Zei zang

Zei zang

Yang Wei, finds himself drawn into the murky world of crime by a gang of ex-bandits who fear assassination! A series of robberies seem to carry all the hallmarks of their supposedly ...

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:93 minutes
  • Release:1980
  • Language:Cantonese
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:Zei zang 1980 full movies, Zei zang torrents movie

David Chiang and Norman Chu play bounty hunters who both are going after a long-notorious criminal, the Spider. When Chiang is hired to protect a rich businessman who has been targeted by the Spider, he decides to work with Chu to solve a decades-old robbery. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Zei zang torrent reviews

Daniel R (nl) wrote: Quiet nice for children to see

Gabriel C (us) wrote: Midnight in Paris is arguably Woody Allen's best movie in years.

David K (nl) wrote: A Completely realistic and honest portrait of a troubled teen and her environment. Incredible performances and some interesting directorial choices makes this a standout.

Lo B (jp) wrote: A sensitive and poetic gem, full of honesty and simplicity. Norah Jones is stunningly charming, and her co-stars are all excellent, with special kudos to Strathairn, Weisz and Portman, who all shine in their respective secondary roles.

Peter L (jp) wrote: My Rating: 2.5/5 stars; Grade: C+; Gesture: Thumbs Sideways; Status: Mediocre or So-So (Rotten); Emoticon: :-|.

Al H (it) wrote: A regular version of the game not so good. Could be better.

Eric V (ag) wrote: An update of the lives torn apart by the murders of three children in a small town. With a lot refusals for the documentarians to film, the focus gravitates around one of the more vocal parents of the deceased and a group supporting the three convicted as the legal process continues to unravel.

Melvin W (ca) wrote: Great film with a brilliant performance from Sidney Poitier as the 'ageless' Noah Dearborn, whose farm comes under threat from developers. Mary-Louise Parker is also great and I always love watching Diane Wiest.

Crystal M (ag) wrote: Not a movie a guy would like lol

Jonathan G (us) wrote: The original computer hacker movie. Video games and a possible World War III, what could be cooler in an 80s movie. The obvious technology advancements over the past 30 years since the film was made is both apparent and comical, yet the message and premise of the movie stay weather strong. Rating: 7.75 / 10

Jason M (gb) wrote: On the short list of best movies you've never seen. Amazing, powerful performances and direction, and a thematic drive forward that was way ahead of its time. A masterpiece.

CJ C (gb) wrote: Ok... a radio studio, a deadly cigarette, a shoe print & top secret radar plans. The only Charlie Chan where MMoreland & his partner do their comedy routine.

