Set years ago in the era of the Joseon Dynasty, the story follows a young police officer named Namsoon (Ha Ji-won) who, along with her fellow officers, discovers a counterfeit ring operating out of the area they've been assigned to protect. However, as the criminals aren't just printing up their own money, they also plan to use it to topple the economy and take down the government. As her investigative work continues, Namsoon soon makes the acquaintance of a young man known only as Sad Eyes (Gang Dong-won), for the way that he looks out at you from underneath his hair - he doesn't say much, but he's got that look and that's all it takes to pique Namsoon's interest in him, even if she shouldn't be thinking those thoughts about someone she might have to toss in jail. Of course, Namsoon can't deny her feelings even if the object of her affection belongs behind bars, and it's not long before she's starting to act on her emotions.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:108 minutes
  • Release:2005
  • Language:Korean
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:martial arts,  

Set years ago in the era of the Joseon Dynasty, the story follows a young police officer named Namsoon (Ha Ji-won) who, along with her fellow officers, discovers a counterfeit ring ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Duelist torrent reviews

Angel G (br) wrote: I usually like bad movies, but this movie really sucks.What you see in the trailer is already bad, and yet it's the best from the movie.Go watch something else!

Raymond S (kr) wrote: This was a GREAT film that went largely unnoticed. Too bad...Chad McQueen was perfect in this role.

Ally C (ru) wrote: 1 star for the fact Misha Collins was in it. So so bad.

Anesia R (fr) wrote: J'adore la musique du film! L'histoire... c'est pas mal. I guess children will love the story... and the circus' acts, videmment.

Juan A (us) wrote: As an action movie, it was very good...crude, but good!

Ang P (au) wrote: DiSZ M0ViE iSZ 4 ALL DEM P.H.A.T. CHiCSZ LIkE ME & iT WUS BEASTiN 4REA F0LK

Trey B (ru) wrote: A Pixar classic on the level of Toy Story, thanks to the great characters, and the film's depth.

Piotr Maciej K (ru) wrote: A piece of entertainment. Nothing more, nothing less.

El U (br) wrote: very funny and i always rewind my movies

David A (de) wrote: (from The Watermark 10/02/96) This film's big claim to fame is that it's Julie Andrews' first made-for-TV movie. She plays a successful California career woman whose son, played by Hugh Grant, tells her that his lover (Zeljko Ivanek) is dying of AIDS. Grant asks Andrews if she could personally contact Ivanek's mother (Ann-Margret) in Arkansas and bring her back to see her son one last time. But Margret, who disowned her son when he came out to her, doesn't want to see him. When she does finally agree, Margret and Andrews find that they are two women of completely different backgrounds and lifestyles, yet they are bound together by the homosexuality of their children. When Margret and Ivanek finally reconcile, Andrews and Grant realize that they, too, need to confront a few issues that are marring their own relationship. The film is directed with great sensitivity by John Erman who managed to turn out a full-bodied dramatic work without a gigantic budget. It doesn't focus on the issues of AIDS as much as it focuses on the interaction of the characters. Looking like Eileen Brennan in a Dolly Parton wig, Margret is very moving as an uneducated yet outspoken white-trashy waitress. Andrews gives the best performance in the film, casting aside her usual sugary sweetness to portray a composed and sometimes icy business woman. Grant is a real surprise: he does a flawless American accent. His performance is understated, and perfectly believable as a man coping with his lover's impending death. The videocassette version makes the small mistake of editing out the "fade to black" shots originally intended for the insertion of commercials. Some of the cutaways and transitions seem premature and clumsy as a result. As the dying lover, Ivanek gets very little screen time compared to the stars, and the film could have delved deeper into his character and how the disease had affected his life. Small shortcomings aside, grab a hankie, and enjoy an oddity for the 1990's: a well-made TV movie.

Claire M (gb) wrote: even though woody allen is a creeper i liked the movie.

Richard D (it) wrote: A decent film, but not nearly as cool as it ought to be. Clearly the big draw here is 11 Toho monsters going monstruo a monstruo. Sadly a good third of the film totally forgets this and gets bogged down in the plot involving humans and aliens. Happily, it's the middle third, so the film works pretty well despite it.

Zack M (nl) wrote: Ingmar Bergman is one of the most puzzling filmmakers in history, and likewise Persona leaves us puzzled, confused, and a little uneasy. It's a film that's impossible to fully grasp the meaning of, and yet it's incredibly satisfying to simply contemplate its rich cinematography and deeply intertwined characters. It's meant to be felt emotionally, not understood intellectually.

Nicky N (de) wrote: This Is The Greatest Elvis Movie Ever Made.A

Al M (ca) wrote: A truly bizarre tragicomedey brought to beautiful fruition under the helm of Jean-Pierre Melville based on Jean Cocteau's novel (Cocteau also provides the narrative voice of the film). The film centers around the strange relationship between a brother and sister who share a bedroom they seldom leave but which they also populate with other lost individuals who cling to them despite their constant verbal abuse and psychological games. An exploration of the twisted side of human relationships: the feelings of jealousy and hatred, the need for an other to fill the lack in our being, clinginess, pettiness, and the manner in which all of this can mask a deep, underlying love that is buried under a mask upon mask of derision and abuse. Harrowing and hilarious, Melville's film will no doubt no appeal to the general masses, but fans of French cinema will no doubt be impressed by this minor gem.

Harry A (ca) wrote: Very entertaining despite some problems.

Ben T (kr) wrote: great movie with terrible implications and a creepy relationship.

Pam R (br) wrote: so sad but a moving struggle for a father.

Eric F (es) wrote: "Downhill Racer" is an interesting piece on the resume of Robert Redford. The film was completed prior to the release of Redford's major breakout in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", although it's theatrical premiere came only a week later. Redford in "Downhill Racer" hardly exemplifies what made him a star - his character, David Chappellet, is aggravatingly complacent and rather boorish. It's a tremendous performance of great understatement and nuance by the American acting legend, a work so low-key that Redford sheds his growing stardom in favor of total character immersion.Chappellet joins the United States Ski Team following a serious injury to a valued member, and immediately he sets his goals for individual fortune. Downhill skiing is not a team sport, argues Chappellet, and it's easy to assume that he'd stand in the way of his teammates' success if it meant more for him.He's an interesting hero for this familiar genre. We certainly cannot question his great ambition, but he's a character so distant that he's hard to root for. Really, he's a thoroughly distainable asshole - we don't necessarily hope that he wins the big race, but we are certainly curious to see what lies ahead for him.The opposite of Redford's Chappelet is the team's coach played by Gene Hackman. He's a character somewhat more reminiscent of the run-of-the-mill underdog sports drama. His performance is one of great humanity, and throughout the course of the film he does what he can to bring his team together.What makes "Downhill Racer" special is it's racing sequences. Shot in long takes from the racer's point-of-view, the action is driven by the danger of the sport rather than a manipulative score or rapid-fire editing techniques. These sequences are almost hypnotic, scenes of tremendously cutting-edge camera work amongst a film that is otherwise fairly dated aesthetically.

Jason S (au) wrote: it was an ok crime movie not the best however