The After-Dinner Mysteries

The After-Dinner Mysteries

Kageyama (Sho Sakurai) works as the butler for rich heiress Reiko Hosho (Keiko Kitagawa). Reiko happens to be a novice detective but lacks certain deductive skills needed by detectives. Because of this Reiko relies on Kageyamaa to help her solve cases. Meanwhile, Kageyama isn't afraid to mince words and often calls out Reiko with his sharp tongue!

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

The After-Dinner Mysteries torrent reviews

Louis H (ca) wrote: Really nice film with some cool French and Indian fusion. Have to give this one another watch.

Bailey H (ca) wrote: This movie is watchable and interesting, so don't let the negative reviews throw you off. However, you can't just pop this movie in as background noise, or as a time filler on a lazy day. You have to watch it prepared to pay attention, and you have to be in the mood for a complex movie with countless plot twists, and puzzle pieces you have to put together in your mind. This isn't a movie that is meant to just entertain you, it is a movie to leave you thinking and wondering about the plot and the themes. The plot is draggy in the beginning and it sometimes doesn't make much sense. However, once the movie gets to the end, it will suddenly occur to you why the movie was filmed the way it was. I can't really tell you what I mean without giving away spoilers. Let's just say, you have to be a smart person to watch this film, because it is meant to test your brain, confuse you, make you cry, make you laugh, and then finally it all makes sense in the last three minutes.

Brooke B (fr) wrote: I love this film! I could not stop laughing!

Riff J (us) wrote: Not scary. Commendable given the context of being low budget, but other than that it fails to scare + drags on at certain points throughout.Unimpressed and disappointed.

Venetia D (fr) wrote: Thought-provoking. And Vidya Balan did a good job.

Graham M (it) wrote: Decent thriller that's fast moving enough to hide its obvious plot twists.

Alex S (ag) wrote: You'll probably like it better if you've never watched the tv show.I could not enjoy it as much because of that, as I do not think Colin Farrell can fill Don Johnson's shoes as Crockett.But it is good as a standalone police thriller which definitely has more style than plot, and sometimes that's not a bad thing.

Davide A (mx) wrote: Nicely directed and acted, Wolf Creek makes you feel sorry for all the people who actually fell into this horrific nightmare.

Ramya R (fr) wrote: YAADEIN...............

gary t (ag) wrote: wow umn just seen this movie 4 the 1st time n think that this is a good movie 2 watch.........its got a good cast of actors/actressess throguhout this movie........i think that the director of this kids/family/animation/comedy movie had done a good job of directing this movie because you never know what 2 expect throughout this movie.....i think that this is a really good xmas movie 2 watch its got a good cast thorughout this movie....i think that the animation is really good/clever throughout this movie i think that this is a good xmas movie 2 watch with a good cast in this movie

