Starlit High Noon

Starlit High Noon


  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:92 minutes
  • Release:2005
  • Language:Japanese
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:hitman,  

Angelic hit man Lian Song does his jobs in Taipei then hides out in Okinawa while things cool down, biking to and from a cool bachelor pad that boasts a refrigerator stocked with a staggering variety of imported beers and bottled water. A natural loner with a romantic bent, Lian is admired by one young woman but instead woos the sad-eyed Yukiko. The elaborate meal he prepares for her should turn an indifferent woman into a lover. Yet, Yukiko, like Lian, has a secret history of her own. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Starlit High Noon torrent reviews

Mattias E (au) wrote: Completely oblivious to the Laughing Gor-craze in Hong Kong courtesy of cop soap E.U., I fail to see anything particularly unique about Michael Tse's stock character or the movie as a whole. Yau treads some very familiar undercover cop territory here, throwing in a couple of flamboyant characters in Anthony Wong and Francis Ng, plus some additional TV-worthy drama for hardcore fans of the series. However, Yau's ability to create decent entertainment out of practically nothing is unchallenged in Hong Kong cinema today, and has become something of a distinguishing mark of this rogue director. And watching that Shaw Brothers logo pop up in the opening credits really brings a tear to your eye.

Sam G (ru) wrote: pure amateurish...its been done better...see Ravenous....and the snow wasn't real sarah,you could tell!! of the cannibals reminded me of Fred gwynne from pet sematary,he alone deserves an oscar for his facial expressions lol....crap film,crap viewed after a kebab and a few beers..

Sam F (mx) wrote: i dont know they even made that sucks

Nessa A (ru) wrote: awesome!!! love tom sturridge!!

larissa c (ru) wrote: this movie is so good!!!!

Sarah G (mx) wrote: Starts off predictably, then gets interesting towards the end but only slightly interesting. Worth the worth for Gael Garcia Bernal..but that's about it.

Sheila H (nl) wrote: I really like Tuck ever. Because it is funny and it is a very sweet movie. I would give this a five star rating .

Ben G (us) wrote: "Proper Geezer Film" any one that likes a pretty realistic Brittish Movie with a stonking cast including Danny Dyer will like, not1 4 da kids

Kayleen S (ru) wrote: I love this movie, never fails to pull on the strings

Jacob L (gb) wrote: When the first line of a movie is and I quote " what a pile of shit!" coming from a little girls mouth straight to her mothers face, you can most likely tell that the movie will indeed be a pile of shit. But calling it that wouldn't be much of a review so let us analyze this foul specimen. So the premise of the movie, so that little foul mouth girl 21 years later now played by Phoebe Cates, is now a an unassertive and repressed woman who happens to loose her husband, job, and her sanity all in one day, as she bumps into a childhood friend who reminds her of the imaginary friend she had as a child. The imaginary friend is the loud, obnoxious, unfunny, rude, redundant monstrosity known as Fred! Fred's influence begins to grow on Phoebe Cates character and causes her to act out more and more, for example calling her overbearing mother a "Bitch", laughing loudly for no reason at the most inappropriate of times, sinks her best friends boat house, etc. So basically what this film is saying to its audience is that you can do what ever the hell you want and take no responsibility for your actions, because hey you aren't in control of your actions, your imaginary friend is. Try this in real life, try robbing a bank, then when your caught tell the cops it was your imaginary friends fault and watch how quickly you are laughed at and sent to an institution for the rest of your pitiful life.Oh yes I almost forgot, this is a comedy! Let me just tell you right up front that the jokes are the most obnoxious and horrendously unfunny jokes you will ever here in your entire life for example, Fred peaks under Cates moms skirt and replies with "cobwebs" you get it because she's old and that means her vagina has dust and spiderwebs in it? It's like these jokes were written by a 13 year old during a sex education class not by actual Hollywood writers. What a waste of an hour and forty-eight minutes. Oh and I'll do you a favor a spoil the ending for you because it is just one last turd crumb on the already huge pile of absolute crap, so basically Phoebe Cates finally rids herself of her imaginary pain in the ass and finds out a little girl now has Fred as her imaginary friend as she laughs maniacally oddly enough causing Phoebe Cates to give a warm hearted smile rather than run the hell away! Wow I'm glad I didn't pay to see this in theaters, thank god I wasn't born yet. Overall the characters are all terribly unlikable and aggravating, the jokes are abominable and juvenile, the story doesn't know were it wants to go, the ending gives off the complete opposite tone it was going for, and it gets 0 stars! Because it's a piece of cinematic shit

Nathan M (ca) wrote: Pretty decent giant alligator movie from 1980, if you are in to that kind of thing. Ramon gets flushed down toilet, exposed to chemicals in the sewers of Chicago, grows to 36-ft long and goes on eating rampage. Only Robert Forster and his thinning hair can stop him.

allanah s (jp) wrote: i saw it one night on tv. i want to see it again but cant find it anywhere...

