Some doors should stay closed.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:95 minutes
  • Release:2009
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:Shut 2009 full movies, Shut torrents movie

Some doors should stay closed. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Shut torrent reviews

alejandro g (jp) wrote: interesting weirdly nice movie

Berni E (nl) wrote: No doubt some essential truths in this very weird film but.....yaaawn. Not for me.

Stephen L (gb) wrote: This is incredible !!!

Alexandre B (it) wrote: Un film trs anecdotique

Hobie P (it) wrote: Resembles alot to the 1990 flick "Popcorn". This film is one of the better slasher flicks thats come out recently. Nice little gem with an 80's touch with it.

Cameron J (gb) wrote: Why, I just can't believe that Angelina Jolie could possibly condone grave robbing! Seriously though, Indiana Jones raided the lost ark, and all this chick is raiding is some old tomb... that is filled with ancient artifacts of great power which is pursued by the Illuminati. ...Yeah, well, other than that, Lara Croft is not as cool as Indiana Jones... even if she is a hot British chick with a great deal of wealth, and advanced, video game-grade combat skills. Shoot, on top of that, it took Indy until his third movie to hang out with an old James Bond, and on her first movie, Croft hangs out with Daniel Craig at one point, well before he was James Bond, which isn't to say that this film didn't commit some form of fan service at the time of its release. Jolie finally had to face up to being Jon Voight's daughter, so, naturally, this is big-time fan service to fans of the Voight family... whose fanbase is largely focused on hard-hitting dramas like "Midnight Cowboy", or "Deliverance", or "Coming Home", or a bunch of other stuff that only Jon Voight has been in. Come to think of it, Jolie didn't really start getting dramatic until well after this film, so maybe her being disowned by the respectable Voight name was daddy's idea, but now that Voight can't afford to only do the heavy stuff, he and Jolie are going to have to take the commercial train together. Financially, I'd say it paid off, but critically, on the other hand, definitely not so much, and really, while I think that the film is reasonably entertaining, I can see where some people are coming from. As an early 2000s action-adventure popcorn piece, this film is not much of anything new, following the same style and lame score, and lazily manufacturing a very typical plot formula that, no matter how overdone, is still a little hard to figure out. Overblown and improbable in its juggling so many themes and happenings that converge somewhere along the way, this film's story is convoluted, and yet, so much about it is so simple, and that stresses the silliness and contrivances, until the plot becomes near-senseless, with a lack of focus that is exacerbated by a lack of coherency. Storytelling gets to be seriously disjointed, tossing characters and plotlines about to exacerbate a sense of convolution, and never really coming down to any sense of nuance to distinguish the characters, or their place in the story, amidst all of the action that seems to not be fluffy enough for writers Patrick Massett and John Zinman. The storytelling attempts to maintain some sort of extensive tension, suddenly and jarringly broken by comic relief which is made all the more aggravating by a consistency in sheer genericism and predictability, sometimes further exacerbated by a cheesiness that never leaves the storytelling, even with the tension that thrives on contrived and ludicrous atmospherics and happenings. Really, looking through all of the missteps, in its basic nature, this film is so popcorny, with a heavy emphasis on action to drive the progression of the plot, until sense behind the action is lost in the wake of overwrought style, not compensated for by a cornball telling of a simultaneously convoluted and superficial plot, thus making for a film with plenty of laziness and no resonance. At the same time the film has plenty of entertainment value, and that really gets it by, at least as decent, but it's hard to have all that much fun with something this generic, disjointed, superficial and altogether silly. The final product will fail to endear for so very many, but if you are willing to check your brain in and take this film for what it is, while entertainment value is challenged by the stupidity, it does thrive, even in concept, to a certain extent. Man, I really don't want to direct that much compliment to Sara B. Cooper's, Mike Werb's, Michael Colleary's and Simon West's video game-inspired story, because it is so formulaic, convoluted, disjointed, superficial and, well, if you will, stupid, but it is dynamic, with a fun, if somewhat campy narrative behind an adventurous scope whose approach can make or break the entertainment value of this film. David Allday's, John C. Hill's, David Lee's and John Fenner's art direction does a fine, sometimes exceptional job of capturing this scope, celebrating and, with the help of production designer Kirk M. Petruccelli and set decorator Sonja Klaus, building upon culturally versatile and mythologically nifty settings to catch your eyes in between the less practical designs. The more ambitious visual effects are dated something fierce, but all the designs are generally adequately well-rendered, and conceptually cool in the first place, particularly when used to polish up action sequences that, upon coming into play, are excessive to the point of losing substance, but never to the point of losing style and entertainment value, achieved through wild staging and acrobatic choreography that, no matter how over-the-top, dazzles through and through. That action really thrives on the efforts of West, as director, because even though substance is not on his side as a lazy, hopelessly superficial storyteller, he hardly falls short on style, whether it be in his celebration of Peter Menzies Jr.'s handsome cinematography and Graeme Revell's often lamely trite score, or in his flashy scene structuring which leads to a fairly tight sense of pacing and dynamicity to the disjointed, but expansive plot. West really does manage to capture some sense of adventure just fine, enough so to capture some sense of fun, and while that does not justify the silliness and sloppiness of this popcorn fluff piece, it does charm enough to make up for a lot of shortcomings. About as much charm, at the very least, is found in a decent cast that features the charismatic Daniel Craig, the effectively antagonistic Iain Glen and Richard Johnson (Oh, what a terribly unfortunate name), the delightful Noah Taylor, and, of course, Angelina Jolie, whose convincing English accent and presence make sure that the arguably impeccable casting choice is not squandered, and that an endearing lead stands. Yes, there is a fair bit about this film that is endearing, and although about as much is distancing, entertainment value and charm stand firm enough to make for a fun, if flimsy affair. Bottom line, this is a formulaic, convoluted and rather ludicrous plot, whose conventional, disjointed and cheesily overwrought and superficial telling renders the final product pretty decidedly inconsequential, almost mediocre, but the fun factor in the senseless plot is brought to life by art direction that is rich with scope and versatility, visual effects that are nifty in concept, and thrilling action that is tightly orchestrated by Simon West's lively direction, whose charm is outweighed by that of an endearing cast, headed by the well-selected and convincing Angelina Jolie, who helps in securing "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider" as an entertaining popcorn piece, for all of its superficiality and messiness. 2.5/5 - Fair