Harry W (de) wrote: Although having mixed feelings about Kenneth Branagh's abilities as a film director, I had not seen a film about Frankenstein before and figured that this might be a decent place to start.Mary Shelley's Frankenstein feels more like a Shakespearian film than a horror film. I can't say that I'm too surprised because Kenneth Branagh is the director of it, but the fact is that he puts so much emphasis on all the tragedy in the story that he neglects to make the film a genuine horror film. Kenneth Branagh forgets to put enough emphasis on the twisted horror elements of the story and instead makes it into a melodramatic costume drama which is constantly shifting in tone and direction. Kenneth Branagh's direction on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein captures the drama of the story but not the horror, and he makes it a rather scattered affair in the end. He does manage to capture a lot of the heart of the source material and dramatise it well, but within his limited capabilities as a film director there is only so far he can go and ends up keeping Mary Shelley's Frankenstein within those constraints, making it a shakespearian costume drama in lieu of a horror film. Fans of Kenneth Branagh's works may enjoy Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, but viewers who are expecting an honest adaptation of all the horror that made the source material relevant can look elsewhere. At least he manages to maintain an intelligent and faithful script in his adaptation which gives a lot of powerful dialogue to the cast. And thankfully enough, the quality of the visual style that Kenneth Branagh gives to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is firm.The cinematography in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is an issue. Most of the time, things either follow a conventional route which zoom up on a lot of things unnecessarily, but at the more memorable moments of the film, it feels like Roger Pratt decided to combine the techniques of tracking shots with dutch angles, and it makes everything look weird. The camera spends too much time zooming in and zooming out in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and makes the visual experience rather weird. So the cinematography is a problem because it is not artistic and is more deluded in what it is actually doing because it fails to capture the best aspects of everything that is happening. It gets better in the second half, but still, there are some cinematography issues in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein which lower the effect of the visual experience. But on the plus side it does prove to do a powerful job of capturing all the scenery well which is great because the scenery in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is very versatile and has a lot of colour to it without transcending the feel of a world that is only good and evil, black and white. The colour in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is rather monochromatic at times, and it is good because it keeps things dry and symbolic. The other thing that the cinematography captures is a magnificent setting. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein feels truly like it takes place during the timeframe of its setting. I mean, the production design looks very old-style and the costumes of the characters reinforce that which makes the general feel of the film all the more better. Visaully, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is terrific, and the design of everything and The Creation is magnificent. Everything in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein looks terrific, so the budget of the film went to the right places and gave it a memorable visual style, and it is certainly a better costume drama than many others out there. The musical score also makes it a powerful experience by enhancing the atmosphere.And the cast of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein turn in a powerful effort as well.Kenneth Branagh's performance as Victor Frankenstein is seriously great. The Academy Award nominated Shakespearian actor plays out the role of Victor Frankenstein with his Shakespearian acting skills and manages to get the part very well. He really puts a lot of power into his performance to emphasise the tragedy of everything, and the final result is a powerful one. Kenneth Branagh puts all of his knowledge of Shakespearian acting into his performance as Victor Frankenstein and manages to grip the part with a lot of power. Kenneth Branagh overshadows his own role as director of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein with his performance as the lead actor, and it makes up for his inability to handle the material too well.Robert De Niro is great as The Creation. While some of the script lines are not the best for building the character up, The Creation is consistently powerful as a character because his appearance is excellent and creates an interesting new take on the iconic character, and Robert De Niro breathes a spectacular sort of darkness into the part. It is not perfect, nor is it one of his best roles because admittedly it has some moments of being dull, but all in all he captures the sadistic dark spirit of the character perfectly and turns in an entertaining performance with some Shakespearian elements of his own which he gets right. Robert De Niro is grand in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.Helena Bonham Carter is also lovely in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein because of the fact that her natural beauty and charm make her easily appealing while her chemistry with Kenneth Branagh feels genuine in its passion. She projects a lot of emotional power into her role and steps into the physical stature of her very well. Helena Bonham Carter makes a great effort in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and you could expect noting less from her.John Cleese is also great to see in a small dramatic role because he sinks into the part very well and speaks his words with a passion. It is great to see him branching out from the comedic roles that made him famous. Tom Hulce also has a powerful supporting part.So although Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is undone by Kenneth Branagh's inability to make the story anything more than a glamourous self-indulgent Shakespearian tale, his performance is great as is the rest of the cast's and the visual style he applies to the film is terrific.

Mad M (ag) wrote: Never as good as the original but still a strong entry in the series.

Tangee C (ag) wrote: To begin, I'm a big fan of Anne Rice. I have avoided watching any of these movies because I am so captivated by the lore and characters in the books, I figured the movies would just be disappointing. I was not disappointed in my disappointment.The good points: it's pretty, costuming was fun, cameos from Robert Downey Jr and Peter Steele and the music wasn't too bad. Now, for the harshness: This story they were working with really played out in three novels and were told from various character's POVs. I am sure the screenwriters gave it a great try, but so much of the narrative was omitted that it just didn't make sense. There were pivotal characters at the climax of the film and we didn't even know their names, much less their connection to the lead. This might have been more coherent as two films. Trying to blend some stories together to save time is forgivable, but editing to such a point where we cannot understand why Lestat turned on Akasha was really a bad choice. Sure, she seemed a bit harsh, but they never showed her as the genocidal maniac she was. This entire series of novels deserves to have a series of good, true to the story films. These stylized vanity films suck and not in a sexy way.

Harim K (ca) wrote: it's not a good sign when the historical footages mixed in with the drama (awkwardly, no less) seem more interesting to the extent that when the movie cuts back to action on the set you wish you could just see more historical footages