Like Someone in Love
An old man and a young woman meet in Tokyo. She knows nothing about him, he thinks he knows her. He welcomes her into his home, she offers him her body. But the web that is woven between them in the space of twenty four hours bears no relation to the circumstances of their encounter.
In Tokyo, a young prostitute develops an unexpected connection with a widower over a period of two days. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Like Someone in Love torrent reviews
(fr) wrote: A bit boring and slow, the CGI isn't too great and the characters and bland but it has some good scenes and interesting monsters, but the suicide ending was very unneeded and ultimately ruined the film.
(es) wrote: about escape from adulthood.. lyric, civil, sad, sad, sad and beautiful...
(mx) wrote: The Phantom Menace is a glorious piece of crap. It is the most disappointing movie I've ever seen in my life. The CGI in this film looks like a video game fresh out of 2002. Jar Jar Binks is the menace in this movie. Everything about him is terrible. Not only is Jar Jar terrible, everyone is. Everyone. Even Ian McDiarmid, who steps up his game only in Episode III. But everyone is just awful in this film. And back on CGI, the movie is filled with it. There is one shot in the whole movie that isn't bombarded with computer generated dung. The story makes no sense. At least not for a Star Wars movie. It shouldn't even be a movie because it doesn't add anything to the franchise's story except for how they found Anakin. I really hated The Phantom Menace and I don't understand why there is a lot of people who actually like it. It pains me to say that The Phantom Menace gets a 3/10.
(ru) wrote: Not as impressive as I thought but Natasha shines.
(fr) wrote: One of the best movies ever made
(de) wrote: Excelente pelicula....manejan el erotismo y la sensualidad de una manera exquisita....el amor enloquece....la pasion rebasa los limites.... Deliciosa Oliverio no tuvo la culpa....nosotros simplemente nos dejamos llevar......
(us) wrote: Leave it to the Catholic Church to produce something as terrible as "Blood Freak", a ludicrous anti-marijuana horror film from Florida with no scares and limitless hilarity. The Church's limited financial backing finances porno director Brad Grinter's atrocious production, which meshes religious propaganda with bizarre asides from Grinter himself. This ragged middle-aged alcoholic sits before chintzy wood paneling, wearing a hideous purple velour robe, always smoking a cigarette while he delivers these insane speeches about "catalysts" and other chemicals, reading off a script in his lap. Our writer/co-director, ladies and gentlemen. The other director also portrays the pompadoured Elvis lookalike who must choose between a deeply religious, wholesome lady or her lascivious, pot-addicted sister. Will innocent biker Hershell succumb to temptation from this raven-haired temptress and her Band-Aid tin full of tightly rolled joints? Of course he will, but not after listening to several minutes' worth of Bible verse, delivered to an unresponsive audience during the most boring party scene ever filmed. Strangely enough, it's through the foxy religious gal that Hersh gets his job at the poultry farm. Temptation lurks under lab coats and Coke bottle glasses, too; a pair of rogue biologists coerce our biker protagonist (now a hopeless Weed addict) into ingesting genetically altered baked turkey. Hersh's hesitant at first, until they throw in some of their skank to sweeten the deal. Now thoroughly baked, he consumes the mutant turkey with a side of taters and gravy. All's well until a Grand Mal seizure sends Hershell pitching onto lawn, twitching like an eel. Without Grinter's awkward asides jammed into the most random places, "Blood Freak" would be barely watchable until our stoner protagonist turns into a homicidal Were-Turkey. Then it's nonstop laughs, ever mounting, compensating well for the nonexistent tension. There's something unexplainably unnerving about cheap, sleazy productions like these, filmed on horrible stock with barely adequate lighting and a production crew that CLEARLY doesn't give a crap about delivering a quality product. Also, the subliminal initial reveals of the turkey monster are kind of freaky. Once you see the monster clearly (a paper-mache turkey head on a man's body, wearing jeans and a T-shirt) his presence inspires nothing but uncontrollable laughter. As Grinter, interjecting after the hero overcomes his bloodlust through Jesus, starts coughing up a lung while lecturing about the evils of chemicals and drug use, one begins to suspect that the joke's on us. How could anyone accept that ruined take? Could they only afford one roll of film for the nonsensical "narration"? Whatever the case, this is a gloriously bad film, bordering on sheer manic poetry.
