Magic to Win

Magic to Win

Nobody knows that Professor Hong Sum Kwai is actually the Water Magician, one of the five elemental wizards. One day, Hong accidentally loses his magical powers, which are transferred to his student Cheng Meisi. The girl happily uses the superhuman abilities she acquired by luck in life, at school, and on the volleyball court, but those powers also land her in trouble as a war of wizardry rages around her... Fire Magician Bi Yewu is desperate to turn back time to change a tragedy in the past, but to do so he needs to bring together the powers of all five elemental wizards. Wood Magician Gu Xinyue foresees catastrophe if time is warped, so he alerts the other wizards - including Earth Magician Ling Feng and Metal Magician Charlie - to join forces and prevent it from happening...

Nobody knows that Professor Hong Sum Kwai is actually the Water Magician, one of the five elemental wizards. One day, Hong accidentally loses his magical powers, which are transferred to his student Cheng Meisi. The girl happily uses the superhuman abilities she acquired by luck in life, at school, and on the volleyball court, but those powers also land her in trouble as a war of wizardry rages around her... Fire Magician Bi Yewu is desperate to turn back time to change a tragedy in the past, but to do so he needs to bring together the powers of all five elemental wizards. Wood Magician Gu Xinyue foresees catastrophe if time is warped, so he alerts the other wizards - including Earth Magician Ling Feng and Metal Magician Charlie - to join forces and prevent it from happening... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Magic to Win torrent reviews

Mike C (jp) wrote: As one who reads a lot and watches a lot of documentaries, I'd already heard a lot of this information. But it never hurts to be refreshed on such an important issue. At the end of the day, the documentary reminds me how incredibly broken this country is.The basic premise is that America's disease care system is no healthcare system at all. It's a system that (barely) treats illness, usually at great cost. We spent $2.7 trillion on healthcare in 2011. $300 billion was prescription drugs. If any other commodity rose at the rate of healthcare since 1945, we'd be paying like $144 for a gallon of milk...whatever the figure.And that's what I took from the movie. We are supposed to be the greatest country on earth but we can't figure out how to be healthy. Health goes beyond paying insurance and rx companies gobs of money. It goes beyond treating only the symptoms. But that's how the American system is set up: pay for services rendered and by the patient. A lot of hands go empty if we actually help the perpetually ill and/or get them off meds.The film also focuses on the military. The one interesting thing to come out of that is the use of acupuncturist too replace drugs. Some early studies show promise, but what's more macho than "chomping on narcotics" and complaining about your bag being so heavy it compresses your spine? As per usual, it's at least good for a discussion. The sources seem to be legitimate and the points legitimate. Doesn't matter. You can't change America.

Adrian B (de) wrote: Okay war drama based on fictional events. If Danny Dyer or Sean Bean weren't in this movie then I would probably have rated this less but they did an admirable job.

Z (nl) wrote: hmmm okie dokie... dint lyk it so much!!

Kurt N (mx) wrote: No thanks. Sorry Mark Hamill.

Tommy M (it) wrote: There seems to be an entire plethora of stories in 'Mystery Alaska,' and with such an intriguing payoff in the final act, it's kind of a shame how nothing in the proceeding acts could help lift the movie to a much higher level

