The Invincible Armour

The Invincible Armour

Hwang Jang Lee is a corrupt Ming guard who frames John Liu for murder. A wanted fugitive, John hides out with a teen who is an expert in the infamous Iron Armor technique, a technique that means the expert can withstand anything. However, Hwang is an expert in it as well as the Eagle Claw's. Can John stop Hwang before it's too late?

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:90 minutes
  • Release:1977
  • Language:Mandarin
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:murder,   revenge,   assassin,  

Hwang Jang Lee is a corrupt Ming guard who frames John Liu for murder. A wanted fugitive, John hides out with a teen who is an expert in the infamous Iron Armor technique, a technique that ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Invincible Armour torrent reviews

Paul S (it) wrote: I love this movie! have to see the alternate ending to see what the movie's really about.

Sanal R (ag) wrote: A fun-packed horror comedy that embraces its silliness.

Ali C (br) wrote: awsome movie Sticks to the games and is worth a watch if you love the ace attorney Ds games

Kevin C (us) wrote: Bizarre but maybe worth seeing

Morrison D (au) wrote: Excellent work with the them.

Harry W (jp) wrote: I had really little expectations for Basic Instict 2 because the plot sounded terrible and there is no way it could match up to the quality of its predecessor which already had a poor story and simply benefited from the mix of nudity and thrills.Basic Instinct 2 is just dull. The entire film has a really generic storyline which is basically a rehash of the plot from the predecessor, and the entire time it is obvious what is happening. And so when the twist ending happens, viewers are likely to just sit there and say "That is literally impossible, the writing in this film is crap, clearly Catherine Tramell is obviously the killer again." The ending is an example of one of the worst twist endings in film history, and it is so unbelievable that it completely kills whatever enjoyment audiences may have been having up until now. Anyone who has seen Basic Instinct will know the true nature behind Basic Instinct 2 and the fact that the killer is right in front of your eyes. And so why a film wastes its entire time with something that is obvious after the preceding film already did the exact same thing is completely senseless. To put it blankly, the film's title dictates that it a very basic feature and it is a terrible sequel to a film which was good, but not great.Basic Instinct 2 defies what made Basic Instinct important and simply sinks into being another example of a terrible sequel. Basic Instinct was interesting not because of the plot, but because of the theme of how the protagonist developed a relentless sexual obsession with the manipulative Catherine Tramell and how he became less and less sane as the story unravelled and he became more and more involved in a murder case where she is the main suspect. In Basic Instinct 2, we see a pathetic protagonist who evokes memories of the character played by Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct and simply dissolves into the repetitive and mediocre writing that the film suffers under. The protagonist is played by David Morrissey who proves in his role that he has the ambition, but he just needs better material to work with. Facing a terrible character to work with and lacklustre direction from Michael Caton-Jones which essentially ended his career as a filmmaker, David Morrissey simply does all he can. He faces severe limitations, but he ends up giving a decent, if repetitive performance. Unfortunately, he along with the entire cast faces the weakness of not only poor direction, but a terrible lacklustre script.The script in Basic Instinct 2 is memorable simply because it is too rude. There is too much course language in the film with the actors saying f*ck at every second from the start of the film, and then from there it loses its swearing but gains no intelligence and dissolves into an endless path of poor dialogue on a repetitive streak until the end of the long and boring 116 minutes have finally come to an end.Frankly, practically everything is wrong with Basic Instinct 2. It is an unnecessary sequel which isn't nearly as sexy or thrilling as its predecessor, and it manages to top Basic Instinct only in having a more absurd plot than its predecessor. The writing is terrible, the direction is terrible, and frankly the film is simply set up to fail from the beginning. The only potential the film really had came from the quantity of nudity and the characterisation of its sexy antagonist, Catherine Tramell. So most of the entertainment in Basic Instinct 2 rests on how the film treats Sharon Stone and her performance. The film doesn't treat her well because it barely offers her enough situations to show off her seductive and dark side at the same time, instead relying more solely on her dark character elements in a very repetitive way the whole film. The film barely gives her enough screen time as well, so it gets to caught up in its own senselessness and indulgence to really capitalise on the character it maintains that makes it stand out from other thriller films.So from there, the only thing that has potentially in Basic Instinct 2 is the performance of Sharon Stone.Sharon Stone's performance is streets behind the quality of her performance in the first Basic Instinct, but she does the necessary job to pass. Although, she does have some seriously weak moments. When Sharon Stone says "I'm traumatised" she shows that she is as worried as Kristen Stewart when realising she has run out of M&Ms. So that is an example of a weak moment, but as far as she goes for the majority of the film she does enough to pass. She debated with the producers of the film about how much nudity she should have incorporated into Basic Instinct 2 with it being her opinion that there should be more, and considering the fact that its predecessor was one of the most sexy yet thrilling films in the erotic thriller genre, it is only sensible that Basic Instinct 2 follow in its footsteps. And while unfortunately that is not the case, Sharon Stone is still very sexy in Basic Instinct 2. She doesn't have much screen time or show off her body much, but when she does it is undeniably sexy, and when that matches the darkly sadistic characteristics of her performance, the result is a sexually appealing and dark performance which succeeds even if it doesn't match up to the quality of her first performance as Catherine Tramell. While Sharon Stone is not at her best in Basic Instinct 2, she has enough sex appeal and sadism in her performance to overshadow the quality of the film itself. She has her bumps, but she is most definitely the best aspect of the film because she at least makes the film feel a little more genuine.But aside from Sharon Stone's presence. Basic Instinct 2 is an example of a ridiculously senseless thriller which is short on erotic themes and insufficient in thrills or a sensible plot which begins randomly and charters through dull and repetitive territory until it finally comes to an end with an unsatisfying final act. Basic Instinct 2 is a bad film and an even worse sequel.

