The Wild Man of the Navidad

The Wild Man of the Navidad

Based on the recently acquired journals of Texan Dale S. Rogers, this vintage horror tale debunks history books to tell the veracious, harrowing story of a rural Texas community whose residents were terrified for years by a mysterious creature inhabiting the nearby woods.

Based on the recently acquired journals of Texan Dale S. Rogers, this vintage horror tale from IFC Films debunks history books to tell the veracious, harrowing story of a rural Texas ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

The Wild Man of the Navidad torrent reviews

Seng Wee T (de) wrote: I don't really enjoy the whole movie. Maybe this is how real life is where romance doesn't happen always but I do think that the development of the whole story is just too heavy for me to handle and digest.

Mark S (br) wrote: Really nice film... and british. Just shows low budget can make a great film.

Fredrick R (de) wrote: in the final days of the Israeli Lebanon occupation, a band of soliders are getting to ready to leave the ancient crusader castel of Beaufort in southern Lebanon. Tensions rise and morale erodes as the soldiers struggle with themselves and their leader LibertiThe movie is a bit slow, but quite well acted

Carol H (de) wrote: In the past, I've made no secret of my disdain for Disney's direct-to-DVD sequels. But "Brother Bear 2" is a wonderful exception because it does everything right. It's faithful to the original movie without being a complete rehash, includes stunning animation, features new characters that are lovable instead of intrusive, and has music that puts even the first movie's soundtrack to shame. I wish more Disney sequels were as great as this one.

darryl c (ag) wrote: this film is tim robbins' directorial debut. it tells the story of the musical that would not be denied its first performance because of the downfall of the wpa. robbins' style owes a lot to altman in its weaving of many strands of narrative in to a whole. he runs the risk at times of losing control of his big tapestry of a movie.

Martin I (jp) wrote: Refreshing animation which sets itself apart from the clean and political correctness of the mainstream, without sacrificing charm or animation quality.*Full Review Pending*

Dan A (it) wrote: Hilarious, fun and one of the best action movies from the 90's.

Nikki M (jp) wrote: I freakin' love this movie. I don't give a crap what the rest of you say

Christie B (jp) wrote: midly entertaining. most of it was boring, but when they got to the hunting part, it was pretty good.

Cameron F (fr) wrote: A hard nosed detective puts his life and career in jeopardy when he has an affair with the witness he's protecting. Dark taunt suspense.

Tochi O (br) wrote: Such a great film detailing the truth of friendship on a raw level, set against an equally deep depiction of Jewish treatment in WW2, and the true morals of everyday people faced with the tragedy.

Gordon C (ru) wrote: The early '80s were somewhat peppered with films about nuclear war - I suppose with Reagan in the White House it probably seemed a highly likely scenario. In this version we see a community sufficiently far from ground zero to escape immediate annihilation, only to suffer the more lingering effects of fallout after the fact. It's a film that concentrates more on the human cost and emotional devastation than on the physical horrors. Powerful stuff.

Aj V (ru) wrote: A good slasher flick, I really liked it. It's not too different from other slasher flicks, but it's entertaining and enjoyable.

