Fire in the Sky

Fire in the Sky

A group of men who were clearing bush for the government arrive back in town, claiming that their friend was abducted by aliens. Nobody believes them, and despite a lack of motive and no evidence of foul play, their friends' disappearance is treated as murder.

In 1975, a group of five men are driving home after working in a forest when they see a mysterious light. Intrigued, one of them leaves the truck and mysteriously disappears for five days and the others are accused of murder... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Fire in the Sky torrent reviews

Des S (kr) wrote: This was a decent movie, but the storyline could have been a little better.

Gaiti F (kr) wrote: its an interesting view from the inside about soldiers and their families. It's the real thing, with all the bad and good.

TTT C (nl) wrote: (** 1/2): Thumbs Down A decent cast is here but the film just didn't quite grab me. A near-miss.

Zed L (it) wrote: One of the better war movies that spawned after Border's success.

Sandy B (it) wrote: Good flick when you're in a melancholy mood. Damn. She could be the poster child for Planned Parenthood.

Harry W (gb) wrote: The only reason I heard of or watched Shortbus was because of, you guessed it, all the unsimulated sex. I wanted to see how such a theme would fit into the cinematic screen without being a pornographic film.Unfortunately, Director John Cameron Mitchell doesn't really know what to do with all the unsimulated sex. It applies a visual appeal to Shortbus and is well executed as well as interesting to witness onscreen, but it really doesn't go far. The energy it starts off with and the promise it shows for the development of its complex characters runs out of energy before the end and doesn't seem to be able to last as long as John Cameron Mitchell had hoped.I wasn't offended or disgusted by the explicit sexual nature of Shortbus, but rather I actually enjoyed it. I enjoyed the artistic look at unsimulated sexual actions of a complicated nature without it degrading to being just mere pornography for pleasure. Shortbus also doesn't feature big name actors which would shock audiences like it did when Chloe Sevigny gave a real fellatio to Vincent Gallo in The Brown Bunny. Instead, Shortbus takes a look at sexuality which doesn't try to hide anything. It isn't afraid to show urination, ejaculation, masturbation or penetration. It displays all this and more, and it's challenging for it to disgust audiences. These kinds of actions have never seemed more natural, and Shortbus does succeed at pointing out how sexuality is something to embrace instead of hide from the world. And as a person who supports such a notion, I enjoyed the fact that John Cameron Mitchell explained that well. Unfortunately, that and the cast were the only things I really enjoyed.The talented charisma and chemistry between Paul Dawson and PJ DeBoy was good and interesting, but the character I found myself most interested in was Sofia Lin and the insightful performance of Sook-Yin Lee particularly because, among other things, I also find the concept of the female orgasm to be a mystery. Shortbus doesn't make Sofia Lin a character who fakes it and brags to her friends that her boyfriend can't help her achieve orgasm. She actually wants to achieve it for her pleasure and to enhance the strength of her marriage, and she really comes off as a real woman. That's why I like her, and that's why I like Sook-Yin Lee's performance as her.But aside from that I couldn't find much other depth in Shortbus, and it can't rely on one message to carry its story the whole way through when there are many characters it finds important. I failed to really do the same, and thought that there were too many subplots which convoluted the intentions of Shortbus and what John Cameron Mitchell wanted people to see in it. What I saw in it was mostly a lot of penises, and while that wasn't at all unwanted it just was all visual and no substance in my eyes. Perhaps Shortbus is a film better to reccomend to people fascinated by sexuality visually and wish to use it to teach them how it could benefit their relationships or make them feel comfortable with their bodies. But considering that I'm in a stable relationship, am happy to get changed in public and have watched a sh*tload of pornography, it's safe to say that there is little Shortbus could teach me that I didn't already know.

Anglique C (ca) wrote: just like the first, it was ok but nothing special.

Gabriel A (gb) wrote: Soldado Universal faz parte de um gnero frgil, que dificilmente evolui para algo mais. Richard Rothstein, Christopher Leitch, Dean Devlin; so os trs roteirista que lanam seus argumentos semi-futuristas que a principio tem grande potencial, mas o revestimento de ao degenera sua premissa interessante e o filme se perde e prol do gnero explosivo-violento-sangrento que junto com a direo infame de Roland Emmerich entrega o filme para os urubus devorarem.

Jos (mx) wrote: Well... what can I say? The story needs a bit of work (ha ha). Again, like it's predecessor, this is an interesting curiosity, but there are so many ways to see the Earth in movies now that this is basically redundant, unless you are feeling reaallly in the mood for something meditative.

Eduardo C (ru) wrote: A really fun 80s sci-fi/action movie with Melanie Griffith

Brian P (gb) wrote: painful to watch because it is so bad

Joo Paulo R (fr) wrote: A trilha (C) legal ... j o filme ...

Daniel S (ca) wrote: Yet again proving how much a talent Chaplin was, this time showing he was very skilled at dialogue centered comedy instead of physical comedy, tho there are some physical comedy scenes, in addition to being funny, chaplin gives a great overall performances, it challenges us since hes not blatantly bad or good, a vague middle ground, i loved the relationship he made with the girl from jail and i love where it went to at the end, a great film

Chris O (gb) wrote: I remember enjoying this movie when I saw it in theaters. Watching it again, I was apparently an easy-to-please teenager. This movie was pretty low on the magic. Wide-eyed naivete and adult-sized temper tantrums should never be used as substitutes for jokes, a sin Ephron, Kidman, and Ferrell should know well as experienced Hollywood insiders. Additionally, the metanarrative premise was too heavy handed at times; at other times, it was missing key components that alluded to the original Bewitched. Dedicated fans of the old show (myself included) will find themselves wishing the allusion would be more complete and handled with greater care.So why the halfsies rating? Well, despite the carelessness, it's relatively inoffensive movie with a few very small moments of cute charm. Additionally, a few of the more veteran cast have their moments. Kidman is nowhere near as charming as Elizabeth Montgomery, but in this new universe she has a unique character which makes for an acceptable protagonist. Despite the fact that you can practically see her mourning her career as she says each line, she's still Nicole Kidman; there's no denying she can act. Michael Caine handles the role of Nigel Bigelow deftly and, although he can't carry the story, he clearly invested in the allusion to Sam's father in the 1960s series. However, the biggest props go to Shirley MacLaine as a practically perfect replication of Endora and Steve Carell as the much needed obnoxiousness that is Uncle Arthur. In fact, Carell provided my one moment of laughing out loud. So all in all, Bewitched is a scholocky, hokey attempt to mine money out of an excellent show that should have remained as it currently exists: A beautiful and nostalgic piece of television history.