The Crimson Kimono

The Crimson Kimono

A Los Angeles detective (Glenn Corbett) and his Japanese partner (James Shigeta) woo an artist (Victoria Shaw) while solving a stripper's murder.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:82 minutes
  • Release:1959
  • Language:English,Japanese
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:artist,   murder,   jealousy,  

Two detectives seek a stripper's killer in the Japanese quarter of Los Angeles, but a love triangle threatens their friendship. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Crimson Kimono torrent reviews

Risa C (au) wrote: i wish that i had the same guts that she did to stand up to the popular people.

Scott M (it) wrote: Protocols Of Zionby Scott Mendelson In the four years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there have been moderate increases in anti-Semitism around the globe. This is partially due to a rumor that the Jews were warned ahead of time and all stayed home that day, resulting in a Jewish causality rate of 0.00%. Oh, and modern anti-Semitism stems from a Russian book written in 1905 detailing a non-existent meeting of imaginary Jews as they discussed a scheme to eventually take over the world. This book, entitled The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, has experienced an upsurge in popularity due to various factions blaming the Jews for 9/11 and other geo-political ills.Protocols Of Zion offers no more knowledge than stated in the above paragraph. It is a rambling, repetitive, contradictory and intellectually insulting movie that absolutely should not get a pass from critics and audiences on account of its subject matter. Director Marc Levin claims the film is his personal journey into the heart of this new anti-Semitism. It is nothing more than Marc Levin??s narcissistic speechifying, where he draws broad conclusions, makes false statements, quotes out of context, and plays a version of Jay Leno??s Jay-Walking, finding the most inflammatory, brain-dead, and simplistic representations from a given community to represent various creeds, classes, and ethnicities. The rare strong points of the film are the purely factual aspects, where Levin interviews various scholars about the history of anti-Jewish bias and discusses various stereotypes that have pervaded the Jewish existence for thousands of years. The Protocols themselves are amusingly general enough to be applied to any fascist regime in history.But Levin is the sort of man who sees anti-Semitism in honest discourse, not just from the white supremacy groups in America or various anti-Jew factions in the Middle East. According to Levin??s world, criticizing Israeli government policies makes one anti-Jew. Much screen time is given to the aftermath in the Palestinian community to the July 2002 assassination of a Sheikh Salah Shehadeh, without mentioning the fact that the Israeli army fired a missile into a residential building and city street, blowing up seven children and four other civilians in their wake. The only non-Palestinian in opposition to any Israeli government policies is a man who believes that Sharon wasn??t being tough enough and should have started cleansing the ethnics.Levin spends an obscene amount of time covering the release of Mel Gibson??s The Passion Of The Christ. Levin interviews the same Jewish leaders who stupidly turned the would-be art house experiment into a pop-culture event by taking to the airwaves to protest the film sight unseen, thus causing Christians to join together in support of the film as a matter of religious conviction. Gibson is quoted out of context during an interview, and the rantings of his truly anti-Semitic father are used against him (so disparaging someone because of someone else??s comments or actions is ok? sometimes?). Levin travels to church meetings and scorns them for having specifically Christian beliefs (I hope I??m not going to hell for not accepting Jesus, but that IS their religious belief, not a bias toward anyone group). Not mentioned in the film is that not a single act of anti-Semitic violence occurred in this country because of the film, and polls showed that the belief in the ??blood libel?? actually decreased after the film??s release. Levin can??t seem to grasp the idea that people hate and blame because it??s easier than either accepting their own responsibility, or it is easier than blaming random chance. Some people hate out of stupidity or anger, or sadness. Sometimes, people hate to excuse their own deplorable behavior (the language and ideas of modern racism were in fact invented as an excuse for slavery, a justification for how moral, God-fearing people could condone the kidnapping and selling of fellow human beings). Levin seems shocked by the very principle that people hate other people for no good reason. Levin finds no answers and asks no real questions. The film has little value as an educational tool, since it practices the same sort of closed-minded thinking that it attempts to debunk. By neither ascribing this anti-Jew attitude towards various ingrained prejudicial outlets or detailing the very real conditions in the world that bring about fear mongering nor finger pointing, Levin has created a documentary that will enlighten no one. For a better, smarter look at anti-Semitism, look for The Believer, a fine drama about a Jewish youth who becomes a skinhead leader in his community.

Walter B (de) wrote: This movie from the start was inconsistent. I will start with the technical aspects. The edding and lighting ranges from mediocre to poor with notable cutshots to everything being too dark to see anything. The Sound design is not good. it also ranges from mediocre to poor were the dialogue is so low that you are not able to keep up with the film. the Music is so mind numbingly annoying and boring that it feels like needles digging into your ears. Now to the Plot. this movie lacks a clear antagonist. when you mix Chinese, Russian, and Mexican Criminals you become confused as to who the antagonist is which makes the plot hard to follow. also pertaining to the Antagonist you don't know there intentions is which makes the plot also hard to follow. Now for the acting. the acting is the worst acting I have seen. everyone had a stone face if not a stone face they cussed in ways that didn't make since. Speaking about cussing this is the weakest R raided movie I have ever seen. Very close to being pg 13. the graphic scenes were so out of place it seems like they didn't know what to do with them. Overall this movie is bad, its boring, please skip it!

Jack P (es) wrote: Mixed feelings, Ryan plays a good role, but his casting is somewhat questionable. The story, if it were not based on real life, is absolutely hilarious (and not in a good way). I dunno, it generates feelings, which is what a movie should strive for, so i guess that's a plus.

Lawrence C (ru) wrote: Lloyd is the type of kid that would shoot up his school.

Alexander W (gb) wrote: The scene in Carnegie Hall with Streep and Isaac Stern as they listen for the echos of the great masters really resonated with me.

David G (jp) wrote: A film that takes a huge risk by making an artistic leap as well as a darker tone. There's really no other sequel that does it right.

Johnny N (mx) wrote: a heart warming film filled with majestic sights and sounds. a young Cristian bale demonstrates at a critical age that he's got the right stuff.

Jarett B (au) wrote: There is no surprise that I love tough old bastards, and Bronson and Marvin are two of the toughest. Unfortunately, in this film, they are two of the oldest (at least 10-15 years past making this an interesting picture). Here's the film in a nutshell: a trapper (Bronson) upsets the locals, but not the law (Marvin). So, the yokels surround Bronson's cabin and, well, shoot the shit out of it. End of film right? NEVER! Brons actually clips a guy in the process AND NOW the law HAS TO get involved, although it doesn't want to because it admires Bronson. Repeat scene 1, but this time Marvin is present and the cabin is dynamited!! Film over? NEVER! Now ensues a chase... in the Canadian Rockies... covered in snow... with men all wearing dark clothes. If any of the inbreds could shoot straight, the credits would have rolled (Marvin of course doesn't aim to kill--out of respect or something). Each man eyes each other with a wink-wink "I respect you (the older generation)" and that's all she wrote. Seriously, I fawking love these guys, but even 90 minutes was too much. Also, note to.... anyone: if you are forced to set a film in Canada, just choose a fictional location (even if you're working with non-fiction). First, seeing the Mountie outfit took all the balls out of this film. It felt like a made-for-TV movie. Second, the word Mountie ('nuff said). Third, how much cooler is 'sheriff'?? Anyway, watch for nostalgia only (says I).

Nick C (fr) wrote: This is one of the strangest, but riveting films I've ever seen this year.

Xander V (au) wrote: First Brendan Fraser movie I ever saw full of laughs!