At Dawn They Sleep

At Dawn They Sleep

Stephen and Ian are ruthless drug lords who are in the middle of a war with their rival Billy Rae Douglas. One night Stephen and Ian escort two girls home with them whom actually seem to be...

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:80 minutes
  • Release:2000
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:At Dawn They Sleep 2000 full movies, At Dawn They Sleep torrents movie

Stephen and Ian are ruthless drug lords who are in the middle of a war with their rival Billy Rae Douglas. One night Stephen and Ian escort two girls home with them whom actually seem to be... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

At Dawn They Sleep torrent reviews

Carlos I (fr) wrote: They just had to shoehorn Batman in there didn't they? And what was with making Deadman the comic relief...? Besides that it was pretty damn fun. It's nice to see the darkside characters for once. These connected animated movies are starting to feel less and less like films though, and more of a serial. Why don't they just convert this into a series? Especially when half the time they're struggling to stretch out their stories to 70 minutes...

August C (br) wrote: John Constantine animated. Enough said.

Mohammed A (nl) wrote: It's good movie to watch

Jyl A (us) wrote: This is a damn good movie. Made me want to throw up, shit meself, and laugh my ass off all at the same time. Funny how this is intended to be a drama based on a true story.

Adam F (it) wrote: Gothika is a horror thriller with a good premise but the execution is lackluster and it makes for a very convoluted mystery. The story follows Dr. Miranda Grey, a psychiatrist working at a correctional facility that one day finds herself on the other side of the observation room and has to figure out exactly what happened in order to clear her name. Once she starts piecing things together she realizes that there's a lot more going on than she could have ever guessed. There's murder, suspected corruption at the facility she works at, conspiracies, ghosts, possessions and several enigmas that need to be solved in order to figure out what exactly happened the night before Miranda was arrested and committed.Because the movie deals with a lot of detective work and revelations, it's hard to give examples of exactly what goes wrong without spoiling the mysteries but there are some obvious plot points that are clumsily handled. For example, once committed in a mental asylum and accused of murder, it would be pretty difficult for someone to conduct an investigation. That means our main character Miranda has to escape her cell numerous times in order to put together some evidence. It becomes really hard to believe that she would be able to go get out of her cell without being detected so many times in what appears to be a modern psychiatric hospital. There are security guards and cameras but none of the staff are observing the monitors apparently because if they were they would be able to see that there is something supernatural going on and that there are some really questionable things going on at this facility.The film also feels like it's really jumping through hoops to give us some spooky revelations. There is a scene for example where Miranda is attacked by what can only be described as a ghost. Ok, the attack happens in a crowded room where there were a lot of things going on so it's possible no one saw what really happened and even if they did, most of the testimonies would have come from mental patients and no one would have believed them. The thing is, the ghost carves a message on our protagonist's arm and the doctor who patches her up doesn't even mention this to the specialist that's evaluating Miranda's mental condition. Don't you think that this message would be something important to mention? After the incident, she's placed in an isolation cell: a room with a bed, some wooden shelves but no sink or toilet. Now you don't have to be a medical professional to see what's wrong with this picture... what happens if she needs to go to the bathroom? If she were such a danger to herself, why wouldn't she be placed in a padded cell? Why would you place her in a room where she could easily break some planks of wood and use the pieces to harm herself or others?As the movie moves along you keep asking yourself questions about how certain plot elements make sense and why characters are acting the way they do. At the very end of the movie there is a climax that's really ridiculous and falls apart completely under even a little bit of scrutiny. You're forced to believe that either no one has been able to identify a criminal despite damning evidence, that the police do not interrogate victims or that the FBI really takes its time with this high profile murder investigations. Even the ghosts act in really questionable ways. The assumption is that the spirit that is haunting Miranda has come back from the grave to finally get some rest by solving the mystery of her death. Her goal is to help the living piece together what is going on but when you think about it, she's really going about the wrong way. Always appearing at the most inconvenient times for Miranda and constantly freaking her out instead of pointing her in the right direction. The script is also poorly written, with a lot of bad dialogue including the memorable line "Logic is overrated".Really though, "Gothika" is more of a disappointment than a really bad movie. The premise is good and the mystery is interesting to watch unfold. There are some genuinely creepy moments, a couple of good scares and the special effects are well done too. The story feels sloppily put together though; like the first draft of the film is what they decided to go with instead of making it go through a couple of rounds of tightening and polishing. For all of the potential and things that work with "Gothika" in the end it just ends up being a mediocre movie with too many problems to really recommend. (Dvd, April 5, 2013)

