On a foggy day, Julia‘s six-year-old son Jens is called missing. Despite a thorough search, the boy is never found. Twenty years later, Julia’s father receives one of the shoes Jens was wearing the day he disappeared. Who sent it? Why? Is the boy still alive? This inexplicable act suddenly awakens a hope in Julia that she might see her son again… or that she could find his body and murderer. As she returns to her father’s island, she hears stories of the mythical Nils Kant – a murderer who once was the terror of the island. He is dead and buried for years, long before Julia’s son disappeared. But Julia’s father uncovers that his death and burial were only a fake. While on his tracks, Julia accepts the help and love of Lennart, a local police inspector. His dark and mysterious past brings him a lot closer to Jens’s disappearance that she might think…
Writer:Daniel Alfredson (screenplay), Birgitta Bongenhielm (screenplay), Johan Theorin (novel)
Julia has lived with the guilt of her son's disappearance for 21 years. As she returns to her childhood home on Öland, old truths and lies are stirred up. Who can she trust, and what happened to her 5-year old son? . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Alexandra P (au) wrote: This movie is really simple, two characters in a room having intense debates about their views. No more no less. And I enjoyed it even when I don't agree entirely with neither of their points of views. The actors perform really well this adaptation from the play by Cormac McCarthy so if you are capable of enjoying a really deep conversation, you will enjoy this movie.
Rafael C (de) wrote: I did not expect that I liked the movieGood
xGary X (mx) wrote: A group of Londoners go on a "lads only" trip to a remote village only to find that the entire female population have become flesh eating monsters and murdered all the men. I'd like to nominate Jake West for a long, slow hand clap because this is the second of his films I've seen and the second that's one of the most immature, amateurish piles of crap I've ever witnessed. I think you can tell from the synopsis and the presence of rent-a-geezer Danny Dyer and Stephen "Combo" Graham exactly which bandwagon this film is trying to jump on (although the "plot" is clearly a dim-witted regurgitation of Dog Soldiers), but thanks to some terrible direction, awful performances and an utterly witless script it falls well short of becoming even a pale shadow of Simon Pegg's much loved celebration of schlock. It's surely one of the most misogynist films I've ever seen as all the living women are nothing but shrieking shrews who do nothing but complain (they obviously just don't understand "ver lads") and the undead ones a bunch of strippers with cerebral palsy in feeble Halloween costumes. And no amount of so-called irony can disguise the attitude of a film that contains the line "I'm going to go down there...and bash the shit out of anything in a dress". Not only did I not laugh during the entire length of Doghouse, I didn't even crack a smile. Doghouse is nothing but Shaun Of The Dead for Sunday Sport "readers".
Bill C (ca) wrote: This is a well written story made on a shoe string budget. All the character are well developed and there are some beautiful shots of Iceland. The story is about of an immortal rock like creature who has lived since the world was formed. He watched animals evolve to the current period in time. He lives in isolation to avoid the human race, he had a bad run ?in with them several hundred years ago. He meets a nave and beautiful reporter and she convinces him to come back to society. It all goes wrong through the middle of the movie. Helen Merrin plays her exploitive editor. The Movie start and finishes good , but the middle is a little slowly paced and predictable. The shoe string BBC production value can only be compared to the final days of the 70?s era ?Doctor Who? I would only recommend this to hard core sci-fi or movie buffs.
Emod L (ru) wrote: 86%Full of mysticism and symbolism, Shadow of the Vampire is an interesting film with amazing acting and a fresh story.
Jacky L (gb) wrote: not for the faint-hearted or easily offended. most disturbing scene visually? skinning of the rabbit. not one of my favorite ozons.
Oliver O (mx) wrote: i just don't like it dons't explain what some things are there just there and they never talk about them again and songs are crap
Udana W (us) wrote: Not a bad movie. Love the soundtrack.
Joseph K (ru) wrote: Good movie with a firm message about the cost of war.
(us) wrote: As a phycisist i know, for sure, that "opposites attract". As a man, by the end of this movie, i was ..dazed and confused. Is it really possible??? See foryourselves! Recommended! PS:By the end of the movie you will know how to fix a boat's engine in the middle of the ocean, catch a sardin with bare hands and ..conquer a gorgeus blondie! But first you must keep her mouth shut!
Maxwell S (fr) wrote: This is a film, that does what other films can rarely do, NOT avoid the inevitable. Not to say all films that can't be masterpieces, but just that, this film can be a masterpiece while doing so. The film has the definitive first half inhale, and second half exhale. During the inhale, is where the director's artistic ability can meander. And boy does it inhale a lot. Most people won't notice how overwhelming it is, but it is only a master that can subtly overwhelm THIS much. I've rarely ever seen such a great focus on a main character, I mean, her mood and thoughts completely speak for the scene, yet there is such a complete awareness of the lives of others, and life itself. There are such great complexities that we constantly try to grasp, yet there is a beautiful simplicity equally present. We all dwell in each moment, yet it still progresses through gently. Needless to say, it's overwhelming. Most instantly notable is the beautiful color and composition used in every shot, which is a great reason why it's made it's way to the criterion collection. Douglas Sirk has made a masterpiece reflecting life greater than nearly every other film I've seen, and also makes it's love for film ever so present as well. Highly recommended for non-jaded filmgoers.
Christian C (br) wrote: The film is powerful and moving, but that's got more to do with knowing the horrible events actually took place -- not because of anything special about the film making (other than possibly Cheadle's understated Paul). Cheadle's acting was exceptional, and everyone else was good with the notable exception of Nolte who played his role as if he were a caricature of a gruff-but-lovable military careerist. It's worth seeing to remind yourself that this genocide really happened and the rest of the world really didn't care that much.
Stephen J (ca) wrote: i hate to use a cliche - but the original French film was much better ;-)
Johnny B (fr) wrote: B+! I thought the movie did exactly what it needed to do. It had some jump scares, it was creepy and the twist was cool! My only complaint was the ending wasn't as big as it should've been. I do think if they treated this as a prequel and gave it a sequel that it would be terrifying.