The Morrison Murders: Based on a True Story

The Morrison Murders: Based on a True Story

A husband and wife and their youngest son are murdered in this true story. Their two other sons are left to cope with their loss, but the local sherrif begins to suspect that one of the brothers committed the crime, and must convince the other to help him discover the truth.

A husband and wife and their youngest son are murdered in this true story. Their two other sons are left to cope with their loss, but the local sherrif begins to suspect that one of the ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Morrison Murders: Based on a True Story torrent reviews

Amanda H (it) wrote: This movie is really predictable, really cheesy and lacks much plot to speak of. But it's targeted at a pre-teen audience, and taking that into consideration, it's not too bad. Don't expect any mountains to be moved, but if you're looking for something safe to watch with the entire family, this is a good bet.

Heather M (es) wrote: Maybe, but probably not.

John T (ag) wrote: "A man who tricks women into returning to their ex-boyfriends soon finds himself falling for one of his marks." Wow, sounds exactly like "My best friend's girl" coming out later this year... This one wasn't bad. It stars David Boreanaz (Buffy+Angel)

Jenny E (nl) wrote: Cheesy and prediactable, but i love it.

William Y (jp) wrote: I started watching this just as Wild Bill arrived in Deadwood and comparisons are inevitable, to Wild Bill's detrement. There is simply no way this movie can measure up to that magnificient TV show. Even on its own merits it's simply not that good of a movie. Jeff Bridges Wild Bill himself? He ain't no Keith Carradine, that's for sure.

Gary S (ru) wrote: Had some really funny, real life situations.

Sam M (nl) wrote: Chevy, Rodney, and Bill impress and make you laugh so hard. Cindy Morgan...

Ted C (ca) wrote: I watched an interesting movie the other night on TCM, "Inside Daisy Clover." I think I may have seen this movie sometime after 1966 when it was released, but I could hardly remember it. I also have the impression that it hadn't impressed me much at the time, or since. Now, with much more experience thinking about movies, I liked it much better.It starred Robert Redford, Natalie Wood and Christopher Plummer. The story is about a fifteen year-old waif from the wrong side of the tracks (in this instance, a run-down Southern California wharf/fun house/carnival type of place). She makes a record of herself singing and sends it to a big Hollywood film company. The owner of Swan Productions is intrigued, supposedly by her "talent" and decides to groom her for stardom. While that's happening, big movie star Wade Lewis (Robert Redford) sweeps her off her feet and proposes marriage. She, of course, is totally overwhelmed. They marry and start on their honeymoon, but stop at a run-down adobe motel in the desert for the night. When she wakes up in the morning, Redford is gone, having abandoned her. She returns to Hollywood and continues with her training, being completely controlled and manipulated and groomed for stardom by the big mogul, played by a very dapper, sinister and domineering Christopher Plummer.Now, the interesting thing about this movie is that all of the above-the unfolding of the plot-just happens, with little emotion or fanfare, leaving the viewer to try to guess the motives and feelings of all the characters. You could say, in a sense, that all of the "action" takes place as subtext. We have to guess what the plans and schemes and motivations are, because there is little conflict or drama to convey it to us overtly. What does the mogul really want for Daisy? Is he a sneaky Machiavelli or does he really want to do good for her? Why did her new husband abandon her in the motel? Did he have a good reason? Was he motivated to help her in some unknown way, or is he just a cad? Why didn't the studio head try to stop the obviously inappropriate marriage between an adult Redford and a (at most) sixteen year-old budding star, running the risk of ruining both of their futures and reputations? I won't answer these questions in case you might want to see the movie sometime.This movie was beautifully produced, directed and paced. Natalie Wood was not quite up to the demands of her role, but the rest of the cast was excellent (including an Academy Award for Ruth Gordon). One might easily take this unfolding plot at face value if it weren't for some disturbing aspects to the goings-on. The production was curiously adorned with the atmosphere of a horror movie, with many "noirish," drawn-out scenes to keep the audience restless and in anticipation even when the plot itself-what was actually happening on screen-didn't seem to raise any red flags. And even more curiously, one scene was actually punctuated by the now infamous screeching sounds immortalized in the murder scene in "Psycho." Did Mulligan steal this from Hitchcock?If this movie wasn't so well paced, one would be tempted to pick on the various credulity gaps in the script. The main problem is that during Daisy's training we are subjected to two or three complete musical productions with Daisy singing and dancing (yes, the film was a strange sort of "musical.") These performances exposed Natalie Wood (assuming the voice was hers and not dubbed) as a barely adequate song-and-dance girl, and raises the question of how the Big Producer in the movie was so impressed by her marginal talent as to decide to take her on. Setting aside the unlikely Cinderella aspect of her "discovery," how would anyone have been impressed by that voice? Many movies of the '40s and '50 tended to tell the audience what to think about the characters and their abilities in cases where those talents were not convincingly demonstrable-stars making like they are playing a musical instrument when they obviously couldn't; or preposterously miscast roles played by ingenue types trying to appear as professors, businessmen or statesmen, but without the gravitas to be at all convincing-and not even to mention that Hollywood didn't learn how to make fights look real until at least the early '60s. "Daisy" was thought by some to be ahead of its time, and that's true in the sense that it what didn't work then, seems to work much better now.

Dionne P (es) wrote: I don't get the Clark Gable leading man thing. Sophia Loren is georgeous but the child steals the scenes. It's an alright movie but there is not enough Capri scenery.

Angela D (nl) wrote: This is by far one of my most favorites. Mom and I watched it when ever it was on.

Jens S (es) wrote: The first ten minutes including a disturbingly brilliant title sequence (with Johnny Cash's "The man comes around") are excellent and frikkin scary. After that it gets a little too predictable within the genre tropes and some scenes (the birth especially) are unnecessarily sadistic and disgusting. Entertaining enough until the insultingly stupid found footage end credits reveal.

Adam W (it) wrote: Bond in Greece fighting the Soviets over a sunken warship with some missle codes.Much less flash than Moonraker and is a bit more boring because of it..