Johnny T (jp) wrote: Earnest performances and Peter Cattaneo's sympathetic direction gives heart to the simple, timeworn script. With its lessons of faith, family loyalty and the power of the imagination, this is one of the rare non-animated films parents can take their children to see. This is another tale about dreamers, transplanted to the Australian opal-mining hub of Coober Pedy, where the frenzied quest for the rainbow-colored gemstones creates a modern-day gold rush atmosphere. A family-oriented film that doesn't merely play lip-service to the power of imagination -- it actually demonstrates some of its own. While Opal Dream draws liberally on timeworn dramatic staples, it's the earnestness with which cast and crew believe in the material that keeps its dusty heart beating strong. It's tear-jerker material but ends up being quite touching, and it's a good choice for family viewing. VERDICT: "Full Price" - My second highest rating (Positive to Mixed reaction). This is a rating to a movie I view as very entertaining and well made, and definitely worth paying the full price at a theatre to see or own on DVD. It is not perfect, but it is definitely excellent.


VJ H (es) wrote: Jeffrey Rush steals the show here!

James B (jp) wrote: The series takes an "Army of Darkness" twist as cop Jack Deth is transplanated to other time and place where he's thrust into the role of hero, not a terrible film just not as good as the rest of the series.

Harry W (gb) wrote: Being a critically acclaimed example of the espionage thriller genre and headlined by Robert Redford, Three Days of the Condor sounded like a nostalgic experience.The espionage thriller genre is one which hit a heyday during its most culturally relevant era, the time of the cold war. This was an era where the world was swept with paranoia and films capitalized on that. Since the cold war has been over for decades, the feeling of Three Days of the Condor is bound to have diminished slightly. Since the subject matter of the film is extremely timely, the result is that it doesn't hold up over the succeeding years and so it is perhaps not as intense as it once was. Three Days of the Condor is certainly a good film, but it is one which relies on a story which is somewhat dated in the current age. And as well as that, the genre itself is one very much reliant on a lot of talking while everything else around it moves along at a slow pace. Three Days of the Condor remains intelligently scripted either way, but it certainly stretches on for a long time and relies on atmosphere to carry it when nothing much is happening. The feeling may not always hold up in the contemporary age.However, you can't blame anybody for the fact that history has changed. For what it's worth, Three Days of the Condor remains a sophisticated and intelligent thriller even outside of its context. The tale chronicles an interesting character by the name of Joseph Turner, a man who is very well-read and intelligent yet also an everyman caught up in a complicated situation. When he gets dragged into the violence of government politics and manages to barely make it out, he is left in a situation with nobody to trust. This gives Three Days of the Condor its feeling of intensity, fuelling it with unpredictability. From there on, the story develops naturally and goes on a course of all kinds of twists and turns with no telling what will come next. The story is one which has very intricate scripting, full of rich dialogue and clever plotting which keeps the audience guessing.The handling of the material by Sydney Pollack is brilliant. Though the story itself is a complicated one, viewers are given an appropriate amount of time and a sensible story pace to comprehend everything that is going on. This allows them to gain an understanding of the relevance of each character and learn the true scope of the story with all its subtext and meaning. And the film is a stylish venture as well. The cinematography is a notorious asset to the film because it always captures things from a fair distance which gives viewers the feeling that they are spying on the character, further reinforcing the themes of paranoia in the narrative. The cinematography is able to capture the scope of the Joseph Turner's journey and the world around him while managing to maintain the atmosphere for a long time with extended shots, requiring editing minimally but still managing to use it effectively during the more fast-paced moments of the narrative. Essentially, Three