A kung fu fanatic, Yu Ting (Alexander Lo Rei), searching for the ultimate master, saves a young Shaolin monk, Hsu Shi (William Yen), from a group of mobsters and sees it as a golden opportunity to enrich his kung fu skills. He persuades the young novice monk to smuggle him into Shaolin, but Ting's presence isn't welcome and he is driven out, but remains close to the temple, keeping in touch with Hsu Shi. When Ting rescues a girl from the clutches of the Flying Eagle gang, the Golden Wheel Lama and sworn enemy of Shaolin finds the perfect excuse to lead an assault on the Temple. Realizing Ting's devotion, the abbot decides to bring Ting into the Shaolin order and teach him the deadliest techniques to prepare him for the Lama's merciless fury.
Skilled fighter Sung Li Ting is looking for a Kung Fu master who can beat him in battle and teach him new techniques. Shaolin monk Shao Si Yer introduces Sung Li to the Shaolin teachings, ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Dc B (it) wrote: STAR 1/2The Pitch ReviewMICHAEL JAI WHITE: You're sure this isn't a spoof?WRITER: Of course not. Did you read the script? It's a fighting action film. Hey, Director, who is this guy?DIRECTOR: This guy? This guy is Denzel mixed with Arnold mixed with Van Damme mixed with Segal. Puro badass. Absolutamente should sell the PTSD.PRODUCER: Fine. What's the film style?DIRECTOR: I want to go with really high-end skin flick. Soft-core porn, but high end filming, por favor! With no sex at all. No smooching. That's for chicks.PRODUCER: I like it. No better kind of flick. And hey! Brazil! Here we come!WRITER: It's perfect for a soft core action film! We might have a little trouble getting the best actors...or the fight choreographer, for that matter - passport problems...DIRECTOR: Not my focus here. The focus is gonna be on the few fight scenes we manage to squeeze in - heavy action in the back end - not sexually speaking at all. Whaddayasay, primo?WRITER & DIRECTOR: Si! Perfecto!DIRECTOR: Si, si! And kung-fu over-the-top sound.PRODUCER: Let's see how many scenes we can shoot that open with an "extra" walking across the shot. I've always wanted to do that.DIRECTOR: Si, mopri. But remember the passport issue?PRODUCER: Fine. Fewer fight scenes. No sex scenes.MICHAEL: It needs more action. I could do it, you know. Because with this story, it'll clear out the theater faster than hookers scurrying from cops like cockroaches in light.PRODUCER: Shut up, Michael.
Carlos D (fr) wrote: el acierto de esta pelicula radica en su simpleza y sencillez (que para nada son la misma cosa) que a su vez deja ver un poco de mensaje social/cultural....lo mas importante es que... por fin,en mucho tiempo,no hay desnudos en una pelicula azteca!...jaja
Scott M (nl) wrote: Formulaic. Lazy. Lucky to get 2 stars
Dan M (nl) wrote: I think the writer got together with the director and said "I've got a partial idea for a movie, about 15 minutes worth." And then the director said, "That's OK, we'll just have everyone point guns at each other and threaten to kill Ben Affleck for the first hour. This is how this movie was born.
Adam R (us) wrote: This movie was awful. I generally love sports movies too, so I was very disappointed. Ray Allen can't act, but one thing I enjoyed was the cameo appearances. (First and only viewing - In my early twenties)
Adam G (kr) wrote: An indie film about vampires. It holds your attention at times but not enough to recommend. Overall it's boring and side from the sex scences, there's nothing you would expect from a b horror film. In the beginnig the director seems intent on making some artsy shots and then gets lazy.
Callum B (br) wrote: this Stephen King move is my number one fan and terrifing to watch.
Swanky S (ru) wrote: love this movie as a kid.
Carrie G (ca) wrote: Saw this when I was younger and it was good but not her greatest. Believe this was done after ET but I could be wrong. Drew is a phenomenal actress and has a wide variety of different types of characters. I remember wanting to be like her so I could burn people's houses lol. No it's not a movie for kids.
Stephen E (us) wrote: Filmed in a straightforward yet whimsical style that bypasses action in favor of clever plotting, "Hopscotch" is one of the better films of its kind. There are chases, but they occur mainly off-screen. What we see are dialogues in offices instead of actual action (excluding a hilarious scene where a house is unwittingly shot up), which makes the film feel more professional. Walter Matthau is solid in his role and handles the comedic elements of his character quite well, and Sam Waterston, Ned Beatty and Glenda Jackson provide adequate support. "Hopscotch" is light on thrills, but it's delightful and easy to swallow.
Daniel T (ru) wrote: Consistently suspenseful with a unique concept.
Mack T (fr) wrote: Kings Row (1942) A fluctuating jumble of curious story, off-and-on acting, and near disastrous direction. The screenplay has the characters acting so blatantly phony that it is no chore to find a world of fantasy within the film ? the entire world. The film itself ? the structure, the architecture ? looks beautiful on remastered stock, but creates an eerie glow as 1942 comes shimmering through as though it were 1997. Some effects, however, create obvious dating for the film: the special effects for a simple lightning storm, for example, appear as though Nazi Germany is bombing Paris in an evening blitzkrieg. Though these startling exaggerations hit the viewer as absurd, he is quickly returned to a world of plastic dialogue, contrived emotions, and a story that seemingly looks for direction like a ribbon in the wind. The film?s most egregious absurdity is its exaggeration. The dialogue, coerced from some unreal aquifer, is occasionally broken by unbelievable displays of emotion. A scene in a matriarch?s chamber, for example, has the villa?s housekeeper weeping so vehemently that it is unclear whether the film will turn into an opera. Ironically, the direction of Sam Wood throws some occasional medicine into the mix ? some brilliantly-framed camera shots occasionally resuscitate a film in need of serious medical attention. One shot in particular, in the film?s beginning, magically bridges ten years of time without a single word, a change in scenery, nor ever raising the camera above young Scotty Beckett?s feet. Though this is a credit to the film?s more effective participants, such gems are quickly overshadowed by its flamboyantly surreal counterparts until a viewer is again so cordoned off from reality that he can no longer feel his pulse. The most vital instrument, the storyline, rubberbands between seasons of hot and cold but generally wanders back into a zone of interest. Static interest is generated in the first 60 minutes, for example, by the bizarre, unanswered behavior of a young woman?s father, and his impact which is both visible and ugly on her. When this extended tease wears down, however, the story degenerates into an amalgam of character profiles, in a town that none of us know, nor care to imagine. In all, the film is a lot like its subject matter. The closing scenes, a twist on the emerging field of psychiatry, show a protagonist reveling not in triumph but false hope and denial, a pseudo-happiness generated by the sheer tragedy around him. Perhaps the producers, in the same vein, entertained denial as they lauded themselves for a film that couldn?t walk ? a film without legs. Overall rating: C+
Tom H (ca) wrote: Sweet, but not happy.
Emma S (br) wrote: Really dull. The child acting is cute but just because you have a story with kids & nazis doesn't necessarily make for a great. It's full of themes and totems and cliches. I wasn't mad about the book either.
william m (ru) wrote: Cheesiest p0rno ever.
Louis W (fr) wrote: not the best one but good war movie