The Transfiguration

When troubled teen Milo, who has a fascination with vampire lore, meets the equally alienated Sophie, the two form a bond that begins to blur Milo's fantasy into reality.

When troubled teen Milo| who has a fascination with vampire lore| meets the equally alienated Sophie| the two form a bond that begins to blur Milo's fantasy into

The Transfiguration is a great movie of Michael O'Shea. The released year of this movie is 2016. We can counted many actors in this movie torrents, for example Eric Ruffin, Chloe Levine, Jelly Bean, Phyillicia Bishop. There are many categories, such as Drama, Horror. The rating is 6.2 in www.imdb.com. We have a good movies torrent. Share with your friends and watch this movie together . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

The Transfiguration torrents

The Transfiguration full movie

The Transfiguration 2016 torrent

The Transfiguration torrent, The Transfiguration movie torrents, download The Transfiguration full movie, The Transfiguration 2016 torrents, download The Transfiguration 2016 torrents, watch The Transfiguration movie, The Transfiguration englishsub, free download The Transfiguration movie, movie The Transfiguration torrent

Links Name Quality Seeders Leechers Size
Download   The.Transfiguration.2016.DVDRip.x264-PSYCHD X264 169 136 424.86 MB

Users reviews

Amari S (nl)

All making for the type of drama done far too much for this film to not put any effort into trying to stand out and make things interesting. Her life became about who her husband may have been with, her wondering if she made the right decision, and then her wanting to escape from her husband. However, once she got diminished to a love interest it was all downhill. Which is what leads to the TV Viewing label for this film since the film started good, not strong but good, and I liked seeing Browning use her great ability to seem vulnerable, a bit cheeky, and certainly someone who could hold her own against not just the male gaze, but all the talent around her. They start off strong but once the drama starts to really kick in, usually the film falls apart. Not just because I think she is attractive either, if anything I think it is because she certainly has talent, but the issue is she doesn't find films which are good throughout. Overall: TV ViewingDespite rarely giving any Emily Browning film an overall positive review, I do remain a fan. Making the hour after she becomes married, at first, a bit interesting since we see her deal with insecurities and what not, but after a while things feel like they are just dragging on and it makes you wish what happened in those first 40 minutes still was going on rather than the mess you are left with. Mostly due to all her wit, and any sense of moxy, just disappearing. One who seemingly picked the wrong man, slowly loses reason to draw, and becomes a bore to watch. CriticismIf just because, unfortunately, with Florence falling in love, or perhaps more so in great admiration, her story as an artist slips away as she ends up a love interest. Though with it being based on a true story, and set in the early 1900s, I should have knew it was too good to be true. Which, for me, I thought was a perfect direction for the film. With this you are presented a rather interesting picture in which a woman seems to not mind male attention, even enjoys it a bit, but seems committed to becoming a better artist over anything else. However, in terms of this story, while Austen-esque sarcasm isn't on display, for the first 40 or so minutes Browning is quite a sight and her character Florence seems like someone who demands to be taken seriously. Add in the right amount of cheekiness she possesses in her voice, as well as a look which screams naivety, innocence, and perhaps privilege, and I think you have a prime candidate for a Jane Austen adaptation. PraiseAs noted in the introduction, Browning certainly has the perfect look for a period drama. And while the film, at first, presents Florence as a girl who isn't looking for love, just good company, knowledge, and maybe someone to match wits with, she soon falls for one of these boys and the quality of the film falls with it. The first being AJ, the wild and passionate painter, and then Gilbert (Dan Stevens) who is this calm, cool, and collected military man. However, in the pursuit of justifying her stay to her father, she ends up attracting two men. So she has to force the point she came to learn to paint. Though it seems with Florence's beauty, these artist would prefer her to replace local model Dolly (Mia Austen) over really providing tutelage. And what better a place to end up for with the great AJ Munnings (Dominic Cooper) sharing the same circle as Joey, as well as Harold Knight (Shaun Dingwall), there are many possible teachers and mentors in town. But with her not having the best record when it comes to movies, at least with me, does this one continue the trend or break it?Characters & StoryAfter having a fight with her father about a man who was the perfect match for her, Florence (Emily Browning) runs away to live with her brother Joey (Max Deacon) in the pursuit of not just getting away from their father, but also to paint. However, with Summer in February I thought this was going to be a cute period drama, something which could work well for Browning since she seems destined, due to her porcelain doll looks, to be in quite a few British period dramas. Trigger Warning(s): Scene of attempted rapeReview (with Spoilers)It has been almost a year since I have last seen an Emily Browning movie, and while I could have certainly watched Pompei, I didn't want to since it seemed so bleh. Overview: A period drama in which a woman decides between slightly boring but dependable, and a talented, slightly erratic, artist

