Watch Dark Waters

Dark Waters

Dark Waters is a movie starring Mark Ruffalo, Anne Hathaway, and Tim Robbins. A corporate defense attorney takes on an environmental lawsuit against a chemical company that exposes a lengthy history of pollution.

Other Titles
El precio de la verdad, Σκοτεινά νερά, Sötét vizeken, Dry Run, ダーク・ウォーターズ, Dark Waters - Verdade Envenenada, Mroczne wody, Parashat Ha'Ma'yim, Aguas oscuras, Cattive acque, The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare, Vergiftete Wahrheit, 黑水風暴, Mutne vode, Karanlik Sular, Peitelty totuus, O Preço da Verdade
Running Time
2 hours 6 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Biography, Drama, Thriller, History
Todd Haynes
Mario Correa, Matthew Michael Carnahan, Nathaniel Rich
Tim Robbins, Mark Ruffalo, Bill Pullman, Anne Hathaway
Audio Languages
English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

A corporate defense attorney takes on an environmental lawsuit against a chemical company that exposes a lengthy history of pollution.

Comments about biography «Dark Waters» (24)

Joan photo

I found the movie to be extremely entertaining, and I thought it was an enjoyable way to spend an hour and a half. The movie has a number of strong points, however. First, the film does a great job at taking a seemingly ordinary situation and making it the focal point of the story. Secondly, the characters and their behavior are both very compelling. The movie is very much about relationships, especially between mother and daughter, and their connection is very powerful. The only problem I had with the movie was that the direction seemed to drag on. The film seemed to lose focus in a number of places. I also did not feel that the movie was very deep or moving, however. The ending seemed very quick and simple. Also, the movie left out some important details, such as how the father had to fight his daughter, how he had to decide if he wanted to protect his daughter or be the man he was and how he dealt with his daughter's sister. Also, there were many details that were not explained or emphasized. I also thought that the movie would have benefited from a few more twists. Overall, this was a very good movie.

Carolyn Keller photo
Carolyn Keller

Staying at the Dorchester Hotel in London, a British Secret Service officer and his two colleagues are ordered to investigate the activities of a terrorist group, led by Michael Pheonix (John Hurt), who is reported to be planning a mass shooting. The team will be under the watchful eye of the secret service officer, played by Russell Crowe, who seems to have trouble sleeping during the film and is generally bored of his assignment. This is until the third day, when the terrorist group reveal that they are planning to detonate a device at a different hotel. With this information, the team members go on a search for the terrorists, meeting with former colleagues and former colleagues' families in the process. This is one of the best biographical films of the year. It takes a period piece and turns it into a tense thriller, while still leaving room for a wide array of character development. It tells a gripping story and includes several memorable performances from its cast. While Crowe is extremely charismatic and powerful in the lead role, Hurt brings the emotional depth to the role of his life. Hurt gives an Oscar worthy performance as the man who can't sleep and whose paranoia and paranoia leads him to be at odds with the people around him. His troubled relationship with his mother, played by Frances McDormand, is explored in great detail. The story of a secret service agent who is so emotionally damaged that he can't sleep and can't eat, is interesting enough, but the final acts of the film seem to leave a lot to be desired. The ending is so strong that it left me feeling cheated. However, the film does deliver a powerful performance from the cast. In a role where he is acting with a minimal amount of dialogue, John Hurt is a revelation. Crowe is excellent and conveys a very complex and powerful performance. Frances McDormand's performance is one of the most memorable of the year. McDormand was incredible in Fargo, which is why I didn't think she deserved to win an Oscar for this role. She deserves it, though, because of the powerful performance she gives. She also is the best thing about this film. Her role is so intense and layered that I was always questioning her motives and the thoughts of her character. Although the film is a bit uneven at the end, it is still a powerful thriller. It is beautifully shot, so it can stand on its own, and the direction of the film is brilliant. Overall, I would recommend this film to any film fan. It is very well done and contains a strong performance from its cast.