Nillansh V (ag) wrote: always want to see it

Cameron J (ag) wrote: Well, Hollywood, I hope that you had bid a fond farewell to Alfred Hitchcock, because with this film, he made his big comeback to British cinema for the first time since 1950. Granted, it's been much longer since this film's release, and we shouldn't be expecting a Hitchcock film in any country any time soon, so I'd imagine we're well used to the magnitude of the event, but hey, it's interesting to see how long Hitchcock waited before coming home, which is why he was the Master of Suspense. Well, I don't know about you guys, but nothing about this title, alone, sounds as though it pertains to suspense, because there's not much subtlety to a frenzy. Really, say what you will about the importance of Hitchcock's Hollywood projects in the '50s and '60s and what have you, but as "Vertigo", "Psycho", "The Birds" and, so help me, "Rope" told us, he was low on creative title ideas for quite some time. Hey, maybe Hitchcock was trying to tell us something with this particular title, for he knew that his time was coming, thus, he decided to throw away all of that suspenseful nonsense and really get crazy, like a frenzy. Oh, how I wish this film really was that exciting, but alas, you must remember that it is a British "thriller", and therefore pretty dry. No, the film is plenty slick, but it's not as much fun as its title might promise, for a couple reasons.Clocking in a little shy of two hours, the film has plenty of time to build suspense, and boy, it has a tendency to work a little too hard at keeping that up, not so much dragging itself out with filler, but still outstaying its welcome with much meandering material that slows down the momentum of rising tension, however limited it may be by inconsistencies beyond pacing. I don't know if the film is so much all that humorous, or even all that fluffy of a report back to London on the tropes that Alfred Hitchcock picked up during his time in Hollywood, Anthony Shaffer's script, on top of spending too much time with certain segments in material in general, spends too much time with inconsequential, almost tongue-in-cheek lighter segments, broken up by moments of tension that would be more effective if they weren't so forcibly driven into the midst of borderline fluff. Tensions certainly aren't helped by the film's lack of originality, being at least consistent in tossing whatever pacing or tone it's following upon a traditional muder and wrong-suspect tale that is all too predictable to feel all that momentous, just as it's too histrionic to fell that grounded. I don't suppose Shaffer's scripted storytelling is all that far out there, but it's a bit questionable, drawing a borderline barely probable thriller narrative whose holes in full buyability are conceptually problematic enough. Of course, what ultimately secures the final product's underwhelmingness through the story concept is merely natural shortcomings, because the near-two-hour runtime, and the jarring incorporations of more serious tonal aspects, wouldn't be so unreasonable if this story concept wasn't so light in momentum to begin with. I feel that something could have been done to carry this story a fair distance in execution, and highlights in storytelling stand as evidence, yet the consequential shortcomings - of which there are many - ultimately reinforce limitations in intrigue enough to hold the final product back as a relatively underwhelming, somewhat fluffy thriller. There's something ultimately lacking here, but not so lacking that the final product doesn't entertain just fine as a fair penultimate opus in Hitchcock's career, and one that looks good along the way.Really, Gilbert Taylor's and an uncredited Leonard J. South's cinematography is hardly all that special, but it pays a nice compliment to Alfred Hitchock's distinctive visual style with a lovely pronunciation of color and some subtle plays with lighting that do a decent job of drawing you into the looks of this character piece. Of course, this thriller thrives more on the portrayers of its characters, and while there's not a whole lot of material for anyone to utilized as standouts or anything of that sort, most everyone has a very English and distinguished charisma which sells each individual character, while the occasional dramatic beat reinforces a sense of consequence. The performances are solid, never really standing out, but having a certain realization to presence to help keep you invested, with the help of some pretty decent material, in all fairness. Anthony Shaffer's script gets to be rather uneven in tone and pacing, and quite frankly, it's perhaps a little too blasted British in its overt dryness, whose somewhat subdued approach to heavy subject matter further limits a sense of weight, yet through all of the shortcomings, Shaffer's humor is generally clever and amusing, while characterization proves to be well-rounded enough for you to get a grip on the characters, and the conflicts which follow them. True, there's only so much weight to get a grip on within this somewhat narratively thin and very unoriginal story concept, but potential is here, intriguing as a classic, if sometimes probably questionable study on the hunt for the wrong man in a serial murder case, anchored by the aforementioned charismatic acting and clever script. Of course, what really brings storytelling to life, about as much as it can be with material so thin in concept and uneven in execution, is Alfred Hitchcock's direction, which not only flaunts a handsome visual style, as I said earler, but keeps fairly focused in that classic Hitchcockian manner, focusing on writing wit enough to keep the slow spells from descending into blandness, while playing with a sharp atmosphere during the more intense moments in order to thoroughly chill, and provide glimpses into a more effective thriller. Needless to say, the heights in intensity are few and far between in this sparse affair, and in between that is a thriller that is too held back by predictability, inconsistency and other issues to be all that thrilling, but entertainment value is not lost, sustaining enough intrigue to keep you going, even if it's for only so far.Bottom line, the momentously and tonally uneven, as well as unoriginal and sometimes histrionic telling of a slightly thin story concept hold the final product back, but decent cinematography, charismatic acting, clever writing and thoughtful direction prove to be enough to make Alfred Hitchcock's "Frenzy" a pretty entertaining and sometimes pretty tense, if underwhelming penultimate project in the career of the Master of Suspense.2.5/5 - Fair