Avery M (gb)

Everything about Citizen Kane is film done the right way, even 75 years after the fact

Harry W (ca)

So despite On Deadly Ground having a terrible script and Steven Seagal's direction being unable to balance the story's intended themes with a good quantity of action, it is a mostly well acted feature which is visually great and boasts some awesome action scenes. Lee Ermey is also a good touch simply as his legacy as a soldier and the fact that On Deadly Ground capitalises on that, even though it gives him too little screen time to do so. R. McGinley is thoroughly impressive in On Deadly Ground. John C. I feel like any fan of Scrubs should watch On Deadly Ground for his performance if nothing else, because it is actually one of his finest film performances to date, and if he can work with bad material so well then good material should earn him many awards. McGinley's performance is impressive and proves just what kind of talent he has on board years before he went on Scrubs, and his intimidating demeanour is fiercely strong in grabbing the attention of viewers. John C. I mean, if you study his performance very closely you can tell that the material is terrible, but he says the words so naturally that it is easy to miss. He simply delivers them so strongly that it is hard to notice it. I was very impressed with him because you can tell that many of his lines are weak and he doesn't try to change that. The actor who is recognised nationally for his hilarious long running role as Doctor Cox on the comedy series Scrubs takes his charismatic aggressive persona and pushes it over the edge in On Deadly Ground so that he goes into very convincingly intimidating territory. Mcginley. But the most impressive actor in the film is John C. He is the one actor able to make the script not sound so bad because he takes a lot from it and makes a memorable villain, elevating On Deadly Ground above potentially being too melodramatic. Without stopping to think about the script, he just delivers his line with fierce aggression which makes him more than convincing. But he completely nails the part. The high profile Academy Award winning actor had a difficult time finding roles in the 1990's and On Deadly Ground is an example of one of the limited roles he could get. Yet the thing that elevates him beyond the role is the fact that it is Michael Caine in the role. He's proven before that he can play a character mercilessly in the 1971 British crime thriller Get Carter, and in On Deadly Ground he returns to that notion for the part of antagonist Michael Jennings, the ruthless CEO archetype. Michael Caine is a very convincing antagonist in On Deadly Ground. But the rest of the cast prove to do a decent job. But it is hard to remember Joan Chen's presence in On Deadly Ground whatsoever. On Deadly Ground pretty much doesn't even have her in it but she isn't especially bad so she doesn't really deserve a Golden Raspberry Award nomination. By the end of On Deadly Ground I had completely forgotten of her existence in the film and in comparison to all the other actors, she just faded away. Although she has proved to be a fine actress in works such as the TV series Twin Peaks, her acting in On Deadly Ground is so repetitive and unimpressive that it is easy to forget that she is even in the film. Joan Chen doesn't deliver all that much either. So Steven Seagal does enough to pass. Despite it being nothing but another vain attempt to reconnect with the vague environmental theme of the film, it is one of Steven Seagal's finest moments in delivering lines. Although his final lines aren't great because the script is dull, it is at its finest moment during Steven Seagal's monologue simply because you can tell that he really has passion for what he is saying. For this one moment, Steven Seagal is the actual Steven Seagal without his action movie facade or his cocky demeanour. Although a widely criticised moment, I admired it because Steven Seagal stepped out of the character Forrest Taft and said something which he generally cared about as a person. His only redeeming moment is his final speech. When he tries to act intense, his physical acting is mostly ok but his facial expressions refuse to change and his line delivery has excessive restraint on it which keeps him out of touch with himself. Once you're able to make it past that, that is when you realise that the true fault in his performance is the way he reacts in intense situations for his character. Granted I'm not too familiar with the accent, but it is clear that what Steven Seagal spoke with the tongue of was not the right answer. He makes a half assed attempt at an Eskimo accent which is so weak that it almost isn't there, and yet it is and it is reinforced by the style of the jacket he wears. He is convincing as an action hero due to his extensive aikido training and as an environmental hero due to his legacy as an outspoken environmentalist, but as an Eskimo he is simply not convincing. It's not hard for anyone to say that Steven Seagal is not a great actor. And when it comes down to the cast, some of the actors simply cannot shine while others manage to do it just fine. It isn't excessive, but it's notable and the quality of it is weak. The only real bad visual aspect is the occasional use of slow motion effects. It is all captured with some firm cinematography and strong editing against the backdrop of a strong musical score, so On Deadly Ground delivers the action and had some fine technical qualities which makes it a decent visual experience even it it's a shallow one. There is plenty of blood and explosions without going overboard, and with all the awesome