The Other Side of the Door
Grieving over the loss of her son, a mother struggles with her feelings for her daughter and her husband. She seeks out a ritual that allows her say goodbye to her dead child, opening the veil between the world of the dead and the living. Her daughter becomes the focus of terror. She must now protect against the evil that was once her beloved son.
- Category:Action, Horror
- Stars:Sarah Wayne Callies, Jeremy Sisto, Javier Botet, Sofia Rosinsky,
- Country:UK, USA, India
- Director:Johannes Roberts, Johannes Roberts,
- Writer:Johannes Roberts, Ernest Riera
Maria becomes consumed with guilt after losing her son Oliver in a tragic accident. When she visits a remote temple to contact her deceased son, Maria unwittingly opens the door to the undead, which causes Oliver's restless spirit to return home and haunt the rest of his family. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
The Other Side of the Door torrent reviews
(de) wrote: surprisingly watchable. Endearing
(gb) wrote: A dark and starkly realistic portrayal of the state of women in a male dominated society hits u with full force as u repulse at the pig headedness of men and their dominance in a society that tries to bind down women and makes us question humanity.....amazing film....go for it!!!!!!
(ru) wrote: Wonderful documentary. This is very similar to the equally stunning Manufactured Landscapes in that it captures the rapid industrialization of China, a truly depressing sight to behold, in an incredibly emotional, matter-of-fact and visually gorgeous way. A corrupt, government-initiated hydroelectric project will force rural farming families out of the banks of the Yangtze River. Two young people in different socioeconomic backgrounds take a job at a cruise ship serving mostly wealthy tourists. Most of the focus is on the poor girl, Yu Shui. Leaving her parents behind to deal with the imminent flooding, she tries to blend in and serve the affluent crowd, and it's a pretty perfect way to explore the overall transition from the rural tradition of the past to the "progress" of urban consumerism. The film is also technically well-crafted, favoring simplicity over bombardment. The more intimate scenes between the families kind of resembles well-shot dramas, and the numerous footage they capture, from the police-civilian conflicts in the streets to the incredible time-lapse video of the flooding in the end (heads-up: there's more of these at the DVD extras as well) add a lot of depth and insight into what's really going on. Up The Yangtze is everything a good documentary should be: it's fascinating, it introduces you to new people, ideas, and perspectives, and it's emotionally engaging without being manipulative. See it.
(de) wrote: interesting biopic about admiral Kolchak, involving WW1, the russian revolution & civil war,centred around his Affair with Anna Vasilyevna Timiryova - both were married at the time.good battle scenes
(jp) wrote: Dracula II: Ascension(2003)Starring:Stephen Billington,Craig Sheffer,Jason Scott Lee, Jason London,Diane Neal,Khary Payton,Brande Roderick,John Light,Roy Scheider,and David J. FrancisDirected By: Patrick LussierReviewHello kiddies your pal the crypt-critic here with another disappointment of blood, that you won't want to sink your teeth into. If you remember I wrote a review for Dracula 2000 a film that most would say is terrible but I loved the hell out of it, it was one of those fun and bloody vampire movies I could really sink my teeth into. It's sequel however Is just lame, nonsensical, not that much fun and all around a load of shriek.The sequel to Patrick Lussier's Dracula 2000 begins with a group of medical students discovering the body of the infamous count Dracula. Soon, the students find themselves in r=the middle of a bizarre and dangerous conflict when a man offers them 30 million dollars for the body so that they may harvest his blood. All in the while, the kids find that they are being targeted by a Vatican-sanctioned Vampire killer who will stop at nothing to destroy count Dracula once and for all.This plot is stupid no one who found out that their dead body was a vampire would ever do something as stupid as help people to try and harvest it's blood. This is what makes this quite unrealistic or even a good fantasy/horror story to begin with, it has stupidity written all over it. This is not that original at all. The story could have been worse though it's not like a jumbled mess,but it's just real sad that they could have made this a lot better. It does flow with the events of the first film but with more uninteresting characters which is what brings it down.The characters are not believable, no one in the right mind would do these things, plus they don't act like mad scientist's so the stupid/dangerous things there doing is just stupid. The were naturals though they kept the minimum when it came to being intelligent morgues and college kids but their actions is what makes them ultimately suffer. No one does stand out though I mean sure the vampire-killer may be cool but he's barely in the movie. Why couldn't it be about him?The setting is quite typical in some locations you got the abandoned house but where lacking the darkness of being in a graveyard at night I mean come on, being in a graveyard with killer vampires in a film is quite frightening and fun. The little lab in a abandoned shop/house doesn't set the mood or at least not in this film cause you don't feel scared. The music is non-exsistant in this film. The special effects are lame in this movie, I mean terribly lame, they look like toy's.The movie does not work well, altogether it all feels like it's trying to capture on the money made from the first movie but just fails with making an interesting cohesive story that adds from the first movie. The movie does not elicit any type of response from fun,fright,or sheer terror from me and it won't from you.Dracula II: Ascension is a disappointing sequel with an uninteresting story with stupid characters, that does not bring anything new or enjoyable to the table. I give this piece of shriek a two out of five.
