Undercurrent

Undercurrent

An unsuspecting wife of a power hungry husband, is driven to madness by his deception.

Middle-aged bride Ann Hamilton soon begins to suspect that her charming husband is really a psychotic who plans to murder her. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Undercurrent torrent reviews

Nikos R (ag) wrote: With two strong leads and great dialog, Southside with You is a romantic, optimistic and touching film.

Ramie T (gb) wrote: She's good. But the movie...

Emmanuel B (ru) wrote: Some moments, but rather typical French humor filled with vanity and cynicism.

Jess L (mx) wrote: This is a little ray of hope for Australian film. Sure it's not perfect, but it shows what can be done on a tight budget with up and coming Australian talent. At the heart of this film is an albeit predictable and almost cliche romance/relationship between two best friends. But despite the familiar territory explored here it is done in such a refreshing and original way that it makes this an Aussie film worth checking out.

Dave J (ag) wrote: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 (2007) Eight Miles High (In German with English subtitles) DRAMA/ BIOGRAPHY Love it or hate it, all it is, is basically a true account (shown in stages) of a supposedly attractive female German model who got by as a result of her looks which anyone can find from every person you can possibly meet. The only difference with this one is that she made-out with 2 members of "The Rolling Stones" during the late 60's and 70's and she made a once wealthy tycoon to waste alot of money on her by using most of it on an expensive bus for the purpose of travelling. I've only turned it off once upon watching this, sometimes wondering aimlessly when she's going to disrobe again and make out with someone else since she's often nude throughout along with a few tiny dicks. 2 out of 4

Aaron B (gb) wrote: One of the greatest sports movies ever made, not only because of the fantastic game shots that make audiences feel like they are on the field, but because of the emotional depth of most of the characters. Also, Explosions in the Sky does a phenomenal job at scoring the film.

Jack C (us) wrote: I grew up on Scooby Doo, coming home after school excited to watch it! And this live-action adaptation has the perfect cast to fulfill the roles of the beloved Mystery Gang. In my opinion, this movie is better than the original due to the better developed side plots including Velma's crush, and Scooby and Shaggy questioning where their belonging within the gang. When this is pit into the mix it leads to some hilarious incidents that could only be produced so well with the whole cast & crew doing their job to perfection. If you truly are a Scooby Doo fan like myself, leave no hesitation when deciding whether to watch this movie or not.

William B (jp) wrote: This is an example of a documentary that's interesting despite the relative incompetence of the filmmaker. As a documentary, it's kind of a failure-- important moments seem obviously staged, and the documentarian himself comes across as insufferably smug and downright pushy in some places ("Why is he barking out orders to people in their own homes?" is one question that my wife and I discussed while watching the movie). Nevertheless, there are some compelling moments in the film-- particularly the interview with the late, great Frank Conroy. So if you're a part of the "creative writing community" in America, you might find this film watchable because of the subject matter. In terms of craft, though, this film fails.

Cody W (ag) wrote: Actually a deep story weirdly enough

Abby T (es) wrote: Doesn't light a match to the predecessor but I imagine children would still very much enjoy it. It was fun to see the old characters we have come to love like Mr. Smee and Chef Louis.

Francisco L (jp) wrote: And to finish the legend of Michael Myers Rick Rosenthal had the clever idea of destroy everything what was fresh whilom, bringing to us a promisor and clever start that hasn't nexus with the rest of the sloppy and boring story that comes next, failing too to make the script something credible and the story more chilling and less cliched.

Faal K (ru) wrote: i want to see this movie how can i?

Aaron H (au) wrote: No kidding: worst.film.ever. (or at least somewhere in the top 10 list). A total knock-off of Indiana Jones, only produced with cheaper, predictable "thrills".