Emily photo

The movie is one of the best films of the decade, no doubt about it. It was a special occasion when we watched it together. While the movie is excellent, I'm sure that the critics will claim that it is a documentary. Well, this film is about a truly shameful and disgraceful act. The first and most important thing to know is that the FBI created a secret network called the 'Death List'. Every one of the individuals on this list was involved in one way or another in the crimes of the US government and of the Soviet Union. These people were actually tortured and even killed by the government. This has been established and it is a well-known fact. But, the film is not a documentary. It is a story of a human being and his reaction to the fact that he has been part of something so terrible and that he had to face the consequences of his actions. We see how his conscience is destroyed, we see his anger, his sorrow and our own sense of justice. This is the power of a film, it is powerful, powerful film. That is what we have always wanted. To have a powerful film that tells us a powerful story, one that will touch us. To make us think about what is happening in our lives and the choices we are making.

Doris photo

While I didn't enjoy this movie as much as I did the original, I still liked it. The reason I liked it so much was because it was quite different from the original. While this movie was a little darker, I think the director did a great job of balancing the action scenes with the emotion. The action scenes were fantastic. I also liked how they gave each of the main characters their own distinct personality. I think the actors did a great job in playing their characters. I also enjoyed how the director made sure that we didn't get to know any of the main characters too much. I think the only thing that I didn't like was the fact that it was a little too long. Overall, this movie was great! It is definitely worth watching!

Shirley H. photo
Shirley H.

In 1983, a Russian nuclear missile was smuggled to the United States and was detonated at a site in Washington. A slew of Russian nationals were apprehended and the president ordered the missile destroyed. This movie tells the story of two ex-Soviet nuclear missile silo workers, Jack Paxton (played by Josh Brolin) and Alex Royer (played by Joe Russo) who become convinced that the Russians are responsible for the explosion and they must take action to try and prevent it from happening again. The movie is set in the 1980s and it follows a pretty typical story of a story, where Jack and Alex go undercover in an American prison to try and find out who the Russian culprit is and if he could be responsible for the explosion that destroyed Washington. In the story, they also try to keep their identities a secret from the guards, but eventually they both discover that they are in fact not the least bit interested in finding out the identity of the person who blew up the missile. They are simply in it for the money. Jack is eventually transferred to a prison for a few days for insubordination and Alex is put in a reformatory for the rest of his life. Jack has to share the cell with a fellow prisoner, Alex's girlfriend in order to get to know her better. It's a lot of fun watching Jack and Alex fool around in the prison. It's not a very well known story, but I enjoyed watching this film. The acting was decent, and the movie is worth watching just for the fact that it's a good looking movie. The plot is a little slow at times and the pacing isn't very good, but it's still a very watchable movie. Overall, I'd say this movie is worth watching.

Matthew photo

This film's title brings to mind the subject of hunting in American forests, and it's interesting to see how the film handles that theme. Although the hunting is an integral part of the movie, the movie itself is mostly about the corruption of the young members of the FBI - who form the core of the movie's plot. The young FBI agents are often portrayed as dirty and incompetent, but they do have an honorable code of ethics. The film's main villain, Colonel Sam Loomis (Kevin Bacon), is also shown as a caring and caring individual, who's intelligence and pragmatism help the FBI, not turn the FBI into a system of criminals. But ultimately, the FBI agents are portrayed as corrupt, and you can't help but feel that there's something rotten in the state of our criminal justice system. The film, in a way, presents the issue of corruption from a different angle. The corruption of the FBI agents is depicted as part of the American culture - like any good example of American culture, the FBI agents are shown as working with an honorable code of ethics, and that's a powerful statement. Another strong point of the film is that it explores the psychology of the FBI agents, who feel pressure to take action, even when they should be investigating an important case. The FBI agents are constantly told that their job is to protect and serve, but the fact that they feel that pressure, and show it, is a powerful message. Finally, the FBI agents are portrayed as brave, and the film uses this theme to show that their ideal is the same as the American ideals - they are to be a law enforcement agency, not a criminal organization. The way the FBI agents handle the investigations of the case of the pedophile of the FBI building is the most powerful example of how the agents are portrayed in the movie. One of the most powerful aspects of the movie is the portrayal of the FBI agents as people who are very different from their actual counterparts. Most of the agents in the FBI show no emotion, and in some cases, are completely indifferent to the corruption and crime that is going on in their organization. They are portrayed as ruthless and no-nonsense people, but they are actually quite caring and loving people, and this shows in the movie. This movie is very good, and has a message. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a good film.