Skinbot S (es) wrote: As you may have noticed there hasn't been much new on my journal for a while. Since I do most of my posting while at work I'm at the whims of the situations there. As of late I haven't had much of a chance to write so while I have a few moments now on a lovely Saturday afternoon I'll tell you about a few flicks I?ve seen recently. The first is a Buddhist fable from Korea called [B]Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter ? And Spring[/B] and it's absolutely beautiful. It tells the story of a young boy who lives isolated on a floating house with an older Buddhist monk. Each period/stage in the boy?s life is literally and figuratively represented by the changing seasons. It starts in spring when he is a small boy, summer a young man and so on. Each vignette is done through simple storytelling but brings about complex emotions and ideas about life's choices and their consequences. Very little dialogue is spoken which I also liked. Film is a visual medium and I admire when a story can be explained without resorting to too much explanation to move it along. It?s a difficult thing to do to tell a story without too many words. Admittedly I didn?t understand everything about the film but only because I don't know enough about Buddhism itself. This is clearly something aimed at those more familiar with the religion but it dampened my film watching experience not one bit; it only intrigued me more. I have seen another film by this director and if you?re interested in another recommendation of a calm, simple, thought provoking film rooted in Buddhism it?s called [B]3-Iron[/B]. [B]Two English Girls[/B] is a Francois Truffaut film about a love triangle. It shares similarities to his more famous [B]Jules and Jim[/B] also about a love triangle. As the title would suggest this one?s about two girls and one guy whereas Jules and Jim is obviously about two dudes and one gal. I know it?s all so difficult to understand his titling choices. Anyway, the film follows the three as each of them fall in and out of love with each other. Sometimes they live together, sometimes they live apart and sometimes they meet up unexpectedly and get their freak on. I?ve probably only seen three Truffaut films in my life but I can still recognize a sense of his style. He likes to use voice over narrations for inner thoughts and feelings undetected on screen; he uses many short scenes with quick editing to convey the passage of time and to develop character; and so far I've always sensed the common theme of longing. People are always yearning for things, especially those things just out of their grasp. The more out of their reach they are the more they want them ? especially when it comes to love and friendship. There?s a constant tennis match unfolding where unrequited love is on one side and volleys keep popping over to fullfilling love on the other. But as soon as the love becomes current, interest dwindles. It?s like the adage of ?can?t live with ?em, can?t live without ?em?. His characters seem forever trapped in this struggle of individuality versus companionship. Thirdly is another French film this one from Claude Chabrol. This one?s a thriller called [B]The Unfaithful Wife[/B] and was remade with Richard Gere in 2002 as [B]Unfaithful[/B]. The film is exactly what you?d think it would be about; an elephant stripper desperately wanting to rejoin the circus to get back in touch with his sleazy pornographer friend, Hercule, the perverted rhino. Ok, ok I?m sorry I couldn't help myself. It?s about a wife getting extra nookie on the side and the husband getting suspicious. He learns the truth and winds up murdering the other man (cue the Sloan song). As far as describing plot that?s the most I can tell you without revealing too much but also because there really isn?t much more to say. As with many suspense thrillers this is more about the somber mood, the tension of what might happen next and maintaining a constant guessing game for us. It?s suitably tense and unnerving with a bit of a subtle twist at the end. At times I found the musical soundtrack intrusive and lead us on a bit much. Moments not necessarily tense were made edgy when it didn?t make any logical sense to do so. Perhaps they did this to sustain a level of anxiety, thus keeping us on our toes. It just seemed a bit forced at times, that?s all. In all, though, it?s an enjoyable thriller for a summer evening. Now let?s get back to that perverted rhino shall we.

Carol Ann M (br) wrote: Westerns are just great anytime.

Panta O (ag) wrote: What a nightmare of an adventure movie... not because it was scary, but because it is so bad that I am trying to be as gentle as possible in this review. Shahin Sean Solimon did everything he could in this movie, I bet he even made sandwiches for the crew... and probably the sandwiches, like everything else connected with this movie, were tasteless! I've never seen a movie inspired by some of the most popular tales to be so un-inspirational and simply dull! The stupidity starts with the first scene and keeps going and going... for full hour and ten minutes - which seems like lasting over 2 hours! I simply loved one of the scenes when Sinbad and his love, the princess, fly over the city in a balloon... he smiles and waves down and she smiles and waves straight forward, maybe to the birds?! Or when the princess jumps at the front of the Sultan like idiotic child... or one of the sword fights with the six armed goddess, which conveniently is using only two of those arms when fighting our hero... even the misspelling in the credits will be easy to spot... from writing, directing, acting, editing, special effects to literacy, take your pick and find easily the things bellow any standards. If you are in a mood for a short feature adventure with famous character, which will try to warn you out with bad acting, directing and screenplay employing some of the animation special effects still used in the primary school films, please, check this one! It will make you appreciate life, even if it's a really bad one.

Tristan B (ru) wrote: This film is pretty dark -not for sensitive viewers. I found it shocking that Robert Hanson may have killed up to 30 women over a number of years, but was only convicted for murdering 17.

Mykola G (br) wrote: A crime fantasy with unthinkably bad guys.

Josh O (kr) wrote: Probably the only Stephen Seagal movie you will ever take remotely seriously, Under Siege deserves a viewing mostly because of its supporting cast. Tommy Lee Jones, and Gary Busey play hammy villians whose over-the-top performances perfectly compliment seagal's typical, "soft" style. The always memorable Busey even dresses up in drag and dances way too enthusiastically at the pivotal party scene. It's completely unnecessary in terms of plot, but absolutely worth it. Jones manages a relatively outstanding performance given the terrible script, which for all its problems does deliver a few gems, such as one when Seagal is trying to rally the surviving crew. As one member protests taking back the ship, Seagal reminds him, "this isn't a job; this is an adventure!" The plot is basically a generic action story that plays its hand within the opening minutes, when Busey's character orders to have the number of guards patrolling the missiles reduced. Also, the war room features probably the most incompetent group of army generals ever in a motion picture. The plan they hatch is absurdly ridiculous and inadequate. Thank goodness the Navy staffs cooks with deep, military and martial arts experience.