The Uninvited

The Uninvited

A brother and sister move into an old seaside house they find abandoned for many years on the English coast. Their original enchantment with the house diminishes as they hear stories of the previous owners and meet their daughter (now a young woman) who now lives as a neighbor with her grandfather. Also heard are unexplained sounds during the night. It becomes obvious that the house is haunted.

A brother and sister move into an old seaside house they find abandoned for many years on the English coast. Their original enchantment with the house diminishes as they hear stories of the previous owners and meet their daughter (now a young woman) who now lives as a neighbor with her grandfather. Also heard are unexplained sounds during the night. It becomes obvious that the house is haunted. The reasons for the haunting and how they relate to the daughter whom the brother is falling in love with, prove to be a complex mystery. As they are compelled to solve it, the supernatural activity at the house increases to a frightening level. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Uninvited torrent reviews

Peter P (mx) wrote: The plot and acting of this movie deserves 2 stars, but the nice job they did filming the skiing and snowboarding bumps it up to 3.

Maranda F (us) wrote: Awesome typical slasher movie and loved the non CGI,

Chrissy M (ag) wrote: THIS MOVIE ROCKS! I'd put it in the category of American Beauty, only it would be Scottish Beauty.

Sohailbalochyahoocom S (us) wrote: it is the best movie.

Cameron J (it) wrote: "Smoke on the water and fire in the sky", or rather, "Fire in the sky, can't you see that all my castles are burning?" Obvious song references aside (Oh yeah, like you would be able to resist), this film's title is awesome, and certainly more so than the title of the book upon which it's based, "The Walton Experience", which sounds like some kind of theme park based on Earl Hamner, Jr.'s "The Waltons" or something. Man, that would be the least amusing amusement park around, because all it would be would be an immersive recreation of the Great Depression era, so I reckon I'll just stay at home and experience this film, and by that, I mean watch it, because being abducted and experimented on by extraterrestrials doesn't sound too much more fun than the aforementioned Depression era recreation, or at least it doesn't to me. Robert Patrick, on the other hand, must have really gotten into this kind of stuff after this, possibly getting in "The X-Files" and, I don't know, "Alien Trespass" to further investigate the existence of aliens, or at least that's my attempt at figuruing out why Patrick did "Alien Trespass". It's a real shame that Patrick didn't find any, because, come on, how awesome would it be to see the T-1000 duke it out with aliens? Maybe Patrick hasn't been as observant as he should be in the TV industry, which may very well have aliens for all we know, seeing as how they pretty much abducted D. B. Sweeney, even though they never gave him back, unlike Travis Walton's aliens. Maybe all aliens keep their victims, thus (*cough*fur*cough*ther*cough*) proving that Walton's story is just bull, which isn't to say that such a revelation would make this film less enjoyable, because this effort is a decent one, even though it finds itself held back by its share of issues.There's not really too much to this film, and that, of course, only intensifies the issues, one of, if not the biggest of which being, of all things, cheesiness, something that even claims the trite, thematically uneven score by Mark Isham, while doing some serious damage to Tracy Torm's script, which has its share of fall-flat moments in dialogue, as well as subtlety issues that range from somewhat offputting to just downright glaring. If the film isn't kind of distancingly overemphatic about its being based on a true story that may very well be bull, what with it's being so bizarre, its simply histrionic or overbearing with its handling of drama and characterization, so we're certainly not looking at an effort that is nearly as bright as the light that Travis Walton claims to have seen on the night around which this film is centered, and that almost destroys the final product's decency, which goes further shaken by the script's simply needing some trimming around the edges. The film isn't exceedingly overblown, and besides, it's not like its 109-minute runtime leaves all that much room for bloating open, but when the film does bite off more material than it can chew, it starts dragging its feet, meandering in a somewhat repetitious way that blands things up as it desperately works to put some extra meat on the bones that is a story that has enough bland spots in concept. Certainly, there is a reasonable degree of intrigue to this story, and I will touch more upon the engagement value of this subject matter later, but in too many areas, there's not a whole lot of consequence to this thriller, based on a story that just ended up kind of fizzling out from public attention, partially because it is one of a million, just with a bit more circumstancial evidence. The film doesn't have a whole lot of especially unique material to work with, and that would be just fine if the film itself didn't neglect to come up with unique approaches to this story, hitting convention after convention, until flaws end up standing among the general notable beats to this effort for you to zero in on. Sure, around the flaws stand strengths, and enough of them to save the film as decent, but not enough for you to forget the rather cheesy lack of subtlety, tightness and originality that makes the final product not really all that memorable. In spite of this, while the film takes up your time, it does a generally adequate job of holding your attention, being a mess, but one that is nevertheless with some things to compliment, even in the visual aspects.By 1993, the excellent, maybe even great Bill Pope turned in his fifth effort as cinematographer with this film, and as an up-and-coming motion photographer, Pope didn't really hone in his skill enough for this film to prove to be consistently handsome, but when Pope really delivers here, as he very often does, the results are surprisingly quite lovely, playing with lighting and coloring in an attractively lush fashion that catches your eye and occasionally even captures the juicy wonderment of this subject matter. It takes a little while to get used to the film's visual style, but make no mistake, if this film is anything, it's pretty darn pretty when it wants to be, boasting a look that was fine for the early '90s, and is still mighty handsome to this day as a supplement to nifty style that does a decent job of complimenting what nifty spots there are in substance. Like I said, the film's story concept stands to be meatier and more unique, and its execution gets to be pretty messy, whether when it cheesing things up through subtlety lapses or meandering along, but the thin spots in this film's subject matter, even when joined by problematic lot structuring, cannot fully obscure what is, in fact, intriguing about this genuinely interesting abduction story, especially when intrigue value finds itself emphasized through what is actually done right in execution, particularly when it comes to direction. Director Robert Lieberman can do only so much to settle down the sting of the issues within Tracy Torm's screenplay, and even makes situations worse in some ways, partially through ambition, but when Lieberman actually fulfills his ambition, he gives you a near-rich taste of what could have been, or at least augments engagement value through moments in atmospheric kick that really are effective, ranging from fear for the associates of Travis Walton who find their reputation and lives threatened by accusations surrounding Walton's disappearance, to the climactic flashback to a dramatization of Walton's experience with his abducters that is unexpectedly nothing short of bone-chillingly haunting. It's a long time before the film reaches its pay-off, but oh, how effective the pay-off is, which isn't to say that you'll find yourself sitting there, desperately begging for this film to hurry up and culminate, because if Lieberman delivers on nothing else, it's a fair degree of entertainment value, which makes the final product enjoyable enough to not be shaken into dreaded mediocrity by its shortcomings. What further keeps engagement value from drifting away is, of course, one of the few major aspects that is consistently impressive, and that is the acting, which would be decent across-the-board if it wasn't for its featuring standouts, from the portrayers of Walton's "abduction" witnesses who face fear over the fates of themselves and of their lost friend, to the unevenly used D. B. Sweeney, who nails the trauma and overwhelming confusion upon Walton's eventual return to the human world with the eeriest of stories to tell. I kind of wish that the film was as good as its performances, because the high notes in the final product do indeed give you a good taste of what could have been, but when it's all said and done, what you ultimately end up with is a reasonably entertaining dramatic sci-fi thriller that gets you by, even if it's not likely to grip your investment all that tightly.When the light dims and lets you go back into the real world, you're left with cheesy moments in the score, dialogue and subtlety departments, natural shortcomings within the story concept, and conventionalism within the storytelling shake the memorability of the final product, whose decency is even challenged by shortcomings, but not so much so that you can easily deny the handsome visual style, fair degree of conceptual intrigue, - often brought to life by effective moments in Robert Lieberman's mostly reasonably lively score - and good acting that make "Fire in the Sky" an entertaining, if flawed and a bit overambitious retelling of one of the most recognizable stories told by a self-proclaimed victim of extraterrestrials.2.5/5 - Fair