shootouts, fight scenes and tactical ways of killing the enemies that Forrest Taft executes, Steven Seagal kicks some major ass. Although the quantity of action isn't really enough, the quality of the action in On Deadly Ground is impressive. Overall, I half enjoyed On Deadly Ground because from an action perspective, it wasn't too bad. Many people discredit Steven Seagal, but I saw his potential as a film director in On Deadly Ground and while it wasn't the best film, it is by far one of his most underrated films. I can admire him for trying and I would say that the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director that he won was more deserved at Oliver Stone for directing the awful Natural Born Killers which is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and the prestigious Razzie award should instead have gone to the script. If Steven Seagal started with smaller profile work then he could make a good action film which is bad in other areas, but due to the large scale of On Deadly Ground and the way it desperately attempts to touch upon so much when it is rooted in poor writing, it is not something that Steven Seagal can save. I will give it to him that it isn't bad because many people have done a lot worse in their directional debuts, and he does make On Deadly Ground entertaining in parts while delivering quality action, but the weak material is simply not what he was ready for. Steven Seagal is an inexperienced director, so his debut feature can not coincide as a film about the importance of the environment and a serious action film which proves to be its secondary ultimate flaw. Steven Seagal doesn't do too bad in his independent feature, but a large scale film and a $50 million budget is too much weight to place upon his shoulders. I'll admit that I like the sight of animals and that Steven Seagal harnesses some excellently beautiful scenery for his film which keeps it up ok a larger scale and makes it a mostly convincing story, but there are random moments of scenery which contribute nothing to the story. It is left to the implications but left out of the story, so On Deadly Ground touches upon its environmental theme worse than its Eskimo theme, so its desperate attempts to try do nothing but prolong he the film with appealing but pointless imagery. The negative way that antagonist Michael Jennings' actions are affecting the environment are barely referenced and instead On Deadly Ground attempts to make itself a nature story by splicing in random moments of Steven Seagal fighting wolves and bears as well as a lot of random nature scenery. Lastly, despite attempting to be a story about nature, the writing in the film barely emphasises it. Why was Doctor Cox throwing dishes around? I don't know. Some scenes just don't make sense such as when MacGruder randomly begins smashing the cupboards and pulling the dishes out of the washer that belong to Hugh Palmer while his partner Otto tortures and murders him. It captures the stereotypical visual aspects of the culture but is too unintelligent to actually look into the culture and plays it off as an expendable commodity. And although the story uses Eskimo culture as a theme, it touches upon it simply on surface level without going into depth with it, focusing simply on the places they live in and the naked women of such ethnicity. It would explain his confidence in blowing up oil rigs, but I had to learn it from the back of a DVD cover which is weird. And although it didn't bother me, apparently protagonist Forrest Taft is a former high level CIA operative but the film never explains this and leaves him as another random action hero who hasn't got his background explained. I know this is the appropriate way to so it because somebody told me on the way back, but the film does not explain how this works and on the surface it is ridiculous to put out a fire by blowing something up so it sounds like an unintentional comedic theme, and the moment when Forrest Taft stands in front of an explosion looking the other way is a serious action movie cliche which gives it a generic start. The first scene in the movie shows Forrest Taft blowing up an oil rig to put out its fire. The context of the story is poor. On Deadly Ground doesn't write up the finest story either. Russin shows that neither of them can write dialogue or handle a decent story sensibly, and one wonders if each person was put in charge of each of these two script aspects while forgetting to collaborate together. The collaboration between Ed Horowitz and Rubin U. Some actors actually work through it, but it is hard to survive a script as bad as the one in On Deadly Ground. Full of deadbeat lines and cliches, On Deadly Ground supplies nothing to its cast and wastes many talents. The one thing he did not do was write the script, and coincidentally the script is the weakest aspect of the film because the dialogue is just awful. On Deadly Ground is Steven Seagal's Citizen Kane as it is a project that he has directed, produced and starred it. So that is what I was prepared for, but the one thing that I was not so much prepared for was the quality of the script. Steven Seagal considers the film On Deadly Ground to feature the most important moment of his career where he gives a long environmental speech at the end, so it is clearly a film he is proud of while not many others are proud to watch it because many people consider it to be a vanity project of his disguised as a social statement. Although On Deadly Ground had no positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and 24 negative, its semi-ensemble cast and the fact that it was directed by Steven Seagal pushed me to watch it

