Zoku Zatôichi monogatari
The blind masseur and swordsman, Zatoichi, learns of a powerful political figure's secret and is quickly tailed by a group of killers.
|Download||The tale of Zatoichi continues (1962)||Other||31||41||699.87 MB|
You may also like
Zoku Zatôichi monogatari torrent reviews
Al M (de) wrote: An equal mix of sex and terror, Little Deaths is not an erotic horror film unless you have very warped sensibilities. Instead, it is a dark, twisted descent into the kinds of perversions and addictions that can develop from ennui, disillusionment, and traumatic experiences. An oddly successful omnibus film, this trio of tales concerns a husband and wife who pick up homeless girls to "play with," a drug-dealing operation that provides a very rare hallucinogen, and a couple whose sex games take a turn for the worse. Featuring graphic nudity, sexual perversion, graphic violence, and some surprises, Little Deaths is not for the easily offended. But I think fans of well-made, intelligent horror/transgressive cinema will probably appreciate it.
Jesse O (kr) wrote: I gotta give credit to Brendan Fraser and Alex Wolff...I think they bail this movie out so many more times than I can imagine. It's not that the film is lazy, or doesn't try, it's just that it simply tries too hard to tell a quirky, absurd story. Brendan and Alex sort of help keep the story grounded. I'm not the biggest fan of quirk for the sake of it. That's been my main problem with directors like Wes Anderson. They come up with quirky characters first and THEN they come up with a story that, more often than not, doesn't even really justify the characters being as quirky as they are. If the story you're writing lends itself to a more idiosyncratic approach to the characters, then that's one thing. The Coens have managed to adjust their style to a variety of different genres, whereas someone like Wes Anderson does not. Stylistically, all of Anderson's films are the same. I think that's my biggest problem with films that put quirks above good, solid storytelling. You've seen one, you've seen them all. At least Wes Anderson has a great eye for visuals and interesting presentation of those visuals, and his story. This film doesn't even have that. Not that I can blame them for that, I'm sure the budget this film had was minuscule. It just tries way too hard to be indie quirk. To illustrate this point, there's even a pointless scene of Eli and his friends, his other partners in the quiz show contest, performing a song in the park. Why? No real reason, other than this is an indie film and you do those kinds of things in these films. Even if it doesn't make any real sense in the context of the story you're telling. Yes, the songs these guys are performing does relate to something in the film, but the whole part of them performing the song in the park was utterly and absolutely pointless, unnecessary and pretentious. The film has its moments, but those are mostly visual gags you see for announcements on the TV for lost glasses or a lost bottle of prozac. Nothing extraordinary, but somewhat funny. There's also moments during the actual final competition between the Hares and Harvard, but these are mostly from the commentators, who most likely ad-libbed a lot of that, including the post-credits scene. I just feel that the film didn't really know whether to focus on the coming-of-age aspect of Eli's story, seeing him come out of his shell, becoming the most popular kid in school...or Leo's midlife crisis and him trying to hold on to his youth by going back to college. I think the film has an idea of where it wants to go, it just didn't know how to get there, and it shows. But, I mean, Julia Garner is here and she's always good. I think this has its heart in the right places, but this is an amalgamation of everything I dislike about certain indie films. That's not to say the film is awful, but it's not good either. The acting is solid, but that's about it.
Sophie T (ru) wrote: I LOVE this film! Not exactly an original story but genuinely hilarious at times and so feel good :-)
The Masked C (gb) wrote: I've been a big fan of rob zombie's music for years. I even had the oppurtunity to see him live in 2012 when he was touring with marilyn manson. However....I may be a big fan of Rob Zombie as a musician I'm not a fan of him as a director. I haven't seen Devil's Rejects and Lords of Salem but I have seen his remakes of halloween which I didn't really care for. I didn't like El Superbeasto because it looked like it was trying to do a ripoff of Ren and Stimpy's Adult Party Cartoon then an original film. Then there is this film...this movie sucked. This movie is trying so hard to be three things, 1. a poor attempt at a grindhouse movie, 2. trying to be a ripoff of texas chainsaw massacre and the hills have eyes, 3. trying... to...be...DISTURBING BUT IT FAILS. I've only seen this movie once. While the film may have good acting and an awesome soundtrack. The writing and the direction is poor and the film is boring. I spent most of the time almost falling asleep and saying "WHAT IS GOING ON?! DO YOU CARE TO EXPLAIN THIS?! No? Okay." I hear the devil's rejects is a better film so if i get the chance I'll watch that movie but this....this is just a stupid, boring, poor attempt of a grindhouse movie that...OH WAIT! I forgot something very important that's it's biggest problem. THE FILM HAS NO PLOT OR STORY!!! The entire film is a bunch of people who are total rip offs of the sawyer family just torturing people for no reason. THAT's IT! I'll always be a rob zombie fan but he needs to try to make a good movie. ESPECIALLY, when it comes to a crappy film like this. I still have the film in my collection it's amazing i haven't destroyed it yet...
Rajat P (nl) wrote: Fasion revisited! Also warning for all budding actors! Madhur Bhandarkar might just turn you gay!
