A group of friends stranded near a desolate cornfield find shelter in an old farmhouse, though they soon discover the dwelling is the center of a supernatural ritual.

Five friends are traveling through rural Nebraska on a weekend getaway when their SUV is suddenly attacked and they get stranded near a desolate cornfield. They find shelter in an old farmhouse, only to discover the dwelling is the center of a supernatural ritual. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Husk torrent reviews

Alexander K (gb) wrote: I love how everything turns for the worse for Larry David. Just like watching Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Liam C (ag) wrote: The thing that really makes this all the more compelling than anything that happened in the first one is the inclusion of a baby and a dog, because when anything like this happens to either of those it is infinitely more horrible, and when you have both? Still, saying that, I can't say that the movie scared me at all. Like usual, I was interested to see where it was going and it was fun to try and guess what was going to happen every night, even though it was hardly scary, and it showed outside the house and the pool every night and nothing really happened there. Sure, we see that the cleaner is in the pool and then outside in the morning but we never get to see that on the surveillance footage, it is only later on in a different way that we do. It took a couple nights to finally show us the baby and the dog, which I liked as it has a certain build up to it, as when anything happened to either the baby or the dog, I was more interested. Especially that dog, what a hero, poor thing.I will say that the script certainly seems better this time around, there is a lot less needless swearing and it is only used in times where it fits. We actually knew a bit about the characters as well, they actually acted like real people and were likeable this time and the actors were pretty good too, the dad was pretty funny as well. They try too hard with the names though, in the first film the character names were the same as the actors but with the new family it isn't like that, probably because they realized that nobody thought this was real, but then again, it has a disclaimer at the start giving the illusion this actually happened. To some, the concept of the ordinary family home is scary just because it directly relates to our safe place, but still. It makes sense why they don't leave the house like in the first movie, but with this family, when they realize it's is time to leave, it is too late but it is the dad's fault just because of his natural reaction to everything. However, I am glad they got rid of who they did when they did at the start because finally, someone actually gets rid of something troubling for once, even if she was trying to help. There is nothing really wrong with walking around the house at 22:30 but given who it was, it was wrong and when that character introduced, for the tiniest moment, I thought it was Marisa Tomei, but no way would she be in this. I also like how it worked in the first film's story into this and explained it in a good way, even if, for continuity, you would have thought they would have mentioned this in the previous movie if all this happened. Saying that, they might have done, it has just been a while since I saw that movie, they even explain the burned picture we see in the previous movie, even if it is quite selfish, but it makes sense, how it got there though is another story. Or, then again, it might not be the picture we see get burned, as, again, it has been a while since I saw that last movie.Although the surveillance cameras made sense, even if they conflict with the found footage angle, would you really be filming during the day for no reason? I know it is needed to move the story along and it happened in the first movie but it could be woven in a more subtle way instead of to just throw out exposition, but then again, I should realize the kind of movie I'm watching here. It was extra annoying when it only showed the daytime footage for about 20 seconds. There was also a part where the father finally finds the baby and he goes back for his camera, really? We could see what was going on anyway, just leave the thing. And how are you supposed to just ignore what is going on? Would you really say that to someone whose house is haunted? As well as the fact that one of them says that no damage had been done to their house, despite the fact that everything was broken, yeah, sure. Also, the dad says nothing was touched in the baby's room but the 'R' was taken off of the door but I thought it would have been creative if it said 'Dante' on the door or something. Speaking of the baby, I kept waiting for the part where he had no reflection in the mirror and I thought the baby would look where the dog was barking. And yeah, your hat would be wet on the inside after you've been in the pool, as well as the fact that the dad used tongs that would be used for food on something that had died, sure he would wash them, but come on. I also thought the dog had the keys when someone got locked out of the house but the fascination with that door was interesting. Quite a lot of the scares seemed rather unearned near the start, the door is open when they first movie in and of course that's supposed to be scary. I'll admit the movie didn't do what I had expected a couple of times, like how we see someone open a door during the day and there is someone there even though I thought no one would be; as well as when the husband dives in the water and I expected something to happen on the board, even though something does happen in that scene but it isn't like either of those are hugely creative. There is a part where the cupboard door looks like it is closing by itself and someone walks away from the camera and I could just picture people in the cinema just screaming, even though it's during the day and for about two seconds. A similar thing happens when they accidently knock over the baby chair or when someone screams early on but it is only because of something to do with a toilet; most of these just feel like very cheap attempts at getting a quick scare out of the audience. There were also some parts where the audio seemed lowered on purpose just to raise it a few seconds later in an attempt to be scary, which, once again, conflicts with the found footage angle. There was another part where the leaves had overgrown on the camera a little bit and I thought that was going to be used in some way, but it wasn't. When we saw the surveillance looking at the kitchen, I thought I saw a faint face in the background in the hallway but it wasn't anything that was ever brought into the film but it did keep changing throughout the film though.Some parts don't make sense when considering the found footage angle, given the general nature of found footage, I don't think text would appear on the screen to say what night it was, or how many days before or after something is, or who a character is. Sure, it's there for the audience, but technically speaking, it doesn't make sense, as well as the fact that the cameras speed up at one point, and that wouldn't happen, but it's happened before in the last movie. Also, when the focus of the film changes at the end, I don't think that makes much sense with the found footage angle either, even including the surveillance cameras like I mentioned before; to make this work completely, you need to only use one type of camera, you could argue it would be boring, but it would make sense. It's a little bit of a worrying sign that this movie uses parts from the previous one; probably because one of the producers is the person who directed the first one. It has an Ouija board once more, which admittedly does play out differently than before but that character really should have taken his hand off of the board to prove that he wasn't moving it though. It has a part where something is on fire, which isn't necessarily copying but it takes the Ouija board part from the last film which did catch alight but in this film just separates those parts to use them as two different bits; also, of course those characters had to be in the Jacuzzi that night. It also seemed to go out of its way to not show you things. Whatever your opinion of the first movie was, at least it showed you what was going on, with this movie, most of the final scares happen off screen and it feels really cheap, it feels like this has a lower budget than the first one! You keep waiting to see what's behind that door that certain characters are fascinated with and when you finally do get to see something, which isn't on the door, the camera is facing the wrong way. It is atmospheric somewhat and your mind filling in the blanks is sometimes worse than actually seeing something, but coupled with the overall lack of showing anything, it just adds up. This movie also has way too much build up of nothing happening, true that could be said about the first movie, but from what I remember, small things happened right from the first couple nights and got progressively bigger, as you would expect. These films usually have the same sort of ending but this movie really did just copy the previous movie and just call it a day and it was a little distracting. It ended up with me having my hands up going, 'really?' However, I did like the sinister fading to black with the crying slowly turning to laughter, that was a nice touch. I saw the directors cut but I'm still going to post this review here and I'm not sure what was added as it all seemed to fit quite well with each other and thought it would work well as the theatrical version, but that is because I found out it was the director's cut version after the fact. The film might have had a bigger budget, which still isn't saying much because it is still very small, but, regardless of what I said about the bigger end scares, I think it hurts it in a way as it causes you to wonder how they did the effects, there is a scene where someone gets dragged into the air, as opposed to on the floor last time, which made me think of strings and can potentially take some audiences members out of it. Regardless, 'Paranormal Activity 2' is a good follow up to its predecessor as it improves on some things, but I can't say I particularly liked it and it didn't scare me so it loses points for a horror movie, overall, I just didn't hate it. I gave it an extra half a star for its better script and the acting, thanks to the different screenwriters and director.

