A rich woman, Mrs. Li, is losing her attractiveness and longs for passion with her husband, who is having an affair with his younger and more attractive masseuse. In order to boost her image, she seeks out the help of Aunt Mei, a local chef. Mei cooks her some special dumplings which she claims to be effective for rejuvenation, but these dumplings hide a terrible secret.
In Hong Kong, Aunt Mei is a cook famous for her home-made rejuvenation dumplings, based on a millenarian recipe prepared with a mysterious ingredient that she brings directly from China. ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Dumplings torrent reviews
(ag) wrote: Hopefully, this piece of garbage will leave as fast as it returned.
(fr) wrote: The Dance of Reality is a helluva film. It's a firecracker jumble of reality and fantasy, where Jodorowsky's panache for visual grandeur doesn't actually overwhelm the characters and their storylines.There are two major stories that weave together, sometimes one taking priority over the other. The first, and most obvious, is the growing pains experienced by a boy trying to figure out how to make his father love him and how to be friends with boys that don't want his friendship. These scenes are marked by vibrant color and fantasy, where the absurd and fantastical meet in some truly delightful scenes. The contrast between this whimsy and the grim family life experienced by the boy takes on an almost Pan's Labyrinth-type dichotomy.The later developing story is that of his father. Here the film twists out of its fantasy visuals into something dreary and more realistic. While the visual spark returns occasionally, the tone of the film takes on the somber journey he takes.The Dance of Reality is definitely a journey, and people who already know and love Jodorowsky's style will be right at home in this frenetic film.
(ag) wrote: Feels like you are watching one of those movies on the SciFy Channel. Not very good.
(mx) wrote: A powerful documentary about a sick, terrible place and the people who have to live there.
(au) wrote: It actually has a promising beginning in a pulpy, Showgirls sort of way but at a certain point it just starts to feel too much like a lazy comeback vehicle for Christina Aguilera's singing career.
(mx) wrote: This movie makes me SO angry!
(es) wrote: best movie of all time
(ag) wrote: Really, the [i]CSI[/i] Zoom Should Have Given It Away Apparently, this fooled quite a lot of people in New Zealand, where it was initially aired as a legitimate documentary. While I can understand that, I think there are plenty of clues--especially if you are, say, watching the film with one of the people actually in it, which is apparently true of someone who was fooled. For one thing, while I don't know a great deal about the cultural cues of our friends in the Southern Hemisphere, you should never trust any story which feeds into even as many of them as I do know. If you believe this story, there is now film evidence that Richard Pearse of New Zealand beat the Wright Brothers into flight by literally months. Which is proven by zooming in on a newspaper in a witness's pocket. There is footage of Gallipoli. There is proof that a native of New Zealand invented colour film, sound film, and even just the close-up. Essentially, a man from New Zealand invented the modern language of film--if you believe this. This is the story of Colin McKenzie (Thomas Robins). Peter Jackson (actually Peter Jackson, who co-made the film with Costa Botes) discovered an entire chest of McKenzie's films in a shed, thereby unearthing the most important archive in film history--possibly, indeed, in the history of New Zealand. As a boy, trying to find a way to avoid hand-cranking his camera, McKenzie fitted one to his bicycle and invented the tracking shot. He was absolutely brilliant. He happens to have been on hand during the long-discussed but never proven Pearse flight in March of 1903. He made a film camera for his brother, Brooke (Richard Shirtcliffe), to take off to war (Colin McKenzie had flat feet), providing the only footage in the trenches with ANZAC at Gallipoli. The brothers McKenzie had been planning to make a great Biblical epic, [i]Salome[/i], but great Biblical epics were expensive. And then Brooke was killed at Gallipoli. And then there were further money problems. And finally, many years after Colin McKenzie went missing in the Spanish Civil War, Peter Jackson makes an expedition into the bush to find the remains of the city built for [i]Salome[/i]. It's actually quite a convincing documentary, if you're just looking at the style. Most of the people who would have actually known a man who disappeared in the late '30s would, of course, have been dead by 1995, when the "documentary" was made. He is given a widow, Hannah (Beatrice Ashton), who married him scant weeks before his disappearance. She is therefore able to fill in certain details but leave most of the story extremely vague--believably. She is able to say "what her husband told her before he left." And anything she doesn't know, like the location of the