Cat B (au) wrote: Kind of plays like a b-movie, yet it has some big names in it, such as Margot Kidder, Christopher Plummer, and Tatyana Ali. Cheesey, yet it still managed to keep me watching. I imagine it would be a nightmare for anyone who is afraid of clowns
Michal (ca) wrote: Pohodov horrorov komedie o touze po v??nm mld. Efekty dobr na to, e je to 22 let star film.
Danny B (gb) wrote: Lee's characters have come to represent social roles and ideas moreso than fleshed out human beings, but often leads his characters in interesting directions to break these norms. The idea of race and sexuality has never been handled better, but Lee doesn't let you come to your own conclusions, he'd rather tell you flat out. The best performances come from Ossie Davis and Samuel L. Jackson as opposing father and son.
Richard D (nl) wrote: For me, this is the film that epitomizes the early VHS era. It's a brilliant film that would have been loved by many without VHS, but it's also the type of film that rewards repeated and repeated viewing, revealing more humor and background details in every viewing. It's also very decisively of the early 80s. It's blend of California hardcore punk and Reagan-era satire captures the time like almost no other film. To me, it feels like the "Kiss Me Deadly" of its time ... not just because the glowing trunk is a specific reference, but because it's a similar multi-character, apocalyptic satire.
Jamie J (de) wrote: Really solid and fun action movie.rdj is absolutely amazing in this role, the action scenes are really awesome to look at. I can't really think of any real negatives about this movie hell of a way to kick off a billion dollar franchise.
Cameron H (ca) wrote: Leave it to Alexander Payne to create such a moving and masterfully funny movie. Sideways centers on two characters, Miles (Paul Giamatti) and Jack (Thomas Haden Church), who embark on a weeklong road trip through the wine country of California, unknowingly at the peak of their midlife crises. Miles recently got out of a divorce, and his struggle with depression has held him back from connecting with new women in his life. Jack is about to get married, on the weekend after the end of the road trip, and is looking to empty out the last of his promiscuous instincts, before sealing the deal. Miles, a wine enthusiast, introduces Jack to the art of wine tasting, along the way running into old friend/fellow wine enthusiast Mia (Virginia Madsen) and a younger wine maid and friend to Mia, Stephanie (Sandra Oh). Jack sees this as an opportunity for double date action, while Miles sees this as a distraction from the greater problems that each one has to confront in their lives. Payne's depiction of how depression manifests in Miles hit home for me, how flashes of what will likely happen next interrupt the present and lead to one dwelling on painful thoughts. Payne uses this for tragic effect in some scenes, and comedic in other scenes. Giamatti's performance works perfectly with the script, showing great value in holding onto preconceptions of particular wines, yet, when life is at stake for other reasons, such preconceptions are altogether sacrificed. What happens to all of that disposed wine, anyway?While Giamatti is the primary performer, he certainly does not outperform the other actors. Haden Church's character Jack is not as likable or sympathetic as Giamatti's, which is perfect for Haden Church to nail what it is like to act almost exclusively on instinct. Jack as a character, and his relationship with Miles, seem quite distant to the audience, up until one scene where Haden Church, inevitably reveals how helpless he is to his instinctual habits and begs Miles for a steer in the right direction. His 180-degree turn is still rooted in instinct and an objectively unsympathetic cause, however, which means the scene is much funnier than how I am explaining it now. Virginia Madsen has unmatched passion for everything that she says and hears. Relating to Miles on varying levels of depth, I can understand why he might be so strongly attracted to Mia. Madsen is always listening, no matter how blinded she might be by other emotions. This separates her noticeably far from all of the other main characters, especially Stephanie. What Sandra Oh might lack in passion (mind you, with full intention), she makes up for in how much fun she has in every scene. Even when Oh is ruthlessly furious, I see the fun that she is having in bashing someone with a motorcycle helmet. To all four actors, a phenomenal job, truly.Payne understands life. He is mature enough to recognize that life forces one to move forward, no matter how much we want to dwell on the past. Ultimately, there is no hope or despair. There is only progress. He draws a parallel to his own craft through Miles' novel, pending publishment, AND the finale of the movie. Still... *SPOILERS* I wish that he had cut the last five or so minutes of the movie. My Hollywood-raised heart had wanted Miles and Mia to get together, but after the wedding and the special occasion to which Miles opened his ancient wine, that would have been enough to explain the growth of Miles' character. The ambiguity of the ending, as it is, is nevertheless welcomed. Nothing felt forced. Really, I feel bad for calling out the ending as out of line, for it worked anyway. It's just that the story is more about personal growth than it is about the growth of relationships, and what happens between Miles and Mia is not relevant. Look, don't mind that. I really love this movie. I love how it skewers the BS of wine-tasting through humour so subtle that outside research revealed a shadowy satirical side to Sideways. I love how scenes jump from one to the next, some with smooth sound transitions and others with sharp interruptions. And I love, love, LOVE the cast. A near-perfect comedy, at the least.
Carlos M (br) wrote: The eighth Star Trek film (and second of The Next Generation) boasts incredible special effects and makeup, as well as an urgent plot and a most sinister, terrifying villain - and the subplot involving Data captured by the Borg is certainly the best thing in it.
Lisa J (fr) wrote: Pointless fun 80's movie.