(au) wrote: Love the fact that it's more about facts and speculation than action. And, of course, JFK.
(it) wrote: Well worth tracking down. A family film that may not be for SMALL children, but will definitely challenge and perhaps even inspire.
(fr) wrote: Crazy and surprisingly sexy movie. Also can an we talk about that cast? Shirley MacLaine, (a bearded, shirtless) Paul Newman, Dean Martin, Gene Kelly and Dick Van Dyke. Wow bye.
(nl) wrote: The Bee Movie is an extremely funny, original and easy to follow movie. Jerry Seinfeld pulls off an incredible funny performance, but the Bee movie is very forgettable and the jokes are only funny for a few seconds. The morals within the story are also quite questionable with suicide, an extremely controversial topic just talked about openly, when all the flowers die."Barry, How about a suicide pact? Vanessa, How do we do it?" These words just blow over kids heads, but would you want this to be in a movie your kid watches? Other questionable motives involve incest which often makes you question what is going inside the heads of ,the directors, Steve Hickner and Simon J Smith. On Barry and Adams graduation day the two go on a trip around Hunex with their graduating class, when Adam says "Wow! She looked hot!, Barry then replied, She's my cousin!, Adam then replied, She is?, to which Barry responds, Yes, we're all cousins." Although the movie has its flaws its a good time waster and a movie that you can watch all the time, because you will have forgot the entire plot by the first day.
(it) wrote: The first 15 minutes were funny. Then the rest they exaggerate too much and it gets really gross from there that it becomes unwatchable. This movie gets 1 star though because the beginning was good!
(kr) wrote: Its a fun premise, that delivers on the laughs and, although a little over-saccharine, is ultimately a good watch bolstered by a stellar soundtrack.
(au) wrote: Charles Brubaker (James Brolin), Peter Willis (Sam Waterston) and John Walker (O.J. Simpson) are the astronauts leading NASAs first manned mission to Mars. Seconds before the launch, the entire team is pulled from the capsule and the rocket leaves earth unmanned much to Brubakers anger. The head of the programme, Dr. James Kelloway (Hal Holbrook) explains that the life support system was faulty and that NASA can not afford the publicity of a scratched mission. The plan is to fake the Mars landing and keep the astronauts at a remote base until the mission is over, but then investigative journalist Robert Caulfield starts to suspect something and then things become complicated..."Capricorn One" is amongst the classic conspiracy thrillers from the 70s with paranoia as the main ingredience. Peter Hyams wrote the story with the classic conspiracy theory that the moonlanding was a hoax in mind and this is of course a quite intriguing thought that still floats around. I reckon the main issue with "Capricorn One" is that Hyams has not managed to build a solid story on top of the initial plot and thus it feels a bit patchy and not that exciting. The thriller elements are missing if you ask me, despite Hyams is trying to create those moments for example with the chopperchase. And I was not happy with the ending that felt almost like a last minute idea. "Capricorn One" is a disappointment.
