool hip African American sidekick Whittington. Both are armed with two M-16 rifles, one with a scope the other with night vision. They are going to silence someone using an abandoned building. I cannot help to thin the government has committed actions like this towards political activist and protest. This film is a step above in the portrayal of Native American because it has them in other roles like steel construction workers. Compared to the other films film, you get an alternative glimpse of the surviving Native trying to make a living in New York as oppose to other film where they are attacking innocent settlers and their covered wagon. Yet, you still see some of the traditions they have like Eddie doing a ritual on top of the Brooklyn Bridge and the other the Natives having long hair to reflect their identity. Also, they provide a lot about the mysticism surrounding nature allegory and suspense that ends the film in a victory for them and their wolves and Wolfen as it show they will survive in the future while Albert does a narration. One thing I found a fault was that Wolfen was around longer than Christianity. The problem is wouldn(TM)t the Natives have transformed into Wolfen to scare off and easily wipeout the settlers as they did to tough Haitian bodyguard?Summer heat arrived early. I manage to get an A in all my classes. My statement and paper on this film was accepted and credited. Graduation day was a week away as I held my breath to shout "Victoria!" (Victory)
david t (ag) wrote: very good movie... a must see.. and funny
Matthew P (jp) wrote: "Harmless" is a word often used by film critics to describe a movie that is definitely not great, but it's not bad enough to be a complete waste of time. If you need to kill a couple of hours, a "harmless" film will do the job just fine, if you have nothing else to watch, of course. Firewall is one such harmless film. You've seen pretty much everything in this film before, and it's not really any good, but it's not terrible enough to be placed in many "worst of" lists. Firewall stars Harrison Ford as Jack Stanfield, the head of security at some big Seattle bank. He's married to Beth (Virginia Madsen), and together the couple has two children, Sarah (Carly Schroeder) and Andy (Jimmy Bennett). The reason to mention his family is that, soon enough, they're going to be put into danger. One day, "pizza night," burglars break into Jack's house, capture his family, and start making demands. Jack needs to figure out a way to steal from the bank for whom he works, and if he fully cooperates, he and his family will be let go without any harm done. Does full cooperation ever happen in this type of film? I can't think of one where the hero goes "Yeah, okay," and then he and the villain are friends until the end. He's always looking for a way out, for a small slip -- something to gain an advantage and free his family. Of course, these attempts rarely work out. We need our big, risky heist at the end. That's always how these work, and it's one of the only things we can be sure of in this type of thriller. It's asking too much for Firewall to work against convention. The bad guy is played by Paul Bettany, because putting someone with an English accent against our all-American family means that we will never have trouble telling good guy from villain, I guess. IT doesn't really matter, as Bettany's character leaves most of the dirty work to his lackeys, most of whom don't actually seem to care that much about this heist. That could have actually factored in at some point, but it never does because that might be interesting. We go through the exact plot points that you'd expect from a movie like this one. Multiple failed escape or reasoning attempts all lead up to the heist at the end. There are a couple of twists, none of which will surprise anyone who has seen a movie in their lifetime, and everything is wrapped up way too quickly. Actually, at about the 80 minute mark I would have sworn we were right about at Firewall's climax, but then it goes on for another twenty minutes. Despite this, it still concludes too fast. It tacks on an additional location and winds up dragging itself out for too long to make this decision worthwhile. Does the film hold up after closer inspection? Probably not, but this isn't the type of film that inspires in-depth discussion. I don't know if an .mp3 file is equal to the same amount of data that a bank number and password has, or if an iPod could take that data off a computer as easily as it does in the film, but that's kind of the fun, isn't it? You see some creative ways to get the problem solved, even if they wouldn't work in real life. Thrillers don't need to be based around fact to be effective. What they do need to be is, well, thrilling. When you can stay ahead of the plot for the majority of the time the movie is playing, it's hard for that to happen. Not impossible -- some better thrillers are predictable but are able to overcome that because of strong characters, actors, or direction -- but very tough. Firewall has little to keep you interested, assuming you've seen this story told before. It will still pass the time, but it's really not worth it if you have other options. Did I enjoy Firewall a little bit? Sure. Does that mean you should watch it? No. There are some films that I'll generally like, at least somewhat, regardless of quality or purpose. There's no real reason to watch Firewall when other movies do the same thing and better, but to pass the time late at night when you can't sleep, it works effectively at keeping you awake. And at the beginning, it's kind of funny, too. I wish that sense of humor was kept throughout. Harrison Ford is and probably always will be fun to watch. I don't know if I buy him, at 63 years of age, in this kind of role -- it gets rather physical later on and you don't really see Ford doing much of that -- but because it's Harrison Ford, you can't complain too much. His character's family members get nothing to do, and Paul Bettany is a very uninteresting villain. Alan Arkin and Robert Patrick have small roles, with the latter's almost managing to matter before the film forgets about him and drops that idea. Does Firewall work? Not exactly well enough to recommend, but enough that it won't exactly be unpleasant to watch if it comes on the television late at night and you have nothing better to do or can't find the remote. It's a generic thriller with a predictable plot and only one actor and character that genuinely matters. It has a few suspenseful moments, and it has a charm to it at the beginning (which is unfortunately dropped later on), and it isn't a complete waste of time. It's harmless.
Randy P (fr) wrote: It is twisted. The first forty minutes is the best forty minutes of the movie.