Ola G (kr) wrote: John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) awakens in a hotel bathtub, suffering from amnesia. He receives a phone call from Dr. Daniel Schreber (Kiefer Sutherland), who urges him to flee the hotel to evade a group of men who are after him. During the phone talk, Murdoch discovers the corpse of a brutalized, ritualistically murdered woman, along with a bloody knife. He flees the scene, just as the group of men (known as the Strangers) show up to investigate the room. Eventually Murdoch learns his own name, and finds he has a wife named Emma (Jennifer Connelly). He is also sought by police inspector Frank Bumstead (William Hurt) as a suspect in a series of murders committed around the city, though he cannot remember killing anybody. While being pursued by the Strangers, Murdoch discovers that he has mind powers-which the Strangers also possess, and refer to as "tuning"-and he manages to use these powers to escape from them. Murdoch explores the city, where nobody realizes that it is always nighttime. At midnight, he watches as everyone except himself falls asleep as the Strangers stop time and physically rearrange the city as well as changing people's identities and memories. Murdoch learns that he comes from a coastal town called Shell Beach, a town familiar to everyone, though nobody knows how to leave the city to travel there, and all of his attempts to do so are unsuccessful for varying reasons. Meanwhile, the Strangers inject one of their men, Mr. Hand (Richard O'Brien), with memories intended for Murdoch in an attempt to predict his movements and track him down. Murdoch is eventually caught by inspector Bumstead, who acknowledges he is innocent, and by then has his own misgivings about the nature of the city. They confront Dr. Schreber, who explains that the Strangers are endangered extraterrestrial parasites who use corpses as their hosts. Having a hive mind, the Strangers have been experimenting with humans to analyze their individuality in the hopes that some insight might be revealed that would help their race survive. Schreber reveals that Murdoch is an anomaly who inadvertently awoke during one midnight process, when Schreber was in the middle of imprinting his latest identity as a murderer. The three embark to find Shell Beach, but it exists only as a poster on a wall at the edge of the city. Frustrated, Murdoch and Bumstead break through the wall, revealing outer space on the other side. The men are confronted by the Strangers, including Mr. Hand, who holds Emma hostage. In the ensuing fight Bumstead and one of the Strangers fall through the hole, revealing the city as an enormous space habitat surrounded by a force field. Murdoch must find a way to stop the Strangers before they take control of his mind and destroy him and the city...Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus stated: "Stylishly gloomy, Dark City offers a polarizing whirl of arresting visuals and noirish action". Roger Ebert writing in the Chicago Sun-Times called it a "great visionary achievement," while also exclaiming that it was "a film so original and exciting, it stirred my imagination like Metropolis and 2001: A Space Odyssey." In the San Francisco Chronicle, Peter Stack wrote that the film was "among the most memorable cinematic ventures in recent years", and that "maybe there's nothing wrong with a movie that is simply sensational to look at." He felt the film's "twisting of reality and its daring look - layered and off-kilter grays, greens and blacks - make it click." In a mixed review, Walter Addiego of The San Francisco Examiner thought "as a story, Dark City doesn't amount to much." He believed Dark City contained a "complicated plot" while also having important themes that were "no more than window dressing". But on a positive front, he wrote, "what counts here is the show, the creation of a strange world by a filmmaker who clearly knows science fiction and fantasy, past and present, and wants to share his love for it." Left unimpressed, Marc Savlov of The Austin Chronicle wrote, "You really have to feel for Alex Proyas. This guy wears bad luck like the grimy trenchcoats of his protagonists, only his zipper's stuck and he can't seem to shake the damn thing off." In expressing his negativity, he believed "Dark City looks like a million bucks (or rather, a million bucks gone to compost), but at its dark heart it's a tedious, bewildering affair, lovely to look at but with all the substance of a dissipating dream." Left equally disappointed was John Anderson of the Los Angeles Times. Commenting on the directing, he thought "If you had to guess, you might say that Proyas came out of the world of comic art himself, rather than music videos and advertising. Dark City is constructed like panels in a Batman book, each picture striving for maximum dread." He went on to say, Proyas was "trying simultaneously to create a pure thriller and sci-fi nightmare along with his tongue-in-cheek critique of artifice. And this doesn't work out quite so well." Author TCh of Time Out, felt the development of the Murdoch character was "surprisingly engrossing" and thought production wise, the "art direction is always striking, and unlike most contemporary sci-fi, the movie does risk a cerebral approach, tapping a vein of postmodern paranoia." Writing for TIME, Richard Corliss said the film was "as cool and distant as the planet the Strangers come from. But, Lord, is Dark City a wonder to see." James Berardinelli writing for ReelViews, remarked that "Visually, this film isn't just impressive, it's a tour de force." and noted that "Dark City opens by immersing the audience in the midst of a fractured, nightmarish narrative." Berardinelli also said "Dark City appears to be New York during the first half of this century, but, using a style that is part science fiction, part noir thriller, and part gothic horror, he has embellished it to create a surreal place unlike no other." Describing some pitfalls, Jeff Vice of the Deseret News said that "when critics talk about films being 'style over substance,' they're definitely talking about movies like Dark City, which looks good but leaves an unpleasant aftertaste." Vice however was quick to admit, "The special effects and set designs are dazzling", but ultimately believed "Proyas makes a crucial error in treating the subject even more seriously than The Crow, and the dialogue (co-written by Proyas and The Crow: City of Angels scriptwriter David S. Goyer) is unintentionally funny at times and often just plain dumb." Andrea Basora of Newsweek, stated that director Proyas flooded the screen with "cinematic and literary references ranging from Murnau and Lang to Kafka and Orwell, creating a unique yet utterly convincing world". Similarly, David Sterritt wrote in the Christian Science Monitor that "The story is dark and often violent, but it's told with a remarkable sense of visual energy and imagination." Additionally, Marshall Fine of USA Today, found the film to be "Fascinating, visionary filmmaking." and "With its amber-tinged palette and its distinctively dystopian view of life, it may be the most unique-looking film we've seen in ages...[but] defies logic and makes frightening and unexpected leaps." Critic Stephen Holden of The New York Times wrote that the "plot that Dark City builds on John's predicament is a confused affair" and that the film's premise is "unsettling enough to make you wonder if it could actually derail a seriously drug-addled mind." Steve Biodrowski of Cinefantastique found the production design and the cinematography overwhelming, but he considered the narrative engagement of Sewell's amnesiac character to be ultimately successful. Biodrowski writes, "As the story progresses, the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, and we gradually realize that the film is not a murky muddle of visuals propping up a weak story. All the questions lead to answers, and the answers make sense within the fantasy framework." The reviewer compared Dark City to the director's preceding film The Crow in style but found Dark City to introduce new themes and to be a "more thoroughly consistent" film. Biodrowski concluded, "Dark City may not provide profound answers, but it deals seriously with a profound idea, and does it in a way that is cathartic and even uplifting, without being contrived or condescending. As a technical achievement, it is superb, and that technique is put in the service of telling a story that would be difficult to realize any other way.""Dark City" is a unique film with a touch of science fiction, noir thriller, and gothic horror and I personally think that Alex Proyas has created something stand alone in which you still can see and feel its inspiration and foundations. The storyline throws you around and you are not sure what is right, what is wrong, what is fantasy, what is real and who is who. This surreal Kafkaesque noir original film almost creates its own genre, but yet it never goes so far that it loses track of its own identity. However, the plot isnt always fully understandable and at times the editing and scenestructure becomes slightly confusing. The ensemble with Rufus Sewell, Jennifer Connelly, William Hurt and Kiefer Sutherland are all doing a fine job, but you can almost see in their faces that they werent sure themselves what was going on during the shoot. The photography is great, the production values of a high standard and we get hypnotic stunning visuals. I do like the eye-catching, stylish future noir design of this visionary world our main characters inhabit, which does look like New York City during the time period of the 1940s. The themes about loss of identity and the destruction of individualism in order to create an ideal society is for sure intriguing. However, "Dark City" suffers from the fact that a lot of the character development and the story itself is never revealed which makes you ask way too many questions during the film. Theres something that simply doesnt hold the film together even if theres so much that points in a direction of movie greatness. "Dark City" is so promising, but in the end I can only give it a 3 out of 5 as the film is lacking something fundamental I simply cant pinpoint.