(de) wrote: Spoilers Ahead: Despite some funny moments and cute animation, The Lorax is a harmless and fun, but generic cash in the bag that mostly disposes the darkness, subtlety, and magic of Dr. Seuss classic book and short. The perfect depiction of Hollywood cashing in on a classic book while disposing much of wit and charm that made the story a classic in the first place. I have been expecting something witty and satirical, considering that this was from the same people behind the glorious Despicable Me, however it all ends up being a film, with interesting undertones, and great talent, squashed with generic pop songs, simplistic characterization, dated slangs, and unnecessary subplots that had nothing to do with the book in the first place. The film centers on, not the Lorax or the Once-ler, but on a 12 year old boy named Ted, played by Zac Efron. The film does not center on the Lorax or once-ler because of the film's subplots. The story of Ted is that he lives in a corporate city called Thneed-ville, and is in love with a high schooler named Audrey, played by Taylor Swift. Ted's plan is to get her to fall in love with him, but order to do that, he must get her a tree, an objective that all ready alienated the first half of the story. The purpose of the book is that the boy was that one person who cared about the result of the once-ler and wanted to restore life for the sake of nature and its beauty. Here, Ted only goes to see him and get the tree, only to impress the girl, coming off as rather sappy and shallow.. Meanwhile, the city is controlled by a Mr. O'Hare, who's objective is to pollute the city so that he can sell fresh air: to make money. Sadly, the subplot and character of Mr. O'Hare alienates the story, because in the book, the city and the villain didn't exist, and if you think it through, the villain of the film is suppose to be the misunderstanding and the undoing of the Once-ler, and the addiction of consumerism. First, there are 2 worlds in this film. We have Ted's world, which includes the new subplots and we have the Lorax/ Once-ler world, which was the original story. Many of the film's problem come from Ted's world.If you read the book, the story is about Lorax and his attempt to teach the Once-ler how industry and reliance on consumerism can affect anyone or anything around him, and how his actions had led to the destruction of the forest and environment, and the Once-ler was the narrator. The theme of the entire book is the dangers of industry and how someone's actions and over focus on finance and sales can destroy something beautiful and important. The Lorax story which was the highlight of the film has been reduced to a secondary subplot to the film, rather than being the focus of the main story. Also, the second problem of the film is the film's setup. The charm and genius of the lorax is that it was not completely a fun up-beat story, but it was a dark and horrifying story, in the form of a colorful children's book. In the core of the book, it was a dark and subtle story about a kind man who wanted to change the world and innovate, which led to chopping down the trees. However, he meets mother nature (Lorax) who tries to teach him the beauty of life and that innovation and success does not always have to rely on corporation. The man ignores him and continues his business of his new invention, thinking it's the right thing to do, but destroying everything around him. And then, mother nature and his inner conscious try to show him what his business is leading into, but still, he ignored it. However, by the time the last tree was chopped, only then he snaps out of it and sees what he was doing, and what horror and dark future he has created, and at that time, he also realized one problem: it was too late. For years, he would sit in his empty factory, will full remorse and regret for what he has done, but at the same time torn, for the fact that he only wanted the innovate and make the world a great, and that killing the environment was never his main objective. One day he meets a young boy, who he realizes is the one that can change the future, because until someone "cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to change." He gives the boy the last seed of them all, and then goes off, in an ambiguous note. What was the message: Don't rely too much on corporation or consumerism, too much of will lead to danger. And also, problems can't all be stopped or fixed immediately, but if you really care about fixing the problem, you will eventually find a solution. Thats the magic of the book, it gave you a story of how the misunderstanding of industry and wealth can destroyed the world, how business can lead to the apocalypse, we don't know where the boy lived, what happened to the Lorax and his friends, or what happened in the end, letting the audience create their own ending. Also, it was simple, but the mood was dark, sorrow, and horror, in contrast to his other books, but what made the story more powerful is that even with the Once-Ler's unintentional creation of the industry-created apocalypse, there was never a villain or an antagonist. In fact, the villain of the story was the addiction; misunderstanding and pressure that led to this eventual wasteland, a personal fear and problem that people can relate to. The ambiguity of the ending was reform with straightforward ending that alienates the ambiguity of the book . A simple thing to note, is that the film starts, showing you the Lorax, guiding the beginning of the movie, rather than let the film visually guide you to the beginning, then they show you where the boy lived, created a city for him to live, and create a bunch of other simplistic characters full of clichs and stereotypes. Then they created a bad guy, who's main goal is to make money, try to stop the boy, so he can rule the world, and make money, with a rather forced, preachy ending that removes the ambigious tone of the ending. There is still some great parts. The animation shines brightly and in top-quality, and the character and world designs match the film perfectly. The best part of the film, or what the film should've been about should've been the story of the Lorax and the Once-ler. The film's biggest strengths lie in the Lorax and Oncler subplot. The story of the two, which was only 30 minutes of the film, has a bunch of changes, and yeah they kind of rushed the transformation of the once-ler, but it was still funny, witty and brought some of the charm from the book, with some very dark and touching moments. It's was the Thneedville subplots that fell flat and were void of creativity The characters are mix. First we have Ted, he is fine, but choosing Zac Efron is a very odd choice. Taylor Swift's character is completely lifeless and useless to the plot. The highlight of the film is Danny Devito as the Lorax. Devito is a natural, bringing you the best character of the film, the best wit, and helps the film being something worth watching. Ed Helms plays The Once-ler, while modernized is equally as witty and funny as the borax himself. The best part of the film was the story of the Lorax and the once-ler. Like I said earlier many of the film's problem occur outside of the Lorax's world. If the film was just about the Lorax and the Once-ler the film would've been much more enjoyable, and more faithful to the book. Despite some clever ideas, great animation and the story of The Lorax and the Once-ler, The Lorax is surrounded by the shallow subplots void of the dark charms of the book.