Apartment 1303

Apartment 1303

While celebrating with her friends in her new cheaply rented apartment (with balcony and view of the sea) on the thirteenth floor of a building, the young Sayaka unexpectedly jumps off the balcony committing suicide. Her mother goes insane and her older sister, Mariko, decides to investigate the mysterious death of her sister. She finds that there have been many suicides of young women living in apartment 1303. She finds a book telling the tragic story of the Yukiyo and her mother, the first tenants of the apartment and uncovers the truth behind the suicides.

A modern ghost story which turns a love hate relationship between mother and daughter into a tale of horror. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Apartment 1303 torrent reviews

Kevin F (au) wrote: I've been waiting to see this movie since I first heard about its Kickstart campaign. It was definitely worth the wait!

Tony R (fr) wrote: I saw this with some one from my past. Good enough film that I'm watching it agains years later ??

Shirley L (kr) wrote: Londoner tales with Canary Wharf in the background. Stories are not well connected and feeling different pieces came together to form a movie.

Edith N (de) wrote: Putting Woody Harrelson in Glasses Doesn't Make Him Respectable This is a horribly depressing documentary, of course. No one would see its title and not think that unless they didn't know anything about the Rape of Nanking. Which, of course, means that there is an unfortunately large number of people who won't know what they're getting into just from the name. However, there is one moment which is very briefly delightful, though it is unfortunately followed up by something along the lines of, "And then the Japanese killed my mother." Because that's pretty much how stories about the Rape of Nanking go. However, the one moment which is pleasing to an audience, though it's probably unconscious on the part of the man being interviewed (more on which anon), is that he is still making sound effects for the planes and guns even all these years later. It's a remarkably human moment in a story which goes almost beyond human understanding. Ideally, I should not have to go into the details of the Rape of Nanking here. Suffice it to say, then, that this documentary is a combination of historical footage, interviewers with survivors, and readings by current actors standing in for important figures of the events in question. Jrgen Prochnow, for example, stands in for John Rabe, whom we have seen before. Woody Harrelson is Dr. Bob Wilson, the Steve Buscemi character from [i]John Rabe[/i]. Mariel Hemingway is Minnie Vautrin. And so forth. And while they are not acting per se, they are very clearly intended to be portraying the figures whose words they are reading. For the most part, the camera shows us the faces, only occasionally delving into the imagery that Rabe and the others managed to document the horrors with. The timeline is laid out, illuminated by the details of rapes and murders. Some of the survivors weep as they tell of the things which specifically happened to them. But I can't tell you those survivors' names. I do believe that it's impossible to tell the true and full story of the Rape of Nanking without using the experiences of those Westerners who saved so many lives, so I'm certainly not suggesting that they have no place in these events. They also serve to counter, at least a little, the idea that the Rape of Nanking was exaggerated if not outright invented by the Chinese government. However, neither of my usual two sites for checking details of a movie provide the names of the handful of actual Chinese people interviewed here. You can tell they're not actors, because they are old people telling stories about what happened to them when they were in children. One woman talks of being raped at twelve because she thought it would save her grandfather's life. One man talks of the death of his mother and how his baby brother was unable to understand what was going on. These are important stories, just as important as those of the Westerners. But I don't remember their names, and no one wants to help me. It is frustrating to me that people call this documentary "anti-Japanese." As if the problem with the deaths was just that the killers were Japanese. Oh, we know it won't be airing in Japan any time soon, because Japan has never come to terms with its own history from that era. Producer Ted Leonsis insists that the film is merely anti-war, and I think that's accurate. No, it doesn't talk about the millions killed by things like the Great Leap Forward, but then, it also doesn't talk about the Korean "comfort women." Neither are relevant to the story being told, which is one city at one time. I'm quite sure that most of the people involved could say pretty scathing things about the mistakes made under Mao, as could I. That, however, simply isn't the point. Nor is any history between China and Japan up until that point or anything which has happened since. The point is to remember what happened in Nanking, to recognize part of our human history. To me, the importance of Nanking is quite simply that it shows both the good and the evil of which humans are capable. John Rabe used the power of Nazi Germany to protect hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Oh, he was one of the only Germans I can excuse for not knowing what was going on in Germany at the time, being that he hadn't been to Germany in quite some time, and he was ignorant enough so that he thought Germany would step in and protect the people of Nanking. Minnie Vautrin committed suicide in despair for all the women she was unable to protect. However, she protected more women than she would have been expected to. The atrocities of Nanking--of World War II in general--are a portrayal of humanity at its worst. The stories of the Westerners of Nanking--and, yes Oskar Schindler and Raoul Wallenberg and many others--are a portrayal of humanity at its best. You need the former to truly display the latter, though I'd do without the latter if we could avoid the former while we're at it.