filming of [i]Salome[/i] and the lost footage thereof, is something he just didn't tell her in the short time they had together. Many of the photographs shown are authentic, albeit not of the characters, and Jackson and Botes went to extra effort to avoid aging the film the same way everyone else does--they did it the old fashioned way, by dragging it around on the basement floor. This is Peter Jackson's last film before hitting it big in the US with [i]The Frighteners[/i]. And of course he would then spend the next eight years working on [i]Lord of the Rings[/i]. They mention at one point that the government of New Zealand might want to consider making the set of [i]Salome[/i] into a tourist attraction--a theme park. Which is just one more unintentional parallel between Jackson himself and Colin McKenzie. Oh, I don't think Peter Jackson is going to run off and be a war correspondent any time soon, and if he did, it would be a public relations nightmare if anything untoward happened to him. However, I think anyone naming anything about the New Zealand film industry would name Peter Jackson first. Sam Neill, interviewed for the film, has been in the international eye longer, but Peter Jackson is the face of New Zealand film so far as much of anyone is concerned. He bought a bunch of computers to make [i]The Frighteners[/i] and decided he finally had enough to make [i]Lord of the Rings[/i]. And now, of course, [i]The Hobbit[/i]. I'm not sure this movie makes me want to go out and see the movies of Colin McKenzie. (It kind of makes me want to see [i]The Frighteners[/i], actually.) Certainly [i]Salome[/i] sounds like a DeMille epic--incredible production values put to a story which really has very little to do with its Biblical origins. Doubtless this is deliberate. I think the theory is that this is a DeMille interested in more than just spectacle. Which I'll admit would be rather nice. But I think, if I were to watch any McKenzie, I would want to watch the documentary footage he himself made. One of the reasons we see so much footage of World War II is that the US actually put effort into making sure good filmmakers were in charge of the cameras. Frank Capra Goes to War and all that. And I would really like to see what a truly skilled cameraman could have done to capture the Spanish Civil War, a war I only know through, well, movies. Very few of which were any more concerned with authenticity than this is.
(gb) wrote: Fascinating two-hander about an awkward first date. I'm still not 100% sure much of anything happened in this film, but I enjoyed watching the nothing happen and listening to the conversation. Flawed, certainly (sadly, Tom Noonan the actor-director is so good at playing villains that I kept expecting him to kill her) but absolutely worth watching.
(br) wrote: Mon Oncle is not just a funny satire of the bourgeoisie, technology, falseness and the politically correct, but is also a sweet portrait of childhood and one of the most delightfully films that I ever saw. Fresh.
(ag) wrote: I want to see this movie, Because I like is very nice
(ca) wrote: What the first film lacked in originality by following the unlikely friends concept that dreamworks and pixar pioneered it more than made up for that with it's heart. Sadly that's faded after a good but not brilliant sequel and a passable third and it's pretty clear fox won't try anything new with their little earner. Like all animated films it has its moments but they're not enough to compensate for a mounimaginative pic. The first film filled me with wondstlmer and at times scared me, sadly I'm not even slightly feeling the same way now with a franchise that looks set to last as long as the ice age itself
(ag) wrote: The lucy Liu/woody Harrelson sex scene in this is worth a star and a half as far as I'm concerned :) Solid boxing buddy pic though, catch it if you find it on cable or a movie channel.
(ru) wrote: For some, expressing themselves means lot than being a rich.This is actually a good film that misled by its low rating. But the end should have been really better, other than that the rest of the film was enjoyable. Another small scale movie and another excellent performance by Kristen Wiig. The story of a single woman with the borderline personality disorder. After winning the $80 million through the lottery draw, she decides to own a television show to talk about her personal life. She begins to lose her close ones as the result of her out talk about them, but can she fix it and how is the remaining.This is a unique story, not like that you see it often in the movies. Apart from Wiig, the rest of the supporting cast was not bad, but very sad to see such a good looking wonderful actress like Linda Cardellin in a small role. If you hate slow pace, this movie might be an average to you, but others who won't mind will find it better. What I surprised to know is that most of the film critics thumb upped for it than the film goers. But I still suggest it, mainly for the film fanatics, just give it a try and so you might like it than what you've heard about it.7/10