Patient X

Patient X

After twenty years, local police captures the murderer of the older brother of a young boy. Now a doctor, he must go back to his old town and face the murderers himself. He then discovers that the murderers are Aswangs (folkloric Filipino vampire-like creatures) and they pose a deadly threat not only to him but also for the entire town.

After twenty years, local police captures the murderer of the older brother of a young boy. Now a doctor, he must go back to his old town and face the murderers himself. He then discovers ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Patient X torrent reviews

Dustin G (ca) wrote: Despite the resurgence in the last decade, Westerns are still a fairly rare occurrence in theatres every year. Even The Homesman, which deserved a wide release, was only rolled out on a handful of select screens around North America. Which is a pity, because as unpleasant as it is in subject matter throughout, it's also a top shelf film in acting, writing and the beauty conveyed by director Tommy Lee Jones. Old school storytelling on a grand level. The throwback of the year.

WS W (ag) wrote: Finally comes a decent Russian drama.

Thomas B (kr) wrote: ****David Fincher has created a creepy true story crime film with 'Zodiac'. The film has great performances from the three leads, and successfully achieves the sinister undertones (and overtones) that Fincher is best known for.

Dale P (fr) wrote: My son (11) and I watched this last night and we both were thoroughly entertained. I just wanted to see what sort of rating it had so I checked it here. I was shocked to see it so low. It had comedy that was actually funny, great special effects that weren't all CGI, and spectacular cinematics. Watch this with the family and you won't be disapointed.

