The venomous and amoral wife of a wealthy architect tries, any way she can, to break up the blossoming romance between her husband and his new mistress; a good-natured young widow who holds a dark past. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
X, Y and Zee
The venomous and amoral wife of a wealthy architect tries, any way she can, to break up the blossoming romance between her husband and his new mistress; a good-natured young widow who holds a dark past.
You may also like
X, Y and Zee torrent reviews
Anthony F (fr) wrote: Seems I can't give this 0 stars
Steve W (ag) wrote: This low budget flick took my by surprise. It manages to do a lot with a little and it works. Its quirky, charming, original and very different. Go in with an open mind and you might just like it.
Antoinnette F (ca) wrote: the first one is more funnier.
rick r (mx) wrote: "Ghosts Of Georgia" follows a young family starting out in a new home with not a lot of money but plenty of land and love in a small town in Georgia. It is a place steeped in history as the family soon learns. As part of the Underground Railroad. Soon paranormal events begin to unfold as the family settles in with most of the activity centering around the gifts of the female members of the family. The story is sold as a sequel to the original film of the same title but is a completely stand along event with no correlation. It is one of the most famous haunting cases in the paranormal investigative world and also one my favorite creepy tales. "Ghosts Of Georgia" was the directorial debut of Tom Elkins who worked on several other movies about ghosts.The film stars Abigail Spencer, Chad Michael Murray, Katee Sackhoff and Emily Alyn Lind all of whom give a pretty standard performance except for Emily who played Heidi. Her performance was far exceeding of the standard capabilities and almost showed the young actress to possess talent like such actresses' as Chloe Moretz or Dakota Fanning.I wasn't expecting much going into this film mostly due to the ridiculous title of the picture but I actually enjoyed the film. There was the basic elements here to be far more scarier but where held back by standard effects tricks that now plague paranormal movies almost to the point of making them boring. Yet at moments I felt actual suspense and eerie tension as more dramatic scenes unfolded into real chilling events. The setting and story was creepy and the film version held a far more haunting presence than what I originally imagined from the actual story. The film veered from the true paranormal case with a more morbid, dark representation of the evil spirit haunting the land as well as the family. The action sequences were produced well creating a relief from the mediocre dramatic moments that tended to case me to drift off. I found "Ghosts Of Georgia" to be a far better ghost flick it's predecessor and think the film could have gained a better reception from audiences had they not gone with the title. This film had a great set up, acceptable acting, plus all the expected moments of creepy chilling paranormal activity. It isn't going to be a movie that really scares the hell out of anyone over the age of ten but it is a great movie about a haunting. The only downside was the very end after the amped up climax that felt way to hallmark-y, coming off completely cheesy and made for TV. I would tell people to see it and expect a better movie than "The Haunting In Connecticut" or "The Apparition" but don't expect the same amount of fright that you get with "The Amityville Horror" or even "Grave Encounters".
WS W (au) wrote: Actually I think the story worked... until the middle. However, once again, Japanese movies love to drag till you lost all your patience.
bill s (us) wrote: A sequel without the cleverness or originality of the first movie....quite boring.
Nicki M (us) wrote: Going to be honest and admit I was only watching for David Bowie. Wish I hadn't bothered. He's in it about 15 minutes and it's certainly not a career highlight for him when he is. Very hammy, but so is the rest of it. There is some mildly interesting bits and London looks bright and pretty, but it's a pretty crappy story honestly. The main character is uncharismatic and Patsy Kensit always struck me as a bit cheap, so I guess the money hungry Suzette she plays is good casting.The best part of the movie is when the credits roll and the theme song comes on. Can't believe such a great song got lumped in with this mess. I'd rather watch my David Bowie greatest hits DVD next time.
Bengel W (ag) wrote: Warren is the worst actor in this film and surrounded by real stars makes him look even more lacking. The film is longwinded and thus becomes a tedious bore. Supposing to be a historical drama it lacks anything worthy of biting into. One gets the feeling that the money was there but no artistry to convey that which needed to be said. Cinematography is the only savior. Nibbles: Pesto Pasta.
Mark F (es) wrote: Timothy Dalton's Yorkshire accent is ridiculous. I find myself just mimicking it throughout. But there's a lot of good stuff in here. Carey Lowell might be my favourite Bond girl for a start. The story is good. There's a lot of tiny guns in it (I don't know if that's a good or bad thing but it's worth mentioning.) Benicio Del Torro is a fearsome villain. There are a couple of really uncomfortably violent scenes if you see the uncut version...too uncomfortable for my liking. Especially the guy who gets put in the compression chamber. But overall it's a solid Bond flick.
Akash S (br) wrote: Calling it a spectacle of a movie would not be doing it justice. PTA manages to keep the viewer glued to the screen for three hours with a brilliant nail-biter.
Joseph M (ru) wrote: A truly influential classic. The definitive Tarantino film. Combining witty dialogue with over the top violence and unconventional scripting make this unforgettable.