Tora-san Plays Cupid

Tora-san Plays Cupid

Tora-san becomes friends with Toraya's newest tenant, a pachinko-playing electrician that goes by the nickname Watt. Tora attempts to match Watt with a young waitress.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:95 minutes
  • Release:1977
  • Language:Japanese
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:sequel,  

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Tora-san Plays Cupid torrent reviews

Ryan D (au) wrote: This movie was really more like a porno without the sex and full nudity. Bad music; bad effects; bad acting; bad plot; bad continuity; bad camera work; repetitive scenes that go on way to long; If the scenes weren't so darn long, this one might have tipped over to so bad it's good. Cougar women transforming into literal cougars with cougar faces copy pasted over their own faces. Ritualistically pouring glitter over writhing guys.

Gaspar O (ru) wrote: If you discard the warnings of The Candyman, you pretty much deserve what you get. This is not a good slasher, not only because you never get to see the slashing, but that's a big part of it. Grab yourself a can of tomato juice, turn on your Handycam and stand behind it. Go "HUCGH" as if someone punched you in the gut and throw your juice in front of the camera. There, you've just recreated the killing in Jack The Reaper. The script is also not good, thankfully the acting was fair at best and the directing was obviously...not there. All that being said, this is not a complete stinker. There are moments of humor, whether intended or not, there's the token whiny fat kid that's always good for a laugh and then there's the carnival. Who doesn't love a creepy, abandoned carnival, inexplicably out in the middle of absolutely nowhere, still lit up and functional?! Toss in some kind of weird, psychopathic, railroad related killer and you have a slightly below average slasher with just enough goodie to keep you awake. Meh.

Paul K (br) wrote: Love it. Punk Rock saves the world. A fishy story indeed. A bit slow in places and very Japanese, i.e. with cultural behavioural attitudes which are very non-European. It's very funny too.

Sabrina R (us) wrote: weird title, weird...cast?

Julio C (it) wrote: Aunque la trama central es dulce y conmovedora, el entorno no deja de ser muy irreal, un pueblo pequeo de Montana donde toda la gente es gay-friendly y que apoyan a dos hombres para que su romance prospere me parece casi una historia de fantasa, con muy buenas intenciones, pero desafortunadamente muy falsa. Cabe mencionar las actuaciones muy buenas.

Tom M (fr) wrote: Recommended to me by a colleague, and upon viewing was surprised I'd not previously seen it. An instant favourite, wholly deserving its label as a cult classic. The story focusses on a young, Christian conservative, Peter, who is desperate for a job to start a path into government. He is tasked with infiltrating the House of Thwax, the home of notorious American fetishist Tanya Cheex, in order to find incriminating evidence to stop Tanya's influence from growing. Humorous and kinky twists unfold in a strong story with an even stronger investigation is fetishism and its cultural meanings/misconceptions. Would recommend to anyone, for either a bit of fun or a serious look at sexual liberation.

wild willie n (ca) wrote: only for die hard Burt and Skerritt fans.

Ollie N (ag) wrote: This is hilarious! Ok, the "frogs" are cane toads and the frog "ribbits" are dubbed in. Nevertheless the "mad as hell" "frogs" are adorable! And I've never seen anyone "ribbitted" to death before.

Benjamin W (kr) wrote: The plot is a little creepy and the shots and editing are really freaky and cheap. This is not a beautiful film to watch by any means. But that's not to say that it's not trying to be innovative it is trying. George Harrison's soundtrack is kinda worthless just a lot of beating on the bongos at weird moments which really doesn't give much depth to any of the scenes. The film speed is enough to make you dizzy and want to puke. Really somebody had way too much money to throw at this film.

adrienne k (fr) wrote: This was in the 'Horror' section of my movie store but it didn't belong there at all. I don't think it would've even been scary back in the 60's.... maybe the 20's. I was pretty disappointed especially after reading a tagline about how "Christopher Lee's multi-layered performance as the monk rates as one of the best portrayals in any film."

Tania A (es) wrote: Great performance by Alex Pettyfer in his first leading role. Good plot

Xavier C (nl) wrote: The short runtime surprised me; I ultimately feel like the movie could have benefited from being longer but it does a great job with the time it has. The biggest effect that the length of the film has is how quick it makes everything seem to move. It does movie quickly regardless, with time jumps of days at a time happening every few minutes or so. Constantly showing the date on which a scene plays out emphasizes the time frame, with this being the first year of Bruce's tenure as Batman, so I'm glad it was there. Some time jumps just seem unnecessary though. Maybe the short length should be viewed as an accomplishment because so much quality content is fit into so little time. One major factor of this is how much exposition is dealt out through inner monologues. It felt stylistic and was handled properly, so it didn't seem lazy or uninteresting, which I can definitively call an accomplishment. These monologues helped transition events quickly and efficiently so the audience would only see the best parts of the story. No plot element felt underdeveloped or rushed. The plot just seemed to have so much more potential. The only point where I could think to add onto is the ending, which comes a little too abruptly and didn't satisfy what I wanted to see between Gordon and Bruce.Gordon as the primary antagonist was a good choice; he has a great character arc, a terrific performance from Bryan Cranston, and he gives an angle of how people perceive Batman that isn't explored nearly enough. Bruce was an excellent character as well. He was far more vulnerable than I've ever seen him, due to his inexperience and how fresh the loss of his parents is. It's very compelling and more interesting than seeing him be the invincible badass he usually is, though he's still pretty badass in this. The relationship between Bruce and Gordon was great, which is why I wanted to see more. Some direct collaboration between the two would have been a nice payoff to their character arcs. The fact that my main critique is that there wasn't enough of this great movie says it all. It's an exceptional addition to the DC film universe.

Thomas B (es) wrote: Great story by Alistair Maclean succesfully put to screen. 36 years later, this movie's better storytelling than much of the stuff that comes out today. Yeah, it's old and sort of corny, but with enough suspense to keep me watching it to the end.

Kristina K (ca) wrote: Not very interesting nor very capturing. Dull story and fake lines...