Notorious killer whale Tilikum is responsible for the deaths of three individuals, including a top killer whale trainer. Blackfish shows the sometimes devastating consequences of keeping such intelligent and sentient creatures in captivity.

Notorious killer whale Tilikum is responsible for the deaths of three individuals, including a top killer whale trainer. The documentary follows the controversial captivity of killer whales, and its dangers for both humans and whales. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Blackfish torrent reviews

Taryn F (kr) wrote: Very good, was good to watch!

Simon D (de) wrote: It's half a comedy love story and half a film with thoughtful clever plot. Well done to the director for not making this a typical chick flick. I'd compare this to a British Woody Allen movie. Fair play also to Cantona who did a very good job in this even though it is a backward stab at the French, insinuating that the reputation that they have as romantics is flawed and that British relationships are less contrived.

Isha G (de) wrote: The subject is universal - the solution singular. The movie shows women from perspective of drunken men. Quite amusing, and DEFINATELY worth seeing. Everyone will like it, unless they are close minded bigots with no sense of humor. But there is no hope for such people anyways... Watch it, have fun, and enjoy men making fools of themselves.

Bill B (es) wrote: Miike's gone on the record as saying that this is his masterpiece, and I'm not sure if I got everything out of it on the first pass that I should. I'd like to give it another look, because it has an ambitious style of narrative and low-key settings that are visually interesting, but I still felt like I wasn't quite on the same page as he meant me to be.The story of two lovers in a boys detention center, one of whom is murdered and the ensuing quest for the truth, the story is told in a less than linear style that is both interesting to watch, but challenging as a viewer to keep track of what's going on.I'd definitely say give this a look, possibly more than one. I may adjust my rating accordingly if I get a chance to go back to this one.

Claes J (fr) wrote: Frnsett den udda, smroliga mixen att blanda ihop vikingatid med sci-fi s r Outlander egentligen mest en hyfsad parentes. Det r ltt att frst varfr den floppade p biograferna. ndock lyckas filmen hlla mitt intresse vid liv hela vgen genom, frmst tack vare alltid sevrda John Hurt, och stackars begvade Jim Caviezel som hr gr det han kan gra med det lilla han har att spela p. Rtt schyssta effekter och monsterdesign utifrn den begrnsade budget man hade. Outlander r flyktig underhllning fr dem som gillar vikingar, eller sci-fi-filmer - eller som i detta fallet: - bde och. Andra kan st ver.

Li J (es) wrote: Haha, I must admit, i'm a little immature when it comes to talk of farting. So, when I heard about this movie, I laughed a lot. It was funny in the beginning but the humor of it died off. I did think it was kind of funny how he wanted to be a spaceman and then he ends up getting to go to space because his thunderous fart lifts him up to the sky. I gotta admit, that was pretty funny. And Rupert Grint was such a cute dork in this movie. Overall, it was an ok movie but not something i'd really want to watch again.

Laurent B (ca) wrote: Could this bitter way to depict religious faith and masculine domination explain such a poor score ? Too bad. I think this is one of the most surprising and original western I have seen in years. Ed Harris character reminded me Lee Clayton-Marlon Brando in Missouri Breaks, and the directing of the movie has a kind of classical touch. January Jones is awesome along with the Jason Isaacs and the whole cast. Really cool. Not to be missed.

Rene B (fr) wrote: Well, the movie was lousy overall, but some of the performances were pretty good. Although Viggo's hair/mustache, glasses, and accent were pretty unattractive, his performance was quite good. Matt Dillon wasn't half bad either. Gary was underused and Faye was just ok. I fast forwarded mostly, since all the stuff with the sociopath guy was stupid and the stuff with the cops was horrible and not acted very well.

