In the 16th century in Chosun dynasty, HWANG Jung-hak and LEE Mong-hak create the “Grand Alliance” with the united dream of a better world. While the new leader LEE dreams of eradicating this world of all its corruption and becoming king himself, the legendary blind swordsman HWANG who had once been his comrade goes after him with the loss of his good friend at the hands of LEE. Just as the king abandoned his kingdom from Japanese invasion, the two come face-to-face inside the empty palace and begin their last battle they were destined to fight.
Writer:Seok-Hwan Choi, Cheol-Hyeon Jo, Oh Seung-Hyeon
During a turbulent time when political upheaval, rebellion, and invasion are coming to a head two swordsmen are caught up in a violent and bloody struggle to seize control of the country ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Jesse O (kr) wrote: Movies within movies focusing on serial killers isn't a new thing. It's been done in mockumentaries like Man Bites Dog, a movie that I absolutely love and that I, desperately, need to watch again. There's another called Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (which I reviewed over a decade ago). While I had my issues with the latter, it was still a movie that I really liked and one that I would also love to watch again. The point I'm trying to make is that Shock Value doesn't really do anything that hasn't actually been done before, granted this is a horror filmmaker getting a serial killer to star in his horror movie and not a mockumentary. With all of that said, this movie really was quite the surprise. And I really do mean that in the most complimentary way possible, because I enjoyed this movie quite a bit. Perhaps the thing that surprised me the most about this is how funny the movie actually was. I don't wanna say it's a truly subversive horror film, but focusing on a horror director allows them to poke fun at the genre without it feeling too self-aware for its own good. It also allows them, and this is really what the narrative is about, to tell the story of Miles (the director) struggling to make any sort of impact in the scene and how this movie, starring a real serial killer, might be his last chance to truly make it in this business. He's obviously delusional about this because, yes, the movie would get publicity due to the fact that a real serial killer starred in it. But once people saw how crap the movie actually was, it wouldn't lead to him getting more breaks in bigger films, I think it'd close more doors for him than it would open honestly. But that's how delusional he is, and you can sort of sympathize with that because, for the most part, Miles is a relatable character. He throws all that to shit in the third act of the movie, but you can relate to him trying to find the one hook he needs in order for him to become a famous filmmaker. Granted, that hook is blackmailing a serial killer to star in his film. Threatening Nick, the killer, with revealing his crimes if he doesn't star in Miles' movie. The relationship between Nick, Miles and Justine (Miles' producer) is contentious at first. Nick tells both Miles and Justine that he's gonna kill them once filming is complete. But, obviously, as if you couldn't have seen this coming, Nick starts to enjoy his work. He becomes close with Justine and, eventually, that leads to a romance between the two. He's not exactly close with Miles, but he's certainly warming up to the guy. This is where the film is at its best, because you get to see more layers of Nick than you would have reasonably expect. He finally finds the one thing that he has been missing in Justine. And that may be cheesy, but one certainly starts to like the guy more the more you get to see of him. Even if he is a maniacal serial killer. The shooting of the horror movie leads to some of the funnier scenes in the entire flick. In all honesty, for the first two acts, this is a straight up comedy. And it's a very good one at that. It's not the funniest film you will ever see, but it's got enough that it will keep you consistently entertained. The third act is where the film, to me, loses a bit of steam. Perhaps that's a wrong description to use, but I just feel that the shift from comedy to straight up horror was a bit jarring. Yes, this is a movie that has killings from the very start. But the tone of it all was always comedic, not necessarily like a Coens' film but something similar, it's a little dark. There comes a moment when Miles, after being punched by the boyfriend of his lead actress (whom he's been trying to have sex with since the beginning of the movie), he goes out and finds the boyfriend and he just straight up shoots him in the head. This sets off something in him that causes him to go on a killing spree on the last day of the shoot. I'm not gonna spoil things, but Miles is revealed, at least to me, to be far more malevolent than even Nick. And I say that, even though Nick has killed close to 40 people, because Miles is going on this killing spree to protect his legacy with this movie. Nick's serial killings were obviously unjustified and senseless, but there's something messed up about someone going on a killing spree to protect something as trivial as a movie. The point I'm trying to make, however, is the fact that the third act doesn't really fit in that well with the rest of the movie. I get what they were going for, with Miles' desperation for success and recognition, but I just felt that it was tonally out of tune with the rest of the film. It doesn't hurt the movie that much, I downgraded it from 3.5 to 3 stars, because I still enjoyed this a lot even with the downgrade. The script is funny and smart, the cast is great. My complaints, in the fact of all the good in the film, are minor by comparison. If you're a horror geek, then you're definitely gonna like this movie. If you're someone who's casually into horror movies, eh, I don't think so. This movie works best if you're a horror geek or just a film geek in general. This is ironic considering the fact that one of the major plot points is Miles wanting his film to reach a wider audience, yet this is a film that will only appeal to a 'niche' crowd. So that was interesting. Anyway, this is a good movie.
Pronob A (ru) wrote: A Salman Khan movie? What do you expect than a cheezy love story that doesnt have a strong story line. Ofcourse its copied from the Bourne series, but Salman Khan has the capability of messing any good movie with his bad acting. Enuff said. I couldnt watch more than an hour into the movie so cant comment anymore.
Heidi Noel S (it) wrote: Just a good fun movie, simple story!
Tanvi G (br) wrote: One of the few movies on marriage that blew me off. What a take. Sometimes there is no reason. Loved the performances.
Michael D (au) wrote: For a B grade horror movie that you know is law budget and going to suck in terms of quality, Candy Stripers was actually entertaining enough to earn a passing grade - at least compared to other low budget B grade horror flicks.
The O (br) wrote: an amazingly beautiful love story from japan
Karel J v (jp) wrote: Goed camerawerk, vrouw 'verliest' geheugen door ongeval en wordt in bescherming genomen door een vreemde man, die doet alsof hij haar vriend is (1 september 1993).
Ryan V (us) wrote: Irritating movie where Ernest actually channels Wes Craven's Shocker.
Jerome B (fr) wrote: one great movie! it's other title is "City After Dark," 1 of those movies produced by Mother Lily, whose production outfit is also known for some well-known trash films!
Devon W (ag) wrote: Bad, with some classic cheesy moments.
Kenneth F (it) wrote: Very good film for Disney in the World War II period,
Will T (au) wrote: Really good hilarious film!!!
Craig F (ca) wrote: Extremely apparent 80's film. Timothy Dalton gets one of the best scripts of the Bond series so far but give a rather uninspired performance as a vengeful 007. As with previous Bond films, there's a bunch of 80's influences here, the most visible probably being Scarface. It was also nice to see personal story for Bond, though by the end I'd forgotten Felix survived, and it was cool seeing a young Del Toro. Gender roles are addressed but never challenged; Bouvier was one of the most capable Bond girls so I had hoped to see her in action rather than pining for Bond, but all in all 'License to Kill' is one of the best Bond films yet.
D371N 5 (es) wrote: This movie is a mess. It has way too many characters for me to give a shit about any of them, and of course, marvel had to shove a ton of shit into the movie that they didn't need to set up a universe. Why can't you just make a good movie instead of making a commercial for other movies that you will eventually make. We know that none of these characters are going to die because of the set for other movies, so there is no tension, these characters will be in 10 other movies so we know they won't die in this movie, so why should we care? A week villain whose motivation is just to blow up the world. They tried to make Ultron like Loki in this movie, which doesn't work because 1) He's a robot, so his sense of humor doesn't make sense and 2) He doesn't say anything funny the entire movie, even though he's trying to. I kind of expected more from marvel on this movie.