Just when you think Kyoshiro's life can't get any stranger, someone starts running around raping and murdering, and leaving notes proudly proclaiming that he did it. Tracking down the real culprit willtake him along a twisted trail that involves the Shogun's harem, hidden christians, and positively pregnant politics! . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Sleepy Eyes of Death: Castle Menagerie torrent reviews
Ryan A (gb) wrote: Excepcionalmente criativo, e bonito, La La Land um musical bem construdo que nos prende do incio ao fim com sua histria bem construda
Armchair O (jp) wrote: It may no longer be possible to make a successful biopic that captures the entire sweep of a man's life. Gone are the days of sweeping epics about larger-than-life leaders like Lawrence of Arabia or Gandhi or even Malcolm X. In our information age, it may no longer be possible to make a grand womb-to-tomb epic about a singular life - these days we know so much about the historical figures through just researching them on the internet that our focus falls on the details, not the big picture.Recently, the most successful biopics like "Lincoln", "Capote" and "Elizabeth" do themselves a service by choosing one piece of the subject's life and spotlighting it so that we can zero in on one aspect of their greatness. That might have helped in the case of "Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom," which has a title more accurate then the filmmakers probably realized. Here is a movie that doesn't focus on one aspect of Mandela's life, but attempts to cull the entire scope of his life from his birth up through the current day. In that, the movie is an exhausting experience. It is long, it feels long, and it runs long. Worse, it comes up short on letting us into the private heart of Nelson Mandela. Here is a film that attempts to cram every single piece of the great leader's life inside the limited space of 139 minutes, and has a chaotic narrative that often feels like red letter highlights.Here's an example: the movie opens with a very short monologue that breezes through Mandela's birth and childhood and then quickly drops us into his young adulthood in which young Mandela is off to Johannesburg in the 1940s where he uses his newly acquired skills as a lawyer to represent Africa's repressed black majority. Then the movie whisks us along to his involvement in the anti-apartheid rebellion years later where he is arrested and given a life sentence. These scenes take place in a very short amount of time. There is no time to establish anything or get a foothold in the man's internal struggle. The supporting players are brushed along so quickly that we wonder why they were introduced in the first place. Mandela's first marriage is featured as a footnote that is pushed through so quickly that it could have filled a commercial break. The same goes for the early days of his relationship with Winnie.The film's virtue is a strong performance by Idris Elba in the title role. He's a good actor whose best attribute is that we can see him thinking. He's not just reacting or waiting for the next line. He is a focused actor with a good screen presence. He's especially good in the early scenes as an angry young man who mellows as he grows older. The connection between Nelson and Winnie is palpable, but there is something of a lost opportunity in their relationship. In prison, Nelson's hatred for the white man dims while at the same time Winnie goes to jail for her own crimes where her anger gets worse and worse. That dynamic threatens to pull them apart, and here is where the movie should have found its dramatic center. But Chadwick moves quickly through that struggle in order to show the older post-prison Mandela building a political career. Mandela's years in prison are effective, giving us the feeling of the long passage of time away from the rest of the world.That struggle should have been the heart of the movie, not the cumbersome details of Mandela's entire tenure on Earth thus far. "Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom" was directed by Justin Chadwick who also made "The Other Boleyn Girl" another lackluster historical epic, which dealt with two women vying of the affections of King Henry VIII. With that film, as with this one, you are left with the feeling that he doesn't know how to tell a story with any real power. He's got the clothes right, but he misses the drama. With both films, he drags out historical figures, but never lets us understand what made them worth telling a story about in the first place.
Mike W (ag) wrote: Cool because it's superman, but has a strong 'independent movie' vibe to it.
Sofia A (de) wrote: I want to see it because its interested
Matthew M (ag) wrote: Suffering from many of Iron Man 2's flaws, but succeeding in other ways, Iron Man 3 is an entertaining entry into the Marvel Canon, this time, much more cohesively capturing the darker side of being a super hero, even if The Mandarin is...bad.