Kenneth L (jp) wrote: This movie is actually an anthology of three unrelated short movies, each made by a different New York director, so I'll give each one a short review.Martin Scorsese's "Life Lessons" is a very good film about a middle-aged artist (Nick Nolte) who's obsessed with his pretty assistant (Rosanna Arquette). It's a fairly dark little drama, but always compelling to watch. The subject matter is tamer than Scorsese usually handles, but it's typically well shot and makes good use of pop music, especially "A Whiter Shade of Pale" by Procol Harum.Francis Ford Coppola's "Life Without Zoe" is, unfortunately, an absolutely terrible film about an obscenely rich child and her parents. It hits a whimsical tone pretty well at first, but eventually you realize that the story is completely random and makes no sense. It's easily the weakest film of the three, and probably the worst thing Coppola has made (at least that I've seen).Woody Allen's "Oedipus Wrecks" was my favorite of the three. It's a hilarious little comedy about a typical Allen character's struggles to deal with his controlling, overbearing mother (Mae Questel). Allen himself is very funny in the movie, Questel is hilarious, Mia Farrow is ok, and Julie Kavner is a lot of fun in it. The central plot twist is one of those brilliant little comic gags Allen comes up with sometimes. It's funnier than some of his feature length-movies.

Private U (es) wrote: I have to confess to ambivalent feelings about this one. Rather like an unusually lurid soap opera, only more sophisticated (if arguably pretentious), it is certainly engrossing, but you can't help feeling that it shouldn't be. The characters aren't quite sympathetic enough for the film to be a high tragedy, and it is all rather on the prurient side. Worth watching, nevertheless - but I can't believe this is the pinnacle of Bergman's art.

chris n (br) wrote: Before Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas there was Where the Buffalo roam before Johnny Depp there was Bill Murray. A loose biography of Hunter S Thompsons filled with wild behavior fueled by drugs in the late 60s into the Nixon era. The storiesare taken from when he was a journalist for the Rolling Stones.This movie does not havethe visuals unlike Fear and Loathing known for the vivid hallucinations and trippy images. More in depth about the lates 60s turn 70s american culture. Its not all about HST but the relationship between him and his attorney.From the beginning you can tell it was good choice to choose Bill Murray to play Hunter S Thompson copying his behavior and speech. His narrative voice-over throughout this movie displays his thoughts and views using his style that he known for. Not filled with wild antics and chaos like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas more of an insight on the gonzo journalist.

Alexander P (nl) wrote: Cushing is quite good but it is a poor adaptation - lavish colour and sets cannot improve on the claustraphobia of the original TV episodes

Chris D (jp) wrote: From a critical standpoint, this was a awful movie. But from a relaxed perspective, this was an incredibly fun movie. And you can tell that some of the actors had a blast making.