Blake P (gb) wrote: It isn't until a pair of scheming lovers attends a showing of a 1940s film noir at their local theater that we begin to realize that little about Pedro Almodvar's "Bad Education" (2004) isn't methodically planned out. Combining the robust style of Alfred Hitchcock, Douglas Sirk, and Brian De Palma with the hedonistic maneuverings of David LaChapelle, it's a thriller so cleverly convoluted and so vigorously in awe of art for art's sake that Almodvar's own structuring of the film hardly feels like something akin to deliberation. As his movies seem to weightlessly exist in a parallel universe comprised of Technicolor atmosphere, forlorn subject matter, and emotional garishness, it's scenes like this one that remind us that Almodvar is as much a film aficionado as he is a maestro of film. Upon departure from the theater, one of the characters remarks that he and his lover aren't much different from the likes of Phyllis Dietrichson and Walter Neff. It's a gratuitous line in a picture so labyrinthine, maybe. But in the context of an Almodvar film, a moment such as this one is almost a self-referential comment, smartly placed and subtly mocking. Intentionally, "Bad Education" is, at its core, a hell of a lot like a studio noir from the 1940s, but instead of John Garfield and Lana Turner being showcased as romantic leads, we're presented with John Garfield and Farley Granger tempting one another. And black-and-white photography is pigmented, with social taboos intensified and understated love scenes amplified to graphic proportions. The usage of metafiction (much of the movie's action takes place in a film within a film) has the possibility to pledge indecipherability, but Almodvar's calculated control delineates the movie as a rousing whodunit of a melodrama. "Bad Education" is a portentously original film; it's one of the best of Almodvar's thrillingly extravagant career. It's no wonder that the movie is such a provocative masterpiece: he worked on the screenplay for ten years, and a filmmaker of his caliber can only heighten their own sapience through long-winded contemplation. A highly personal film for the auteur (some of its content is based off of his experiences as a young man), "Bad Education" stars the magnificent Gael Garca Bernal as Ignacio Rodriguez, an aspiring actor and writer interested in providing the material and acting talent necessary for acclaimed filmmaker Enrique Goded's (Fele Martnez) next project. His aspiration isn't based in sheer fantasy, though - as he and Enrique were childhood friends (first loves, in fact), there's a sneaking chance that an Ignacio based production could be waiting in the wings so long as the goods are actually good. And they are: soon after Ignacio presents Enrique with his screenplay, "The Visit" (which details a transgender woman's blackmail of a Catholic priest that abused her as an impressionable student), Enrique becomes enraptured with the story - part autobiographical and part soap opera - and is eager to affirm Ignacio's celluloid dreams. Hidden, however, is the deceit that lies beneath his faade of affable ambition. There are two films that fill the sum of "Bad Education's" parts. One is its "real life" component, in which Ignacio and Enrique are artists of the screen scrounging for something cinematic to slurp up as hair-raising sexual tension rests between them. The other is made up of the events that take place during "The Visit," which is sexually charged, sardonic, and memorably features Bernal playing the dual role of Zahara, a blonde, trans femme who serves as the movie's quasi-heroine. But the lines between reality and illusion grow increasingly blurred as seemingly imaginary happenings prove to be embedded in a far-reaching truth. "Bad Education" is initially a convulsive drama (with inklings of black comedy) that shifts into the gears of a standard murder mystery, made all the better because its big twist is so impossible to see coming (the film doesn't feel like a thriller for most of its length). Almodvar is a puppet master, as easily able to manipulate our senses as he is to shifting between subject matters without losing his central preoccupations of broadstroked homage. And Bernal gives what very well might be the greatest performance to ever call an Almodvar film home. As both an enigmatic beaut with a few tricks up his sleeve and a metafictional, feisty female, Bernal is tasked with fleshing out an immeasurably complicated dual characterization, only to find victory thanks to beguiling percipience. Almodvar uses Bernal as if they were Josef Von Sternberg and Marlene Dietrich, always framing his lead in a way that can only be described as both clinically (and artistically) infatuated and lustily exploitative. A fascinating pair, to be certain. The film surrounding them, too, is a certifiable counterpart to their awe-inspiring devotedness. "Bad Education" at once feels inscrutably intimate and excitingly cinematic - like the majority of the films within Almodvar's oeuvre, it grabs us by the shirt collar and astounds us in the way it both holds us hostage and genuinely hypnotizes us.