Patrick photo

Stalin's crimes were crimes against humanity and he was guilty of them. In the case of Che Guevara, he was not the leader of a guerrilla war, but he was a leader of a resistance movement. Therefore, he deserves to be hanged. The recent Cuban Revolution was also an attempt to establish a communist state. The same crimes committed by Castro, Pol Pot and Pinochet were also crimes against humanity and these crimes were carried out by an unjust, brutal and cruel regime. The United States Government, in the form of the Kennedy Administration, tried to kill Fidel Castro. The United States tried to destroy the Cuban people. They tortured them, they killed them. These crimes were committed by the United States Government. The U.S. Government is responsible for the death of more than a million Cuban people. It is not the government of Cuba. The American people need to remember the crimes committed by the Kennedy Administration and the American people need to remember the crimes committed by the United States Government. They deserve to be hanged and we, the American people, deserve to be free.

Lauren Castro photo
Lauren Castro

Having seen a documentary about the Warren Commission and hearing from people who knew about the assassination, I was able to gain a better understanding of what happened to President Kennedy. My feelings after seeing this movie are that it is an accurate depiction of the events. My only gripe is that the events did not occur the way they were portrayed in the movie. It is hard for me to believe that President Kennedy would allow a foreign policy expert to come into his office to provide him with a copy of a report of the Warren Commission. At the same time, he is very aware of what was going on at home and his concern is understandable. I also found the portrayal of President Johnson to be very strong and true. In my opinion, it was not important for the President to know the details of the assassination, but it was very important for him to be aware of the events as they unfolded and what he could do to prevent another tragedy like the one in Dallas. My conclusion is that this movie is very accurate. I believe that it is the best movie that I have seen about the events that occurred the night of November 22, 1963.

Jean photo

I will start by saying that the portrayal of the writer, James Wainwright, as a madman was something I didn't think I'd see in the history of American cinema. What I saw was someone who felt deeply in need of psychological help, as he was suffering from severe paranoia, and was having trouble telling his wife and daughter about the world around him. One of the things I liked most about this movie was the acting, especially the work of Matthew McConaughey. He gives a very convincing performance as the writer, and provides the most believable performance I've seen from a leading man in a movie in some time. Michael Douglas and Jodie Foster were also excellent. I have to admit that I've never really seen the rest of the cast in a movie, but their performance is so powerful that they make you forget about the actors playing their parts. I was very impressed with the work of the actors, and their performance as writers was very convincing. The film also had a very moving ending, which I didn't expect at all. I felt that the ending had a lot of potential, but it was mostly wasted in the end. The film's most outstanding aspect was the cinematography. This movie, although not in the same league as films like "The Shawshank Redemption," "The Color Purple," "The Godfather," "American Beauty," "Pulp Fiction," "The Exorcist," "Requiem for a Dream," "Apocalypse Now," and "Gone with the Wind," had a very striking style, which in my opinion is one of the most outstanding qualities of a movie. It was very well executed, and gave the movie a very realistic look. The film also had great use of color and atmosphere. Some movies rely heavily on bright colors, and sometimes the camera and cinematography really need to play a role in creating the mood. I found that this movie relied heavily on the atmosphere, and it was very effective. The lighting in this movie was also very well used, and there were many scenes in the movie that I felt really added to the mood, such as the scenes in the museum and the scenes with Wainwright's wife and daughter. I also really liked the look of the film. The photography was also great, especially during the sequence in the basement where Wainwright sits in the bathtub, watching the television and watching the lights fade away. The cinematography also added a lot to the mood, as it was really very atmospheric and also showed a lot of the stark contrast between the images that the movie was showing, and the images the film was showing. The director also had a very good visual sense, and the shots in the movie were very well composed, with a lot of creative and effective camera angles. The directing was also very well done. The most outstanding aspect of the directing was the way the scenes were shot. The scenes in the film were very creative and they were very well shot. The scenes in the movie were also very well composed, with a lot of creative and effective camera angles. The scene in the movie that caused the most controversy was the scene where Wainwright shows the wife and daughter the murder weapon, a nail. I found