Leonard D (au) wrote: Classic Jim Carrey comedy!

rocknblues 8 (ru) wrote: Mortal Thoughts is an early 90's thriller starring Demi Moore, Bruce Willis and Glenne Headley. Glenne Headley stars as Joyce Urbanski, a mother and wife who is frequently abused and harassed by her abusive druggie husband James (Bruce Willis). One night the police find James body and they bring Joyce and her friend Cynthia (Demi Moore)in for questioning. Most of the film takes place in the investigation room with flashbacks showing us the events that took place. While the acting was sometimes good, there were times when Demi's performance was off... Mostly during the interrogation scenes with Harvey Keitel. Sometimes her performance in those scenes was stiff, and it's pretty much obvious that she couldn't match Harvey Keitel as an actor. The films strength is how it portrays the dysfunctional marriage between Joyce and James. Growing up in this type of environment for a large part of my life I can say it felt very authentic to me. Bruce Willis rarely gets a chance to play a role like this and so that was a strong point also. He was pretty convincing as an abusive husband. I would say that now this probably feels like a "movie of the week" type of thing, but I think its a tad better than that mostly due to the cast. Sometimes my patience was tested because there are a number of over-dramatic slow motion type scenes that seem to hurt the pacing of the film. I also felt there was a bit of lose end regarding Cynthia's husband, but overall its a decent one time watch.

Robert B (it) wrote: If this movie teaches us anything, it's that memorable, catchy theme songs are important. Mo, mo, mo...

Will N (us) wrote: Really really stupid & cheesy. All the characters are boring, and just not funny.