Tiffany F (au) wrote: Waz up gansta! If your going to do a ganster film, go all the way. However crapy the acting and cinematography is, this manages to be a gansta movie. The Game can only play one role and that is a gansta; it doesn't require a lot of acting talent to play that. For ganstaism, job well done


Becca D (ag) wrote: I loved this movie. When I had it out from the library I watched it several times, it's such a beautiful story.

Rick A (gb) wrote: Wow, great movie! That is cinema for you. My only wish is that they would have stretched out some scenes to develop some supporting characters. Would've worked well as a mini-series. Definitely a must see. Great story. Great acting. Great ending(s). The scene at the end on the bridge was perfect. What a shame if this movie wouldn't get watched. A love story, a story of determination, a battle of wits. A solid A-.

Paul D (gb) wrote: I know a lot of people did not like this movie at all, but I found plenty of entertaining moments in it anyway. Is this Robin Williams best work? Not even close! However, it is not as bad as it is made out to be either.

Private U (ca) wrote: It's actually a pretty funny movie (Pat O'Brien even gets some laughs), a bit like "Only Angels Have Wings", except lighter. Cagney and Sheridan have great chemistry, as always.

John A (it) wrote: Not as bad as I thought it was going to be. Once the spaceship launches the story improves and the visual style has sufficient interest to carry the film by itself. OK for passing an evening.