Tiger in the Smoke

Tiger in the Smoke

Having been sent a picture of her husband, a war hero killed in France, Meg Elgin is led to believe he is still alive and arranges a meeting at a London railway station. When she arrives there with the police accompanying her, she catches sight of a man in the distance wearing an old coat of her husband's. When he is pursued and captured, he turns out to be Duds Morrison a former soldier and out-of-work actor recently let out of prison. He refuses to tell them anything, and having nothing they can charge him with, the police release him. His interest aroused by the pictures sent to Meg, her new fiancé Geoffrey Leavitt follows Morrison and tries to demand an answer from him about his sudden appearance masquerading as Meg’s dead husband.

Having been sent a picture of her husband, a war hero killed in France, Meg Elgin is led to believe he is still alive and arranges a meeting at a London railway station. When she arrives there with the police accompanying her, she catches sight of a man in the distance wearing an old coat of her husband's. When he is pursued and captured, he turns out to be Duds Morrison a former soldier and out-of-work actor recently let out of prison. He refuses to tell them anything, and having nothing they can charge him with, the police release him. His interest aroused by the pictures sent to Meg, her new fiancé Geoffrey Leavitt follows Morrison and tries to demand an answer from him about his sudden appearance masquerading as Meg’s dead husband. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Tiger in the Smoke torrent reviews

Alex S (es) wrote: This documentary is very short sited. Does not answer a lot of questions about the occupy movement. I strongly recommend that this director take a film class and a lesson on micro and macro economics.

Qarlos J (au) wrote: "La Otra Familia" is a feeble attempt to talk about gay parenting and what its consequences can be in a two-faced society. Bad actors can't actually make this melodrama convincing. The plot is rather predictable in an annoying way and the whole direction seems to have too many things to cover and little know-how.

Brian B (de) wrote: This was just another terrible attempt at a sequel. The only good movie of the entire franchise was the original. The last movie tops it off for being the worst of them all.

George P (jp) wrote: The actors in this film cannot act. The script is dire. The story drawn out and obvious. The only good thing about this film is the man who get buried in shit.

Jeff D (es) wrote: A little off beat and seems slow to begin with, but once into the movie and you are paying attention to names, it picks up interest greatly. Love Whitaker's character!

Citien P (kr) wrote: Boorman loses touch with reality and his work. One of the less interesting works of the master.

Lisa S (mx) wrote: Absolutely horrible film, I sold my video of it for a couple cents, it wasn't even worth that much. Not only a bad story, but also bad acting, directing, lighting, cinematography, sound...well let's just say it didn't have much going for it.

Marco Santos R (ca) wrote: This movie is about the two most popular guys in school ditching football camp for cheerleader camp. A critic wrote that an R rating would make it way better, not having one make it kinda lame. Still with all its clichs and predictability I still remember it whenever I'm the only male in the gyms step or dance classes. And it also has one of the most memorable dialogues I've ever seen:What do the Panthers have that you don't have?- Skills.- Athleticism.- Kickass cheers.- Laser hair removal.- Big-ass titties. I'm just saying.- Confidence. They're cocky assholes. Like Nick, the cockiest asshole on the football field. That's why he's good.- He's right. I'm awesome.- Because he believes in himself.- Also because I'm awesome.- He knows he's gonna be good, so he's good. And he takes chances.- Not hard due to the fact that I'm awesome.- Nick. Trying to make a speech here.

Courtney J (fr) wrote: I really don't know what else to say here besides, "Meh. It was okay."

Atheer O (ru) wrote: interesting characters, crisp script in the Tarantino accustomed fashion.

Allan C (jp) wrote: I've always thought this was an underrated genre mashup. Director/Co-writer David Twohy, with the exception of the overblown "The Chronicles of Riddick," has a track record of writing and/or directing some smart, exciting films ("Pitch Black," "The Arrival," "The Fugitive," "A Perfect Getaway," and I'd even include "Terminal Velocity"). This film was also co-written by Darren ("Requiem for a Dream," "Black Swan") Aronofsky and is an interesting mix of WWII submarine films and ghost stories. The film works great simply as a tale of WWII intrigue and suspense, but adding elements of ghost and hauntings brought something new and interesting to a pretty well worn formula. And in terms of telling a ghost story, the film thankfully goes to route of "The Haunting" or "The Innocents" and leaves it open as to whether something supernatural is going on or if characters are simply getting scared and paranoid, imagining ghostly activities. Another reason I think I'm partial to this film is Bruce Greenwood as the ship's commanding officer, who I've always liked and felt should be in a lot more films. Olivia Williams is also good. However, it's not a perfect film and and does have it's flaws, the main one for me being Twohy's decision to do one too many cheap scares instead of relying on the suspense and atmosphere that he'd so nicely built. I'd also say the rest of the cast is merely adequate. It's not a perfect film, but it's a clever supernatural thriller.

Joetaeb D (jp) wrote: While it's more amusingly entertaining than actually scary, Child's play gets points for delivering solid film entertainment, a well thought story and a memorable villain in the form of Chucky the killer doll.