PAX is a grand-scale drama. An intimate and powerful romantic film about seven people's encounter with themselves as life forces them into the raging storm. They all have someone waiting. PAX, the Latin word for peace, is also flight terminology for flight passengers. When flying in an airplane we are all "pax".
- Stars:Ellen Dorrit Petersen, Samuel Fröler, Ida Elise Broch, Kyrre Haugen Sydness, Kristoffer Joner, Tomas von Brömssen, Björn Granath, Marika Lagercrantz, Olivia Nystedt, Pia Tjelta, Anneke von der Lippe, Annika Hallin, Ane Dahl Torp, Stina Ekblad, Stig Engström,
- Director:Annette Sjursen,
- Writer:Lars Saabye Christensen, Annette Sjursen
A plane engine explodes. A plane goes down towards the ground. It looks like the end for the people aboard. But for some of them, it is a new beginning. Up in the air between Stockholm and ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Pax torrent reviews
(br) wrote: I believe a story like this would work better as a stage play. The reason is that just 2 scenes pass out of the same place (well kinda 3) but still would work if they do it. The story is a drama (not a terror film to be honest). It's more an open mind movie where you need to think more than play a la SAW style (SAW is more strong+gory and this movie of WYR is not). Since fear is in the mind, you could think you will get scared if you pass for a situation like this (who wouldn't?). Now what I thought was predictable in a way (coz it was) is the ending. Can't reveal what happens but if you were in Iris's shoes, you know she choose wrong (I know people would do anything for family but if she realy cared, she would have not played this in the 1st place).The cast + music score: I really enjoyed this cast and the music score was really well made. I must be honest. I got introduced to this film coz my brother is a terror/horror fan (I used to be until I saw a repetitive pattern in their stories for not saying cliches and got bored). I believe that in 2 days I got to see 2 films out of those cliches somehow: this one and The Babadook for real. So yes, love to see one of the final works of Snow (she did amazing in this role), same Robin Lord Taylor (got me! He was another reason to see this *I also forgot he was in Walking Dead, lord me!*). Again, this story would have worked better on stage a la Richard III (making the front lines get a bit gory hehe. I know what I say coz I went to see that play on 2014 at London and was fun). Enjoy my short review and hope to see a 2nd part (hope in stage rather than on film). - November 11 2015 review.
(jp) wrote: A bit of a downer, there isn't much Skull Head action, and the overall characters are pretty bland and uninspired. The pacing goes steady, but with little action or scares, the film ends up being a bore that ends in a drag.
(it) wrote: Described as a romance, well really it isn't. A comedy? - not entirely. Indie it certainly is, and a study in dysfunction. The joys of living in LA. It made me uncomfortable, as I recognised in myself the kinds of bad behaviour which the male lead was portraying, magnified. Claire, the female central character, is excellent. Decent, despite the way that life and her 'clients' crap on her. Again it's exaggerated - most 'normal' people would not behave like this. The film is disquieting, and very watchable.
(it) wrote: Not as good as the novel because it's not long enough and it lacks special effects. However, it was a good idea for Anthony Horowitz to adapt it into a film.
(kr) wrote: I own this on DVD and Blu-Ray.
(nl) wrote: I can't BELIEVE I haven't rated this yet. AMAZING. SEE IT. EVERYONE.
(ru) wrote: Self-indulgent and rather nonsensical. I want my two hours back!
(gb) wrote: Havnt seen in years, but i know that i LOVE this movie!!!!!
(es) wrote: Extremely unfunny. Couldn't even make it past the 30 minute mark.