Callum H (us) wrote: Short Review:A near perfect blend of visual storytelling, atmosphere, performance and dialogue. Slow but sometimes unengaging, Solaris is a film which garners the attention of the viewer for much of its running time, and refuses to throw itself to genericisms. A wild, heartfelt and beautiful ride that slightly stumbles in terms of its sometimes choppy editing (I don't give a shit if it was intentional; the editing took me out of the immersion a few times throughout) and dull final act, which only picks itself up with ten minutes to go.Elongated Review:Music to set the toneThe azure brilliance glows glorious; it is blatantly made out to be otherworldly. It holds no life, nor anything that could sustain such. Instead, it cultivates, manipulates and destroys the lives of others that come to rest at the shores of its influence. It is an alien planet that truly possesses a form of higher intelligence; perhaps not the type that we as humans for thousands of years have estimated ethereal beings would be capable of, but a quantity of perception and intellect all the same. It is both mesmerising, seductive, but utterly dangerous. It has the ability to exploit our own emotions and use them against us for its own benefit. And whilst that benefit is unbeknownst to us, its effects are still very much noticeable and potent.Welcome to Solaris.Steven Soderbergh's sci-fi picture about the human condition in terms of its emotional boundaries, as well as otherworldly creatures and planets, our hypothesis', our desires, is a masterclass of ambiguity, patience and dedication. Solaris centres around a psychologist named Kris Kelvin, played by George Clooney, who is sent to a space station orbiting the enigmatic and peculiar planet Solaris, after a distress message is sent out from one of the passengers, a passenger who happens to be an associate and friend of Kelvin's. After he is sent up to the space station, he discovers strange doings performed by the inhabitants; they exhibit unexplained behavior that Kelvin himself can not fully decipher. It is not until he is subjected to the strange powers of Solaris himself that Kelvin becomes prey to the same condition. As his ability to be able to discern what is and isn't real deserts him, he becomes subject to erotic fantasies and dreams about his late wife, Rheya. Soon enough though, such fantasies escalate, and Kelvin's imagination may prove more realistic than it seems.Solaris starts on Earth, with cold and distant lighting beckoning us forth into this story of peril and personal destruction. Soderbergh explains little to us within the initial scenes, primarily utilizing visual cues to describe certain ideas about our protagonist, the world he calls home and Solaris. These initial scenes are cold and lifeless on purpose, any ounce of heart or warmth long departed. There is a texture to Earth, thanks to the rain displayed (one of the opening shots is somewhat reminiscent to my favourite take from Seven, which features a mood-setting and dark heavy rainfall), but that does not necessarily evoke any sense of life. The extras are nearly all faceless and distant from the central character; even when Kelvin interacts with them and the minor characters, we don't see their faces. We hear their voices, see their bodies and watch their movements, but we never properly see their faces. We are alone with our detached psychologist, detached for reasons unknown at this point in time, and Soderbergh evokes this as much as he possibly can. It's gripping work, and immediately sets the tone for the rest of the picture.Kelvin receives a message from his scientist colleague and friend Dr. Gibarian. Gibarian implores Kelvin to come to Solaris to witness the manifestation of a strange power; one that is weakening the mental endurance of all those on the space station orbiting the planet. As a psychologist, Kelvin is qualified for the situation at hand, and is requested by envoys of the corporation who own the space station to trek out and convince the crew members to abandon the mission and return to Earth; all members of the mission had been reluctant to leave prior to this point. This entire scene that features Kelvin receiving the distress message contains a slow and begrudging atmosphere, the message from Gibarian long and drawn out with few cuts throughout. There is no score over the top, nor is there any overtly dramatic lighting cues. Gaffer James Plannette delivers a cold orange colour for the set, and it feels hostile and unwelcome. All throughout the scene, the camera lingers on Kelvin, his every movement and emotion accented with the long takes utilized. Soderbergh undertook both the editing and cinematography roles, and his work here is exceptional. He doesn't cut away, nor does he seek to add flair to the visuals. There is a keen simplicity to the scene that articulates Clooney's performance; a performance which understates the residual and underlying emotional complications that exist within his being. At this point in time, we do not know why he is the way he is. Only time shall tell.With Cliff Martinez's surprisingly versatile score blaring over the top, thematic inclusions abound, the film instigates the central plot, Kelvin heading off to Solaris. The film doesn't waste much time with unnecessary reflections, but instead simply cuts to Kelvin's ship approaching the space station that orbits the clear and bewildering planet below. It is a beautiful sight, and whilst rendered not as realistically as other planets depicted in films in the past, takes on a more transcendental quality. It feels spiritual and wholly otherworldly. As Kelvin draws closer to his target, the slow tone and visual splendour evoke comparisons to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. As of so far, Solaris is entirely enthralling. Kelvin enters the space station shortly after, and finds himself alone amongst the