The Second Woman

The Second Woman

In flashback from a 'Rebecca'-style beginning: Ellen Foster, visiting her aunt on the California coast, meets neighbor Jeff Cohalan and his ultramodern clifftop house. Ellen is strongly attracted to Jeff, who's being plagued by unexplainable accidents, major and minor. Bad luck, persecution...or paranoia? Warned that Jeff could be dangerous, Ellen fears that he's in danger, as the menacing atmosphere darkens.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:91 minutes
  • Release:1950
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:dance,   murder,   guilt,  

In flashback from a 'Rebecca'-style beginning: Ellen Foster, visiting her aunt on the California coast, meets neighbor Jeff Cohalan and his ultramodern clifftop house. Ellen is strongly ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Second Woman torrent reviews

Jaime R (ca) wrote: No, I'm not writing it off completely. But it's not that special anyways.

Seven O (ag) wrote: What a disappointment.

Jason D (es) wrote: Another interesting film from Denmark, Kollegiet is in the same vein of Alexandre Aja's Mirrors film, or the Korean film that that one is based on Into the Mirror, as it centers around a pale ghostly woman who died in front of her mirror while being raped and electrocuted at her college dorm. Now, a new girl has arrived, taking the place of another person's room who is leaving because of the constant pestering and humiliation he endures from a group of fellow roommates. Soon, the new girl is getting the same treatment by these roommates, not to mention being haunted by the dead girl and she soon starts a relationship with the guy whose room she took (Mikkel Arendt, probably the most appealing character in this film). Overall, the film is very slow-paced, but visually, the filming looked kinda cool. Not sure what style they were using, other than Digital recording. Also, the deaths, though few and far between, actually pack small punches as well as a decent amount of blood. I honestly thought this movie was going to be terrible, but it wasn't bad. A little boring, but not bad.

Marena K (ca) wrote: I wasn't bad but probably the only reason why I watched it until the end was that the only thing on my to-do-list was "studying".

Alexander H (fr) wrote: The second instalment in the Toy Story franchise is another well crafted family film. I do not think it surpasses the first due to few reasons including that this movie does have more of a villain, while the other one doesn't. But it is still funny and heartfelt and a great second act to a fantastic franchise.

Harsh C (gb) wrote: Ridiculous depiction of gang life, even for NZ

Shane J (ru) wrote: well it was better than 2 but barely Warwick Davis again is great as usual but the rest of the cast are terrible. set in Vegas is a good setting for this and a couple of the kills are fun at least but its a really lame way of getting the leprechaun back.

Julius L (au) wrote: The last film directed by Harry Potter screenwriter, Steve Kloves. It's a wonder he hasn't directed more films since he knows how to weave a tale and create a suspenseful atmosphere. He was also able to coax what may be one of their strongest performances on-screen: Dennis Quaid, Meg Ryan, James Caan and Gwyneth Paltrow.

Wrik S (ag) wrote: Being topless was good, but a sure eye-sore within seconds.. Idea may have been good, but the craftsmanship was darn awful.. Acting was beyond being bad..

Alejandro E (mx) wrote: Correcto thriller politico que expone el lado oscuro e inmoral del trafico de diamantes; la historia de supervivencia funciona y no le falta inercia.

Joseph W (fr) wrote: Great movie from start to finish. Definitely up there in the top ten best Sci-fi films of all time.

Swarnendu R (jp) wrote: Empire of the Sun is one of my favorite Spielberg. Christian Bale, truly magnificent throughout. It's these kind of films that shows the world in a little different perspective. It's good to be ambitious at times. It's necessary to be brave at times.Underrated, unsung, less-discussed yet one of Spielberg's best.