David L (nl) wrote: It has solid cinematography, great art direction and it has its charms, but Meet Me in St. Louis is a weak film nevertheless thanks to tired plot, forgettable characters, boring romance, so-so musical numbers and an overall dull approach and direction which is weird having in mind that the director here is Vincente Minnelli.

Blake P (kr) wrote: What is "Along Came Polly"? Is it a predictable romantic comedy Jennifer Aniston could star in in her sleep? A PG-13 gross-out comedy meant to edgelessly emulate "There's Something About Mary"? A chance for Ben Stiller to get himself into yet another bungle of precarious situations so we can laugh at him instead of with him? A way to unintelligently subvert the normally clichd trappings of its chintzy genre characteristics? I can hardly put a finger on what writer/director John Hamburg's goal was with "Along Came Polly", but I can confidently say it is not a successful film, not funny nor quirky enough to stand out as the anti-romantic comedy it so desperately wishes to be. The hit-or-miss Ben Stiller (hilarious when in the right hands, irritating when attempting to save a film) misses as Reuben Feffer, a hapless company man whose perpetually planned out life is shattered when his wife, Lisa (Debra Messing), cheats on him with a muscly scuba instructor (Hank Azaria) on the second day of their honeymoon. Going back home in an understandably emotionally broken state, he decides to go head-on into his job, ignoring the doubts that eat at him night and day. Only a few weeks into mourning his marital loss, though, does he run into Polly Prince (Aniston), a free-spirited former junior high classmate who just may give him the relationship he's been looking for. But oh does "Along Came Polly" have trouble persuading. What does Polly like best about Reuben - is it is charming first-date explosive diarrhea, his romantic, informational speech about mixed nuts, his inability to decide which woman to start a life with after Lisa comes back into town pretending like she cares, or is it is startling capacity to get himself into completely avoidable situations that are somehow supposed to end in a cackle? (Consider the way he pretends to love spicy exotic food to impress Polly, only to wind up sweating like a baked pig and clogging her apartment's toilet. Would Polly be offended if he ordered something else? I don't think so.) And what's the best "wacky" feature about Polly - is it her habit of wearing farmer's market scarves and baggy pants on a near daily basis, her ownership of a pet ferret, her life decision to drift from job to job and shop out of garbage cans when there's good looking merchandise, or her adorkable flakiness? When the film isn't attempting to build an enjoyably offbeat relationship between its mildly irritating leads, it prefers to fill itself up with gross-out gags that don't work because they're so upsettingly convoluted. They seem to exist only because Hamburg didn't know what else to do. But the most disappointing thing about "Along Came Polly" is its exasperating tendency to take its farcical supporting actors for granted. Philip Seymour Hoffman, as Reuben's former child star best friend, gives a phenomenal comedic performance that provides the film with its biggest laughs; whenever he's in the room, you momentarily believe that you're watching something inspired and not something completely unsuccessful. Bryan Brown, as client-from-hell Leland Van Lew, tickles in his obnoxious lack of common sense. But, alas, the film doesn't realize that its secondary performers are more riotous than its box-office saints, and it suffers trying on the clothes of a modern-day screwball romance.

Aaron J (it) wrote: I hate this movie this disgraces viking culture almost as bad as how to train your dragon and makes Native Americans look like pussies

Andy G (jp) wrote: Good movie... "Hot water burn baby"

Matt B (fr) wrote: Year One is unbearable. It's so unfunny and stupid that watching it is truly painful. Michael Cera yet again plays his usual awkward, dorky self. It's beyond annoying.

Claire L (us) wrote: Provided you are willing to allow this film to drag you into the abhorrently fantastical world of this cult, a believe what humans are capable of, this film becomes completely believable (save a couple of Hollywood attachments). Filled with suspense and tension, this is not always an easy watch, but then neither was Argo, and that got a BAFTA. By far Emma Watson's best work, she and the makers should be proud of this film. Fair criticism could be made for going over the top for dramatic effect, but this is not meant to be an expos, it's a story about two people (and to be fair, the rest of the victims) caught in a vile portion of history. The expos happened decades ago. In short, if you want sincere entertainment and grim but powerful performances, watch this. If you want a history lesson, watch a documentary. If you want the moral high ground, buy a book.