Kelly B. photo
Kelly B.

I was a big fan of 'Hitchcock' movie, 'The Man Who Knew Too Little', and this movie has a similar feeling. In both cases, the movie is set in the 80's. As I was watching, I felt that this movie was very reminiscent of 'The Man Who Knew Too Little'. In both movies, the story was very well thought out. The story is interesting and interesting. The film is also very scary. The movie does not have any violent scenes. If you want a movie that makes you scared, watch 'The Sixth Sense' or 'The Shining'. If you want to see a movie that will make you think, watch 'The Postman' or '2001: A Space Odyssey'. I would recommend 'Waters'. I give it a rating of 8/10.

Jason Aguilar photo
Jason Aguilar

Another good film from Paltrow. Her performance is the best part of the film. In a career which has not been the greatest, Paltrow has managed to keep her career at the highest level of excellence. I was impressed with the way she handled the subject matter of the film. Her character was not given much personality to work with. However, she handled it well and brought it all out. The problem was that the rest of the cast also did a good job of bringing out the character. The film was pretty good overall. There were a few weak points. It's a shame that a better script was not made, but I am glad that the director has the vision to bring the story to the screen. I would have enjoyed more characters and development of the character of Annie Hall.

Harry B. photo
Harry B.

Wow. This is a really good movie. This is very different from your typical biopic. It is a real story about a true story. The ending is great and makes you think of a true story. All in all, it is a great movie.

David photo

A well acted movie that is "spiked" with modern day violence. It's a portrait of the inner turmoil and doubts a woman who was brought up in a strict religious household but who now finds herself in a state of chaos and despair. The "girl next door" of an episode of 60's television fame is this hauntingly beautiful and tragic portrait of the inner demons of women who have lived with a world they don't understand and are locked into a cycle of terror and desperation. I felt very sorry for the characters, which had no moral compass, which had no sense of what was right or wrong, and no sense of the value of any of the choices they had made. The movie is slow, and it does have a slow pace to it, but it never takes long to start going. I felt like it was very difficult to follow the plot, but it wasn't hard to keep up with, and the story just kept building and building and building. This is a true story, and there are many things that are not quite clear, but I think it is important to know this history to appreciate the whole picture.

Arthur G. photo
Arthur G.

It was just a two hour documentary about a war, but it was very interesting and the best thing about it was that it was very well made. I have never been to Afghanistan, but if I had to see it again, I would definitely go, because it was really informative. I think that this is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen, and I really hope that it does well. I liked the way that the documentary was set up. It was not shown in the beginning, and I think that it was important to not show the whole war, but show just enough about it to get the point across, and I really think that this is the way to do it. If you have a chance to see this documentary, I would definitely recommend it.

Richard Chapman photo
Richard Chapman

Although not as good as the previous film in the series, Wild Skies is a must see for any Ray Bradbury fan. The cast is superb, especially a brief appearance by Lee Van Cleef. The script is clever and well paced, and there is an edge of reality to the film which is rare in many Bradbury adaptations. There are few, if any, "fish out of water" scenes, and the film is also about the friendships of those who are in and out of the military. This, along with the language and the darker theme of the film, makes the film a good film to watch.

