Pyro... The Thing Without a Face

Pyro... The Thing Without a Face

A married man has a brief affair, then goes back to his wife and children. His jilted mistress, believing that if he had no more family he'd come back to her, sets fire to his house, hoping to kill them. The man, unsuccessfully trying to rescue them, is horribly burned. After he undergoes an operation to reconstruct his face, he begins to plot his revenge against his former mistress.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:99 minutes
  • Release:1964
  • Language:English,Spanish
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:murder,   revenge,   arson,  

A married man has a brief affair, then goes back to his wife and children. His jilted mistress, believing that if he had no more family he'd come back to her, sets fire to his house, hoping... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Pyro... The Thing Without a Face torrent reviews

Steven V (au) wrote: This was just about one of the worst movies I have seen. 81 minutes of pure torture. Sandra Bullock is advertised blatantly on the cover but she has only a very small role. She does well in her role, but it is too small to help the movie any. The movie honestly has no plot, and pretty bad acting. The end is quite bad. I would not recommend watching, renting, or buying this movie unless you are into movies with bad acting and no plot.

Grace H (ag) wrote: love to wacth it with the little ones

Dave S (ru) wrote: Quality film! Loved it!

Thomas W (gb) wrote: Rising-star Freida Pinto (Slumdog Millionaire, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger) stars as the title-character, Miral, in Julian Schnabel's latest film since his masterpiece, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (#11 on my 100 Best List of the last decade). This is NOT Diving Bell nor is it anywhere close and it arrived in theaters with its fair share of controversy although I don't really understand why. I guess anyTHING that pits Palestinian interests against those of Israel is considered controversial although there is very little here to get upset about. The film's subject matter is big -- HUGE -- but the story is small not-as-important as some would have you believe. The movie begins in 1948 a few years after the close of WWII after the Jewish people had returned to their "homeland" in the Middle East in a wartorn, touchy and angry Jerusalem (immediately following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the awful Deir Yassin massacre) where/when Hind Husseini (Hiam Abbass - Munich, The Visitor, Lemon Tree) used her wealth and privilege to open an orphanage for 55 refugee children (of the said massacre) ... and within six months that number ballooned to 2000! The film flash-forwards four decades, to 1987 when we meet Miral, a teenage girl who was brought to the orphanage ten years earlier following the tragic death of her mother. The film pauses/highlights a few, key moments in Israeli/Palestinian history before landing in the 80's with Miral; but by not giving them enough context or historical heft, Schnabel lessens their importance (they've been shown ... but they've been quickly glazed over -- EVER so briefly). I think this is a major problem of the film as not everybody is well-read on Isreali/Palestinian history and coming from the states has more-less given us a biased take on all of these events. I have NOTHING against Israel; but so-many people here don't realize everything Israel has done on their own to bring strife and hatred upon themselves in that already volatile region (we canNOT forget that Israel had agreed to Palestianian borders but changed their minds with military manpower! [what if every border conflict/disagreement were to be resolved with military means!?]). The film, Miral, falls way short here as we don't get to see two sides to this important story. Schnabel is seemingly making one-side much more sympathetic than the other while NOT giving us much at all on either side (we are supposed to simply tag-along with Miral and think what she thinks) -- and this is perplexing. Neither side is innocent of bullying or political maneuvering but we aren't privy to any of it here and it oftentmes left me wondering "what am I supposed to be thinking?" Very small, brief roles are played by Willem Dafoe (The English Patient, Platoon, Spider-Man) as a British soldier who is friends with Hind a blink-and-you'll-miss-her Vanessa Redgrave (Letters to Juliet, Howards End, Atonement) as a hotel owner in 1948 Jerusalem. I think Miral wanted to be an important film and because it wanted to do "so much" it ended up doing very little. Because it wants to take its viewer into so many directions but forgets to tell more than one signifcant story, it isn't balanced and only one side carries all of the weight. (It should be noted that the character Hind Husseini was a real person [she passed in 1994] who did use her father's mansion as an orphanage where she raised and taught children of all ages -- which I guess might have been part of the controversy as we are not supposed to know and/or assume that ANY Palestinian could be a "good" person. Shocking, indeed.)

Corey M (gb) wrote: Great documentary, good story and well put together. Very enjoyable

Cosmin I (ag) wrote: I watched it...sigh...

Bruno L (ca) wrote: Sophisticated screwball comedy of relations in New York. It was witty and charming.

Quinton Z (gb) wrote: This is another teen scare movie that slowly builds and has predictable moments. The plot is simple. This is like many of the movies of this year.Ultimately crappy

Dan S (jp) wrote: A mesmerizing, slightly offbeat documentary from the great Errol Morris ("The Thin Blue Line") concerning former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara and his experiences in both WWII and Vietnam, and looking back on his decisions and how to pertain to the days we live in now. McNamara appears to be a very likable, flawed individual (like we all are) who seems to be historically misunderstood given his reputation that he screwed up the Vietnam War quite badly. Instead we get an honest, genuine look at a man who gives a fair look at himself and his decisions, admits to his mistakes, but remains proud of his many accomplishments. Definitely a more humanizing look at a politician, in a day and age where people love to eat these people for lunch. One of the better documentaries I can recall, and anyone from the Kennedy-Johnson era should give this a look.

Rob R (us) wrote: An interesting j-horrorfest, although doesn't do Junji Ito's original much justice.

Natalia K (fr) wrote: Gentle hypnosis. Reflections of unfinished loves tied by a flimsy tie.

Stacey O (es) wrote: Cheesy. Funny. However, becomes a very different movie half way through.