katlynn m (nl) wrote: th movie was ok but the ending was gay

Dan M (mx) wrote: So funny, so true. She's awesome!

Keenan S (it) wrote: Proof Of Life these days is only ever remembered for three things: the notorious affair between Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe (Which eventually lead to Meg Ryan's divorce from Dennis Quaid), the tragic death of a stuntman during filming, and it was also the start of the death spiral of Meg Ryan's acting career. The film also released to less than stellar reviews that basically panned it as being a generic and routine thriller.Despite such criticisms and scandals surrounding the film, I immensely enjoyed Proof Of Life, as I found it gripping, thrilling, suspenseful, and a hell of a lot of fun to watch - which is what a thriller should be. Can it be implausible and cheesy at times? Yes, it can be. However, it is skillfully directed, well acted, and overall well made.The plot is simple: Alice Bowman's husband is kidnapped by a South American revolutionary group and they demand a ransom. A man who specializes in kidnapping and ransom takes on the assignment to rescue her husband in a dangerous high stakes game of life and death.While the plot is simple, it works very well for the film as a whole as it moves at a brisk pace and is never boring. Even when characters are interacting with each other, I found myself engaged with what they were doing, thanks to the solid performances given by the actors. However, when the action heats up, it's one hell of a ride from start to finish.In the end, Proof Of Life is a tremendously underrated thriller. I'm not sure of why people don't really like this film, but oh well. If you enjoy watching thrillers and you're willing to check your brain at the door, Proof Of Life will give you the goods when you watch it and you'll have a good time.

Matt D (br) wrote: In yet another example of revisiting a film from my childhood, 'Hook' was an interesting rewatch. The film has a lot of moments that stuck with me through the years but it wasn't until tonight that I realized just how painfully cheesy they are. Oftentimes Spielberg can get away with these moments in my book but in 'Hook' he pushes it to an extreme.Can we also talk about how unnecessarily long this is? Chop out another 30 minutes (there's definitely enough fluff to do that) and this might make for a briskly enjoyable trip down memory lane, but as it is you'll more likely be put to sleep. One star given alone is dedicated to the crazy old man screaming, "It's snowing!"

Eddie D (us) wrote: One of my least favorite Fulci films

Tuomas R (ca) wrote: Niin aikansa elnyt ettei ole tosikaan.

Minna S (mx) wrote: One hell of a mess and has no structure to speak of. Also, most of the actresses state, or rave, their lines in a tone so similar to each other that at times it gets hard to recognize who's talking. Even Divine is missing here. Some great lines and moments, though, but I probably wouldn't watch this again.

Alyssa N (fr) wrote: I can appreciate movies that are "so bad they're good", but despite all the hype, I don't think this is one of them. It's just bad. The guy doesn't even turn into a bloodthirsty chicken until well into the movie, and by then you've already suffered through way too many scenes of sleep-inducing dialogue and plot developments that can barely be called that. I doubt the actors are all as talentless as they seem. It's obvious that they just don't care enough to try, and neither did anyone involved on a technical level, especially the cinematographer, since some shots are out of focus. Or maybe that was just my eyes glazing over from boredom. At least if I'd fallen asleep then I would have missed one of the worst cop-out endings in B-movie history. But on a positive note, the chicken head never gets old.

Roger H (us) wrote: what can i say, it was cute

Mitchell B (fr) wrote: A nice sequel to the first Bond movie!

Josef H (jp) wrote: Not bad. The special features were interesting.

