The Strange Case of Angelica

The Strange Case of Angelica

A magical tale about a young photographer who falls madly in love with a woman he can never have, except in his dreams. Late one night, Isaac is summoned by a wealthy family to take the last photograph of a young bride, Angelica, who mysteriously passed away. Arriving at their estate, Isaac is struck by Angelica's beauty, but when he looks through his lens, something strange happens - the young woman appears to come to life. From that moment, Isaac will be haunted by Angelica day and night.

A photographer is asked by hotel owners to take portraits of their recently deceased daughter. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Strange Case of Angelica torrent reviews

Allen G (ag) wrote: Yeah... no thanks.Just about everything that I have to say about this one, I've already said about the previous installment so I won't repeat it here (you can find my review of the original on here somewhere).All I'll add is that this one follows the exact same formula, thus making it less interesting, and by trying to outdo the original with its horribleness, it only manages to become more repellent. A few showers later and you'll probably still feel covered in soot after seeing this.

Patrick C (us) wrote: If you can suffer through the nonsense of the firs 40 minutes this becomes watchable. Not good but watchable. A story begins to develop that goes beyond the ridiculous caricatures in the beginning. Vinnie Jones just doesn't make any sense but he sure is menacing.

Flora G (fr) wrote: Nick Hornby has written some thoroughly enjoyable books, some of which have been made into equally entertaining films; High Fidelity and About A Boy are two prime examples. With a screenplay by Jack Thorne and direction from Pascal Chaumeil, the film adaptation of Hornby's novel, A Long Way Down is a far cry from those cinematic successes. The story revolves around four very different yet equally messed up individuals who serendipitously meet on a rooftop on New Year's Eve with the shared intention of jumping to their deaths. Somewhat predictably, none of them do end up killing themselves. Instead, the unlikely group form a bond which sees them on a journey of self-discovery which conjures in them the will to live. The somewhat outlandish premise and convenient plot events which were skilfully incorporated into Hornby's novel are clumsily handled in this adaptation. The tone of the film oscillates between banal slapstick and sickening sentimentality, completely squandering the opportunities for subtle humour and genuine emotion that the book provides.With a cast as motley as the characters themselves, the film is an unfortunate waste of some strong acting talents who seem to have been forced into playing one-dimensional stereotypes. Pierce Brosnan is cold and unlikeable as Martin, the disgraced television host. Imogen Poots portrays the infuriatingly brash teenager, Jess, in a performance totally devoid of any nuance that could render her endearing. Aaron Paul is similarly stunted as the wayward and depressed JJ, whose brooding attitude clashes with the sometimes frivolous tone of the film. Perhaps the most disappointing performance is Toni Collette's portrayal of Maureen, which sees Collette playing almost exactly the same damaged, put-upon single-mother that she played in About A Boy in her role as Fiona. Despite the uncanny similarity of the characters, her performance as Maureen lacks the warmth and depth that Collette brought to the role of Fiona and leaves the book's most agreeable character looking like a hapless, shell of woman. Unlike the book, the film does not provide occasion to warm to the characters and as a result, they remain unrelatable and off-putting to the film's conclusion.It is a shame that Hornby's heart-warming and witty novel has been mishandled and misshaped into a film which is lacklustre at best, and at worst, downright cringe-worthy.

Maha M (gb) wrote: Josh Hamilton is sucha cutiepie n_n

Blind P (it) wrote: Alcohol is bad. Look after your kid. Walk. What was the point of it?

David M (ag) wrote: There are many real life heroes portrayed in movies, who risk everything to do what is right. They put their families and life at risk in the pursuit of idealistic justice. In most movies they end up okay. However, in the true story of Veronica Guerin, she was killed. After being beaten and shot. She couldn't be a hero, she had to be a martyr.Veronica Guerin tells the story of it's titular heroine. The most popular journalist on Ireland, whose cavalier approach gets her great stories and finally into trouble. You have to ask yourself it you would go thatfar, and if it's right to do so. I dont have that answer. If you change the country, help rid it of drugs, and drop the crime rate by 15% with your death, is it worth abandoning your family by ending your life?The movies strength is in one thing; Cate Blanchett. She is extraordinary, and brings more to the role than the script of director allows. She single handedly draws you into to a headstrong character, who is loving, and possesses and strength of will seldom seen in female characters. Erin Brockovich comparisons are a given.The films weakness is the creative team. Produced by big budget film maker Jerry Bruckheiner, and low brow director Joel Schumacher, they feel like gorilla fingers trying to play a piano. They lack the deft touch, subtlety, or character interest to make this material gripping.They leave Blanchett out to dry, providing neither a strong yarn or in depth study. Erin Brockovich is a good example of where this should've went. When big budget movie makers go small it can be good. Ridley scott's Matchstick men, or Verbinskis Weather man. Not here though.The action scenes are particularly inept, which is most surprising. So as a viewer you must bring more to the table than the film does. Admire the strength ofthr leading performance, the morality of the tale, and ask yourselfthe questions the film should've.