Allan C (es) wrote: I wasn't quite sure what to expect from this film going in. Was it going to be a low budget version of the Wachowski Brother produced "Ninja Assassin" or was it going to be more like a cheesy Menahem Golan/Yoram Globus "Revenge of the Ninja" type of flick. This film seemed to fall somewhere in between. The story is a super corny one about an American ninja, Scott Adkins, sent back to New York from Japan to protect a sacred sword, which a bunch of bad ninjas want. As you might expect, this leads to lots of throwing stars and ninja fights. For a low budget film the fights aren't too bad and and the film does have an enjoyable cartoony feel that reminded me somewhat of "Darkman," though in terms of quaintly it's probably more akin to Darkman II and III. I went into this film expecting to ironically enjoy bad filmmaking in a disreputable and out-of-date sub-genre, but it ended up being an fairly entreating and surprisingly competently made. The start of the film was a bit dull and did seem more like the bad Michael Dudikoff-type of film I was expecting, but it ended up being better than I thought. Not a great film, but I'd go as far as to say it was almost good and probably worth watching for fans of ninja films.
Chanda W (br) wrote: I think Michael Rapaport did a great job. He plays a lonely guy who wanted to feel important and special. So what if his character liked comic books. This will be part of my dvd collection very soon.
Ashley R (br) wrote: A story that raises questions of morality, but mostly an overriding sense of amazement at humanity. Personally I preferred the book.
Melissa C (nl) wrote: Confused, but also funny and strangely romantic, this Finnish film, shown on LOGO, is about two women, and two m/f couples. The first couple is an Olympic hopeful speed skater, who doesn't think he wants children. He has been with his partner (F) for 15 yrs (they are 35). The condom breaks, and they start talking about whether it's an inconvenience to have a kid, or if the constant breaking of the condoms means something. The f. partner is a psychologist at a fertility clinic, and is always contemplating the issue of kids. He slips her a morning after pill, and she doesn't get pregnant after all.Meanwhile, he secretly gets a vasectomy, but she is on to him, and her Dr. g/f at the clinic analyzes the sperm and sees that it's low. He kept saying "not all people can have children", even though to her, he had a complete change of heart, and suddenly said "let's try to have a baby".Once they figure this out, the psych. chick and the Dr. chick sneak into the clinic and find some donor sperm that would "match" her partner. They are just about to implant the spermies, when the head Dr. at the clinic knocks on the door and discovers what they are up to. He is the same guy that was a "strong Christian", etc., and opposed the idea of allowing single females or female couples to be considered for donations. Oddly, he is single, older, and regrets never having had kids of his own. He decides he wants to personally help out, thinking that the two women want to have a child as a couple. He invites them both over for lots of wine, dancing, and cigars, and tries to get it on with the psychologist chick. She turns him down, but only at the last minute. Ewwww. Cold sweaty old man ass.The two chicks go back to Dr. chicky's house, where she lives with her brother, and a roommate who she fools around with (not openly). The girls end up in bed together, and the Olympic skater guy shows up at the apartment and gets in a fight with the other two guys.It gets confusing at the end. The first couple splits up. The girls stop being friends and lovers. The Dr. gets pregnant by the roommate. The girls make up in the end.Good arguments both for, and against having kids, as mentioned in other reviews. Doesn't make the decision any easier, though. Reminded me a lot of Seth, and to a lesser degree, DJ, in that they both put their "freedom" and personal goals ahead off any true commitment. People sometimes think that they don't want something, but they are really just avoiding it. Other times they really don't want it. It's the ambivalence that makes the decisions so difficult. If you jump in feet first to kids, marriage, whatever, you might find that it's great, or not so great. It seems that if there is any hesitation or secrets in a relationship, it may be better to get out.
Randy J (gb) wrote: This is very interesting and entertaining
FilmGrinder S (es) wrote: Not that the first one was great,this one's the same; aint that great, but not to bad. Even though it's the same damn script as ZAPPED.
Drew P (us) wrote: An awesomely radical movie, and who doesn't love JoBeth Williams?
Tuukka P (gb) wrote: Psychopath sniper terrorizes San Francisco and the only man to stop him is "Dirty Harry" Callahan. This is the blueprint for all those "bad cop doing the right thing" movies and tv series later. Eastwoods defining role alongside the Man with no name. A bit dated with the (now) funny hairdos and clothes of the 70's but this is still a solid thriller with a gritty look of the genre.