Cameron J (ag) wrote: Speaking of heresy, the film itself is so rebellious against what is considered right that it dropped the "The" out of "The Exorcist", and yes, this film is so unexciting that I just questioned why there's no "The" in front of "Exorcist" anymore. Seriously though, if you ask me, this is pretty much "Exorcist Episode V: The Devil Strikes Back", and I'm not just saying that because James Earl Jones is here, I'm saying that mostly because there are too many prequels to this series, so I may as well call this the fifth installment. Shoot, the material is so dried up with this sequel that this may as well be the fifth outing for the "Exorcist" series, yet regardless of what you think about this film, the Devil is back with a vengeance, and quite frankly, I'm surprised it took him so long to catch up with Linda Blair. I don't know if it's so much money that's the root of all evil, as much as it's celebrity, because after "The Exorcist", Blair could afford some pretty good drugs, as surely as more than a few decent career moves got Richard Burton some fine alcohol. Hm, I was about to question why they got people with backgrounds that aren't all that holy to be holy people, - corrupted or not - but Burton was such a big drunk that he's perfect to play a priest, and at any rate, this film's purity is so questionable that the psych doctor in this film is, of all people, Louise Fletcher. She will soon know what Jack Nicholson is talking about when he asks someone if they've ever "danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight", and by soon, I mean in twelve years after this film, when Tim Burton's "Batman" came out. Forget the Devil, I'd be more afraid of being possessed by Jack Nicholson, or at least I am now that this film has kind of watered down the thrills behind Satan's work, and while that's not to say that this film is quite as messy as they say, it is to say that this film has its limitations, even on paper. I'm not asking that this film's story concept be quite as juicy as its predecessor's, - which, to be fair, wasn't exactly wealthy with potential - but this subject matter is even more minimalist than a predecessor that was arguably too light in scale and dynamicity for its own good, and to make matters worse, there's some questionability within this mythology, which is sometimes intelligent, but also sometimes fairly cheesy. If nothing else, the film's story concept seems cheesy, because William Goodhart's and an uncredited Rospo Pallenberg's script is so cheesy, at least at times, when dialogue hits fall-flat moments, and histrionics come into play, reflecting a certain consistency in subtlety issues. This film holds the potential of being smart, but many of the lapses in subtlety are glaring, with some being, well, kind of dumb, and no matter how much entertainment value and highlights get the final product by as decent, the writing lowlights are hard to deny, particularly when they begin to fiddle with the integrity of characterization. I suppose characterization is passable, and many of the performances are certainly endearing enough to bring the improvably drawn characters to life, but on paper, there's something lacking about developmental depth, resulting in undercooking that distances you a bit from the characters, especially considering that this film has a good bit of time that it could have dedicated to exposition, but ends up dedicating to draggy, repetitious material that meanders along, stressing natural shortcomings and being itself stressed by atmospheric pacing problems. Really, the film might not be quite as slow as its predecessor, and yet, when the meditativeness that was much more prominent in 1973's "The Exorcist" comes into play here, it's not quite as effective as it should be, having engaging moments, but many more moments in which material is not soaked up enough to compensate for atmospheric dry spells that dull things down and further distance you from a film whose writing, alone, places plenty of challenges before your investment. The film isn't quite as big of a mess as they say, but it's still a mess, and a big enough one to where mediocrity stands as a very real risk, backed by dynamicity, dramatic and pacing shortcomings that make the final product, at the very least, a substantially inferior sequel that held quite a bit of potential. I was joking earlier, when I boasted that material in this series has already dried up, because this is a pretty different sequel that stands to be more, but doesn't exactly fall as flat as they say, being flawed nearly to no end, but nevertheless with highlights, even stylistic ones. Now, in a lot of ways, the film falls behind the stylistic value of its predecessor, and by its own right, this film's stylistic value isn't all that special, but it's still worth mentioning, at least in a visual respect, as William A. Fraker's turns in a cinematographic performance whose tasteful emphasis on sparse lighting makes the brighter moments haunting and the darker moments chilling, especially when backed by imagery whose technical value has become quite dated, but remains adequate enough to enhance the telling of this tale, which perhaps needs as much help as it can. Again, this film's story concept is improvable, having questionable elements, or, if nothing else, too much minimalist, but quite frankly, there's still potential here, thanks in part to a mythology that may be particularly questionable in some ways, but is either intelligent at times or simply endearing within its own context. As for the basic plot itself, it's messy, even on paper, but still with some intrigue to its ambiguities and layers that may not be great, and are certainly undercut by writing issues, but can still be see through highlights in storytelling, as well as highlights in the portrayals of the characters who drive quite a few elements. Acting material is even more limited this time around, after a very dramatic predecessor, and there are a few mediocre supporting performances, but on the whole, decency is found throughout this rather charming cast, with leading man Richard Burton standing out about as much as he can with thorough charisma, as well as a few gripping layers as an open-minded man of God who begins to tap into dark religious depths on a revelatory and dangerous adventure. Burton carries the film about as much as anyone, and he's not the only endearing force in this cast, so the onscreen talent is there, even if the offscreen talent is limited, and yet, the performances found on the screen are not the only ones that get you by. There is still a good bit of credit due to director John Boorman's, whose efforts are messy, but have distinctly notable highlights, for although tension is much more limited in this film than it was in the predecessor, with effective imagery and genuine highlights in material bite, as well as some strong elements within the great Ennio Morricone's tasteful score, Boorman crafts an atmosphere with effective highlights that punctuate a consistent degree of intrigue that keep the bland spells - of which there are many - from dulling too far down. Really, what saves the film is a fair degree of entertainment value, for although the final product is a mess, it's not so faulty that I couldn't stick with it as a reasonably charming and sometimes effective thriller, regardless of its many shortcomings. In closing, natural shortcomings, backed by a questionable mythology, go emphasized by enough cheesiness, underdevelopment and pacing unevenness to threaten the final product with mediocrity, but through a striking visual style, decent performances, - particularly that of Richard Burton - and adequately intriguing and sometimes effective direction by John Boorman behind a fairly engaging story concept, "Exorcist II: The Heretic" emerges as a, for me, endearing thriller, even if it does fall a considerable ways short of its predecessor. 2.5/5 - Fair

Taylor S (us) wrote: Very entertaining flick. Colin needs to work on his accents though.

owen b (ag) wrote: If you you had a fuck ton of fun with the first Michael Bay transformers movie like I did, then you were probably incredibly disappointed with it's sequel. the twins are meant to bring comic relief to the audience but turned out to be racial stereotypes like jar jar binks in the star wars prequels. being someone who is white myself, my intelligence was insulted at times. the film is dumb fun at times and the visuals are fine. the acting wasn't horrible, but you could tell everyone was just phoning it in.Owens grade: C-

Darrin C (fr) wrote: I thought this was a well-done Action for the 1990s almost rooted in Western style that pitted 2 rural White firemen against urban Black thugs and didn't really take away from either set. It provided sort of a culture shock for the firemen with okay acting, a fairly original plot, and lots of gunplay.