Storm in the Heartland

Storm in the Heartland

Liz McAdams is haunted by the memories of a tornado that destroyed her home 25 years ago. Now a professional storm tracker, she and her family are in danger once again as another ...

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:87 minutes
  • Release:2009
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:tornado,  

Liz McAdams is haunted by the memories of a tornado that destroyed her home 25 years ago. Now a professional storm tracker, she and her family are in danger once again as another ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Storm in the Heartland torrent reviews

Phillip D (es) wrote: In order to let the dust settle, I waited awhile to see this movie. As with all movies of this nature, 12 Years A Slave walked out to universal acclaim and ridiculously high ratings everywhere. I am pretty wary of this phenomenon. Just because a movie hits at a minority abuse point doesn't make it cinema gold. Films exist on a continuum and premises don't guarantee anything. That being said, 12 Years A Slave was an excellent movie. The acting was stellar and most importantly, no punches were pulled in the depiction of slavery. The scenarios are brutal and raw, really cutting to the core of the viewer. Ejiofor is fantastic, although those of us who are Serenity fans already knew this. Fassbender also offers up a top notch performance. The fact that this story is true just adds more weight to the movie. However, there are items that severely limit the longevity of this movie in cinematic history. Although Ejiofor and Fassbender are excellent, the performance from Nyongo'o was pretty mute, a surprising point considering her runaway Supporting Actress win. Pitt is pretty much in the movie just for awards appeal as well, an all too common occurrence that I find distasteful. I think the biggest thing that keeps this movie firmly at an 80% for me is how safe it played the game. As a whole, white and black people were fairly dichotomous in nature. One group didn't have feelings, the other did. There was a bit of talk about the psychological process of whipping slaves, but it isn't really fleshed out much and we don't get to see anyone grappling with it's effects. Cumberbatch, who offered an interesting paradox early in the film, exits quickly, which is a real shame. Pitt appears mostly as an Ex Machina figure, offering minimal depth behind his single major monologue. In conclusion, 12 Years A Slave does everything right, creating a film that is powerful, moving and right on target with current events. Unfortunately, it isn't a film that transcends itself, choosing instead to be content with ruffling no feathers and taking no risks. And what a shame that is.

Tobias S (fr) wrote: Fenomenalt dlig film. Verkligen.

Pinkki J (fr) wrote: Hooly ..*** Stupidest piece of crap I've seen in a long while, HORRIBLE! Overacting, uninteresting storyline, endless meaningless scenes, dull, stupid, did I mention horrible? I can't believe I wasted my time watching this piece of poop that should be burned on the bonfires!

Randy P (br) wrote: so-so remake of a good horror movie.

Derek B (de) wrote: This could have gone either way after about 20 minutes but I stuck it out and was mildly entertained, ever so slightly moved, etc. It's a pretty middle-of-the-road film, and typically British: no flair, no confidence in its audience to work things out for themselves, etc etc etc. Some quite nice performances and no worse than 9 out of 10 things you might zap past on the TV. Just not all that much better either.

Fenix U (es) wrote: An amazing movie, and another masterpiece by Disney. Severely underappreciated, however, but from those I've spoken to, it's received nothing but praise. The second one I can believe has a bad rating, but not the first.

Daniel M (jp) wrote: Stallone actually made a better impression as a pornographic actor than in here. At least that old lady seemed to have fun.

Brody M (it) wrote: I did not expect this movie to be as good as it was.Definitely a must see

Tony P (mx) wrote: I really wanted to understand the rave reviews and high ratings this film has gathered but I struggled to watch it. Really struggled.For me it was just a cheap Star Wars with pre-CGI space set pieces and corridors on a spaceship.Basically it is set in the future where a massive supply ship slowly travels through space collecting mineral ores. The ship is diverted by a distress signal from another planetoid where the Alien of the title enters the fray.Basically an alien creature from the site of the distress signal latches onto the poor face of John Hurt and is allowed entry to the Nostramus space ship against the orders of senior officer Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) who believes Hurt should have a 24 hour period in quarantine (poor sod he has an alien literally stuck to his face).Efforts are made to remove the alien thing revealing some acid like blood.It eventually appears to disappear of its own accord or does it? Quell the most famous scene of this movie that is guaranteed to put off anybody eating their tea. The alien creature literally explodes through the late John Hurts abdomen!The effects are good seen as this was made in a pre-CGI era.That reminds me the Nostramusi computer is ancient!The film is not too long but it still required multiple views to get through it. One to avoid in my humble opinion.

Ariel A (mx) wrote: Ever been distracted by a bad performance or a bad score in a movie? The same thing happened to me with this one, but in a good way: Isabelle Adjani was (is) just too damn beautiful.. But everything else is good here (except for, maybe, the Pinson guy). Make it 75%

Thomas P (gb) wrote: Fiddler on the Roof is a work of art, because you know what they say in the Good Book.

Ted W (es) wrote: Finally got around to viewing this spaghetti classic. Released at the same time as Fistfull of Dollars, this was apparently much more popular in Europe. Nero is great as the tough ex-union soldier Django, playing against warring factions in a muddy, dirty town. Not as outrageous as Keoma, but good wacky western.

Bolly B (es) wrote: Don't understand why in the italian dubbing they gave a neapolitan accent to Rocky only when he talks to his parents... it sounds a little bit odd. R.I.P. Paul Newman

D M (ca) wrote: A group of scientists are requested to visit another scientist's labortory (which happens to be located deep in the Peruvian jungle). After they are done aiding him in his expiriment, they attept to get him to return to civilzation, but he refuses. He uses the technology he has developed to shrink them to a foot tall. The group of midgets attempt to escape and end up battling nature in the jungle. Filmed in Technicolor and with really good effects, this movie had the same director as King Kong and even received an Oscar nomination (something that I guess was still possible for a horror film back then). If you like this, be sure to catch The Incredible Shrinking Man and Attack of the Puppet People (hell, and even Honey, I Shrunk the Kids). There is NO good reason this has never been put on DVD!

Matthew V (nl) wrote: Took a while for me to get the comedy of it all but realize halfway through this movie was too bad to be for real. (Nowadays) Took me back to a time when the excitement of a kiss (or wanting a kiss) was the biggest and scariest thing that could have happened to you as a youth. Wish it was still that way for my kids sake.

Julia L (mx) wrote: I am not easily offended, but this movie was in poor taste.

Jeffrey N (mx) wrote: While being an intriguing story, the acting, writing and directing leave a bit to be desired. In addition, the story on which this is based is doubted by many. The violence in this movie, I believe, is necessary as this was a violent area and time, carried out by a psychopath. However, even if it is merely supposed to be based on a true story, the entire premise seems too far-fetched and unbelievable, even for something so allegedly uncivilized.

Cody C (us) wrote: Terribly made, and blatantly padded. Could've been an interesting short, I guess. As it stands it's repetitive and contains a lot of useless scenes. And worst of all it makes a joke of its subjects. It's edited in a way that casts a hipster's ironic eye roll over a lot of the proceedings, the modern equivalent of a laugh track.