10 Years Love

10 Years Love

In the third grade of high school, Mari who is a manager of football club prays to god to captain of the team, Hiroya Takagi can score a goal on a final PK which decides a champion team. However Hiroya misses the goal and his team losts the game. So far he has enjoyed huge big popularity, but after the game, he losts friends and girlfriend, and becomes a loser. Because Mari deeply loves Hiroya, She decides to become a vent for his sex. But ironically Takagi's family breaks, and he becomes themissing. Mari follows his scent, and she goes to the Great White Way- Shinjukukabukicho where she is a stranger...

In the third grade of high school, Mari who is a manager of football club prays to god to captain of the team, Hiroya Takagi can score a goal on a final PK which decides a champion team. However Hiroya misses the goal and his team losts the game. So far he has enjoyed huge big popularity, but after the game, he losts friends and girlfriend, and becomes a loser. Because Mari deeply loves Hiroya, She decides to become a vent for his sex. But ironically Takagi's family breaks, and he becomes themissing. Mari follows his scent, and she goes to the Great White Way- Shinjukukabukicho where she is a stranger... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

10 Years Love torrent reviews

Nicola D (br) wrote: almost truthful about what happens in Italy these years... Sad but true for an italian to admit

Ed T (mx) wrote: Not sure how to rate this movie. It was kinda funny, but mostly weird and disturbing. I think it did what it meant to do really well, but not exactly sure what that was. Enter at your own risk...

Mike M (fr) wrote: The analysis of "The Night Watch" itself is a fascinating and learned art history lesson a la Dan Brown, only, y'know, with facts, and the director's eye for pageantry remains undimmed: every image is framed and lit in the manner of a period-appropriate canvas, and there's another run-out for that mobile curtained bed that made its debut in Greenaway's "The Baby of Macon". The problem is that the events taking place centre-frame are all too familiar: it's the effusive, cursing artist (choice Rembrandtian dialogue: "F*** off, you f**king queer fat Polish c***!") pitted against the rotten, repressed Establishment. Greenaway remains more interested in his characters' bodies than their souls: you see more of the swinging Freeman ballsack than anyone (possibly even Mrs. Freeman) really needs to... This perspective leads Greenaway to treat his actors as props, to be directed as one would, say, a bowl of fruit. Certain broader scenes are pure pantomime, and poor Natalie Press has an especially hard time of it playing a ten-year-old girl. It's Freeman, rapidly becoming the patron saint of conceptually batty British cinema, who (just about) holds "Nightwatching" together, with his puckish and sporadically moving reading of Rembrandt the man - a piece of casting as unlikely yet winning as Greenaway's deployment of Jim Davidson as the zookeeper in "A Zed and Two Noughts". A typically contrary and uncompromising work, it compels you to watch - often in spite of itself.

kim k (ru) wrote: Wow...spot the brit cast! The best part of the movie for me was picking up on some fantastic voice talent - kris marshall, david tennant, Jim Broadbent and of course simon pegg. Overall, the film wasn't overly exciting but the little moments of dark humour made it all worthwhile. Excellent premise, but drags a little in feature-length format.

Lenard K (de) wrote: Japanese middle school boy finds strength in an idol singer's music as he deals with bullies and other problems growing up. Uneven movie makes use of multiple story development devices, multiple filming styles, and is told in atemporal fashion. Movie all too often alternates between being somewhat boring and immensely depressing as it relishes in portraying casual cruelty.

DeAndre W (br) wrote: Hilarious romp that exceeds it's few clichs.

Drew H (au) wrote: Lori Petty is a truly underrated talent.

Shaun B (kr) wrote: Entertaining little Horror anthology from John Carpenter.

Ben D (kr) wrote: The animation is great as always, but this film lacks the enjoyment, creativity, and themes of Miyazaki's other films. Probably my least favorite of his films.

Ian G (br) wrote: Lundgren at his best.

Natasha S (fr) wrote: Great movie for kids (and their parents/aunts/...). I took my nieces and nephews and they all loved it and couldn't stop talking about it. Worth seeing it in 3D!!

Qi Z (it) wrote: A harrowing examination of a mother-daughter relationship

Trevor R (it) wrote: I have to admit it...I love watching disaster films. This one has everything in it but the kitchen sink, and that was just because I missed seeing it among the destruction that this movie brings on! Even by today's standards, the visual effects are pretty good. I was even more blown away by the fact that Mario Puzo..you know, that "Godfather" author, was one of the writer of the screenplay. Like most disaster films, this one is not subtle....thank God for that! Shut the brain off for 2 hours and enjoy.