(jp) wrote: Mamma Roma, ynetmenliini Pier Paolo Pasolini' nn yapt 1962 tarihli bir talya filmidir. Barolde Anna Magnani ve Ettore Garofolo 'nin yer ald filmde, fahielik yapt uzun yllarn ardndan bu ii brakp olu ile sakin bir hayat kurmaya alan bir kadnn dramatik hikyesi anlatlmaktadr.Dneminin k 1/4lt oyuncularndan Anna Magnani'nin neredeyse tek bana bir oyunculuk ovuna dn 1/4t 1/4rd 1/4 1/4 film, daha altaki d 1/4 1/4n sekansnda ve filmin devamndaki ou repliklerde, faist italya'y ve mussolini'yi yerden yere vurmaktadr.
(ru) wrote: The movie is dumb... But very fun! Although has many incoherences, and scenes exaggeratedly dumbs, the movie achieves keep you amusing with all his parts funnies.
(nl) wrote: Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection is yet another remake of Romero's classic "Night of the Living Dead". Unlike previous remakes where at least one redeeming value could be found this one has none. It's a prime example of how not to make a horror film. Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection is about a family trapped in a house during a zombie apocalypse in Wales. From the start this film does everything in its power to make sure you hate it. Within the first twenty minutes the film switches from following a group of teenagers to following a concern husband with both set of characters solely created for filler. Neither of these characters play any kind of role latter on in the film. The first twenty of the film are pointless and serve no purpose other than to pad out the film above one hour. Once in the twenty minute mark the film central characters are introduced and make a poor first impression. Seeing a father and his oldest son lie to their family about killing an actual man is not a great introduction for our heroes. What occurs next is the thinnest and dumbest plot for any horror film possibly ever made. It uses a sub-genre cliche of families having trouble killing their love ones turning it into an entire film. If written better this cliche turned story could have explored some grey area topics like family members choosing the fate for their incurable suffering love ones. On occasions character bring up arguments whether or not to kill a love one, but these arguments only present one sided solutions. Doing the opposite clearly is not the answer with audiences regardless of their exposure to horror films can immediately map out what fate has in store for each individual character. None of the characters are sympathetic by any means. One of the survivors is a married man who has no problem cheating on his ill wife with her sister seconds after she gets bitten by a zombie. Now where this remake fails beyond comprehension and strays away from good taste is the final words the film chooses to end with. The final line said in the film is "Put her in the rape van". Out of context it's leaves a bad taste in your mouth and deemed unfair to hold it against it, but in context it's even more tasteless. A lone survivor makes it through the whole zombie/human attack ordeal and this character (along everyone else) was poorly written. This character only major development is she had sex with her sister husband several times. In no way, shape, or form is this character given any redeemable qualities. This whole "rape van" ending is cheaply use to make us sympathize for a character with nothing to like. For a film titled "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection" the living do more harm than the undead. Unaffected humans kill more people in this film than the undead. The undead rarely makes an appearance even disregarding basic knowledge of the spread of disease (apparently if you just clean your zombie bite with water you're cure). Because of little zombies it has a low budget feel it could never detach itself from. The cinematography is grainy with lighting too dark making it difficult to see what's on screen. Special effects so cheap looking salsa would make for better blood effect than anything this film has to offer. As for acting it's nonexistent. These "actors" awkwardly spout lines of dialogue, have no chemistry, and never feel comfortable doing any action. Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection has too little plot, too little zombie, and too many inexperience filmmakers incapable to overcome their limitations. It won't entertain fans of the original, fans of horror film will hate it as well falling below a generic zombie film, and for the average viewer it gets nothing right in any area.
(nl) wrote: It's cute. I liked it
(es) wrote: A lot could be said about this movie's plot. It is based on history but its a history that is very light on facts. It does come across as a little anti-mormon but it should be pointed out that the mormon church of today and the mormon church of 1857 are no more the same than the Catholic church of the Inquisition and the Catholic church today. I don't think it is out of the question to say that this movie's arrival coinciding with rumblings of Mitt Romney's political aspirations was intentional on the part of the film makers.However, none of that detracts from what is a fairly good movie. Overall you shouldn't shy away from this based solely on its historical accuracy or your personal religious beliefs... it really has nothing to do with them. If it sparks an interest in history or religious studies then that's great and from there you can draw your own personal conclusions.