Yuu Yuu Hakusho: The Movie

Yuu Yuu Hakusho: The Movie

While vacationing, Koenma is kidnapped by a pair of demons known as Koashura and Garuga, who demand the possession of Lord Enma's coveted "Golden Seal". Botan finds Yusuke Urameshi and ...

While vacationing, Koenma is kidnapped by a pair of demons known as Koashura and Garuga, who demand the possession of Lord Enma's coveted "Golden Seal". Botan finds Yusuke Urameshi and ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Yuu Yuu Hakusho: The Movie torrent reviews

Aidan P (nl) wrote: Apologies....I meant 'Cowspiracy'.

Tyler P (ru) wrote: Pas mal, beaucoup mieux que ce que j'en avais entendu.

Peter P (us) wrote: big waste of time and money

Sierra H (ru) wrote: Really a rather pointless movie, comes from nowhere, goes nowhere, and...nothing

Tom C (es) wrote: Surprisingly good. And a surprise bonus seeing Mary (Chloe from 24) and Michelle (Dawn from buffy) and others in it. All peiced together very well.

Cresswell S (jp) wrote: Stfler trys to pull off a heist durng a Rave.

Edith N (au) wrote: Morgan Freeman's First Onscreen Kiss Which is, to be honest, why I watched it. I had thought, when I saw the ads, that the movie looked terrible. It looked like it had been done better when Kathleen Wilhoite, who plays the hometown best friend, Sue Ann Rogers, in this played the crazy obsessed soap opera fan on the [i]Quantum Leap[/i] episode "Moments to Live." Except, for some reason, there was Morgan Freeman as a hitman, and I was unclear as to why. I thought this had played out so badly in real life so often that making it into a comedy was at best in questionable taste. Then, I heard that Morgan Freeman had never had an onscreen kiss before this movie, that this was the first time anyone had ever asked him to do that in a movie. It's true that Morgan Freeman is not a romantic lead, but hasn't he played a genial family man once or twice? Hasn't he played a character with a wife he might kiss? That just struck me as weird, so I figured I'd watch it. Betty (Rene Zellweger) is a waitress in Kansas. Her favourite soap opera is [i]A Reason to Love[/i]. Her husband, Del (Aaron Eckhart), disdains her love of her soap, and even if he didn't, she works during the day. But her aforementioned best friend tapes it for her. Betty is supposed to go out with Sue Ann for her birthday, but Sue Ann can't make it, so Betty just goes home and watches the tape of that day's show. Because he doesn't think she's home, Del brings home two men from out of town--Charlie (Freeman) and Wesley (Chris Rock). Things rapidly spiral out of control, and they kill Del. Betty is in the next room and sees it all. Naturally, she can't process what she sees and has a minor psychotic break. She forgets that she has seen Del killed and believes she is leaving him to go find the love of her life, a heart specialist named Dr. David Ravel (Greg Kinnear). Who is, of course, a character on the show. And the hitmen are still after her. Frankly, the hitmen subplot is the part that makes the least sense. (Why does my computer recognize "hitman" but not "hitmen"?) I mean, I don't understand how Del, who is merely a sleazy low-level used car salesman, got involved in the kind of thing he seems to be involved in at all. There are drugs, apparently, but I don't know how or why. I think I had assumed that she witnessed a crime (technically, she did, but you know what I mean) or that her husband had sent them after her or something. I mean, it kind of doesn't matter why they're after her. They're a plot device. They exist to precipitate Betty's break and to bring the story to resolution. It's just that they're entertaining enough to carry half the movie, and the final payoff is interesting and a genuine surprise. (Though it does make part of it really creepy in retrospect.) Honestly, they're more interesting than the Betty plot, which is perhaps the film's most serious failing. Oh, Betty is sweet enough. Pleasant enough. She's not an atypical role for Zellweger. It isn't slapstick, which I had come to believe it was, though I'm not sure how. She's trapped in a lousy marriage to a guy who's cheating on her. Her best friend can't do what they'd planned for her birthday, because said best friend's husband has "a lodge meeting." Basically, Betty is Typical Middle America in a lot of ways, and that's the kind of role we expect to see Zellweger play as often as not. However, I can't laugh at the goings-on when she goes out to a hospital in Los Angeles and manages to get hired on. They assure us that Betty did have two semesters of nursing school before she married Del, but I'm unsure if that was real or part of the delusion. She did indeed save a life right away, but it is true that she was at least equally likely to have killed the guy. Probably more so, since she was doing something she'd seen once on a soap opera. The hospital hires her because they're afraid of the lawsuit if he dies, but they've just opened themselves to a whole other list of them. Okay, overall, I enjoyed it more than I was expecting to. It's Hollywood Mentally Ill all over again, and I do get awfully tired of that. However, I did enjoy the relationship between Charlie and Wes. I thought Greg Kinnear was beautifully cast--he somehow manages to project both Traditionally Handsome and Vaguely Unpleasant in most of the good roles I've seen him in. The Sassy Latina Friend (Tia Texada) wasn't anywhere near as tedious as she could have been, though she handled the situation very badly. Then again, it's such a ridiculous situation that I'm not sure anyone could be expected to handle it well. However, it would have genuinely surprised me had no one on the set of [i]A Reason to Love[/i] thought of the tragic demise of Rebecca Schaeffer. I somehow doubt Jodie Foster ever watched this movie--or Yoko Ono. That's the one thing [i]Quantum Leap[/i] definitely got right over this movie; [i]Quantum Leap[/i] reminded us that this can actually be quite serious.