sterile and antagonistic corridors of his directive. Within these scenes, Soderbergh and Martinez resist the urge to build anticipation with a predictable score that ostinatos and performs volume fluctuations for cheap gasps. The director wishes to capture a vibe and mood as Kelvin takes his first steps around the new location, and he achieves as such. It is both gripping and engrossing watching our protagonist traverse the unknown predicament, his lack of knowledge about the situation echoing our own.The sound design is hollow and lacking personality. Everything sounds metallic and lacks human quality. The framing becomes wider and even yet more distant. As Kelvin explores, he comes across a child walking around the space station. He attempts to capture the youngling, but to no avail. Questions arise in our head, but the film refuses to acknowledge them. It will get to them in due time. Instead, we are met with our first major supporting character; a crew member named Snow, played by Jeremy Davies. There is something promptly strange about Snow. Davies fidgets with his surroundings and moves his body in strange and inhuman ways, and it is immediately off-putting. The screenplay echoes the sentiment that his body gives us; that this character is not to be trusted, Snow's dialogue jumping around in an indecipherable form that leads to more questions than answers. Kelvin's lack of emotion is still evidently unpleasant, but his distance feels more at home here more than ever. Alongside Snow, they make a strong team, their minimal individual personalities and uninviting dialogue blending together to form a very strange but reassuring chemistry.Snow points Kelvin towards an emotionally distraught female crew member named Dr. Gordon, played by Viola Davis. She is more spiteful to both the situation and Kelvin, and provides him few answers as to why the rest of the crew part Snow and herself, including Dr. Gibarian, are either dead or unaccounted for. Soderbergh paints Gordon in a light that makes her seem more fragile and malevolent than Snow, despite the fact that she is revealed later on to be of a more stable, intelligent mind (supposedly) than him, and containing of more logical thoughts and answers than anyone else on board. It's this effect instigated by the powers of Solaris; the ability to provoke an emotional dissonance between individuals, and even themselves, that unsettles and disfigures our ability to quantify and calculate the underemphasized competence of the antagonistic planet.Despite all the strange and inconclusive answers provided by the two remaining crew members as to what occurred to their fellow men and women, as well as themselves, there is never a building force that allows us to anticipate any conflicts or issues. The first concern that arises, part the fact that the two crew members sound and act half-mad, is evoked after Kelvin goes to bed. He dreams about a beautiful, stunning lady. She is staring at him, and he is staring back. The size and distance of the frame that accompanies the scenes that are shot within the space station is replaced with a frame that features lesser aperture. The focal length is increased, and we are gifted with a far more intimate palette of visuals, something that proves more aesthetically pleasing on a fundamental level. We witness Kelvin smiling; a first in the film. The subsequent scene reveals to us the identity of the woman, thanks to the aforementioned Gibarian; Rheya. She brings out a warmth in Kelvin that is most appreciated, and their following love scenes show a tenderness in the protagonist that has been unprovoked prior.All seems well and good, until Rheya appears in the space station. Flashing in and out of the supposed dream-sequences, we witness two intertwining sex scenes; one occurring inside Kelvin's mind, and the other happening above Solaris, in modern times. Perhaps these are intertwining dream sequences, one is prone to questioning. Such an argument is proven meaningless when Kelvin awakes to find Rhaeya beside him. His confusion is obvious, and we finally get a proper answer to a question that we have possessed the entire time whilst on the space station; what truly are the effects of Solaris? Through subsequent scenes, we come to understand that Rheya is dead, and the cause of the perpetual depression that Kelvin resides within. He is emotionally distraught due to her harrowing suicide, caused after she terminated a pregnancy and was pushed away briefly by Kelvin. Soderbergh again allows his visuals to expand upon the relationship, their closeness and understanding of each other elaborated upon with scenes of love, heart and passion that contain few words.At first, Kelvin knows his duty. He sends this fake Rheya off in an escape capsule, sending her out into the abyss of space to die. At this point, he can decipher between what's real and what isn't, and the audience is reassured by this. Soderbergh begins to explain himself, that this sudden and strange conflict is due to the powers of Solaris. He does such with visuals and dialogue between namely Snow and Kelvin. He uncovers the fact that Rheya will not stay dead, as she is a figment of his memories and personality that Solaris is evoking as a physical being. To what end does Solaris seek with this strategy, we are led to ask. The answer is not clear at any point throughout the film, and frustrates not only ourselves but our protagonists. They, along with us, desire meaning behind such an event, as otherwise they are unable to combat the threat. But little do they, or more so Kelvin, know that the planet looming beneath them can not be fought or contained; its powers are too great for one to even consider taming them. So Gordon establishes a plan to rid themselves of Rheya and the other beings created from memories (the other crew members have endured the same as our protagonist), and to flee to Earth. But Kelvin is