Terry M (mx) wrote: I don't like Seagal!!

Corey P (mx) wrote: This movie knows how to keep you entertained. It has three different story lines that connect as the movie goes on. Although the character development might not be as strong as one of Quentin Tarantino's films, I will not capitalize Snatch. The characters are still funny as heck and you can still get connected to them. If you haven't watched this movie you must watch it. It may be good but Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels feels more real and is the original Guy Ritchie film that started it all.

Anna B (ca) wrote: [u][b]Eye of the Beholder[/b][/u]I saw this movie on TNT several summers ago during one long uneventful evening. I have not been able to get this film out of my head.There were several holes but I did not care Ashley has the ability distract a viewer and her vulnerability made me more concerned for her well being, or her character's.Having Ewan Mc Gregor as her co-star may have helped?:p The movie took some interesting turns, 90210's Jason Priestly stood out in one scene, seriously! [b][u]Ruby in Paradise[/u][/b]Was on Trio recently so I dodged my heaping homework to watch this, and it was interesting.I think I enjoyed Todd Field who portrayed a sweet guy, but he reminded me of some of the guys that i have become friends with...friends not dates-so I could see where this movie was headed.;) But Ashley portrayed some depth to her female character unlike what I have seen on the screen from other actresses!

Ted W (ag) wrote: Fun entertaining dumb high school movie starring who knows and who cares because are they big celebrities like Ben Affleck or milla jovovich, no but they do make a surprising cameo in this movie. I really like old high school comedy movies, like fast Times at ridgemount high. But first let's talk about the 70s songs they pick for the movie. They're really good songs from the seventies and I like the part when they say the 70s suck, it's hilarious just roasting the 70s. If I'm going to get into comedy then everything Matthew Mckonohay does his hilarious and his iconic alright alright alright. I always wondered how he got famous for saying that line and now I know and I have to thank dazed and confused.

Richard C (de) wrote: Voici un film tres littraire et potique, compos d'un nombre certain de scenes mmorables. De plus, le film a la qualit de montrer de nombreux alas de la pauvret.

Breeah (it) wrote: This is my very favorite movie of all time. Not only is it amazing and educational it is set in a way that young and old musical lovers can receive a very intense and heartbreaking moment in history!

Helen B (it) wrote: low budget but great scary film

Andrew L (mx) wrote: An artistic & imaginative depiction of society & it's prejudices

Whit w (ca) wrote: The best thing about this movie is the recurring segment within the film starring Steve Forrest, who as Capt. Nelson, leads the first expedition to the moon. It is an absolutely dead-on spoof of '50s B-grade sci-fi space movies. Joey Travolta as crew member "Butch" is perfectly hokey. Overall, this film is a bunch of short comedic skits and it is pretty creative how the stories are strung together. It's not a laugh a minute, side-splitting movie, but it does have its moments.

Jason G (kr) wrote: This was a guilty pleasure movie for me. The acting was horrific but something about it kept my attention.

Thomas K (au) wrote: This may be the most unusual thing any of us will ever see in our life times; A good Steven Seagal film. In fact if Seagal hadn't been in it then it would have been a great action film, period.