A story about Janina Duszejko, an elderly woman, who lives alone in the Klodzko Valley where a series of mysterious crimes are committed. Duszejko is convinced that she knows who (or what) is the murderer, but nobody believes her.

Janina Duszejko, an elderly woman, lives alone in the Klodzko Valley where a series of mysterious crimes are committed. Duszejko tries to convince the local police force that they were murdered by wild animals, but nobody believes her. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Spoor torrent reviews

Ruthie R (ru) wrote: This is a pretty good possession movie and the main characters interactions are really touching/convincing, but Jesus Christ is it fucking depressing.

Nett A (es) wrote: That may have been the 1st Tyler Perry movie that I didn't really care for...

Walter M (us) wrote: While "How to Die in Oregon" is a quietly powerful documentary about an important subject, the idea of dying with dignity, it is also so intense that it is probably not for everyone. That's due to the intimate nature of the documentary itself that eschews the normal safe route of talking heads and experts and instead spends time with those most affected by the new laws which are now in effect in three states. Of special attention is Cody Curtis, 53, a once active mother of two in Oregon, who was diagnosed with cancer after a grapefruit sized tumor was found in her liver and given only months to live. As proof against naysayers and critics, "How to Die in Oregon" shows what dying with dignity is not. It is not perfect as a couple of participants talk about being a burden on their families which is actually what they are there for. And it should surprise no one that an insurance company found a way to exploit the law. Nor is it assisted suicide. Doctors only have to write prescriptions(from $100 to $1,000). As counseled by volunteers from Compassion and Choices, the fatally ill get to choose when they will exit life, not end life(in the words of one participant), and usually in the company of friends and family at home if they so wish. Two questions are asked at the moment of truth: Do you want to change your mind? & What does the medication do? All of which simply reminds us all that death is a natural part of life.

Edmund C (jp) wrote: Winner of several awards at Cannes 2007, this film has riveting faces and shots that stay in the viewer's memory. I went down to Singapore to watch it recently. Brilliant craftsmanship : has good music, cinematography, editing and script. And the casting.. wow.. Sarah Adler perfectly captures that modern Jewish girl's look I've come to recognise. And the rest of the cast were really near-perfect in each of their roles. Like! :) Mainly in Hebrew, with doses of English and a cute Tagalog sub-story in there as well :)

Justen N (kr) wrote: It's not bad but not superb.

Marcus Y (ag) wrote: Man Candy-Du jour, but provides nothing else. Forgettable.

eni r (gb) wrote: Honestly, they creep me out a little

Camille L (us) wrote: Pour sa premire ralisation, Sylvester Stallone crit, ralise, joue le premier rle et chante la chanson principale de Paradise Alley. Autant vous dire qu'il y a bien trop de casquettes pour celui qui sort de Rocky et semble avoir tent de faire la mme chose avec le catch. Malheureusement trop souvent schmatique et absurdement lent, Paradise Alley ne vaut que pour Stallone acteur, qui en fait des caisses comme d'habitude l'poque. Frank McRae et Armand Assante sont de solides seconds rles, tandis que la musique de Bill Conti est trangement toute en retenue.

Dave J (jp) wrote: Reporter and then novelist Tom Garrett (Dana Andrews) uses himself as a guinea pig against capital punishment

(br) wrote: I couldn't possibly add much to the mountains that have been written about the Marx Brothers and this movie in particular. I'll only add a few personal thoughts.The Marx Brothers never acknowledged serious satirical intent with this movie. Groucho famously said they were just "four Jews trying to get a laugh." I sincerely doubt Harry Ruby and Bert Kalmar were utterly apolitical when they conceived the "Declaration of War" musical sequence in this movie - its intent is clearly satirical, whether the Marx Brothers thought so or not.I was in my early teens when I first saw this movie. Even before I was particularly sensitive to such cinematic factors in my movies, the final Battle Sequence from Duck Soup always seemed slapdash and insane, thrown together with massive leaps of continuity and logic. Groucho is in different costumes for each take. At first, Firefly rushes to Mrs. Teasdale's home, then Mrs. Teasdale is at the Firefly headquarters at which he started the scene. Not even the most cursory attempts at logic, unity and continuity are observed. It seemed as if the director was in a mad rush to get this movie done.But now, the slapdash look of this movie's final scenes seem in retrospect like purposeful deconstruction. Just as war erodes civility and structure in real life, so does war erode the civility and structure in this movie. The insanity of the end of this movie is no less insane than war itself.This sounds like pompous overanalysis; the word "deconstruction" didn't even exist when this movie was made. But Leo McCarey was a Hollywood veteran when he directed this movie, having directed or produced hundreds of movies. He knew perfectly well how to structure a movie. While it may be a bit pretentious calling this movie deconstructionist, one must acknowledge that at some point, McCarey decided just to throw logic out the window, just pare the movie down to a breakneck stream of gags and hurtle this film to its anarchic conclusion. This film is an anarchic masterpiece, and anarchy is the enemy of Fascism. This film was banned by Mussolini in Italy. He certainly saw the anarchy in it.

Ethan S (ag) wrote: The movie left me more confused than entertained. Sanchez has proven himself not once, but three times as a master of the horror genre. When he announced he would tackle Bigfoot, I thought for sure he would bring his usual flair to a "been there done that" premise. What makes his films great are the emotional weight and deep characters that give purpose to the surrounding action. That is exactly what is missing in Exists. It isn't necessarily a bad film, but its generic, an almost worse crime. The characters are not only "by the numbers," they are badly written "by the numbers" characters. For the first half hour, the characters act so stereotypical that I wanted them all to die, and fast. Girls whimpering "OMG what is that?" as they huddle underneath their man's fully toned arm. "GET AT ME BRO" the man cries with defiance. Seriously? Luckily, once Bigfoot does show up and the film sees some casualties, it does pick up some speed. The characters react alright to what is happening around them, and you could tell it was Sanchez by the haunting music and emotionality brought to the film when a character does die. We don't care about who dies, but these people sure do, and that makes me feel for them a little more. It's not enough, though. The film still lacks that raw ingredient that every film needs. The found footage only works in spots, and is glaringly misguided in others. I have a feeling it wasn't originally written to be found footage and was only morphed into that during the development process. Some cameras magically appear out of nowhere in the woods. Where did it come from? Whose camera was it? It's not logical, and it brings the film down. I actually found the style to be degrading to the quality of the movie. Sanchez has style and I wish he upped his game. Now, let me talk about Bigfoot. Well, he's awesome. I haven't seen a film where he is so terrifying. He moves and looks just like he does in all those photographs you see. When he howls and rampages, you just want to curl up in a ball. He's that scary. I expect more from Sanchez, and this was a disappointment overall.