Harry W (it) wrote: Said to be the film that launched mysterious filmmaker Jim Jarmusch's career, Stranger than Paradise was a film I found myself drawn into watching.Stranger than Paradise is one of the films that nailed Jim Jarmusch's signature film style very early on. It is a very different film from the usual Hollywood feature audiences would be accustomed to seeing, and the fact that it breaks so many conventions of standard filmmaking may leave some audiences alienated from it. Admittedly, I felt a lot of that because while I was fascinated with the film style that Stranger than Paradise was crafted from, I certainly didn't walk away from the film having learned too much from its plot or characters.I guess that Stranger than Paradise is a film that really allows everything to naturally happen over the course of the journey that its characters take, but I found that the journey simply wasn't interesting. Stranger than Paradise follows three characters over the course of their journey into an international world and lets things happen naturally. And while the story feels genuine because of the natural realism in it and the dedicated efforts of the cast, it just didn't feel entertaining for me. I go to films to be entertained, and Stranger than Paradise simply failed to achieve that for me. I didn't walk away from Stranger than Paradise having learned all that much, although I did think about the nature of the characters and appreciate the realistic nature of them. But frankly, audiences that aren't ready for Jim Jarmusch's style of filmmaking aren't too likely to appreciate Stranger than Paradise unless they can feel what he is saying. I didn't feel it, I felt distant from Stranger than Paradise and that the film was a stranger to me. I learned an appreciation for Jim Jarmusch's style of filmmaking from Stranger than Paradise though, because the way he goes against a lot of the more conventional filmmaking styles that a lot of Hollywood filmmakers follow is amiable. His cinematography is simple as it largely rests in a single position and lets the characters act everything out without a lot of emphasis on their facial expressions, instead keeping the distance so that viewers can experience it as if they are sitting in the room with characters and watching everything unfold. It is all edited very timely as well, and the fact that it was shot in black and white does help to enhance the storytelling style and how it depicts the world as a very black and white place which is largely composed of a lot of waiting. While I didn't enjoy waiting for things to happen in the film all that much, I appreciated the way that everything looked as it gradually unfolded over the course of its 89 minute running time.The only Jim Jarmusch film I had seen prior to Stranger than Paradise was Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai which was a complicated character-driven film against the backdrop of a simple plot, yet I enjoyed it. The plot in Stranger than Paradise however simply did not have anything much interesting going on. While this defies the Hollywood conventions of fictionalised storytelling, the problem is that it is too much like the real world. I go on the bus when I want to wait somewhere to get somewhere but I go to movies to be entertained. With Stranger than Paradise, I simply was not entertained and would not find myself watching it again anytime soon. The film shows off Jim Jarmusch's film style, his ambition and what he can do with such a limited budget, but in terms of writing it only really reveals his skill at pitching dialogue and not so much his skill at creating a provocative story. And that combined with a slow pace and a lack of dramatic situations resulted in Stranger than Paradise feeling simply like a boring wait in a room for a friend to arrive or a wait on the bus to get somewhere. And that is not the kind of experience I tend to enjoy in a film.Although while I didn't enjoy Stranger than Paradise overall and didn't find it to be all that funny, the script was very well written and was delivered with gusto by a strong cast. I didn't find that any actor really stood out because I didn't feel like what was happening in Stranger than Fiction was actually acting. The efforts of John Lurie, Eszter Balint and Richard Edson felt so real as if everything happened around them without them being told what to do. They let things unfold naturally and all had organic emotions and line delivery as they crossed into the long journey they take, and it made the feature a little more compelling. It isn't the best film, but thanks to the efforts of the cast and the view of the world they take thanks to Jim Jarmusch's handling of such material it is easy for viewers to likely find themselves connected to Stranger than Paradise in one way or another. The humanity in the film is gentle and subtle yet executed very finely so that it is one of the key themes in the atmosphere, and it ensures that the character driven intentions of the film are easily able to reach viewers and touch them which makes the lighthearted experience of Stranger than Fiction a little more fascinating. The cast of little-known actors all make a strong contribution to Stranger than Fiction, and they work very well with Jim Jarmusch.So while I didn't enjoy Stranger than Paradise overall simply because of its dull plot and lack of drama or sufficient comedy, it displayed the iconic film style and writing skill of Jim Jarmusch which left me happily looking forward to his next effort as a filmmaker, so its more an ambitious experiment in independent cinema than a great final product. A lot of people will disagree with me, but in the end it just isn't the right cultural piece for me.

James B (kr) wrote: Really liked the way this film was done visually. I don't know if I've ever seen another film that was done in that same way... It was a bit bloody for me though. Great action film though.

Jon N (au) wrote: The Wachowski brothers' pre-Matrix masterpiece. Excellent!

Simon B (ca) wrote: Mainstream horror-dogma. It works.