Sean T (es) wrote: In "Wings of Desire" the angels do more than just watch over us, they observe our everyday life whether it be physical or mental, violent or peaceful and since they cannot directly change our fates but can only regard what it does to an individual's lives. It is this powerlessness, as well as this longing for physical and mental feeling, that eventually gives an angel named Damiel (Bruno Ganz) a need to become more immersed in life.In the early parts Wim Wenders' film there really is not any plot that can be followed or know what is happening because, Damiel and another angel named Cassiel (Otto Sander) just travel through the divided city of Berlin, watching and listening to train commuter's thought process but sometimes they come down to help a wounded man, to put a hand on the shoulder of a young man considering suicide, or even comfort a pregnant woman on her way to the hospital. They also visited a library, which seemed to be like a headquarters for all the angles, since they were tons of angles there listening to every individual's thoughts. After these experiences since the beginning of time Damiel comes to point where he wants to be doing what the humans do instead of just witnessing what their doings. As he makes his transition from angel to human the most interesting thing about ''Wings of Desire'' to me is how Damiel's thoughts turn him human, because he began to think about how much he wanted to be human the black and white screen bursts into color. With the vision of the angels (that was in black and white) versus the vision of the humans (in color) shows us the minor things in all forms of human experience are things that we take for granted like to be able to identify and recognize the differences between color or how it feels just simply to feel pain. Wim Wenders presents Berlin as a bleak, gloomy urban setting haunted by its own past that caused a wall to be put in-between the city, and brought to life by the presence of this other world that we know nothing of expect for a different kinds of human beings. Those humans like American movie actor Peter Falk (playing himself) beings provide an insight of how these angels appreciate the world better than we do. Like when Peter Falk first meets Damiel and how he talks about "I can't see you, but I know you're here," Falk tells him this because he can sense him, since he used to be an angel just like Damiel. Also how continues on about how good it will feel to drink a coffee, be able to smoke a cigarette, or how it will so great just to be able to feel the warmth of hands as you rub them together. "Wings of Desire" is one of those films that all movie critics like because it's mysterious and difficult. For me, this film was kind of boring till Damiel transformation and I really didn't like it but it does make me wonder about a few questions "Why am I me and why not you? Why am I here and why not there? In "Wings of Desire" the angels do more than just watch over us, they observe our everyday life whether it be physical or mental, violent or peaceful and since they cannot directly change our fates but can only regard what it does to an individual's lives. It is this powerlessness, as well as this longing for physical and mental feeling, that eventually gives an angel named Damiel (Bruno Ganz) a need to become more immersed in life.In the early parts Wim Wenders' film there really is not any plot that can be followed or know what is happening because, Damiel and another angel named Cassiel (Otto Sander) just travel through the divided city of Berlin, watching and listening to train commuter's thought process but sometimes they come down to help a wounded man, to put a hand on the shoulder of a young man considering suicide, or even comfort a pregnant woman on her way to the hospital. They also visited a library, which seemed to be like a headquarters for all the angles, since they were tons of angles there listening to every individual's thoughts. After these experiences since the beginning of time Damiel comes to point where he wants to be doing what the humans do instead of just witnessing what their doings. As he makes his transition from angel to human the most interesting thing about ''Wings of Desire'' to me is how Damiel's thoughts turn him human, because he began to think about how much he wanted to be human the black and white screen bursts into color. With the vision of the angels (that was in black and white) versus the vision of the humans (in color) shows us the minor things in all forms of human experience are things that we take for granted like to be able to identify and recognize the differences between color or how it feels just simply to feel pain. Wim Wenders presents Berlin as a bleak, gloomy urban setting haunted by its own past that caused a wall to be put in-between the city, and brought to life by the presence of this other world that we know nothing of expect for a different kinds of human beings. Those humans like American movie actor Peter Falk (playing himself) beings provide an insight of how these angels appreciate the world better than we do. Like when Peter Falk first meets Damiel and how he talks about "I can't see you, but I know you're here," Falk tells him this because he can sense him, since he used to be an angel just like Damiel. Also how continues on about how good it will feel to drink a coffee, be able to smoke a cigarette, or how it will so great just to be able to feel the warmth of hands as you rub them together. "Wings of Desire" is one of those films that all movie critics like because it's mysterious and difficult. For me, this film was kind of boring till Damiel transformation and I really didn't like it but it does make me wonder about a few questions "Why am I me and why not you? Why am I here and why not there?

The Sky I (au) wrote: Very good visual wise for the time and an original plot I watched it three times in one week without it growing old.

Rich G (nl) wrote: 4th instalment in hammer's frankenstein series sees a good clever twist on the usual creating a monster tale,instead creating a beautiful woman using her ex lover's vengeful soul,very interesting character,Cushing Excellent as always and well directed by Terence Fisher,one of the best of the Frankenstein Films they made and very different

Anthony V (it) wrote: As kinky as it gets in the 50s. Almost seems like a Western as directed by Sam Fuller. Full of symbolism, great performances and direction.

Brad S (mx) wrote: This highly disturbing film has gone on to become a cult Classic. Directed by Tod Browning who directed the original "Dracula"(1931), it follows a bunch Circus freaks, who are played by real-life circus performers. It is at times stylistic, scary, and unnerving. It's only 64mins long due to cuts for the censors so it's a short watch. Check it out if a fan of the bizarre, you can see its influence on people like David Lynch. it not a fan of the bizarre, then skip it.

Tyler S (us) wrote: It's cheesy, stupid, unoriginal, and it hits every boring cliche. But, honestly, with Hart and Johnson, it sorta works. They made it bearable. More, they made it genuinely entertaining.