Jason A (ag)

He has some excellent scenes with Bob Hoskins, but the rest of the cast comes across as way over the top (save Liam Neeson). Mickey is good but seems to be dialing it in for the most part. Suffers from poor editing and some bad casting. Great story, good movie

Jesse O (it)

Overall this is a really good and unique take on a tired genre. It also helps that Ching Wan Lau is delightfully wacky and loony in his role. That's something not a lot of movies can do, where it just feels like they're shooting at each other for the fuck of it. I also liked how the movie built up to the final gunfight and how important it felt within the context of the movie. It's a nice little twist, that could've been used better, but it adds a little bit of intrigue to the story and there's some funny moments as well so that helps. This movie is sort of like that but it adds the twist that Bun (yes that is his name) can see a person's inner personality. I just feel that most of these movies are dependent on the reveal of what is actually going on at the end, so you have to wait for two hours of an uninteresting story and hope that the reveal is good enough to where it would redeem the entire movie. Detective movies, like heist and capers, tend to be really boring movies for me unless, obviously, the movie is outstanding. I really liked this movie, I can't quite put my finger on what it is I liked, but I was intrigued by the subject matter

John F (us)

nly watch this if you are EXTREMELY inebriated. The movie is full of bad script writing and terrible plot twists. I have never yelled so many times "GO GET A GUN". The twist at the end makes no sense, its abrupt and answers nothing. What a horrible movie

John W (us)

Affecting not just for its portrayal of the loss of innocence and erosion of youthful idealism but also for the glimpse at the reality of the dreams that so many once entertained -- and in some cases still do. Watch as young, naked, and dirty idealists with wavy dark locks transform into white-haired, retirement-age pragmatists with real jobs and typical middle class lives. Clear-eyed, interesting documentary about a genuine free-love hippy commune and its residents

Jud W (jp)

not really a bad movie like some people make out but still a major step down from its previous movie, the more kid friendly version of conan is still an enjoyment that even with its faults remains a classic adventure film if you can take it for what it is rather then what it is not

Kami B (gb)

Good idea just poorly executed. Disappointing- at best. . . However as is. This movie had serious potential

Lissa (fr)

He'll Do Because Life is Too Short. Perfect, just Mr. No such thing as Mr. You knew they were going to finally meet and after awhile you probably didn't really care if they did. The plot isn't really original but it was kind of interesting. The Awful Truth was crazy! I would definitely get cut eating there. Was surprised to see Jennifer Aniston and Sarah Jessica Parker in it. Not too bad of a movie