Flower and Snake

Flower and Snake

Tôyama, a weak-willed businessman, is in debt to the Yakuza; they also have a video of him bribing a government minister. To clear his debts, he agrees to let them drug and kidnap his wife ...

Tôyama, a weak-willed businessman, is in debt to the Yakuza; they also have a video of him bribing a government minister. To clear his debts, he agrees to let them drug and kidnap his wife ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Flower and Snake torrent reviews

Kevin R (ag) wrote: While not having anything terribly bad about it, Saint John of Las vegas hasn't got that much which is very good, settling for alright.I like all the actors and characters, there is an alright story idea. Somehow none of it seems to get developed to it's potential and it's frustrating for the viewer. Had it been a little more quirky, a little more raunchy, a little more violent - it would have been more memorable. It had an R rating and did nothing with it.

Mikael K (au) wrote: Zoe R. Cassavetes has clearly tried to make an artsy and independent romantic comedy when she has written and directed ??Broken English?? a movie about Nora, a beautiful and successful young woman who can't find ??True Love?? (TM). Tonewise the film does okay; it doesn't look or feel sugary or fluffy, but unfortunately the script is filled with awkward dialog and platitudes that do little more than state the obvious time and again.I also had some major problems with the protagonist. I don't at all think that lead characters should be heroic and virtuous, but Nora is just such an annoying stereotype of a weak and insecure woman it irritated the heck out of me. And I have to say that Parker Posey is completely awful in the role with odd expressions and poses that didn't make me believe in the character for one second. And- surprisingly- even usually-reliable-always-nice-to-look-at Melvil Poupaud wasn't convincing as a very stereotypical ??perfect man?? who could have been taken straight from any generic romantic film.If you're really into chick flicks, this might be a welcomed distraction from the standard Hollywood peppiness. But ultimately ??Broken English?? is pretty much as insubstantial as any standard Jennifer Aniston cupcake comedy.

Kurt F (ag) wrote: 1/5/14 Mildly entertaining. Nothing to write home about, but it kept me interested because it is unique. Touching at the end, but it is never really funny, so I wouldn't consider it a comedy. It's only an hour and a half, but I'd probably recommend spending the time watching something that is higher rated.

Davin C (fr) wrote: A wonderful addition to Lego's collection of hits, this prequel dives into the past, before the Toa mata arrive on the shores of mata-nui, and brings metru nui to life, with the same humor and tact as the first move no less. However this movie does have a somewhat darker tone than the first one, and a plot that's a bit thin and formulaic at times. Overall it all adds up to the same level of entertainment.

Michael M (gb) wrote: I've actually watched this movie a couple times now in life and it's not horrible. There's some funny shit here. And it's kind of funny they got some of the Animal House guys too.

Shawn B (ag) wrote: Kept me wondering until the very end. It was actually a really well done movie. If you can find it, it is a great film to watch.

Sylvester K (us) wrote: Promising start that didn't last long. Thank goodness they didn't make anymore.

Berni E (ca) wrote: I used to hate Quentin Tarantino - I didn't get him. Now I do. Many people describe Jackie Brown as a masterpiece and I agree!

Gordon T (es) wrote: Americans drop CLUSTER BOMBS on countless civilians; HEARTS AND MINDS totally changes the way I perceive US FOREIGN POLICY. After WORLD WAR II it seems that every WAR we've fought has been GENOCIDAL in nature. Civilians seem to be the target in our WAR strategy. Let's see: at the end of WWII we (we being The United States of America) dropped two Atomic Weapons on Japan: upon impact, the Nagasaki Bomb killed 40,000 civilians (8/9/1945) upon impact, the Hiroshima Bomb killed 80,000 civilians (8/6/1945) so, within three days my country killed One Hundred Twenty Thousand Civilians with two bombs Since the two weapons were ATOMIC, Fat Man and Little Boy, radiation was released from both devices poisoning and genetically altering approximately an additional 100,000 civilians. In Total, the two atomic weapons caused the deaths of around two hundred and fifty-thousand unarmed civilians. In Vietnam, my country financed the French Occupation of Vietnam and then began invading Vietnam as early as 1955, we dropped CLUSTER BOMBS, NAPALM, (sprayed) AGENT ORANGE upon civilian villages constantly especially after OPERATION MENU began that included incessantly bombing CAMBODIA. we killed approximately 242,000 civilians in Vietnam. Apparently since commencing our involvement in IRAQ, an estimated 151,000 to 600,000 civilian deaths have occurred. The United States of America seems to target civilians from what I'm hearing. Then my fellow Americans say "Its "All" propaganda and manipulation. . . How can "it" be propaganda and manipulation when we have the actual films of the Atomic Weapons actually exploding over Civilian-populated Japanese cities and Footage of the bombings in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan . . . There's overwhelming evidence that The United States of America targets Civilians in its war schema. -- Don't get me wrong I AM TOTALLY NOT ANTI-WAR; if were weren't in Afghanistan, people with axes to grind with The United States of America would be exploding Nuclear Weapons in our major cities left and right for REVENGE over what some of my fellow Americans DID to their people. Its just very difficult to maintain my country as being The Good Guy in every War Theater since WORLD WAR II. and HEARTS AND MINDS crystallized my suspicions about The United States of America harboring genocidal tendencies inherent in its Foreign Policy Agenda. Genocide: when one race kills an exorbitant amount of people of another race. ---Unfortunately war is necessary, especially now because I suspect a lot of cultures probably resent my country's antics during wartime. how about: war is not unnecessary these days . . . (note the double-negative)

George F (ru) wrote: This movie is just painful to watch. It is the only movie I have ever seen that is WORSE than Captain America (1990). The whole thing is bad starting with the title. Time has no center! It just goes down hill from there. The acting is bad, the directing is bad, the sets are bad. When my children ever act up I won't ground them, I'll force them to watch this... but Child Services would probably arrest me.

Ivan M (br) wrote: A great little film, frequently cited as being on par with the other classics of the early thirties wave of 'rise-and-fall' gangster movies, such as The Public Enemy or Hawks' Scarface. Edward G. Robinson is once again mesmerising as Rico Bandello and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. also gives a great performance as his old buddy, desperately trying to leave the life behind. It's fairly standard in it's use of cinematography and style, but the very unique performances and complex characters win the audience over. Yet another pro of this film is that it does not ignorantly glorify the life of crime, Robinson's character learning himself that being a cold and calculating criminal works temporarily, but comes back to haunt you soon enough. A gripping climax and definitely a classic worth watching.

Gordon C (au) wrote: Solid cast and another solid story from the indie workhorse Eddie Burns. Big, splintered families will get this pic. Back East peeps. Might fall short with everyone else. Low on holiday cheer, he does a solid job of balancing a massive ensemble to keep you engaged.

Cheryllyn T (br) wrote: Awful. So glad we only rented it. Can't understand how anyone would consider this good.