Set in 1932, amid the rise of militarism after the establishment of the Manchukuo colony in Northeast China, the story centers on a trio of karateka. Studying under their aging master in a small dojo in the woods of central Kyushu, Choei, Taikan and Giryu face a company of kempeitai military police come to requisition their dojo for use as a military base.
- Stars:Akihito Yagi, Tatsuya Naka, Yûji Suzuki, Kenji Anan, Arashi Fukasawa, Hakuryû, Rei Hanaoka, Atsushi Hida, Yû Kamio, Takayasu Komiya, Tatsuya Mori, Atsuko Nakamura, Yôsuke Natsuki, Shin'ya Ohwada, Hideyuki Satô,
- Director:Shunichi Nagasaki,
- Writer:Jôji Iida
A Karate masters three students compete for to be the new master against events of historical events. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Black Belt torrent reviews
(ru) wrote: The Worricker trilogy cannot be concluded in a better way. This film is far superior than the second part ("Turks and Caicos") in every way and is totally comparable with the first one in term of acting, story-telling - only the chemistry between Nighy and Bonham Carter seems to be not as intimate as the duo Nighy-Weisz in the first part ("Page Eight"). Otherwise, the film is thrillingly good with cat-and-mouse games all over the places, not only among the spies themselves, but also among the politicians, and even among the family members. This concluding part also made the Worricker trilogy similar (yes, strangely enough) to the Bourne trilogy more than ever - both have terrific first and third acts and a so-so second acts, both have their main characters entangled in a maze of conspiracies, emotions, betrayals, loyalty, love, hate, emotion... The only different is the way the main character in each trilogy gets out of such maze - Bourne with brute force, intelligence, and determination, whereas Worricker prefers experience, belief, and wisdom. But similar to the difference between Hollywood and British cinema, Worricker is way more human than Bourne since he - as a feeble old spy-master has his past, he has emotions, he has weaknesses, he even has lovers and daughter to care for, while Bourne is mostly a killing machine with a human soul. Therefore, the audience admires Bourne but can hardly understand him, whereas they can feel Worricker, can put themselves in Worricker's boots to feel what he felt exposing himself in the streets of London under heavy surveillance to receive bombardment of blames on him from his very dear daughter, on how he made her life miserable, how he could not make a single one close to him happy (this may be the best sequence of the whole trilogy!). Actually I can feel that a fourth Worricker film will come out in the future, since these simple yet elegant theme and characters still have plenty of potential for further cinematic exploration. Better yet, a TV-film format is good enough for such minimalistic setting if the story and the acting are as excellent as they were in the trilogy (not so much in the second part, though). Let us hope to see Mr. Worricker again with his everlasting conquest of woman's heart, and of buried conspiracies.
(it) wrote: i think it was trying for subversive. it sort of got there.
(kr) wrote: I don't know why I watched it except for the fact it was on TV. Waste of time
(ag) wrote: A mediocre reversal sci-fi film with moments that would annoy older audiences as this is specifically for kids, overshadowing the occasional chuckles. (C+)
(ca) wrote: Amateurish camera work, poor acting, confusing script. We only watched 20 minutes of this before turning it off.
(es) wrote: This was ALL over the place. Shame cause the cast was great.
(ag) wrote: I hate Ben Stiller so much less in stuff like this.
(ag) wrote: One of my favorite movies from my childhood...Probably saw it close to 100 times as a kid. I have not seen it in 25 years or so. Still a fun movie to watch after all that time...and I remembered so much of it.
(de) wrote: Obviously, this movie was recognized by the academy because it was controversial and very blue. And to that end, its true. This movie is VERY sexually progressive and forthcoming. From the get go, it is acknowledged that teen boys have sexual desires. So do the girls. And so do moms and dads. We also go through all of the shame and tragedy that sometimes comes in sex. And it all happens under the microcosm of a small town where position and reputation are everything.Why I didn't like this movie; is because its absolutely absurd. It's got frickin' everything. The poor girl from the shacks with an alcoholic abusive stepfather. The class president risking his dad's prominence by dating the town whore. Our prissy narrator whose logical desires are shunned by her overbearing mother. The shy boy with the lonely mom who won't let him have his own life. And apparently, no one is ever happy ever.Something crazy and tragic happens to all of these people. The movie should have ended once the narrator escaped to New York. But no, we had to endure a bullshit trial based on one of these tragic events just so we can hold a mirror up to our small town community and preach that their not living up to the values the aspire to. It's not a bad message. It just could have been told in a less obnoxious way. Which is also true of the rest of the movie.
(mx) wrote: A fun romance set in Italy. It is a musical with all 80s music, with song and dance. It kinda felt a bit like Grease with 80s pop music helping tell the story. I liked this a lot more than I thought I would!