Days of the Condor is shot and edited very well as a means of matching the pace with the latter element being effective enough to earn the film an Academy Award nomination.And of course the brilliance of the cast in Three Days of the Condor is what keeps it consistently engaging even at the slowest of times.Robert Redford's leading performance is a very strong asset to Three Days of the Condor. Although there is a lot of complications going on in the conspiracy at the heart of the narrative which requires the story to focus on many characters, Robert Redford's intense leading performance keeps things centred on him the whole time. Never letting his guard down for a second, Robert Redford manages keep a firm a grip on the complicated array of situations he has to face through a strong understanding of the material, cleverly conveying the intelligent nature of the character. And during some of the more intense moments in the film, Robert Redford proves himself capable of putting up a fight with strong physical energy. Robert Redford carries Three Days of the Condor very nicely.Faye Dunaway also brings in a strong effort. Caught up in the intense mood of the story, Faye Dunaway manages to keep herself on edge throughout the entire story. Her chemistry with Robert Redford is impressive since Kathy Hale starts out as a victim of hostage antagonism but gradually manages to develop a genuine sense of trust with him. From there, the dramatic sparks develop into a romantic attachment where the two share a genuine sense of passion. Faye Dunaway works very well with Robert Redford to establish a rich engagement between characters, and it helps to add more a more human touch to the story.Max Von Sydow is also a nice touch. Without having to say all that much in Three Days of the Condor, Max Von Sydow naturally has a sense of sophisticated mystery about him which plays to the benefit of his villainous nature. He is so professional about the role that he shows no feeling whatsoever when responsible for an assassination, yet there is nothing hollow about how he does it. The man is so strong in the part that he never comes off as being the enemy of the story, simply a hired gun with a strong attitude towards what he does. And when he interacts with Robert Redford more closely towards the end of the story, there is much intrigue. Max Von Sydow captures his part with such ease that it almost seems routine for the actor.So Three Days of the Condor may rely on dated subject matter and a slow pace, but it provides audiences perspective into a different time with intense direction from Sydney Pollack and strong performances from its cast.

Adam D (nl) wrote: a good British war film from 1943

Douglas C (it) wrote: another diff Hammer vampire film

Modi M (it) wrote: If only it had an ending as good as the film is. . .

Tristan M (br) wrote: As a movie that I grew up with, it's hard not to love this one. Looking back it's pretty old school, but stands up fine today, with a great story. Acting is typical for the time, yet good, the script is good and makes their language barrier believable and convincing. The story is the strong point here, the lone soldier, who had tried to kill himself in the line of battle, by himself in a hostile territory who makes friends with a tribe of Indians who live on the land. It is primarily a dark story in my opinion, shows the worst of people and their beliefs, and how different yet similar these two peoples are. Cruel and violent, they way they all were at the time, and almost hard to watch at times. Can be pretty dark and gruesome for a PG rated movie, even if it doesn't show much we know exactly what their doing. For example the Indians killing the man who drove the cart that John rode to the fort, which I remember from the first time I watched it. The action is good, for the time is western in style for sure, but well done with hand held weapons and old rifles. Looks good and sounds good. What really sticks out is the killer instincts of the Indians and how they love to kill, in an evil and ruthless way, they way they have been portrayed forever. The soldiers too don't show compassion, but get slaughtered when they come against the Indians. Overall good movie for sure, long as hell and not super fasted paced, but interesting and well done.

Mad M (gb) wrote: Terrific thrill ride. The action is realistic, fast-paced, and non-stop. The relationship between the lead and his wife was more touching than many romantic movies.