Michael D. photo
Michael D.

Just saw this film and was greatly impressed. I think it was the best film of the year. It is a must see and a must watch for those who like to watch an important film. This film is true and I cannot believe the film didn't get an Oscar. This is a true story and true to life. It is truly a shame this film was not seen by the Academy. The cast was amazing. And the writing was superb. I was amazed at the bravery of this film and was even more amazed by the audience reactions. It is a story of one man and how he went from poverty to wealth. This is a true story and the story is told with honesty and truthfulness. I think everyone should see this film.

Eric Estrada photo
Eric Estrada

The first time I saw this film, I was about six years old, I really liked it. At the time I was under the impression that it was a political statement, that it was about an American hero who died for his country. After watching it a few times I noticed that it was not about that. The story is very simple and tells of a small town man named William Miller (Jeff Bridges) who as a young boy, witnessed the murder of his family. He lost his family and was sent to an asylum. After he came out, he made a plan to blow up the town. He has a bomb in his car and when he starts to drive off the road he ends up in a barn with a dead animal. He puts the bomb in his backpack and hides it under his clothes. He tells the townspeople that he wants to kill them and they look the other way. He tries to sell the bomb to the local mobsters but they turn him in. He is arrested and after a couple of years he is freed. The townspeople call him a hero and he is hailed as one. They give him a new identity and a new name and he is allowed to leave the town. He does and as he is leaving, the police stop him and search his car. The townspeople are shocked when they see his bag but he tells them that he has no bomb. They let him go but decide to search it and find out who he really is. They eventually do find out and they are very angry. They make a motion that they will never ever allow him to leave the town again. He is never allowed to leave the town again and has to stay until he is forty-five. At this point the townspeople are very upset and his name is linked to the death of their families. He returns to the town and they have a funeral and a rally and the townspeople burn down the town hall and bury the bodies. They do not want to forget William Miller and in his honour they have a memorial day. They start to build a town and it is very successful. As a result of all this, William Miller is remembered as a hero. At the end of the movie, he has become a legend and is now considered a local hero. The film is very good and I think that it is a great story about a man who goes out of his way to protect the people of his town. I was disappointed that it was not a political statement because it could have been about another American hero who had a political motive for taking his life. The film does have a very good message, but it is a very good film and I recommend it to anyone who likes the true story.

Teresa G. photo
Teresa G.

John Wayne was an excellent actor, in a certain sense, but he did not have the same charisma as he did in his other films. Also, in my opinion, he was too smart to play such a character, and he was just too comfortable. The book "Death Wish" was the definitive version of his character. My grandfather (John Wayne) had read the book many times when he was a child, and he had always made it his dream to see the movie version. This movie is very much in line with the book, in terms of the scenario and the way the characters act. I would not say that I enjoyed the film as much as I enjoyed the book, but I did enjoy the film, especially the opening sequence. The movie was directed by Tom Savini. I had read some reviews that claimed that the ending was too dark, and this is true, but this is not a spoiler. In the book, the ending was quite, and violent. In the film, the ending was not so violent, and it was only somewhat violent, because of the audience reaction. So the ending is not as violent in the book, and it was in my opinion better. The ending in the book is as I said more violent, and more disturbing, than in the movie. I thought that was a better ending, but not to say that the movie was perfect. It was not the greatest movie, but it was not the worst either. It was a good film, but not a great one. So I say it is worth watching the movie, if you have read the book, but not to say that the movie is perfect, it is not. 8/10

Howard photo

I knew nothing about this movie before watching it, but I was completely blown away by the performances, especially the son and daughter. The father really stood out as someone who you truly believed in, and for him to do this after seeing his wife and kids killed and his son forced to be a gay submissive is something that really struck a chord with me. It is not an easy movie to watch. It is a very graphic movie, and I was not expecting that at all. The whole thing is very disturbing, and it will take some thinking to truly understand what is going on in this movie. I would say that if you are a Christian, this movie will strike a chord in you, and it will force you to think about your beliefs and actions.

