No End

No End

Taking place in a 1982 Poland a translator loses her husband and becomes a victim of her own sorrow. She looks to sex, to her son, to law, and to hypnotism when she has nothing else in this time of martial law when Solidarity was banned.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:109 minutes
  • Release:1985
  • Language:Polish,English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:widow,   suicide,   hotel,  

It's 1982: Poland is under martial law, and Solidarity is banned. Ulla, a translator working on Orwell, suddenly loses her husband, Antek, an attorney. She is possessed by her grief, and ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


No End torrent reviews

Jenn M (ag) wrote: I just could not get into this.

Devon W (us) wrote: A fine example of a good bad movie. I feel guilty that I actually chuckled a few times.

Nicolas B (es) wrote: To be honest I just watched it, because the main actors "name" is "Zapata 666", I mean how cool is that? The movie itself features some solid action and an interesting premise. Nothing special but good entertainment.

Sean L (es) wrote: Weird movie about horse f**king ... a documentary about why they do what they do. Intriguing, yet highly disturbing at the same time.

Matthew P (gb) wrote: The best thing I can say about Elsewhere is that it is a competent thriller. The worst thing I can say is that you'll see every turn that its plot takes far in advance. I suppose saying that it still manages to, for the most part, work, despite the formulaic and predictable plot means it's somewhat of an anomaly. I mean, when you are ahead of a movie that needs to keep you guessing, how does the film still be successful?That's a bit more difficult to answer than you might think. In short, it's that everything else about the film is interesting in one aspect or another. The filmmakers made a sleek, well-paced movie, the actors turned in solid if unspectacular work, and enough creepiness was thrown in to keep your eyes looking. Sure, it's not exactly "thrilling," but it's definitely watchable from start to finish. That's more than you can say for a lot of low-budget, indie thrillers, so I'm going to go ahead and claim this as a victory for the moviegoing public.Elsewhere's plot involves a young woman, Jillian (Tania Raymonde), disappearing after telling her best friend, Sarah (Anna Kendrick), that she wanted to run away. Jillian is the typical promiscuous girl. She's the one who posts pictures of herself online to attract attention, goes on dates with some of these people, and has very few people to rely on. Of course, the reason for this is that her mother is neglectful and her father isn't around. This will surprise none of you. However, this is the type of person who doesn't get on CNN if she disappears. That's kind of an interesting idea.I mean, surely many of you -- especially if you live in America -- remember the case of Caylee Anthony. It dominated headlines on some news channels for months. It's because the missing child was an innocent, someone who didn't have a reputation. Someone like Jillian goes missing and nothing is going to be done. The film itself doesn't really do a whole lot with this premise, but it gives you just enough of it to make you think, and make you appreciate that this kind of thing could happen.Anyway, it's up to Sarah and computer geek Jasper (Chuck Carter) to try to find up where Jillian is, and hopefully bring her home safe and sound. It turns out to be more of a detective movie than you'd initially think, although most of that work is done at a computer screen, as Sarah and Jasper hack into Jillian's website and try to determine who her captor is. Mixed in are a bunch of creepy sequences in which someone does something to scare our two mini-Sherlocks.Is Elsewhere a terribly scary movie? No, not really. It has a few moments that will make you jump, a couple of images that might make you wonder if you DVD player is messing up on you, and a jump scare or two thrown in for good measure. However, it's not really working on that level. It wants to build atmosphere, and it wants to make you continually question just who is behind -- what we eventually learn to be -- a string of kidnappings. The problem with that is that it's so obvious. By the halfway point, you'll probably have come up with a dozen scenarios that would be more interesting than the obvious one that the film chooses.Of course, it's entirely possible that this is the route that the filmmakers had to take. They didn't have a lot of time or money, so keeping the plot easy likely was done in an effort to conserve resources. There's a scene at the end that really makes it feel like the money ran out; the villain is explaining what happened to everyone, and all we get are a couple of small flashbacks, meaning entire scenes didn't have to be filmed.That can be effective, don't get me wrong, as it keeps some mystery to the events that transpired both before and during the film, but I don't think the subtlety was there as a result of trying to do this. When the bad guy flat out says "I'm going to tell you everything now," that ship has kind of sailed, hasn't it? I was hoping that this point would reveal something new, something different, but all it did was frustrate, especially because we get so little of an explanation.Still, the director moves the film at a quick pace, and save for one "interrogation" scene that felt completely out of place, it maintains a consistent tone and is always watchable. Tania Raymonde is good as the "slutty" girl -- the characters' words, not mine -- Anna Kendrick and Chuck Carter make for effective detectives, and the supporting cast is all fine, too. Some interesting cinematographic choices and filters make a couple of the scenes more interesting than they have any right to be, and I found myself enjoying it more than I likely should have.Elsewhere is a fine mystery-thriller, at least, once you get past the formulaic and uninteresting plot. It's well-shot, admirably performed, contains effective pacing and maintains a strong tone throughout. Now, if it could have only kept that enthusiasm when crafting our story. It's too predictable to be entrancing, which makes it suffer. Still, I'll take this film over so many wide released thrillers, as this one at least remains watchable throughout its running time.