Cameron J (de) wrote: "Let's take a ride, and run with the dogs tonight, in Sub[u]U[/u]rbia!". Yes, Pet Shop Boys, it's "Sub[u]U[/u]rbia", not "Sub[u]u[/u]rbia"; there's enough of a difference for Wikipedia to not bother specifying the year differences in the article titles. Shoot, you're more likely to think that this is "Clerks 2" or something, because it's mostly about a bunch of bums hanging out around a convenience store. Speaking of years differences to distinguish titles, they ended up having a "Clerks 2", so this is more like "Dazed and Confused 2", or, if you want to go by the full title, "Dazed and Confused 2 Hours Later". Yeah, I can't help but notice that after this film, Richard Linklater tried to put a little more dynamicity into his narratives, or rather, put in some narratives to begin with, probably because he realized that two hours of aimless chatter might be a little too much, even though it's certainly better than an hour-and-a-half of "It's Impossible to Learn to Plow by Reading Books". Yeah, Dick, I understand that it was your first film, and you made perfectly decent films after... "Slacker" (Come to think of it, you didn't really start out at that well for me), but I'm not letting that go. This film might help, because it is indeed quite decent, but you know how sequels can be, so, as you can imagine, "Dazed and Confused 2 Hours Later" here goes held back, and isn't even all that refreshing as a sequel. Yeah, yeah, I've done all my joking about how this is sort of like "Dazed and Confused 2", or "Clerks 2", and what have you, but the fact of the matter is that even a film of this offbeat of a nature has been done time and again, largely by Richard Linklater, hitting more than a few tropes as a very 1990s, dialogue-driven dramedy, complete with flawed characters who, well, might be a little too flawed. Written and portrayed well enough, the characters are reasonably compelling, but whether it be young intellectual pretense, or simply, of all things, immaturity, there are a number of defining characterization traits that get to be a little obnoxious after a while, partly because you have only so much time to get used to certain characters before focus switches a little too swiftly for consistency's comfort. As a layered ensemble study, the film gets to be uneven in focus, as surely as it gets to be uneven in its realism as a brutally honest character portrait, meeting many a grounded dramatic layer with a pinch of melodrama that, while not recurrent, is hard to ignore, as it breaks believability, and has plenty of time to hit those beats. I joked about it earlier, but quite frankly, while this film has more meat than one might fear it would when looking at some of Linklater's other early, super-minimalist efforts, at two hours, its runtime is simply way too long, being well-handled enough for you to be adequately entertained through all the slow spells, but nonetheless repetitious in its being driven by ramblings, and not much outside of that. The film's story concept is plenty compelling, make no mistake, enough so for the final product to rise to the brink of rewarding on the back of dramatic inspiration, which was always to find trouble getting the dramedy much further than that, - seeing as how the narrative, as a talkative character story that is generally too grounded to be all that interestingly distinguished - and doesn't exactly make the natural shortcomings easier to get past with the aforementioned consequential shortcomings. I suppose it's the natural shortcomings that most subdue the engagement value of this affair of limited consequence, but that's something that could have been said about some of Linklater's other, more compelling minimalist dramedies, which don't see quite as many of the problems that just barely, but surely hold the final product back as barely consequential. The film could have been a little more, and yet, at the same time, it also could have been so much less, and it would have been if it didn't have some inspiration to the interpretation of a worthy, if, as I said, subdued story concept. An ostensibly faithful adaptation of a dialogue play, this film's story concept is minimalist and talkative, and not even all that unique, although it still has a certain meat to it, with intrigue to its sheer humanity as a drama, sold by subtle inspiration off of the screen and, of course, on the screen. A classic Richard Linklater type of cast that mixes recognizable names, then-up-and-coming names and unknowns, this film's collection of talent delivers on individually commendable performances, with Steve Zahn stealing the comedy side of the show with his over-the-top commitment to an eccentric roles, while dramatic depth proves to be rich within such performances as those by Jayce Bartok, Dina Spybey, Amie Carey, a particularly devastating Nicky Katt, and leading man Giovanni Ribisi, whose trademark quiet range that encompasses anything from a sense of awkwardness to a sense of aggression as a repressed ambitious. Just about everyone delivers as best he or she can with individual charisma and dramatic layering, and that, combined with dynamite chemistry, drives a lot of the depth of this ensemble dramedy, although, in all fairness, the performers have pretty solid roles to work with. Flawed to the point of being distancing at times, and not even consistently as grounded as they're supposed to be, the characters remain compellingly well-drawn, staying effective as reflections on themes of personal struggles on the road to fulfilling ambition, but still being distinguished enough to be memorable by their own rights. Characterization is pretty solid, but the strengths in screenwriter Eric Bogosian's adaptation of his own play don't end there, because as surely as it thrives on its characters, the film thrives on razor-sharp dialogue whose humor and audacious extensiveness holds a fair deal of your intrigue throughout the course of this overly, but entertainingly talkative dramedy. Of course, it's Linklater's direction that really sells things, even if it's only to a certain extent, for although Linklater cannot overcome the natural shortcomings and other missteps in Bogosian's writing, his plays on the scripted flare keeps entertainment value surprisingly consistent, no matter how much the film drags, and when more thoughtful slow spots come into play, dramatic weight bites, flowed into organically enough to give the final product a sense of dynamicity that beefs up a minimalist narrative which gradually gets a little meatier. The film gets a little more heavy as it goes along, until you're presented with thoroughly compelling latter acts that reflect what could have been, and while those glimpses aren't enough to get the film to a rewarding point on the whole, on top of further reflecting Linklater's potential as a filmmaker, the final product endears enough to entertain and often compel, even though it could have gone further. Overall, a lack of originality and an inconsistency in character engagement value, focus and buyable drama, all behind the dragging telling of a narrative which is too minimalist for its own good drive the final product just short of rewarding, yet the value of a humanly worthy story concept is ultimately done enough justice by solid acting, memorable characterization, clever dialogue and thoughtfully well-layered direction that gradually grows more endearing to make Richard Linklater's "SubUrbia" a generally improvable, but consistently entertaining and often compelling portrait on flaws and potential within young adults. 2.75/5 - Decent

Johannes J (br) wrote: Rita: "For me, love is very deep, sex only has to go a few inches."

Tim M (it) wrote: The hilarious first in the series with Donald O'Connor's character meeting Francis and subsequently helping the army while also getting put in the insane ward. A fun film and worthy intro to the series.

Krystof Z (nl) wrote: Hm.. nice pictures.. with all this yellow you forget that this was shot in good old and cold germany.. but kind of naive and aimless lovestory.. still sweet at times.

Niki P (gb) wrote: Awful! boring, don't waste your time in watching this. Those who put five stars will have to explain the hype to me! Not entertaining at all by any means. Avoid for your own sake

Luke B (de) wrote: Its an acquired taste.