Harry W (ag) wrote: With an interesting concept and a talented director, Sunshine sounded like an innovative science fiction story.Sunshine immediately thrusts the story to a point in the mission where the characters are already within the orbit of Mercury and thus a short distance from the sun. This gives us no contextualization to the current situation on earth, the nature behind starting the mission or just what the mission meant to anybody on a personal level. We are given nothing to lead us into the story, we are just thrown the middle of it without consideration. The pace of the film moves along steadily enough to allow audiences to adjust without confusion, but we aren't necessarily given much of a reason to care about the characters in the film aside from general obligation. Sunshine boasts a story about a collection of astronauts and scientists on a journey to the sun to reignite it and save planet earth in the process, but along the way everybody manages to forget about this and jeer the narrative off into a completely different path. The majority of the focus in Sunshine is simply on the main characters struggling to survive due to the fault of human error in their space journey, and it soon becomes an experiment to see how many ways writer Alex Garland can come up with for killing off his characters. The story in Sunshine is clearly inspired by a multitude of science fiction classics, borrowing from 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Solaris (1972) and Alien (1979). Oddly enough a film that cites these three features as key influences was already directed by Paul W. S. Anderson. I refer to the science fiction horror film Event Horizon (1997), an imperfect yet seriously underrated box office bomb which has since earned the status of being a cult classic. Much like Sunshine, Event Horizon proves to bring itself into contact with slasher film conventions. But since everybody is aware that it is a horror film there is nothing in disguise. Sunshine insists on falling into the same narrative path yet pretending that it is something more. Sunshine does have the credibility of using themes from Armageddon (1998), Silent Running (1971) and Dark Star (1974) to elicit nostalgia, but these are arbitrary points to the story which offer it nothing in the long run. Sunshine aims for more emotional heft while Event Horizon was of a far more exploitation nature as it opted more for commercial gimmicks. But when it comes down to it, both films follow plotlines too similar to disregard. And against all expectations, I must say that Event Horizon triumphs as a superior film simply because it isn't as pretentious as Sunshine. In essence Sunshine is little more than a slasher film set in outer space where the killer is constantly changing, and any attempt it makes to pretend it is something else proves to just pile on a surplus of one-dimensional characters and arbitrary plot points which make no direct contribution to the story path.Sunshine seems to be convinced that its display of the mysteries of space and science are a subject of intellectual marvel, but in actuality they are just used as devices to kill off the characters. This renders much of the imagery pointless in the lasting value of the narrative, ensuring that the film stays one-dimensional. It's really a shame because Sunshine managed to wring some truly impressive production values out of its relatively small budget of $40 million thanks to skilful production design, costumes and visual effects. Of course the highlight of the film's technical achievements is the magnificent musical score which captures the large scale of the journey and the sentimentality of the emotional intensity. During the climax of the story, the musical score is captivating in truly the finest sense of the word. Danny Boyle proves to maintain his sense of imagery even in the face of an ineffective screenplay.Also, the diverse nature of the cast really lends the film a realistic ear of credibility and provides roles to people of various races outside of the conventional Hollywood sphere. It's just a shame that there are really no characters supplied to back them up as there are countless characters and little who are memorable. Everyone offers some kind of one-dimensional story of their own which doesn't go anywhere and essentially proves to be a tedious distraction from the central narrative. So as a means of establishing any favourites, it's really a matter of personal preference for cast members. In my case I liked Cliff Curtis the most because he spoke with a very eloquent sophistication. He explains the scientific language of the film at a steady and coherent pace without resorting to a condescending extent of layman's terms, and he does it with a truly genuine nature to him which adds a sense of humanity to his presence. He's smart but he takes a simple path not to complicate things, keeping him likable. Cliff Curtis has always been an actor I've respected, and so I'm happy to see him working in mainstream American cinema where he really gets a chance to display his talents to a wide audience.Rose Byrne also contributes a strong effort as she is seemingly the most emotionally involved of all the cast members, keeping in a heightened state of intensity which plays out in both her line delivery and her physical movements. Benedict Wong similarly stands out predominantly because of the raw human emotion he displays when delivering a really intense monologue close to the start of the film. He comes off as being a very genuine human being on the basis of this scene.Cillian Murphy is also effective and Mark Strong is an easily convincing villain. Chris Evans is also a welcome presence in his pre-Avengers career.Sunshine has a talented cast and a strong sense of style, making it all the more disappointing when the narrative fails to capitalize on its concept and falls into a path of slasher film conventions and recycled plot points from superior science fiction films.

Turtleboy G (gb) wrote: Oh my god. I have no words to describe how terrible this movie is. It was nothing like the games and was a complete waste of time. Nothing made sense, it had a horrible plot, and they even dragged amazing actors into this movie. Such a horrible movie that is a complete waste of time.

Unfelia C (es) wrote: Goldie Hawn on top of her game!!!

alex f (us) wrote: Drunk chick is bat shit crazy

Chris C (mx) wrote: A romance that is kind of interesting in the first third, has nothing really happening in the second and is an almost complete bore-fest in the final.