Jeff H (ca) wrote: I love the twins and they're great in this movie! B-

WS W (jp) wrote: To some, Bruce La Bruce is the cult, gay icon in the cinema industry. I realize the sociological argument that, one has to go to the very extremest, pushing all the constructed ideology, norms, as well as everything regarded to be endorsed & accepted by the mainstream majority down, probably including the way of film-making too (therefore Bruce's style is usually crude because he just doesn't give a f***), so as to rebuild another system to stand against the "orthodox". I have no problem with this. And I have no problem watching porno in the name of 'text' or 'movie' either. I have to agree this one is already one of the few Bruce had clearly delivered what he wanted to state through his work as well. The question is, I don't quite like it, and that's it.

Kyle M (fr) wrote: Both Wilson and Murphy performed well as partners with some jokes in this good and funny spy film, but doesn't reach up to the success of "Mission: Impossible" (another spy film based on another spy show). (B)(Full review coming soon)

Paul W (es) wrote: Surprisingly, I loved this one!

Rune B (it) wrote: Longdryge tragedie med godt skuespel av Nicholson. Streep, derimot, irritere vettet av meg gjennom heile filmen.

Elgan D (br) wrote: A laughably bad 80s slasher film. Terrible acting, bad sound editing and whole sequences that make no sense whatsoever.

Woody W (de) wrote: Cheap miniature sets, B-grade actors, B-grade writers, B-grade budget, and an alien that looks like Marcel Marso with a giant head and an even bigger mayonnaise jar over his head = classic sci-fi schlock.Edgar Ulmer did a decent job of working with all of the above and still put together an entertaining 75 minute film.Lots of funny stuff to laugh at, but remember, this was over 50 years ago and even has shades of invasion of the body snatchers in it as the alien takes control of peoples minds and has his zombies getting more for their zombie hordes.A must for sci-fi fans and other who are interested in the roots of the sci-fi genre.

Greg W (es) wrote: remake of a 1930 espionager '3 faces east'

Brandon W (mx) wrote: The Hobbit: the Battle of the Five Armies is a bit of a satisfying movie that is sadly the worst one out of all the series from The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. The cast are still fantastic as ever, and the action scenes are good, even if it's too overblown: the love triangle part is gone which is good, but the chemistry itself was a bit lackluster. I find the friendship between Bilbo and Thorin more effective and I wanted to see where it's going for them. The plot is not as great as the first two Hobbit film, and felt like it was trying to be like the last Harry Potter film and Lord of the Rings, which both of those progressed the plot while still having a grand battle, this has a grand battle, but not much that progressed the plot is more or less an excuse to have a very long action scene, and not only that, they slowed down to keep the viewers relaxed, this did not which is disappointing. The humor was a lack thereof which I didn't like, and the effects, while still great, looks a bit off at times for me. I got a bit bored at times, and the score by Howard Shore is good, but I felt like even he was getting tired of this series. I'm kind of glad that The Hobbit series is over so that Peter Jackson can move on to new projects that can probably be as great as his old films.