suddenly hesitant to do so. Kelvin now has an opportunity to correct what he believes were misdeeds in his past, and so he is unwilling to leave his dead wife to the past.Soderbergh's cinematography continues to grow in size and distance, leaving us to feel as if the protagonists are being watched by something. Mayhaps it is the child that Kelvin attempted to capture as he arrived on the space station; the answer I'd prefer to side with would be that it is Solaris itself watching. This adds a whole new dimension to the drama, that leaves the titular planet feeling less like an antagonist, and more so reminiscent of a curious being that wishes to study the emotional ramifications that presenting a physical memory to a human would bring about. Suddenly, Solaris has personality. Meanwhile, the space station drifts closer to the planet, the gravitational field increasing supposedly as a response to the actions of the humans. A newly formed Rheya comes to understand the artificial nature of her existence, and wishes to be destroyed by a machine that Dr. Gordon has constructed. Kelvin, who wants to relive his better days and wishes to stay stuck in the past, does not desire Rheya to leave him to his own devices again, especially after the perilous and never-ending despondency he had to endure after her initial passing. But this artificial version of the real Rheya can not construct her own memories (for some reason, I find this comparable to the short-term memory loss suffered by Leonard in Christopher Nolan's Memento), and does not desire the opportunity to live. So Gordon destroys her whilst Kelvin sleeps, and gifts our protagonist the opportunity to leave the dreaded orbit. They discover that "Snow" is in fact the brother of the real Snow, and he himself is one of the constructs of Solaris' powers. This reveal leaves the two surviving, human astronauts no resolution but to leave immediately.And this is where the film stumbles for a portion. The film's climax was never intended to come as a rush, and whilst that is understandable, the fact that the film never feels like it's stepping up in stakes proves troublesome. The slow pace as the film hurtles towards the ending contradicts itself, and the audience member is lost for an extended period. Kelvin abandons the escape pod and Gordon, leaving himself to die as the space station sinks closer and closer to he dreaded surface of Solaris, the waves of pink grandeur consuming the ship. Gordon drifts outside the gravitational field, whilst Kelvin submits to his inevitable doom. The lure of Solaris has finally become too much for him, and he decides to stay. The addiction becomes too much of a burden though, as shortly after Gordon leaves, he loses his ability to stand, his weakness obvious.The child from before appears, offering a hand to Kelvin. We cut suddenly to Earth. It appears as if our protagonist has miraculously made it back to home, but is struggling to return to normal functioning after the strange occurrences abroad. But this is not real, we soon understand; whereas in the beginning of the film we see Kelvin cut himself and deal with the injury over time, he cuts himself during this period but the injury instantaneously heals itself. So what has happened, we are led to ask. Is this Kelvin now a replica of the original Kelvin, living in a constructed, fanciful version of the real Kelvin's life, assembled by Solaris? Is this the real Kelvin, still alive thanks to the curiosity and power of the ethereal being he fell into?All we know for sure is that Kelvin meets his wife, and Rheya exclaims that they can finally be together now, free of the past. They are now transcendent of the general definitions of life and death, and their future can be spent together infinitely, thanks to the power of Solaris. No longer do the two have to live according to the memories Kelvin had constructed with him and Rheya; he can finally make new ones, and bring about a whole new life for them. But what is the value of that relationship continuing in such a context as this? Is this relationship actually occurring in reality, or is Solaris so curious about the human condition and our emotional attachments that it may even be recreating the relationship, to study and observe it?All acceptable questions; some more so than others. What I can say for sure that is definite, is that Solaris is an exceptional picture. It reflects on the power of memories, our individual relationships, and the detriment that living in the past can cause. Soderbergh is unafraid to prod at emotional and moral conflicts, and what results is a film that is utterly sensational in its dedication to tone, themes and message. It's not perfect; the final act, as I mentioned, features numerous periods of stale film that doesn't really click perfectly. It finds its footing again in the final ten minutes, but for a good period, there is little to fully grip the audience member. That, and there are a number of disjointed pieces of editing, perhaps caused by the fact that Soderbergh himself took on such a role. Whether these were intentional or not, I do not care; they broke immersion, and proved irritating. That said, Solaris still contains enough technical wizardry and passion to be considered an absolutely commendable piece of entertainment. It even features an actually impressive score from Cliff Martinez; a man whose recent work could be considered less than acceptable. His humming and droning is sacrificed for a more melodic approach that achieves better, ethereal, stunning results. The same can be said for the majority of this film. This is a transcendent experience that has to be seen to be believed. It is lavish, beautiful, gripping for much of its duration, and contains strong performances and tight cinematography all throughout. Soderbergh's meticulous vision and auteur style dictates that Solaris is undeniably a triumph throughout thick and thin.

