The Awakening

The Awakening

1921 England is overwhelmed by the loss and grief of World War I. Hoax exposer Florence Cathcart (Hall) visits a boarding school to explain sightings of a child ghost.

Set in London in 1921, Florence Cathcart, author of the popular book "Seeing Through Ghosts," has devoted her career to exposing claims of the supernatural as nothing but hoaxes. Hoax exposer Florence Cathcart visits a boarding school to explain sightings of a child ghost. Everything she believes unravels as the ';missing'; begin to show themselves. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


You may also like

The Awakening torrent reviews

Savitri B (nl) wrote: Would be cool if it wasn't so easy to trump with high school physics.

Dermit Z (ca) wrote: This movie has very little going for it.

Charlie G (ag) wrote: In this movie they do battle with the oldest of the vampires and werewolves.

William R (es) wrote: charming romantic comedy

Brett C (es) wrote: Review In A Nutshell:Windtalkers tells a World War 2 story of Joe Enders who is assigned to protect an American Indian marine as he is trained to use his native language to deliver and receive code transmissions during battle.I came into this film with almost no expectations as I have never seen a John Woo film before. Sadly I was left disappointed with what was delivered to me as the film seems to show potential on its themes and ideas but fails to make them impacting or chronically interesting. The film touches on the racial tension between the white and Native Americans, with the former side feeling little comfort with their presence. The film essentially shows how ignorant and horrible the white Americans are to the Native Americans, even if they are on the same side and fighting for the same things. At first, I thought the concept was quite clever and interesting as the subject was definitely different when compared to other films with the same setting, but if only the writers and Woo could put all of their eggs in that basket and not spend too much time on the expected elements of the war film.The film contains ideas that touch on morality and sense of purpose, which was primarily placed on our leading character, Joe, but was done in such a way that felt contrived. The film could have benefited if the entire story behind Joe was written out and changing its perspective on Ben instead; the film pushes us to sympathise for the character, but it becomes difficult when the film spends too much time going back and forth between the two leads, each one with something important to tell. The film is also so invested on its characters, that it forgets to even orient the audience on where they are and what their goal is, all that I knew when watching this was that they were in a Japanese island heading towards somewhere; that physical goal is almost blurred out throughout this film.The film's dialogue was a major issue, as most of what was said was incredibly clich and predictable. This was one of the reasons why I couldn't fully invest myself into the film's characters as it draws too much attention to itself and I end up feeling distant from the situation.If there was something aside from the film's ambition that I could compliment, it would be the film's action sequences. These particular scenes are done quite well to create a sense of tension and thrill as its scope is quite large and there are enough variety on each major action sequence that it avoids feeling dull. Though it does have a few issues, these scenes lack a sense of connection with its characters as Woo seems to be more interested in having us be entertained by their actions rather than the individuals themselves. Woo also fails to have the two sides of the battle be clear, as the film doesn't follow the action in a cohesive way and the audience's sense of place is lost throughout the entire scene; scenes starting here then suddenly ending up somewhere else in the battlefield that I didn't even know that it existed or was important. There also is an abundance of explosions in these scenes; with most of them being too extravagant as why do all explosions seem to turn into a large ball of fire? The gunshots also seem to hit on point way too often with multiple moments coming off more as flukes rather than pure skill.The film's photography, I felt for the most part was polarising. The film's tone is essentially dual, with one being quiet and contemplative while the other is bombastic and thrilling. The former side of the film features smooth steadicam camera work that provide sufficient movement to make scenes come off as "dynamic", though sadly it didn't work at all for me as most of it comes off as manipulative. It tries so hard to draw emotions up to the surface and feel "immersed" in its characters, and it got to a point where I felt a little frustrated when the camera pulls us in towards their faces in order to have the audience feel closer to the character. This wouldn't be too much of a bothersome if the acting and story were top quality, but sadly it doesn't even come close to that. The latter tone was handled more brilliantly, especially when comparing it to the former. The photography then switches to using a hand-held style approach which successfully brings us in the situation, feeling the tension and destruction that fills the atmosphere. Though I did have a problem with the film's use of slow motion as it was used way too often during battle sequences and by the time you see one during the third act, one can't help but feel annoyed or bored with the style; I don't mind the use of slow motion as long as it is done in an effective way, which actually adds something to the scene instead of just appearing to seem "cool".The film's score was handled by James Horner, which was actually a surprise to me as this film had an underwhelming score, and a couple of his works are those that I consider amazing. As I said, his work for this film is disappointing as it comes off as manipulative and safe. It doesn't bring a tune that one would remember when reminiscing about the film, and most of it actually feels like it rides the line between hopeless and hopeful, it doesn't know exactly what it wants to say or do. Though Horner was able to incorporate sounds or tunes from the Native American culture, which I felt was a nice touch.The acting in this film was for the most part disappointing. Nicolas Cage failed to show that he even cares about the role he is playing, with most of it seemingly breezing through. I think it wouldn't hurt the film too much, if he was playing a supporting player, but since he is playing the leading man and the most of the film's focus is on him, it brings the entire film down. Luckily, Adam Beach's presence prevents it from being a total disaster. He plays his character well, and achieved in having me at least remotely care for his character. Beach was the main reason the film's first two acts were bearable as he was able to avoid the clich notes that could have easily destroyed the role's likability. His actions and emotions felt genuine, even during the times of conflict. I also just want to mention the great performances from both Christian Slater and Roger Willie, as they too were able to give off a sense of genuineness that was lacking in most of the film's characters. I wouldn't have actually minded if the film instead, explored on their characters' relationship instead of following Joe and Ben's.Windtalkers is a film that seems to have good things going in all aspects of its creation, but is buried under the disappointing and lacking elements, making it a hard film to enjoy. I just hope that not all of Woo's films are as disappointing as this one.

Don S (ru) wrote: I really liked the chemistry between Reno, who is one of the better actors around today, and Cassel. The story flows well, and the two divergent investigations dovetail nicely. Fares impressed me too. Not too keen on the twist, but it didn't change my overall feeling for the movie. I'd definitely watch this again.

Leon H (de) wrote: Thought it was pretty good, i will probably buy this on DVD and add it to the collection.

Kelly B (au) wrote: one of those films that leaves a mighty impact afterwards

Matthew S (gb) wrote: As far as 80s time-travel movies go, this one wasn't bad. Some things are pretty dated and there are plenty of plot holes, as is expected with pretty much anything dealing with time travel. The story is fairly interesting, and I think I like how it was told, although it was kind of strange. The first two-thirds of the film were basically telling the same story from two different points of view. I'm undecided as to how well I think it worked. One thing I know I liked was the futuristic design work.

Martin T (fr) wrote: Tight little heist-gone-wrong flick starring noir icon Charles McGraw and Hitch-Hiker baddie William Talman. It could use a little more zip and atmosphere, but it plays along nicely and manages to keep your interest engaged. You can see little echoes of this film in later noirs. Pretty much the exact same heist plan is pulled off in Kansas City Confidential, and the ending is like the end of The Killer, except much grislier. Nothing too special here, nothing to complain about it either. Good times.

Daniel P (nl) wrote: Hotel Rwanda is a powerful film with strong performances and an unflinching look at prejudice, hatred, apathy, and human decency in the midst of it.