Michael H. photo
Michael H.

I found the movie to be very moving and an excellent example of the type of stories that should be told. In one of the few scenes in the movie that showed an air-plane crash it was very hard to watch and could be interpreted as the ultimate story of evil. While not totally accurate, the movie was just very realistic. The execution of the story was also very good. The storyline was simple but effective. While some parts of the movie were boring it was also made up with amazing cinematography and good acting. This movie was extremely sad, but also very very realistic. All in all I recommend this movie to anyone who is looking for a very sad but very real movie.

Douglas photo

I'll have to say that I am a big fan of Alex Gibney's filmography and, while I was not expecting to like this film as much as I did, I can say that it was definitely an interesting and well-done documentary on a very important and difficult subject. There were many moments that were difficult to watch, but not because of the subject. I think it was the fact that Gibney wanted to explore some of the darker aspects of the Holocaust and how it affected many of the victims. There was also the fact that the film was not overly political, and that it was in no way meant to be a portrayal of the people of Auschwitz. I felt that Gibney did a very good job of not having this attitude and that it was instead meant to be about the people of Auschwitz and their stories. The film was also interesting because it told the story in a very non-judgmental way, and was not based on the general view of the Nazis. Gibney really was not only able to tell the story of the people who were being treated, but also their stories. This gave me the feeling that I was not only watching a movie but I was actually watching a documentary.

Alice Wheeler photo
Alice Wheeler

This film was excellent. I loved the way it was presented and the way the story was told. The acting was great, the director was amazing, and the music by Steve Hill is great. This movie will stay with you for a long time and will hold you in its grace and beauty.

John Alvarez photo
John Alvarez

Spoilers I have been a fan of Frank and Sondra since their first film together in "The Untouchables". Since then, I have watched every film they have been in together. They are two of my favorite actors. I was glad to see this film. It is very hard to find a movie that has both Sondra and Frank in it. They play two very different types of people. Sondra is a traditional feminist and Frank is an outcast because of his "manliness". The end result is that they can't even be friends and the way they look at each other is very different. The film has a nice message about how all men are guilty of a lot of things. They show that one of the reasons they are not friends is because of how they treat women. They show that all men are guilty of the same crimes. They also show how Frank is a great man because he doesn't judge anyone and he doesn't try to make someone else look bad. The ending is really sweet. Overall, I would give it a 9.5/10. It was not as good as some other films I have seen, but it was definitely worth watching. If you have not seen this film, please go and watch it.

Tyler H. photo
Tyler H.

A documentary by the same title was made into a TV series (with other directors), but the current version is more than an entertainment. It is about the trials and tribulations that were faced by four people, who were at the time top of their game. They made great achievements in their fields, but at the end of their career, they all knew that their lives were never going to be the same. It is a drama, but the focus is on the individual problems that they faced. It shows them working hard in their careers, and facing their past. The fact that there was so much wealth in the world, makes it all the more difficult to find work. There are also strong social themes. Each person in the cast is working hard to support the family. One of them is a woman who works with her son in a factory. They are not the happiest of the lot, but there is not much they can do. This makes it all the more difficult to find a job. These are not happy people. They are fighting hard to make something of their lives, and these struggles make their lives really sad. The director is also a film director, but I never knew this, so it was an interesting revelation for me. The quality of the film is also very good, the soundtrack is also very good. The cinematography and editing are also very good. The acting is all excellent, especially with the leading character, and the supporting actors are also very good. I was a little disappointed about the low budget, but I think it is mainly because the film was made for TV, so I guess the budget was not very high. All in all, I liked it very much, and I would recommend it to everyone.