Family Life

Family Life

A 19 years old London girl received agressive psychiatric treatments for her schizophrenic behaviour by a doctor who still wants her family to insure the guard of the child without any regards to the facts that it is this family who's agravating her situation.

A teenage girl suffers a nervous breakdown. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Family Life torrent reviews

jake d (ru) wrote: good cast of forgotten actors combine to make this thriller decent.

Stephanie S (ru) wrote: Martin Scorsese's very personal views on classic Italian cinema. Not only does it provide very informative insight on the differences between classic Hollywood and Italian films, it also serves as a great documentary to motivate me to watch more European films. I've watched some of the films he introduced here, but I never noticed the depth or details in some of them. Having watched this makes me want to rewatch all the Italian movies I've previously watched.

leah b (it) wrote: such an awesome film

Naoya K (kr) wrote: The last early Johnny To before he goes to make film noirs. This film is the very transition of To as a filmmaker from a hired-hand to a film auteur. You already can see familiar faces in later To's films like Ching-Wan Lau and Ruby Wong and some of his cinematic styles. His calm but passionate view on men of those occupations which makes most of "teamwork" and "bond" like firefighters and cops is already focused. His technique of describing their bond through piling up the scenes that are seemingly minor daily events starts with this film. Also, you cannot help but surprise how detail and powerful the second half of the film, which is the battle of firefighters against fire, is. However, the human drama of each main character is very stale and childish, and it results in spoiling the impression of the finale. This film also displays the weak point of Johnny To, and indeed, those background dramas of characters are excluded as much as possible in To's later films.

Mark M (au) wrote: Scary Movie for the late 80's only much, MUCH worse.

Aidan H (mx) wrote: Figgis' first feature tries to be Get Carter Goes to Tyneside but is let down by a zombie-like Griffiths, a restrained Bean and a palpably unprofessional Sting. By the time something started to happen (about halfway through), I had lost all interest in Newcastle and its Cockney-speaking inhabitants. The sub plot about a group of avant garde Polish jazz musicians was so underdeveloped and only acted to derail this tatty film all the more. Even worse than Leaving Las Vegas.

Charlie M (nl) wrote: Klute, a private investigator, investigates a prostitute who is being stalked by a john in this classic thriller. Sutherland stars as the title character in what is his most memorable performance of his career.

Stephen G (mx) wrote: A very charming and funny film which will appeal to anyone who has had the pleasure of making a film with their friends or something of the like. This may not be a masterpiece, but this film has more heart than most.

Russell H (de) wrote: Ferrell and Caan are great together in this. Very funny.

Jesse O (fr) wrote: As someone who grew up watching, and loving, horror films I find it surprising that I've not ever seen a full Leprechaun movie, the ones with Warwick Davis of course. I've seen parts of the original and parts of the In Da Hood film, but never watched one all the way through in one sitting prior to this one. Of course, thinking that I'm a knowledgeable horror fan, I am aware of the fact that the Leprechaun series was always a little bit tongue-in-cheek, cartoony, and over-the-top. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously at all. It's clear this was meant to be a more comical franchise. That couldn't have been more obvious. So this brings us to this darker reboot. This film is Batman Begins to Warwick's 1960s Batman. However, unlike Batman Begins, there's not a light year jump in quality in this darker reboot. This isn't even really a reboot of the original series, it's something that focuses more on the real Irish myth that inspired the original series. The only reason this is called Leprechaun is to give it an established name that people will immediately recognize. That's literally the only reason, it has no real roots in anything that came before, it's not like this is a superhero whose comics have gone on 60+ years, so there's a variety of different versions of the character that you can explore all within the same universe. Let me just say that I think making the reboot a more traditional slasher film was the worst mistake they could've made. The absolute worst decision that was made if you were hoping to reboot this franchise successfully is to take away the comical edge the film had. And IF you are determined to do something completely different from the previous series, then you should at the very least try your hardest to make the script the best you possibly can. I'm not saying the people in charge of writing, and directing, this film didn't really put in much of an effort, but it certainly comes across that way. There's nothing in this movie that's really worth seeing. It goes around in circles for 78 minutes, maintaining the same tone throughout the film. There's no real scares in the film and the gore is largely terrible. The costume for the leprechaun itself was also laughably bad. So bad that they actively avoided doing full body shots so you couldn't see how bad the costume actually was. This feels a little cheap since it feels like the movie cheats you out of seeing the leprechaun. Jaws made not seeing the shark for 95% of the film work because of how it built up the suspense through the film score. The Godzilla reboot also made it work exceptionally well, they gave you just enough to pump you up for more. But you can just NOTICE that this film chose this route because their budget simply wasn't enough to make a good monster costume for Dylan Postl to wear. It's impossibly transparent. If I had thought this film did it to build it suspense for the reveal then I would understand...but you know how I know it wasn't like this? THERE WAS NO REVEAL. You just get to see its face close-up. It's so bad really. And it would be one thing if at least the film offered some decent death scenes, but this is practically nonexistent on them. There's a decent one and that's it. The film practically relies on tired slasher cliches to pretty much crawl to the finish line. The acting is pretty bad, not terrible by any means, but still bad. All this is is a uninspired cash grab. Horror fans, after all, are some of the most loyal fans you will find. What easier audience to rip off than them, right? There's not even unintentional laughs so you can at least laugh WITH the film, even if you're not enjoying what the film has to offer on a "serious" level. Would I say this is the worst movie of the year? I'd say it's the worst I've seen, by far. At least the last Transformers movie had good special effects. For the life of me, I cannot find one positive about this all. The special effects are terrible, the story sucks, relying mostly on tired cliches, the acting is bad, it's poorly paced, poorly shot and edited. What is there that this film does better than any other slasher in existence? I can wait, I've got all day. It's a rare occasion where I watch a movie with very little redeemable qualities. Date Movie at least had Alyson Hannigan. The Wicker Man remake and The Room at least made me laugh with how awful they were. I'm looking for ANY positive. I've been wracking my brain trying to think of any and, for the life of me, I just can't. While given the same rating, I don't think this is as bad as the aforementioned films. But, with the exception of Date Movie, I enjoyed them so much more than this. At least they made me laugh. This...this is like paying for for an invisible meal. Just an awful film all around.