Architect Jonathan Rivers (Michael Keaton) is happily married to author Anna (Chandra West), but tragedy strikes when she is killed in an accident. Jon's desire to speak with Anna from beyond the grave becomes an obsession with supernatural repercussions. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
An architect's desire to speak with his wife from beyond the grave using EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomenon), becomes an obsession with supernatural repercussions.
You may also like
White Noise torrent reviews
Ava S (au) wrote: It was not a perfect film, yet I enjoyed it. It was refreshing to see such a sort of a film for a change. The rest of the marquee offers the usual rah rah kiddo romances.Shoojit Sarcar keeps the camera moving and is able to mask effectively the lack of acting talent in his main star line-up. Hence, Nargis Fakri passes muster as the hot shot war correspondent, and John Abraham as the RAW agent. Siddharth Basu is there as a RAW chief.The movie which was a bit muddled in the start, clears up in the second half and the pace actually improves. This is refreshingly unlike most movies which flag post interval.There is no romantic or sexual tension between Nargis Fakri and John, which is also a good thing. We are tired of all encounters between men and women ending up in bed.The movie is more than a decent watch. It is well filmed and edited. There was attempt to be as authentic as possible with the shoes of the PM getting a coverage. Reminded me of that sad day in May 1991.
Brad S (gb) wrote: One big circle of Christianity shoved down your throat, Saint Ronald Reagan quotes, jingoism, a Bill O'Reilly "cameo," all wrapped with acting so bad that the Hallmark Channel would be embarrassed to show it.
Tyler S (br) wrote: If you waste your time on this travesty I feel for you.
Leslie R (kr) wrote: Fantastic. Balance of life and death, good/evil... Life... Don't take it so seriously.
David B (mx) wrote: I was very entertained by the movie. Thought the acting was superb. My only beef was the fact that they never made mention of the security cameras throughout the house. Were they off? How did the law officers miss that? More importantly how did the writers/directors miss that? Or... Maybe I missed it being brought up.
Rhiannon H (kr) wrote: The reality of drug addiction is not at all glamourous, and Candy proves it.
Jason T (mx) wrote: It was a ok Action movie, Had some good scenes
Robert G (it) wrote: I never understood why this movie was disliked as much as it was. I thought that it was funny and quite entertaining.
Andrey B (br) wrote: Beautiful pairing of Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman against the background of the 19th century US.
Donald W (fr) wrote: This third Superman movie is not as good as the first two. It's more of a Richard Pryor movie than a Superman movie. Richard Pryor plays a computer programmer who strips fraction of cents off the paychecks of the big company employees and puts them in his account. This was based on a real case of computer fraud that took place in the 1960's. It's cool to see all the 1970's era computer hardware they used in this movie. Robert Vaughn plays the head of the large company. When he discovers that Richard Pryor has been stealing from him he blackmails him into programming computers into helping him take over the world. The story gets stupid after this. When the computers try to control the weather Superman comes to the rescue. Robert Vaughn and Richard Pryor use a computer to make some synthetic Kryptonite. They get one of the ingredients wrong and instead of kill Superman they just turn him evil. That sets of a battle the evil/chaotic Superman and the lawful/good Superman. That's the only good part of the movie. The comedy in the movie falls flat. They didn't turn Richard Pryor lose to do his thing. They should have let Pryor write more of the story especially the jokes. Richard Pryor is best in the first five minutes of the movie when his unemployment benefits are cut off. He finds an ad for a computer school and decides to learn computer programming. During the movie Clark Kent goes back to Smallville and hooks up with Lana Lang. They play it more as comedy than a real romance. In the end Richard Pryor turns into a good guy and saves Superman from the Supercomputer programmed to kill him.
Ferdi A (gb) wrote: Good, but definitely not great. Doesn't reach its full potential and I just feel that more could've been done with the concept of the movie. The acting performances are definitely above average. I liked Maren Jensen, Sharon Stone, Susan Buckner, Ernest Borgnine and Michael Berryman in their roles. The performances felt very nuanced and every actor had their moment to shine with the material they were given, even though some were shockingly underused. Sharon Stone surprisingly stood out with her role of Lana, even though she was very stale in the beginning of the film. Wes Craven once again did a bang up job with directing this unique and original horror movie and that results in some beautiful exterior shots, some fantastic camera angles and the excellent cinematography. Deadly Blessing contains both moments of humor and suspense. The soundtrack is outstanding and the twist ending definitely took me by surprise. Highly unnecessary, but effective none the less. I learned that Craven created a different ending, but the studios intervened and it had to be changed. The artistic style of this movie is very poignant and very beautiful to look at. I was definitely entertained throughout the movie. There were some slow moments that felt like they were taking forever, but it did make the characters seem less one dimensional with the added development. For those who pay close attention, there are some nice nods and homages to Craven's earlier and later work like Summer of Fear (aka Stranger in Our House) and A Nightmare on Elm Street. Deadly Blessing is nowhere near on the same level as Scream or A Nightmare on Elm Street, but is a very unique and interesting horror movie of the early 80's by the late great Wes Craven. Definitely worth seeing at least once.
Matthew B (de) wrote: This movie tries to be a good romance with some laughs at parts. but the movie came off awkward and unfunny and they did that cliche at the end that she wins the day, everyone loves her, yeah yeah heard it all before.
Carol M (us) wrote: Oscar Grant's fully dimensional character is written well and played superbly. This is a heart-breaking story that gives a face and a name to our escalating crisis of over-zealous policing.
Matthew H (gb) wrote: This movie will probably be a forgettable entry in Statham's film legacy, but it gets the job done in terms of action and eye candy on screen. As for James Franco as a villain, it is hard to take him seriously.
John R (ag) wrote: 120817: As with any ability, the more you practice, the better you get. I laughed out loud a lot during this movie. A very entertaining film even if it does suffer with the standard, often draining, moral of the story portion. Many laughs and a great lead into my weekend. Almost clicked four stars.
Kong L (gb) wrote: COOLISH | ENTERTAINING | RE-RUBBISH" (71-out-of-100)
Jessica A (gb) wrote: More interesting than your typical horror fare. The story focuses on Jeff, an attorney who rescues the lovely Miranda from what looks like an abusive boyfriend. However, it is soon clear that there is more going on than meets the eye, both with Miranda and the situation he took her from. Jeff gets pulled deeper and deeper into her world, and it's not a world that anyone should live in.The characters, mostly Jeff, but also Miranda and the supporting cast, are far stronger than your average horror flick. Jeff is a genuinely nice guy and the audience can't help but root for him. The characters' actions generally make sense, and the ending does help explain actions that otherwise are a bit off.As for the plot, this is basically a re-imagining of the Wicker Man, so if you've seen that, you should see where this is going. If not, this movie might surprise you. Hard to find, this movie may be, but it's worth a watch.