Weul S (ag) wrote: A young nun visits her dying uncle who falls in love with her & then commits suicide. Much later, a group of lepers, pimps, junkies, & whores pose as the last supper for a woman's vagina camera. No wonder the vatican banned this film.

Edith N (kr) wrote: Oh, Propaganda! Under the Code, gangsters couldn't be both main characters and actually threatening. Humphrey Bogart managed to project subtle menace a lot of the time, but he was only supposed to be a real, serious threat when he was the villain and would be nobly defeated by someone we were actually supposed to be admiring. Here, he's supposed to be a hero, which means he can't be a genuine gangster. He's got a lovable mother and a thing about a certain brand of cheesecake. He makes a lot of bets, but he doesn't really participate in any other rackets. It's true that it's too late for him to be a rumrunner, but there are all kinds of other unsavoury things a mobster could get into in the '40s. However, since he's Our Hero, the reason the cops have wanted to bust him for years has been left rather amorphous. We know there's gambling, and we know they talk a lot about killing people, but it's never said they actually have. Gloves Donahue (Bogart) is a charming kingpin of some sort. However, when his mother (Jane Darwell) wants him to do things, he does. And his mother wants him to investigate the disappearance of the baker of all those cheesecakes, Mr. Miller (Ludwig Stssel), who has vanished without a trace. Only Gloves and his gang find Miller's body. They encounter Leda Hamilton (Kaaren Verne), whom Gloves immediately suspects of being somehow involved with the murder. He follows her into a Nazi spy ring populated with such old favourites as Peter Lorre and Conrad Veidt, and he is promptly accused of Miller's death himself. Together with his wacky circle of associates, including Jackie Gleason and Phil Silvers, he goes in search of who really killed Miller, why, and what they're planning to do next. And, of course, while those gangsters may be crooks, they're also one hundred percent American, and they have no patience for Nazis. As is typical of the era, half the Nazis are played by Germans who fled the country, generally one step ahead of the Gestapo. Most notable of these are Lorre and Veidt. Lorre's performance in [i]M[/i] is so powerful and so moving that Hitler's propaganda used it as an example of what Jews are "really like." It's not universally true, of course--very few people, Jew or Gentile, are that talented. However, it enabled him to make a place for himself in American film as the untrustworthy, mysterious man who was pretty much never the man at the top. He and Veidt would also both be denizens of Casablanca the year after, centering their lives, as everyone else in the city seems to have done, around Rick's. (Veidt would die two years after this film of a heart attack.) Indeed, one of the most touching scenes in that movie, the singing of the Marseillaise, is made the more so by the fact that half the people singing it were just what their characters were--refugees dreaming of the day their homes would be free again. Worth noting is that Leda's father is declared, in the movie, to be imprisoned at Dachau. Gloves can't pronounce it; he just spells it out. However, she quite bluntly informs him, when he asks, that it's a concentration camp. This was not secret knowledge. Now, of course, the scale of the camp, and the camp system it was part of, and the conditions of the camp, were not known to the general public at the time. It is also true that, the minute that information is established, I assumed he was dead, and my reasons for that assumption are not just based on dramatic rules. Though, of course, they are good and sound dramatic rules! At any rate, the cast would have known of the existence of such places, given that, as mentioned, several of them escaped Germany just ahead of being put in them. This may also have something to do with Lorre's subsequent appearance in [i]Hollywood Canteen[/i], another propaganda piece of the same era, albeit one a little more realistic. I would like to congratulate the makers of the DVD for one thing, which appears on some similar releases. It is possible to watch this as "Warner's Night at the Movies," which includes a couple of short subjects, including a trailer and a newsreel. This is an ideal presentation for an older movie. (The movie the trailer was for was kind of iffy, to the point that I don't seem to have bothered with a review. Maybe I turned it off.) In some ways, I think we are deprived of an experience by the fact that we don't have these things anymore. Oh, we have trailers a-plenty, and some are even for movies you might want to see, though they're not generally as original as the best of the old ones. We get plenty of ads, and Pixar is very good at giving us a cartoon in advance. But I think maybe we'd be better served to have the newsreels back. It might serve to get people aware of their surroundings again. Maybe Jon Stewart has the time.