Edith N (mx) wrote: Yes, That Certainly Is a Musical About Football I was not able to remember who most of the characters in this movie were. They were introduced, most of them, but once. After that, you were supposed to remember them. However, since most of the characters are completely generic, there's nothing to hang an identity off of. And in fact, the movie is so old that I couldn't even reliably tell which one was Betty Grable, and I have seen and enjoyed her in several other movies. Judy Garland, a fourteen-year-old who had just renamed herself from Frances Gumm, was fairly distinctive, but few of the others were. The one thing I will say is that it's as true of the men as the women. It isn't just a bunch of girls blending one into the other and without much personality to distinguish them. It's a bunch of college students blending one into the other and without much personality to distinguish them. Which I guess is better? One day, the people in charge of football at Yale University decide they are going to have a football game against Texas University. However, there is no such place. The person who makes the decision chooses not the large University of Texas but tiny Texas State University. They've just gotten a new football coach, Slug Winters (Jack Haley) originally of Flushing, New York. He agrees to take Yale up on their challenge. Unfortunately, his wife, Bessie (Patsy Kelly), breaks the leg of quarterback I think Biff Bentley (Fred Kohler, Jr.). Since he's the only decent player on the team, this is a problem. However, they somehow, I missed how, find out about a local yokel, Amos Dodd (Stuart Irwin), who has a heck of an arm. They recruit him, bringing along his sister, Sairy (Garland), who's the one who talks him into going to college because she wants to go. They have to cheat the system to enroll him, but he's an even better football player than the one they lost. Yeah, you know, there are football games and songs, including a beauty about how they can't lose playing in the sun. Which is delivered as a blizzard begins to overtake the game, naturally, because it's wacky! We seem to be building up to a running joke wherein Sairy offers to sing and is rejected, but a running joke takes three iterations, and this only happens twice. And while good follow-through would be having everyone acknowledge that she does, indeed, have a pretty good voice, there's no comment of any kind after. It just falls flat, like pretty much everything else in the movie. There are several places where the movie seems about to build up to something interesting, but it never quite gets there. It becomes clear that Bessie is a better coach than her husband, but even that doesn't go anywhere. We get about two seconds of it, and then, we move on to the rest of the story. Such as it is. And that doesn't really go anywhere, either, except where we all know from the beginning that it's going to. There's also, naturally, the obvious statement that football games don't work this way. I mean, I'm not an expert on collegiate sports; my alma mater doesn't even have a football team. In fact, it doesn't even have anywhere to put a football team. However, I know that these games are actually scheduled. Not by the individual schools, either; the NCAA exists for a reason. I know that Stanford had individual dealings with BYU back in the '70s, but I know there were extenuating circumstances involved. And at that, it was to refuse to play games. I don't think they're even really allowed to randomly schedule games with whatever school they want to. I'm pretty sure it's against the rules. I'm also not sure why they chose the school they did, come to that. Did the people at Yale really think that they needed publicity at all? And if they did, did they think that a football game against some random college in Texas was the way to go? I literally do not understand the underlying plot of this movie. Here's the other thing that bewilders me. Stuart Erwin was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for this. 1936 is not a year in film that I know a lot about, and a look through the year's winners doesn't much help. But [i]After the Thin Man[/i] came out in 1936. Jimmy Stewart did a better job in that than Stuart Erwin did in this, and he wasn't nominated. [i]The Petrified Forest[/i]--there were some fine performances in that. Several other movies probably could have produced nominees more qualified than Erwin. Okay, so he didn't win. However, I really don't think his performance was all that interesting. There are plenty of performances in bad movies, and mediocre movies, and so forth, that I have still thought were worthwhile--heck, Robert Downey, Jr., in [i]Chaplin[/i] was a brilliant performance in a mediocre movie. But this was a mediocre performance in a mediocre movie, and I don't think that merits an Oscar nomination, and it got one.

Andrew M (au) wrote: Tarzan is a great Disney film and Disney portrays this film so well. Tarzan has a great plot and is very heartwarming. I would very much suggest this movie.

Aaron F (ag) wrote: Horrible film. Save your time and skip this movie.