Edith N (ag) wrote: A Bad Idea Even If He's Innocent I'm going to be giving spoilers here, largely, because I was able to piece together what was going to happen perhaps half an hour in. The performances are enough to make me give this a marginally positive review, but only marginally. The script isn't very good, and I think almost that the urban legend of the changed ending is based on the fact that it would have been a shock if we'd all be wrong about who the killer really was. I'm not sure Robert Loggia deserved an Oscar nomination; to be perfectly honest, I'm only vaguely aware of who Robert Loggia even is. There are three warring performances in this movie; if anyone should have gotten a nomination for Supporting Actor, it's Peter Coyote. However, I think he, too, has been let down by the script, and I think there could have been a much more powerful story had a few minor changes been made. Page Forrester (Maria Mayenzet) has been raped and murdered in her beach house. Naturally, the first suspect is her husband, Jack (Jeff Bridges), a powerful businessman. This is in part because the first suspect is always the husband. It is also true that the Forresters have a tempestuous relationship, as is well known to most of the people around them. District Attorney Thomas Krasny (Coyote) seems assured of a quick and easy prosecution. For his defense attorney, Jack chooses Teddy Barnes (Glenn Close), though she has not tried a case in some years. This is in no small part because Teddy is a woman, and she knows that it's smart for a man accused of so horrific a crime against his wife to have a woman visibly on his side. Teddy believes he's innocent, too; she keeps getting anonymous messages which lead her to clues. And, because this is a thriller (and written by Joe Eszterhas, no less), Teddy finds herself falling for him. The first problem I have is that she begins a relationship with him while he is still on trial. It strikes me as a bad choice ethically. It's not that a defense attorney is forbidden from having an emotional connection to the defendant; we see it all the time. Spouses, children, siblings--all nature of family members. However, I also think that's a bad idea. I think the smartest thing is to go into a trial, especially a murder trial, with a certain amount of objectivity. People are notorious for ignoring the obvious when it's regarding people with whom they have an emotional connection. It happens in matters great and small. Therefore, I think it's in the best interests of the client to have a dispassionate person as their attorney, someone who won't just ignore things. And, of course, Teddy's ignoring quite a lot. Vexingly, much of what she's ignoring seems pretty obvious, though it's also true that some of it won't hold up in court. She's awfully trusting of those anonymous messages. While it's true that she's right to distrust the story after she's heard about the attack on Julie Jensen (Karen Austin of the first couple of seasons of [i]Night Court[/i]), and while it's true that the police were awfully dumb in how they handled that attack, especially if they believed Jack was the killer, shouldn't she be a little more interested in who told her about it? How many people knew about that particular case? How many of them thought it was in her best interests to pass that information on--but didn't have the wherewithal to do their own detective work? Too easy to blame it on the tennis pro; he's his own clich in this kind of story. If it isn't the husband, it's the lover; fair enough. But other than being Page's lover, what evidence did anyone have against him? I think we are supposed to cheer the ending, but it wouldn't be necessary if only Teddy had been less stupid. Maybe the reason Jack went out of his way to find her, despite the fact that there were doubtless [i]practicing[/i] high-powered female attorneys in San Francisco, even in 1985, is that he was looking for a woman who would nonetheless be innocent enough to fall for him. The fact that his routine in wooing her seems rehearsed may well be a failing of director Richard Marquand--he directed few enough movies, for all one of them was [i]Return of the Jedi[/i]--but whose ever fault it was, the fact remains that Teddy might have been hoped to notice how rehearsed it was herself. I mean, someone even mentioned it in her hearing, and she didn't get suspicious enough until she found that stupid typewriter; why wasn't he smart enough to get rid of it altogether?

Michael M (gb) wrote: easy to see how so many other comics have modeled after dude

David S (br) wrote: fucking awesome. german expressionistic take on noir and police procedural with a touch of horror. not much violence but a whole lot of suspense. great atmosphere and casting only criticism is its about 15 minutes too long. the blind killer is fucking creepy!

Harold V (de) wrote: The Director of DRAGON:THE BRUCE LEE STORY and THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS.Very Nice!

Marques W (fr) wrote: Not bad, had its good moments and was entertaining.

Cory T (ca) wrote: Horace Pinker (Mitch Pileggi) was meant to be the next evolution in Wes Craven's horror odyssey. A bald serial killer who worships at the throne of channel-surfing, Pileggi hops right on board the gargantuan overacting inherent in the role. In a sidenote, it's an amusing nuance that Pileggi had to mimic the limp of a prepubescent girl who was possessed by Pinker later in the film because she filmed her scene before he arrived on set. However, Shocker nosedived at the box office and Craven couldn't capitalize on another Freddy Krueger. For what it's worth, Shocker is a rollicking, albeit cynically synthesized horror-comedy. The boob-tube hypnosis and desensitization to cathode-ray-tube violence would've been a viable outlet for satire but Craven presumably abstains from social commentary for once. Craven plunders wholesale from his Nightmare on Elm Street template. The opening is precisely identical to his aforementioned franchise with a repair shop instead of a boiler room. The lines between reality and REM sleep are blurred. Pinker spews sound bytes that could've been pun-intended catchphrases ("Take a ride in my Volts-wagen"). Moreso than his other films, rationalization and logic hold no sway over the far-fetched writing in Shocker. Jonathan Parker (a vanilla Peter Berg) is a foster child who practically lives in an expensive suburban house all by himself like a Nickelodeon sitcom. A necklace imbued with the omnipotent power of "love" is the only object that can defeat the electrified Pinker. It might seem that I'm deriding this film but actually I wholeheartedly recommend it. The flickering, low-res pixel version of Pinker was quite innovative for the time. The showstopper is a gonzo sequence where Pinker and Jonathan hopscotch through different programs from a Leave it to Beaver to a John Tesh newscast to a televangelist set. Obviously, Shocker should be evaluated with a macabre sense of humor. The Dudes of Wrath and Alice Cooper soundtrack guarantees the film is a heavy-metal guilty pleasure for headbangers and any opportunity to hear a tongue-wagging Michael Murphy shriek "eat shit and die you little fucker" is a succulent treat. If nothing else, it is superior to both The First Power and The Horror Show which overlapped the same premise.

Li20 F (ru) wrote: This movie is actually revolting. It's just plain wrong and it just should not have ever been filmed.