April T (au) wrote: I enjoy watching this movie. Frankie Avalon is so cute. I wish I could have been a teenager back in those days. It would be so much fun.

Lanky Man P (kr) wrote: It could have been a lot better if I could literally see what was going on.

Edith N (ca) wrote: Like [i]Rashomon[/i], but With Dancing The thing I don't get about this movie is that these cannot be three tellings of the same story. The details don't overlap. There can be no wacky misunderstandings, because this isn't a mere seeing the same details different ways. The three stories we are told here are completely and totally different; for example, only one seems to mention at all that the characters in question ever left Paris. We are told that the reason for the dramatic changes between the first story and the second is that the tellers didn't know some additional information, and it's true that certain information has a spin put on it because of that, but certain things cannot merely be spun away. I mean, either a character is fooling around with Gene Kelly on a boat or she is not. Either a character is a hopeless lush or she is not. Though it is interesting to note that neither woman claims to have had her own romance with Gene Kelly. Gene Kelly is charming as always as Barry Nichols. Some time before the movie begins, he was putting on a stage show in Paris called [i]Les Girls[/i]. One of its former stars, now Lady Sybil Wren (Kay Kendall) has written a tell-all memoir, and she is being sued by former colleague and roommate Angle Ducros (Taina Elg). Though both are now married, at the time, they were single girls sharing a Paris garret with Joy Henderson (Mitzi Gaynor) and dancing lead in the show. Lady Sybil tells a tale of Angle's romance with Barry, despite the fact that she is engaged to Pierre (Jacques Bergerac). The climax of the story is a shocking suicide attempt. So then Angle takes the stand and tells instead of Sybil's alcoholism. She claims that the girls agreed to get Barry to fake a romance with her which somehow ended with Sybil's marrying Sir Gerald Wren (Leslie Phillips) after a shocking suicide attempt. And then a Mystery Witness is summoned to the stand and tells what really happened. You see. Angle says Barry was involved with Sybil, and Sybil says Barry was involved with Angle. (It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that he is in fact in love with Joy.) And if hints and intimations were all there was to it, you could get a plausible story out of it. But some of the details are completely contradictory in ways that cannot be explained away. Each woman was supposedly watching her roommate have a full-blown romance with Barry, either openly or not. Yes, I realize that a Gene Kelly movie really only needs a plot to have something to string the dance numbers together, but I still wish someone had thought about this a little more. Joy says at the end that her former roommates couldn't have made their stories up out of whole cloth, but two people must have been. Perhaps not the whole time, but there was very clearly invention going on somewhere. There is a lot of debate when it comes to Gene Kelly versus Fred Astaire. Someone I read a review from once wrote in high dudgeon that no one could actually think Gene Kelly was better. That person was wrong; I do. Or at any rate, I like him better. I do not feel I know enough about dance to really judge the men on the quality of their dancing, but I would much rather watch Gene Kelly. The difference is that Gene Kelly really seems to enjoy what he's doing. Both men were doing hard work. Dancing is hard on your body, and these men weren't just waltzing. But when I watch Gene Kelly, I get the feeling that he loved what he was doing. He would dance all the time if only people wouldn't look at him funny when he did it. Whereas Fred Astaire always seemed to be pleased with himself because of his technical ability at doing something difficult. Gene Kelly didn't want you to know that what he was doing was difficult at all. He didn't want you to see the strings. Funnily enough, this movie beat out a Fred Astaire movie for its only Oscar--for costume design. What's even funnier is that it was [i]Funny Face[/i], which was about high fashion. So there's that. I don't remember much feeling one way or another about the costumes--and certainly no one ever won awards for just costuming Gene Kelly, who seems to wear the same outfit no matter what movie he's in. But I hated [i]Funny Face[/i] and like this well enough. I also think there's something kind of pleasing to Gene Kelly's being in an Oscar-winning movie as he headed into the tail of his career. And there must have been a lot of complicated costumes in this, given the nature of the show-within-a-movie. Barry says at one point in the movie that, if he went back to America, he'd be just another American dancer, but in Europe, he was Barry Nichols. I think he was wrong in that, however; no matter where he went, he was Gene Kelly, and that was a great person to be.

Jennifer T (au) wrote: Very strong performances by Streep and Roberts. Not the most interesting story but impeccable acting.

Letitia L (es) wrote: The dialogue is wonderfully snappy, but the problem with Benedict Cumberbatch playing fundamentally unlikeable characters is that, well, he plays characters that are fundamentally unlikeable. Still, a great film for the progressive cause.