Russell H (jp) wrote: Pretty humorous college film.

Steve M (ru) wrote: After gaining an early parole from prison, career criminal Vincent Lubeck (Tierney) goes to work for his brother's gas station. But instead of reforming, he returns to his life of crime in ways even worse than before... starting with the rape of his brother's girlfriend and culminating in an armored car heist. "The Hoodlum" is a fairly decent "crime doesn't pay" movie where the utterly contemptable main character gets exactly what's coming to him by the end. It also features a nicely staged heist bit with a tense get-away sequence. Unfortunately, the fimmakers blow the ending by slathering on an excessive amount of melodrama and by offering up a deus ex machina development to keep the Good Brother from making a life-altering choice. By shying away from the ending they were on track for, the writers passed up a perfect opportunity to make up for the gooey melodrama and to lift this movie to a higher level than run-of-the-mill. The Hoodlum Starring: Lawrence Tierney, Edward Tierney, Marjorie Riordan, Allene Roberts, Lisa Golm, and Stuard Randall Director: Max Nosseck

Paul M (nl) wrote: Woods was great in the 80s and Dennehy is always solid and these two lift this thriller above the usual films of this type.

Jeremy S (mx) wrote: Inane, to say the least. There has yet to be a compelling explanation offered for Mandel's fame and success; that it did not come to an abrupt end as a result of this film is mind-boggling.

Catherine S (ca) wrote: The work of Hunter S. Thompson seems to be exceptionally difficult to adapt for a Hollywood film, or at least to make one that pleases both critics and audiences. Most complaints focus around the inability to capture the gonzo energy or that the true nature of Thompson's work isn't fully encapsulated within the film's boundries. But you could at least give credit to films like "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" for at least giving the best effort they could to capture the zaniness and off-kilter stylings of Thompson's writings. That cannot be said for "Where the Buffalo Roam", which has its moments and some great acting from Bill Murray, but is dragged down from being a disjointed mess with an extremely poor script that sinks the production.Based on Thompson's essay for Rolling Stone, "The Banshee Screams For Buffalo Meat", "Where the Buffalo Roam" stars Bill Murray as Hunter S. Thompson and Peter Doyle as the Oscar Zeta Acosta stand-in Carl Lazlo. The film is told entirely as a flash back of Thompson's as he's writing about his ventures with Lazlo, beginning with when they supposedly met back in 1968, following Lazlo's further involvement with a South American revolution, to eventually Thompson's last meeting with Lazo in 1972. The film focuses on their relationship as well as the rise of Thompson's journalism career.I write that summary with some trepidation, because in all honesty the film is less a coherent attempt to portray the friendship between Thompson and Acosta and more just a jumbled mess of various manical episodes generally focusing on the doctor of journalism himself. Actually, Lazlo barely appears in the film, and there are long stretches where he's not even mentioned. When he is with Thompson, there are moments where their dynamics begin to show themselves, but immediately dive back at the sign of an event that's supposed to drive the story. Long story short, their relationship is entirely unconvincing. The supporting cast is passable, though any other characters are only there for brief scenes and are never seen again, so they're barely worth mentioning. Peter Boyle plays Lazlo and he does a decent job, though it's nothing special. The biggest problem with this film however, is the script. The script is just flat out awful, even Hunter S. Thompson noted that the script was "garbage". The script gives nothing for the characters to do, nothing for the actors to work with and any attempts at humor either painful or simply not funny.The only salvation within the entire film is Bill Murray's performance as Hunter S. Thompson. While's he's held back by the flimsy script and amateurish direction, he still pulls off an awesome performance. He's exceptionally convincing as Thompson (which makes sense, considering the hell he apparently went through to play Thompson, and the effect it had on him after the fact), though it leaves me wanting more because there's a seed of greatness and possibilities with his performance is endless, but since he's weighed down by the flawed production it never comes to fruition. But, his performance alone generates the film's few laughs and he is fairly entertaining, so I will give the film at least that.I honestly say I can't exactly recommend this film to anyone. It wouldn't satisfy fans like myself who are huge fans of Thompson's work since it not only doesn't live up to the source material, but it's just kind of lackluster and general audiences probably won't enjoy it because of the lack of laughs and unconvincing character relationships. I guess if you're a huge fan of Bill Murray or just want to be able to say you've sat through the film, I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to sit through. It's fairly short, at barely an hour and a half, and it's currently offered through instant streaming on Netflix. So if you're really curious about this movie, I'd say give it a watch. I don't regret watching the movie, though I am left wondering what this film would've been like with the proper direction and writing.

Dave Z (br) wrote: It's a little difficult to stick with in spots, but boy, is this an underrated flick> Right now it is really only available in those boxed sets of public domain films (at least in America, if you don't have an all-region player). It has some great atmosphere and a couple of amazing setpieces though. The theater scene is unforgettable once you've seen it.

S Q (es) wrote: Seriously don't understand the low rating for this movie ... It's actually quite funny. So much so, I have gone back to watch it a few times!