Joe H (ru) wrote: This film is epic, literally (like, literally, it's an epic, and one of the earliest in film, at that), and it's epic, in the overused vernacular sense, grand, badass, awesome. Pastrone's film apparently impressed the even more talented (and racist) D.W. Griffith.... If it suffers from a tinge of grandiosity (it was inspired by early 20th century Italian colonialism)...it makes up for it in ambition and powerful shots.

Jordan K (us) wrote: What's the Worst that Could Happen? is one of the worst buddy comedies I've ever seen, with barely any chemistry between Danny DeVito and Martin Lawrence, a boring and repetitive story, bland and annoying characters, and extremely unfunny hijink sequences, this is a comedy disaster.Martin Lawrence plays Kevin, a thief who ransacks a greedy millionaire, Max Fairbanks', estate and believes that his ring, given to him by his girlfriend, has been stolen by Max, who claims it was his all along. The rest is extremely repetitive and dumb scenes where Kevin and his friends attempt to take it back and make Max look like a bumbling idiot in public.The film gets extremely tedious and old by the half hour mark. Every character in the film is extremely annoying and unlikable, the story has nothing to do it rather than DeVito getting fooled by thieves. The title should give it away, the worst that could happen is wasting your time on this stinker.

Gabriel C (us) wrote: Sweet and infectiously charming, Hello, My Name Is Doris is a baller. Straight up.