When John Kim, an ambitious young lawyer, takes on a pro bono case to exonerate a fourteen-year-old boy from a first degree murder charge, he finds a world he never knew existed in the underbelly of Manhattan - the Korean underworld.
- Stars:John Cho, Jun Sung Kim, Jun-ho Jeong, Grace Park, Jane Kim, Lanny Joon, Hans Kim, Chil Kong, Heejun Han, Haerry Kim, Joe Forbrich, Frank Jang, Elena Chang, Steve Pak, Jonathan Roumie,
- Country:South Korea, USA
- Director:Michael Kang,
- Writer:Michael Kang (screenplay), Edmund Lee (screenplay)
A lawyer gets mixed up with Korean gangsters in New York City. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
West 32nd torrent reviews
(jp) wrote: The Aggression Scale - TRASH IT (C)The Aggression Scale should have been called "Home (Horror) Alone". From beginning to end, it screams mediocrity. They must be thinking we are making something clever, though don't get me wrong the script is good but it's the execution and continuity of the movie which is horrible. The teen boy (Ryan Hartwig) and girl (Fabianne Therese) did a decent job in running around. All other cast was very tacky and let down from the lead teen actors. There are very few moments which are really gruesome but overall movie is so tacky and pretentious that it loses its focus. No one should waste their time.
(jp) wrote: I see this time and again, people getting excited about movies unnecessarily and not getting excited when necessary. Not sure why critics and common folk alike got excited about this film. Sure, there are some things right with Margin Call, like the cast. Always great to watch the masters Spacey and Irons use their depth to fill in where action and drama lack--sign of true talent. At the same time, such lack of depth shows in those who fall short of said calibre, ie: Moore and Baker. Towards the end of the film, Moore and Tucci (another actor of considerable depth) are talking. As Tucci transcends the dialogue with his presence, Moore sucks us into a black hole of nothingness. Throughout the movie Moore merely dead pans and mumbles with little depth or interest inspired. And even though the movie is only one hour , forty-six minutes, it drags because of much unnecessary dialogue or that which does not drive the story. In writing, one is told to be relentless in editing out or splicing down. I guess Chandor will learn as he progresses. I also understand the sentiment of the movie. Sure, the economic collapse of 2008 was important, but Wall Street was not the cause but the effect. It was the govt. created Fannie May and Freddie Mac and HUD (poor lending policies) along with the govt's enabling of banks that allowed the whole mess in the first place. The great enabler. And even though we don't get much of an explanation for the crash (other than Quinto's diatribe on poor leveraging and risk management), it's difficult for most to understand, unless one is up on investing terminology. And if you are, you probably don't need this movie for understanding. And even Iron's explanation of cause--that's just how we've always been--is rather generic and not very telling. Overall, a decent film but no outstanding performances (material doesn't warrant it, unless you enjoy excessive dropping of the F bomb) nor insights into human nature or cause of monetary corruption. If you want to know what happened in 2008, and has happened time and again over the centuries (yes, nothing new), go listen to Niall Ferguson or Ray Dalio. Hollywood is no place to get educated.
(jp) wrote: Dysfunctional doesn't even begin to describe this film.
(ca) wrote: I saw the first part of this movie awhile ago, now i want to see the rest!!!(it took me like 3 years now to even find the name of this movie)
(de) wrote: A renegade cop who is selling illegal AI chips on the black market to fund his obsession with an android dancer goes head to head with a terrorist trying to use the technology for his own nefarious ends. Blade Runner goes manga in this Korean sci-fi which takes the basic story of Scott's masterpiece and throws in a load of Matrix-style action sequences and Asian techno-babble, pretty much ruining everything about the idea that made it good. The biggest problem with the film though is the weak characterisation which makes it very difficult to care about anyone involved. The protagonist comes across as a corrupt, obsessive drunken asshole rather than complex anti-hero, and his robotic lap dancer who acts like a zombie with Parkinson's just doesn't work as romance because we never really see how it blossomed. The same is true of the friendship between he and his partner, making his redemption at the end meaningless. It does have a few stylish action sequences and the production design is very nice but the plot doesn't really hang together, and without characters you can root for it all seems a bit pointless.
(it) wrote: Four Christmases: The premise of this film was ideal to become a nonconventional holiday classic - an upscale unmarried couple's Christmas trip to Fiji is suddenly cancelled, relegating them to the circuit of family trips to each of their divorced parents. Sadly, the clever and truly funny moments are overshadowed by really hackneyed physical comedy and lameness, turning what could have been a unique film into a disappointment. C
(mx) wrote: I did not like field of dreams it was very overrated and began the start of a trail of bad films to star kevin Costner
(ag) wrote: Bad directing, dialog, acting, and story. Character motivations often don't make sense. The characters have bipolar swings between sensing extreme danger and apathy. The parents don't parent. The troll does many a strange things for being on a tight schedule. The puppets are too physically and emotionally static, and at times laughably so. To escape them, you need only to 'run' at a crawling pace. One of the main characters is named Harry Potter, but this movie came before the J. K. Rowling book. Wonder if there is a connection. As a kids movie, it doesn't feel out of place.