(ag) wrote: This plot makes PERFECT sense
(it) wrote: A David Lynch film is a tightrope act of sorts. They're all a little abstract, a little bit mystical, but remaining (usually) is a looming mystery that is never solved; the viewer must be ready to interpret the abstruse puzzle presented to them. In a great Lynch film, "Mulholland Dr." for example, a profound characterization can act as a backbone to the many head spinning detours that dawdle in the celluloid. Without one, though, a Lynch film can become intolerable, masturbatory rather than dazzling, a series of puzzle pieces that don't fit anywhere besides his own mind. He is perhaps the definitive hit-or-miss filmmaker - when he hits, his baffling ideas are seductive, lingering in our memory like our very first run-in with Rita Hayworth's Gilda; but when he misses, we're presented with a nightmarish landscape that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, doesn't go anywhere, and doesn't have much in the way of meaning. (And a Lynch film is generally long, making insufferability even more insufferable as the images go on and on and on and on ...) Simply put, "Inland Empire" is one of David Lynch's most unbearable movies. It's his first film shot completely digitally, done so with a Sony DCR-VX1000 camcorder; the images, in return, are fuzzy and textural. Some, especially Lynch, find this photographic technique to hold more value in terms of enigma and subversion, but I, possibly in the minority, think that this experiment is a downfall. His images are so outrightly peculiar (only he could sell the idea of three people in rabbit suits living in an apartment together in sitcom bliss) that the cheapness of the digital camera makes his once lush pictorial instincts read like an experimental student short. Before, the lavishness of film made diversions into the freakish more of a surprise; here, Lynchian punches no longer hold the shock the once did. This shouldn't suggest that his cinematic mastery is waning - it's the fault of the camera, not his. Supposedly, "Inland Empire" is about Nikki Grace (Laura Dern), a has-been actress who has just received a part in a movie that could revitalize her once strong career. Her co-star is known womanizer Devon Berk (Justin Theroux), her director the respected Kingsley Stewart (Jeremy Irons). Minutes into the rehearsal process is it revealed that the project is thought to be cursed - it was supposed to be made decades ago, but the actors tragically died during the filmmaking process. Following this revelation, strange things start to occur: Nikki and Devon begin to mimic the lives of the characters they're playing, Sue Blue and Billy Side, and Nikki, desperate as she is to succeed, begins experiencing situations that can only be described as hallucinatory. I say "supposedly" when providing the plot summary because "Inland Empire" revolves around this storyline for only the first act, possibly even less. It starts off intriguingly, with the same sort of luminous ambiguities of "Lost Highway", until it descends into a labyrinth of entangled phantasms. For a while, the delusions are evocative (the audacious pairings with experimental music are especially fascinating), but at three hours, "Inland Empire" eventually keels over and turns into an unappetizing smorgasbord of Lynchian rejects. As the story was never interesting enough to begin with, interpretation is left untouched; we're either frustrated or stimulated, mostly the former. The one thing to celebrate in "Inland Empire" is Laura Dern, in a fearless performance. Her character(s) is hardly defined, but Dern gives us a reason to gaze upon her face with utter enthrallment. She wanders around the maze Lynch places her in the middle of; Dern is so breathtaking that, once in a while, she deceives us into thinking that the material is solid rather than flimsy. More or less, "Inland Empire" is flimsy. Lynch wrote the script as filming went on (seriously), and nothing ever commences from it. He is a great director, but nothing is worse than taking an audience for granted, especially when that audience has to meander through a film for 180 minutes.
(us) wrote: [font=Courier New]A long time ago, in what could have been another galaxy, Full Moon Entertainment meant good direct to video movies. They have basically fallen apart through the years, and are all but dead now. But even at its greatest, movies like [i]Oblivion[/i] slipped through and managed to be made. I?m not saying the overall story is what is bad. I did like the idea of mixing sci-fi and westerns together. And I for one am a huge fan of whenever two genre?s fuse together like that. My biggest problem was that it was taken seriously, and the fact that actors from previous sci-fi fame are constantly referencing toward whatever it is they use to do. Julie Newmar, who to many is the best Catwoman? though not me? plays a woman named Miss Kitty. And wouldn?t you know it, she purrs and does other various cat-like actions throughout the movie. George Takei of [i]Star Trek[/i] fame could have been used to better the film, but instead says lines from the series, most that he didn?t even say himself when he was on the show. Here the filmmakers had the chance of creating a perfect sci-fi western flick, but instead made a desperate homage film that fails on so many levels. It never creates enough interest to keep your attention, and for the most part you will be glancing over at the clock seeing how far the film has progressed. One good thing can be said about the film is that it is short. This film is for diehard fans of Full Moon only. And for people who like some of the actors in the movie. Other than that, this movie isn?t nowhere near the hidden treasure I was hoping for. But for the free price I paid for it, I can?t complain too much. [/font]
(au) wrote: Wasn't bad, I guess. Nothing spectacular.
(kr) wrote: Gritty and enthralling one moment, groan-inducing cliches the next.