In the Shadows

In the Shadows

When a stunt man dies in Miami, his uncle, a New York mob boss, sends a hit man to tail the stunt coordinator, whom the boss wants dead. The hit man, Eric O'Bryne, gets close to his mark's daughter, and through her he asks her dad to teach him to do stunts. While waiting for the word to kill this mentor, Eric discovers the joy of stunt work and of being part of a family. Meanwhile, several people are looking for the dead man's briefcase of money and a cloth bag of illegal drugs that he stole from an undercover FBI agent now desperate to get the borrowed drugs back to the bureau. The stunt coordinator says that 'we dance in the shadows of death.' Can Eric step out into the sun?

A hit man, sent to kill a veteran Hollywood stuntman, falls in love with the target's daughter and decides to become a stunt-man himself. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


In the Shadows torrent reviews

Chuck G (nl) wrote: This movie proves that Brosnan could still be Bond.

Dave J (de) wrote: You should watch this if you are a big Gilliam fan. If you are not...well..go ahead and move on. Its colorful and at times clever, but the nutty side of it just goes on too long. One can only take so many minutes of silly wacky scifi that doesn't seem to really offer much outside its own visuals.

Gavin S (ag) wrote: This movie began, had a middle, and ended. There were absolutely no surprises, I think this must be a series of books for people with no imagination. Yawn.

Dmitry F (au) wrote: fascinating concept. I seriously couldn't find a flaw to the logic. Very. Very intriguing. And I particularly enjoyed the anti-dogmatic sentiment.

Kathleen K (us) wrote: I quite liked this film. Heartwarming and touching.

Private U (ag) wrote: It's not something just happy story. So real,but very confortable and encourage me.

LouisPhilippe D (gb) wrote: Sucky... Thats all i got to say....Absolutely no story...WTF's wrong when the principal character dies???

Chadd C (it) wrote: Sometimes, don't go into the past, but move on. In 1994, the clever and inventive "Dumb and Dumber" showed that stupid funny movies were still really entertaining. When approaching this movie, I kept asking why a prequel? And why new actors? Now, this movie wasn't bad nor was it good. It was just up in the air. There were a few funny parts and then the "really?" parts. Compared to the 1st movie, the actors who played Lloyd and Harry were a lot dumber than Carrey and Daniels. I get that they're supposed to be dumb, but at least the original showed that they were still somewhat smart on their moves. As for making a prequel, I think it was just only on how to show how they became friends, but they could've done that with a sequel with putting in a flashback. D+

Ben E (kr) wrote: A good movie that could have been a lot better. Got this from NetFlix by mistake but still gave it a try. If the budget was bigger, could have been a lot better. Sutherland does above average. He is a lot like he is when he is playing Jack Baur in 24

Corey C (jp) wrote: I liked Scorsese's character drama that opened the piece and naturally loved Woody's OEDIPUS WRECKS. Coppola's piece is a chore.

Emily B (ru) wrote: i have to say I liked Auntie Mame better. The musical is not as funny and there wasn't any music that really jumped out at me. I suppose if I listen to the music some more it will grow on me. An alright musical, but not amazing.

Mad M (br) wrote: Crowdpleaser. Engaging story. Worth a watch.

Al H (ag) wrote: SAW V it was boring, I hope the best for this one.

Andrea S (es) wrote: Easy, simple and nice. Woody always makes me smile!