(it) wrote: this compilation of clips from movies and documentary footage from that time didn`t do much for me. in the end I found it tedious.
(es) wrote: I think I am really lucky because in my high school we were so indifferent to the culture that everything written or filmed was just an echo, something that we ignored, something that led a totally separated life. I remember the first time I heard of the book I was in the high school, and some of the guys from the other school (accountancy) had to read this as a homework. I think I would have hated this if somebody had forced me to read. But nothing happened, and now, almost twenty years late, I approached this movie with the greatest desire, with a strong curiosity to admire the last (the penultimate) work of a master of the Italian cinematography: Vittorio De Sica. It seems to have a very slow rhythm but this is just an impression, because near the end we know that the rhythm is the right rhythm: sharp. It deals with Italian Jews who are living or are leaving during the Fascism and, remarkably, under the racial laws. This is the life of an aristocratic family, the Finzi Continis which are quite separated from the ordinary Jews life. I mean they rarely go to the synagogue, they are rather men (and women) of letters instead of -merchants-, and so on. They have this great, in which the best youth gather to play tennis. Then everything changes, and many people turn their back on the poor Jews. But the real leitmotiv of the movie is not racial laws, it is the universal subject of Love, and whatever is whatever is connected to torment, unrequited love. In this case love is not unrequited, I think Micol was too clever and she acted the way not to involve Giorgio in troubles. I mean, she knew that their life was collapsing, so she preferred the empty Gentile to the poetic boy. Helmut Berger is really annoying playing the role of the derelict, ill brother. Many actors are debutants, and they are so cute. Yep, Fabio Testi is now a prophet of trash TV and gossip, but you know Oscar winners such as Ryan O Neal have thrown their awards in the dirt. A special mention (and dimension) for the two main characters and their parents too (they have a great scene presence, old school, silent pain, theatrical).
(ca) wrote: Pretty funny for a family movie.
(it) wrote: I honestly thought it was pretty stupid. Cheesy and obnoxious song and dance with animated penguins. (First and only viewing - In my early twenties)
(it) wrote: This is the fifth instalment in this series I believe, but to be honest, I can only remember what happened in the first one - All the others now tend to merge into one big bubble that gets forgotten about quite easily. All I know is that there are plenty more zombies, more lickers, and more characters from the video game involved, but as for the storyline, I'm kinda lost now. It's very much gone Sci-Fi in this film, with several heroes from past films now being cloned, and their surroundings are often being generated by computer as opposed to good old fashioned travelling. The best bits are still when the classic battles with the undead take place, with some bigger and badder boss creature lurking just around the corner - to its credit, this is so reminiscent of the video game style. Rarely do I allow myself to watch movies out of sequence, but I do seem to have witnessed this without remembering the events in previous episodes. In truth, it's clearly watchable as an independent release as I still enjoyed it, but I've given up trying to understand where we are in the actual plot. The way I see it, if a franchise is good enough, you'll remember everything about each part of it, but clearly I'm now suffering from the lack of originality and action this is currently delivering. The ending suggested there may be one last stand against the so called T Virus from spreading, so we can deffo expect another. Having said that, I suspect there will always be an excuse to bring out more movies if the computer game popularity keeps banging out new versions too, but the way things are going I may well have to revert back to the PlayStation as a means of entertainment, as opposed to the cinema / DVD viewings.
(gb) wrote: cool movie, great concept, very creative. a few funny parts. i enjoyed most of it but overall it was alright (1 viewing)
(mx) wrote: How does it feel to be a bargain basement Stephen King?A horror author has a book signing in a small town. He discovers the town has an interesting history that involves a serial killer and a mysterious little girl. The author has visions and the ghosts of the town and the local sheriff tell him an interesting tale that he feels is his next big project. However, as he gets more information he gets more sucked in...maybe too deep."You can't change time. Time changes you."Francis Ford Coppola, director of Bram Stokers Dracula, The Godfather 1-3, Apocalypse Now, The Rainmaker, Jack, Rumble Fish, and The Outsiders, delivers Twixt. The storyline for this picture is terrible and the plot is pathetic. The acting is also awful and the cast delivers Val Kilmer, Bruce Dern, Elle Fanning, Ben Chaplin, Don Novello, and Ryan Simpkins."It was a town of those who wanted to be left alone."Twixt was a movie I came across on Netflix because it was directed by Francis Ford Coppola so I thought it would be worth a viewing. It wasn't. This film has awkward comedy, mixed into a weird horror picture. It was trying to be like Frightners...it just wasn't as good. I recommend skipping this."You are the ending you seek."Grade: D