Gate of Hell

Gate of Hell

The samurai Moritoh Enda (Kazuo Hasegawa) performs a heroic act by rescuing the lovely Lady Kesa (Machiko Kyo) from a violent uprising. The warrior falls in love with Kesa, but becomes distraught when he finds out that she is already married to a man named Wataru Watanabe (Isao Yamagata). Unable to shake his obsession with Kesa, Moritoh grows increasingly unstable and will not stop in his pursuit of her, no matter what the consequences.

A samurai pursues a married lady-in-waiting. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Gate of Hell torrent reviews

Florence (gb) wrote: O filme retrata Hong Kong nos anos 60, como pode ser vista atravs dos olhos de uma criana. Curioso, impertinente e sempre correndo apuros, o garoto observa com perspiccia e humor a sociedade em constante mutao de Hong Kong.A histria gira em torno da criana e sua famlia - um pai de classe operria, uma me despreocupada e um irmo mais velho sonhador. Atravs do primeiro romance do irmo mais velho, e encontros da famlia com amor, esperana, fracasso, morte e renascimento, viajamos de volta para um lugar chamado velha Hong Kong, num tempo que sempre lembraremos e num lugar que sempre chamaremos de lar.

Kostas T (ru) wrote: moufa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kyle J (br) wrote: Sexual confusion and identity problems are nothing new as themes for a teen movie and that is exactly what is explored here. The film is not terrible but does suffer from a compulsive need to shock and because of that our characters come off as sort of one sided. Or two sided but never the 2 sides at the same time. Everyone here seems to be suffering some sort of bi-polar or multiple personality disorder. It fails a lot more than it succeeds in telling the story of 3 teenagers who are just trying to find themselves. I'd say skip it and watch some John Hughes instead.

Jenn T (ru) wrote: I really enjoyed the style of this film. It was very low budget but in a really enjoyable way. My heart goes out to Edward Furlong, highlight of his career peaked when American History X did.

Quinn H (de) wrote: Pretty good work from Franco in this one.

Stuart K (nl) wrote: The directorial debut of author Miranda July, (who also wrote the film and acts in it), this is a very weird romantic comedy-drama, done with a light touch and with colourful characters. It's gentle humour comes out of the quirkiness of situations portrayed in the film, while it has a surreal touch that apes David Lynch in places. However, it does have some good performances throughout. Shoe salesman Richard (John Hawkes) has recently been thrown out by his wife Pam (JoNell Kennedy), after a bout of depression. He gets his own place so his children Peter (Miles Thompson) and Robby (Brandon Ratcliff) can spend time with him. Richard meets experimental video artist Christine (July) and the two begin a relationship. Meanwhile, Peter ends up in a playful friendship and then relationship with Heather (Natasha Slayton) and Rebecca (Najarra Townsend), who are neighbours with Richard, while Robby discovers online chatting, and ends up posing as Peter on a questionable online forum, while Richard is completely oblivious to all of this going on. It's a quirky film, with some lovely camerawork by Chuy Chavez, and the film won the Camra d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It seemed indie cinema had a new saviour in July, but it would be another 6 years before she made another feature film again.

Joseph O (kr) wrote: There are many powerful moments in this movie, and although, yeah, it's implausible, I enjoyed seeing Carrey and Aniston together. It's worth the watch.

Erin C (us) wrote: This one gave a little more information than the first, but it included a lot of flashbacks and information from the first one. It did a great job of making me dislike Mark Byers even more.

MEC r (de) wrote: I did not really like this movie.

Ryan V (kr) wrote: One of the greatest sports movies of all time. It plays with a few details, but otherwise is historically accurate. A great cast is in place, highlighted by John Cusack, David Strathairn and John Mahoney. So much magnificent attention to detail is placed in this film. Given the way Charles Comiskey treated and took advantage of his ballplayers, it's hard to view the "eight men out" as the villains of the story. Buck Weaver and Shoeless Joe Jackson are downright tragic heroes.

Cha t (jp) wrote: Steve McQueen and Bobby Darin. Also look for standup comedian Bob Newhart does his comedy bit in a cameo.

Lauren H (nl) wrote: A pretty risible little propaganda piece, with the bizarre casting of Gene Tierney as a supposedly Arab trader (although admittedly we find out later that her father's actual name was Fletcher). Whoever thought that Bruce Cabot should be given anything but supporting roles ought to be raised for ridicule. He has all the personality of a wooden plank and cannot summon enough acting ability to glance longingly at Tierney, even when she spends half the film in a bikini top. There are some marvelous character actors running around who make the film bearable. Poor George Sanders looks rather lost and bored as the requisite silly, by-the-book British officer who finally gets wise when the American (sorry, Canadian!!!) goes rogue. One gets the sense that he was probably drinking heavily between takes just to be able to repeat his pat, uninspired lines. Really, most of these actors have done better films. See those instead.

Saurabh L (ru) wrote: I was on the edge of my seat most of the time.

Alex S (de) wrote: Stupid but funny 90's comedy with Brendan Fraser as a caveman who is found frozen in a teenager's backyard.

Amanda N (fr) wrote: Cute rom com, very watchable, predictable but entertaining

Ryan C (gb) wrote: "Jurassic Park III" begins as a mission to find a young boy that is stranded on an island with active dinosaurs lurking about, however, it quickly turns into the fight-or-flight adventure film we have seen in the previous two movies. The acting is no improvement, but at least the action is fast-paced and frequent as the dinosaurs have become much smarter and remain amusingly hungry for the boring characters that Steven Spielberg gave up on.

Gerald L (nl) wrote: I enjoyed this movie, it was was light and amusing. It's nice to occasionally not be bombarded with fast action and noise, and yet be entertained...

Abe B (mx) wrote: This movie is the answer to a question no one asked. Ok I get that it's supposed to be slow moving and reflective, but what it really consists of is holding a handheld camera out the window and showing buildings pass by as they drive to the woods. Or you're looking through the windshield at two yellow lines on the highway. These guys both appear as total losers, and the man-sized toddler (Kurt) stumbles around aimlessly and makes his friend Mark even pay for the pot before they leave! It's assumed that Mark also ends up buying the gas, the beer, and probably breakfast at the little dive the next morning. If the film is supposed to be so scenic and beautiful, why did they end up camping out in a junkyard? The next half of the movie consists of the bobble head with the pink shorts stumbling around in the woods, and the guy with the Volvo and the dog follows along behind him. Finally they end up at some cabin, get naked, and take a bath in separate bathtubs while drinking beer and snoozing. The bobblehead tries to give his friend a backrub, which his friend resists, until he gives up and just lies there letting it happen to get it overwith. Finally they head back home, and we see more scenery as they drive back to the city (at least this time they don't get lost). It ends when the guy with the Volve drops off his friend, he drives away, and the bobblehead gives some homeless guy a dollar. End of movie. THIS HAS TO BE THE MOST BORING MOVIE EVER PRODUCED!

Jenna L (br) wrote: The strong performances from Weisz, Hiddleston, and Beale are the highlight of this film; there are definitely some memorable moments. The rest could have been enhanced by a more prevalent score (some scenes are a bit awkward to watch without a background track playing). It does also get a bit hard to follow at times, because it is not played out chronologically, but it is still manageable. Overall, the film flowed pretty quickly and didn't feel lengthy, and it did make me want to watch it at least once more--possibly since I now have a been handle on how it is played out.