The Secret In Their Eyes

The Secret In Their Eyes

A retired legal counselor writes a novel hoping to find closure for one of his past unresolved homicide cases and for his unreciprocated love with his superior - both of which still haunt him decades later.

writes a novel hoping to find closure for one of his past unresolved homicide cases and for his unreciprocated love with his superior - both of which still haunt him decades later. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Secret In Their Eyes torrent reviews

Danielle B (br) wrote: Definitely not what i was expecting after listening to the critics. I found this movie interesting and enjoyable.

Ola G (nl) wrote: Sex is a background to examine intimacy and vulnerability. The complexity of modern day relationships/ sexual interactions is told through eight separate couples. Through dialogue and compromising situations, the film takes us from the beginning of a relationship to the aftermath of one, and examines the stages in between.Theres obvious connections to "Young People Fucking" from the same year, but here we see shorter stories for each couples. Theres humour, drama and emotional tension in a mix and the movie is made with warmth and heart. I reckon my favourites were Christopher & Leslie, Nikki (Mila Kunis) & Kat (Zoe Saldana) and David & Jordi (a stunning Emmanuelle Chriqui). But Mila Kunis & Zoe Saldana are the ones that stands out. Great intensity, erotic vibe and acting in their scene. "After Sex" is not too shabby, even if it wont make that much of a mark in your movie life.

Chris W (ru) wrote: This remake is better than I expected, and, even though it's Linklater, I really wasn't expecting much.Morris Buttermaker is a washed-up boozy exterminator who once had a career as a minor league baseball player (with a very, very short stint in the majors) who agrees to coach a lousy team of misfits, if only because he needs the paycheck.Yeah, it's the typical underdog sort of scenario, but with a twist. It's also pretty faithful to the original, even recreating some scenes almost note for note. It does enough to stand out on its own with some of the changes it makes, and that's good. Essentially it's a filtered version of Bad Santa to a degree, but even then it's surprisingly watchable and enjoyable.Thornton delivers the sort of performance you'd expect given the character, and I liked him, even though he's not supposed to be likable. The team is a motley crew of typical misfits, but they deliver decent performances that rise above the ranks, making characters that stand out from the norm of this sort of scenario. Of the kids, my favorites include the late Sammi Kane Kraft as ace pitcher (and token girl) Amanda, Timmy Deters as the pint-sized foul mouth Tanner, and Troy Gentile as the wise-cracking wheelchair bound Matt Hooper. As for the other adults, Greg Kinnear is okay as the rival coach who personifies the parent that overvalues winning, and Marcia Gay Harden is giving the thankless role of the ACLU-minded hardworking mom who thinks all kids should be given a chance at everything, just because.The film has some of the expected sports movie cliches, but ultimately avoids being a paint-by-numbers affair. I also liked that, while it is sort of aimed at a younger audience, it doesn't pull punches, and easily earns the PG-13 rating, with some of these kids being hilariously edgy right along with Thornton. One of my favorite examples of this is when he offers the kids non-alcoholic beer as a celebration, and Tanner comments, "Non-alcoholic beer? What's the damn point?" That's pretty funny.Better than it has any right to be, this is a pretty decent film. Yeah, it has the smell of familiarity all over it, but Linklater is a smart filmmaker, and while he clearly has reverence for the original, he smartly does enough to set his remake apart and make it relatable to contemporary audiences. Give it a go.

Pavandeep S (ag) wrote: I'm beginning to like Rohmer a lot now, the story and plot for this was utterly amazing, really the Emperor of Dialogue and a well done movie, I was really intrigued by the scenes where he tries to, convincingly and aptly, show his wife the duplicitious nature of himself, but yet back it up so well, it's fascinating conversation.

Marko Z (ca) wrote: A fairly enjoyable Brit-flick with an outstanding cast.

John Y (ru) wrote: Nielsen spoofs all your favorite sci-fi films, as only he can.

Emily J (ag) wrote: A strange and most unusual film. It started off with peculiar attempts at comedy, slapstick almost, and I was unsure about it. Gradually, that wore off and it developed into a serious, thrilling film which I thoroughly enjoyed. I don't understand why it began as a comedy, though.

Devon B (de) wrote: Made in 1966 Czechoslovakia, director Vera Chytilov's surrealist "Daisies" was banned by the Czechoslovakian government soon after it's release. Not that it was so unusual for the soviet Czech government to ban films, but looking back now, it's hard to understand what their specific beef was. Granted, there are no overt proletarian ovations to be found here, but nor is it some sort of secret capitalist conspiracy. Inspired by the French new wave, it could most closely be considered some sort of nihilistic farce, but even that might be too specific a classification for a film so mysteriously vague. Daisies defies categorization as such. It seems to stem directly from the id of it's director, who doesn't so much explain things as she does allow them to happen. As abstract as whatever the story might be, the filmmaking process is hyper-detailed. Scenes of apparent little consequence are crafted with such fine attention to the miniscule minutiae of background scenery. It could almost be considered obsessive-compulsive the amount of effort put into the "fine print" details. The film arbitrarily switches from black-and-white to various "strip" shades of color; images are filmed through various lenses, in effect, demonstrating great proficiency in the technological art of film craft. It would be almost impossible to deny there is an art to the madness happening on the screen.But what of the "story"? Well, two bored girls eat a lot, then pursue various older men for the purpose of somehow toying with their hearts. They sometimes go to visit a motherly figure who lives in a woman's public restroom and sings all her dialogue to them about how lovely and young they are. Finally, they stumble upon a large, empty banquet room where a feast has been laid out and is unattended. They help themselves to the food and destroy everything in the process. "Why", you ask? I cannot say with any certainty. This is a film of the subconscious, there's no rhyme or reason, save whatever the filmmaker was feeling at the time. It's up to the individual viewer to determine what the film actually means. All I can say with certainty is, the film gives us a look into the gently mischievous moments of youth.

Lawrence H (ru) wrote: Extremely Underrated Movie. Very funny and humorous scenes and the scenery of the movie is very nice to look at. This is a Sleeper film

AW C (ru) wrote: An ambitious investigative doc that uncovers a fascinating enigma of art and artist.