Pleasures of the Flesh

Pleasures of the Flesh

A corrupt businessman blackmails the lovelorn reprobate Atsushi into watching over his suitcase full of embezzled cash while he serves a jail sentence. Rather than wait for the man to retrieve his money, however, Atsushi decides to spend it all in one libidinous rush—fully expecting to be tracked down and killed.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:104 minutes
  • Release:1965
  • Language:Japanese
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:prostitute,   rape,   murder,  

After Atsushi commits murder, he is blackmailed into keeping a suitcase full of embezzled money. What follows is a descent into depression and regret. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechersSize
Download   Etsuraku aka Pleasures of the Flesh (Nagisa Oshima, 1965) CriterOther37451.31 GB
Download   Etsuraku (AKA The Pleasures of the Flesh) KLAXXONOther3445880.97 MB
Download   Etsuraku aka The Pleasures of the FleshOther33474 GB
Download   Etsuraku aka Pleasures of the FleshOther46344 GB
Download   The.Pleasures.of.the.Flesh.1965.ECLiPSE.DVDRiP.XViD.iNT-DeBTXViDDVDRip4939700.23 MB

Pleasures of the Flesh torrent reviews

Laurine R (au) wrote: Je l'ais regard (C) 2 fois d'affil (C), il est (C)norme !!! :D

Thomas P (de) wrote: Nice film. Makes me want to visit War Eagle, Arkansas... Well... Stop through to get some gas while headed elsewhere lol.

Elvira B (es) wrote: Les Amants Reguliers is a slice of French new wave in the 2000s. Phillipe Garrel's exploration, interpetration, re-creation of the golden age of French cinema, an homage and a love letter. Shot in exhuberant black and white, the film boasts almost magical composition and lighting, as well as an inequivocal New Wave pace. Anyone familiar with this movement will automatically feel identification and nostalgia. It reinvigorates the practice of deconstructing life in smaller and bigger pieces and putting together this alternative, but very real, understanding of it as cinematic truth. Garrel's concern is to reflect this truth. That is why the film is poetic but also crude at times. LAR is a contemplation of the May 68 revolution, but it mostly concentrates on the aftermath. Antoine and his friends, initially enthusiastic about producing change, about making their ideas prevail and winning the battle against the system, must face the disappointment of defeat and the challenge of real life. They were, perhaps, so centered on "the revolution" they never came up with a life project or a plan B. All they do is smoke opium and listen to music, finding moments of rapture that only enhance the emptiness of the rest of the day. Each of them seeks a separate escape, but each of them is a monumental waste of potential, dreams, and actions. In that sense, this film is tinted with sadness through and through. The epicenter of it all is Francois, played by Louis Garrel. He's a poet and a dreamer. He falls in disgrace along with the Revolution, but finds a lifesaver and a motivation in Lilie, a wide-eyed sculptress. They promise to teach each other things and accompany each other. They become partners and they fall deeper and deeper in love, but soon enough their own inconsistencies, the very ones that led them into their existential mess, surface to redefine their priorities. The ending is beautiful. Garrel structured it as a divine ascension. Francois, Antonie, Lilie, and all their friends, walk, from the beginning of the film, into a dark dead end street. What makes it special is the selection of events, the words, and the obvious nostalgia and empathy that Garrel feels for them. The choice of his son to play Francois was very accurate. Louis Garrel is a very talented actor, completely in tune with his misguided character and with his struggle to find happiness. The entire run is a bold one. Garrel does many unusual things that require patience, but in doing them he entices fascination and complete resonance with what is happening on screen. There are many long takes of students in barricades, burning cars and throwing bottles. For some reason, even in spite of their length they work. In a way, because there are many silences and extended takes, Garrel almost invites us to think, re-imagine, reflect, discuss. 3 hours long and not a second of boredom -for me-. An example of a filmmaker coming to terms with his past and his style, and a film so comprehensive of his life that it is difficult for any other human being not to find vague echoes of his/her own ideas, opinions, feeling, experiences, desires, if they will only sit still long enough to watch the entire thing. In whole, a very human film, and a stylistic success.

Ryan J (de) wrote: half an hour pasts in 2 seconds whooo oooo haha

John C (mx) wrote: Prosecutor: Stop badgering the witness. Judge: it's his witness

Kings M (de) wrote: Cada artista un mundo...

Ian I (kr) wrote: Its not bad, but it just gets annoying and old to see Michael Myers not die and do the same thing he always does. It also gets old seeing Doctor Loomis pursue Michael and save the day at the end. Altohugh Donald Pleasance's performance is still great. But the story in this is a little unexplained. Michael stops pursuing Laurie Strode, waits ten years to break out of confinement (prison or not) and pursues Laurie's daughter Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris). Now why don't they ever explain who Jamie's father is and how Laurie had a kid and how she had to let her go into foster care. Maybe to keep her safe from Michael? But we will never know because they don't explain it and the movie isn't very well at explaining her story. This film also isn't as scary as the others and doesn't have suspense and non-predictability that the original certainly had and the second film somewhat had. Also there is no Jamie Lee Curtis. The plot twist is very cool though but it doesn't make the film great like the first and second. But it is well acted, directed, and edited. So for that I'll give it three and a half out of five. It also has a crazy ending that makes viewers want to see the sequel.

david s (us) wrote: It's funny ... just not funny enough. And when serious, it lacks credibility. The trick is to emphasize the tragedy with the sharp contrast of comedy, not leave the audience trailing trying to work out what wwas serious and what was joky. But entertaining .... watchable, just don't expect more.

Janetta B (jp) wrote: OUR HOUSE, OUR HOUSE, OUR HOUSE IS BURNING DOWN......

bill s (jp) wrote: One or two laughs but a whole lot of missed chances.

Kirk E (it) wrote: Certainly an unusual perspective on the Civil War, but it suffers from some serious pacing issues.

Mark K (ca) wrote: Dumb and ridicules but also funny and entertaining.

Jude P (es) wrote: Beware, many would not like to see this. Magnificently crafted psychological thriller though.