Benjamin S (de) wrote: Shockingly great film. The style was absolutely amazing with very unique camera angles and a strange story.

Patricia M (gb) wrote: Simply wonderful. Humor, drama, heartbreak... this movie has it all. It just hasn't gotten the attention it deserves. What a wonderful cast, story, and production.

David J (br) wrote: "Chasing Amy" makes up for some unconvincing acting and character choices with an insightful look into gender roles and sexual orientation and how they can affect relationships matched by a heartfelt story anchored by multi-faceted characters.

Michael H (br) wrote: The worst of this series so far. Sad that this was Robin Williams and Mickey Rooney's final film. Segments that go WAY too long for very little payoff.

Alan C (fr) wrote: They have significantly changed the plot from the book! To me, this ruins the movie - makes it worthless. The film already lacks, with a few brief exceptions, what makes the book worthwhile, that is its poetic language. There are a few spots of narration when we get Kerouac's poetic writing, and that is nice. So to me, seeing the movie was about the plot, and they fundamentally destroyed that. From the first line (the first line!) they change the plot by the narrator (Sal/Kerouac) saying, "I first met Dean not long after my father died." The book, on the other hand, says, "I first met Dean not long after my wife and I split up." And this divergence from the true author's plot is repeated later in the film when we see Sal typing the book on a scroll he created and it is the wrong (the movie) version. Why would they do such a thing? I can only conclude that it is to support the other changes they have made to the plot. The film that follows is full of gay activity, not just surrounding Carlo who is gay in the book, (and who represents Allen Ginsberg, whom we know to be gay), but between Dean and Sal to a limited extent, and between Dean and Allen and others to a greater extent. It kind of seemed like a soft gay porno at times. I recommend reading the book instead.

Darrin C (fr) wrote: This was pretty good. Very well acted with attention to detail and stayed interesting through the entire movie. No sloppy ending either! Well done. Depp and Turturro were good together and Dutton wasn't bad either.

Jill R (mx) wrote: The Possession had plenty of potential to be a stand out terrifying horror film but it's mediocre.This movie as a whole isn't scary but it's entertaining in a weird way.The acting isn't that bad that's not the problem in the movie,the problem is it's not scary.Overall this is a mediocre movie that is entertaining in a way, but overall it fails as a horror film.Grade C

Justin B (ag) wrote: An awful sequel in a franchise with an easy formula.theres a few moments of nostalgia seeing the continuing adventures of the Griswolds but this "comedy" is dreadfully unfunny and had lost a lot of the relatable charm of its predecessors.

Ricky W (jp) wrote: Beautiful loser & his dog.

Aleksandar J (de) wrote: Ovaj film je uslijedio kao melem na ranu nakon serije naprosto uzasnih (u smislu kvaliteta) filmova s ljudozderima koje smo gledali prije toga. Elem, poznati italijanski gej-perverznjak Pasolini se nakon Dekamerona pozabavio jos jednim klasicnim djelom, ovog puta Chaucerovim Canterbury Tales. I tako dobijamo jos jednu grupu perverznih prica prepunih golih muskaraca (a povremeno i zena), perverznog seksa (man-on-man i sl.), pustanja vjetrova, korupcije u svestenstvu, spaljivanja na lomaci, ispadanja korpumpiranih svestenika iz demonovog dupeta, uriniranja po ljudima u javnoj kuci i raznih drugih cudesa koja cine da ovo bude odlican film za cijelu porodicu!