Edith N (kr) wrote: Set in No Victorian London History Has Ever Known What doesn't show up in my reviews is how often I turn movies off altogether, often no more than ten or fifteen minutes in, and never write about. This, I think, gives a false perception in my reviews that I never dislike movies, or at least seldom dislike movies, whereas the truth is that I am perfectly capable of choosing not to waste my time on things. Every once in a while, I watch a movie all the way through even though I don't like it because I want to say something about it. Sometimes, this is merely a rant about something which has little to do with the movie, but occasionally, it is about some aspect of the film which particularly bothers me. In this case, I have finished this movie as much because I want to make it clear that I am capable of disliking movies as anything. Also, I want to complain about something in particular, which is, oddly enough, about the waste of something really good in it. Mary Reilly (Julia Roberts) is the newest maid in the house of Doctor Henry Jekyll (John Malkovich). The house is run by Mr. Poole (George Cole). Mary hasn't been there very long, but she doesn't have to have in order to know that there is something very odd going on in the house of Jekyll. We the audience, of course, know what's going on, but of course it all unfolds much more slowly for Mary. She and the doctor have something of a rapport, not least because he discovers she's actually literate, and Poole assumes that there's something untoward going on. And then comes the day when Dr. Jekyll declares that he will be having an assistant coming to stay with them soon. He will be one Mr. Edward Hyde. And from there, things get more disturbing for Mary. It's clear that Poole wants to fire her but is afraid to risk the doctor's displeasure. Hyde tries to seduce her. Jekyll sends Mary on his secret errands, including to the blowsy Mrs. Farraday (Glenn Close). Malkovich is brilliant, and that's the problem. He's too good for the rest of the movie. (Including, alas, his own hair.) He plays Jekyll as a man tortured by his own desires--ashamed of them. He burns. He has spent his life being proper; never, we are told, has a woman set foot across that threshold. (The servants, of course, don't count.) And so he becomes Hyde, a creature of nothing but released desire. The good doctor cannot even acknowledge his desire for a mere servant; every time Mary encounters Hyde, his lust becomes all but tangible. Malkovich has made a career at playing Creepy Guys, often people consumed by strange passions we the audience can only guess at. This could easily have been one of the best he ever played, but the rest of the movie lets him down. He manages the script better than it has any reason to expect. He peers with intensity through the murky cinematography. He inhabits the loopy costuming. And through it all, he points out the flaws. One of the biggest flaws is the casting of Julia Roberts, of course. The problem is not that she can't act, though I don't think she's anywhere in Malkovich's league. The problem is that she's wrong for the role. She doesn't look the part, for one thing. Julia Roberts looks healthy. She's built most of her career on being a big, healthy, quintessentially American woman. And that's right for her look. She's tall, with a big smile full of big teeth and a lot of hair. She is not built right to have been locked in a cupboard full of rats by Michael Gambon when she was a child. The role wants someone waifish. Someone British would be nice but not necessary; someone who can fool you into believing, even for two hours, that she's British is important. Roberts manages the accent well enough, or anyway she isn't bad enough to make me cringe, but you just can't believe her as someone who grew up in Victorian British slums. She's from a town that has had a mayor called "Hoot." These are different. I think this is another one of those movies with enough good in it that it should have been better. Unfortunately, everything which is good in it merely serves to highlight that which isn't. You can't watch Malkovich without seeing Roberts. Except inasmuch as most of the movie is so dim that you can't really see much at all. It's trying for a great Victorian melodrama, and there's one buried in there somewhere. However, its baggage overburdens its sterling qualities. It's really unfortunate. For one thing, this is one of the only adaptations of [i]Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde[/i] which doesn't weigh itself down with a young couple, although Mary herself is the romantic burden of the plot. She could be an interesting way to explore the situation; her belief that there is no such thing as actions without consequences could provide the contrast needed between her and Jekyll's quest for complete freedom. But no; we're stuck with Julia Roberts with a bad haircut.

Alexander C (gb) wrote: Would like to see at some stage.

Oliver H (mx) wrote: Iconic film - Captain America and Billy died not only for our sins, but also for their own... Watch it! :-D

Alfonso E V (br) wrote: It's too bad that Brando didin't direct another movie.

Keenan S (es) wrote: Much like the case of Pygmalion getting turned into the musical My Fair Lady, the classic 1940 romantic comedy The Philadelphia Story was remade in 1956 in the form of High Society. While this film is a decent musical, it's not nearly as good as The Philadelphia Story since it doesn't have the same scathing bite to it. This in turn, causes High Society to suffer since it seems to lose some of the story's meaning in its transition into a very light-hearted musical. Despite being a much weaker film, High Society is still an energetic and fun little musical thanks to solid performances and solid musical numbers. Still, between the two films, I would recommend The Philadelphia Story any day over High Society. But, hey, at least it's an actual good remake of a classic that's worth a look if you enjoyed the original film.

Waldo I (de) wrote: I had kind of wanted to see a Sturges film, and then I got to! It was good.

David W (de) wrote: A very dialogue heavy film, but Woody Allen has some ideas that make Annie Hall great. You can relate to these great characters.

Dann M (nl) wrote: Steven Spielberg presents the silly and quirky family comedy *batteries not included. The story follows the residents of a rundown apartment building that are visited by a pair of alien robots that fix things; meanwhile a land developer works to evict the residents and tear down the building. It's a convoluted plot that makes no sense, and the characters are paper thin. The robots have an interesting look, but they're not fleshed out either (as they come and go for no particular reason). Also, the jokes are rather formulaic and predictable. Unfortunately, *batteries not included is little more than a stereotypical band of misfits fighting an eviction type film with robots thrown in, and it doesn't really work.