Blue Spring

Blue Spring

Soon after being named the new leader of his high school's gang system, Kujo grows bored with the violence and hatred that surround him. He wants desperately to abandon his post… but his once-enviable position of power has a strange way of making him feel powerless.

Toshiaki Toyoda directs this moody examination of modern-day adolescence in Japan, a film based on a manga by Taiyo Matsumoto. Soon after being named the new leader of his high school's gang system, Kujo grows bored with the violence and hatred that surround him. He wants desperately to abandon his post … but his once-enviable position of power has a strange way of making him feel powerless. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Blue Spring torrent reviews

Ron D (jp) wrote: Thoughtful, well acted film about the days of one week in the life of an unassuming bus driver and his ditsy wife. Deeply moving, subtle story about loving and real non-glamorous life.

Edith N (fr) wrote: A Poorly Thought-Out Killing Spree This is about the lowest-budget movie I've ever seen that didn't actually have puppets in the corner. Not only does the movie only have a MySpace page, not an actual website, but that's pretty much true of the entire list of bands at the end of the movie--bands we are encouraged to patronize, presumably because they let the filmmakers use the music free. Also presumably, Charlie wouldn't let them use his. Or whoever controls his music. I know a lot about the Family, but I don't know who holds controlling rights to Charlie's music. Certainly I don't care enough to look around and find out. At any rate, it doesn't really seem as though anyone who had anything to do with the making of the movie knew half so much about the history of the Family as I, hence the comment about how Charlie said everyone would be equal once the revolution came. Because that's totally what he believed. Oh, where to start. Okay. The movie takes place in this middle-of-nowhere New Mexico town. Population 67. (Yes, places like that exist; the drive to my grandparents' in rural Arizona was full of them.) Our Hero is . . . Todd (Mark Chavez)? Honestly, I have a hard time remembering anyone's name or, indeed, telling half the characters apart. It's that kind of movie. Anyway, Todd stupidly screws some girl herein desginated as Skank #1 against the wall of a supermarket, mysteriously spotted by his girlfriend, Jonda (Jillian Parry). Skank #1 decides to introduce him to her "friends," Skanks # 3 and 3 and Crazy Guys # 1 and 2. Oh, and one Phillip Valentine (Billy Garberina). Phillip yells at Skank #1 for bringing him in, because he will talk. And what he would be able to talk about is the group's plot to kill everyone in the entire town. Or at least as many people in it as they can manage in one night. They manage to kill a few, but the town is tougher than they expect it to be. Phillip says at one point that they should learn from his father's mistakes, but so far as I can tell, they don't. For one, I don't see them tying anyone up first, and even Charlie knew that was a good idea. Oh, right--Phillip is Charlie Manson's son trying to continue his father's work or best it or something. Doesn't matter. No, it really doesn't. The Manson thing is kind of tacked on, really. One of the skanks points out the improbability that young, six-foot Phillip could possibly be at all related to tiny, in-jail-since-forever Charlie Manson. It's also, to me, rather improbable that just being the son of a crazy, crazy killer would necessarily make you a crazy, crazy killer yourself, especially not in the same way that your parent was. And the plan doesn't seem at all . . . planned. "Hey, let's go kill a bunch of people, and then people will have been killed!" There must be more to it than that, but aside from wanting to kill more people than the Family did, I'm not sure I know what. I'm not sure they know what. Okay, it'll be memorable. But what the Family was hoping to do was start a race war. I don't see any indication that these people are, and Phillip expressly forbids any of the weird religious/metaphysical stuff that was the core of the Family. So I don't know. Also, Phillip has really crappy control over his group. Now, if you or I were going to try to kill an entire small town in one night, we'd probably do it with more than a half-dozen people, and we'd probably make sure that those people were devoted to us, willing to do what we asked of them. Phillip's group is constantly fighting, to the point that Skank #2 takes off entirely. So does Crazy Guy #1. They don't work together, and they don't seem to know what's going on. They have the good sense to cut the phone lines and kill the law enforcement officer, but that's about the extent of intelligence they show. They don't seem to know that fighting among themselves is as good away to get them caught or killed as anything else they're doing. It's silly. Oh, also, the filming is terrible. The music is dreadful. I don't even know where to begin once I've gotten past the ridiculous stuff in the plot. The acting is wooden and amateurish, almost as though half the cast doesn't even know what acting is. There's Todd's inexplicable songs at Vonda. (Also, what kind of name is Vonda?) There's the fact that it actually does appear that no one notices what's going on. At very least, I would expect the fact that the phones aren't working to get some notice. Surely someone would go ask to use a neighbour's phone for whatever reason, discover the neighbour's phone is out, and get suspicious, right? Anyway, it's better than the dreadful close-up/freeze frame combo of which horrible, horrible director Scott Phillips (hmmm) is so fond.

JeanFrancois V (es) wrote: Despite its title, which is actually Pioneer's corporate slogan, "We Feed the World" is Austrian, and anybody who watches the kind of documentaries broadcast on the Franco-German TV Channel Arte will know what kind of format to expect. It is slow, anecdotal, with no voice-over, and purports to present "just the facts" so that the audience themselves can come to the expected conclusion which, I suspect, is that big corporations are evil. As a political Frankenstein monster myself - a vegan free-market conservative who is very concerned about the environment, which gives enough reasons for anyone to disagree with me - I do not think the film actually succeeds in demonizing big business, though of course young leftists who tend to jump to conclusions will probably find much ammunition in it for their political views. The film is divided into several well-defined sections, each of which presents a concrete case-study of an absurdity of the present system of food production and distribution. The problem, however, is that I am not sure I would consider all the situations described as absurd. Take the fact that most of the vegetables sold in Europe are produced in vast hydroponic greenhouses in Spain and then transported by lorry. Admittedly, the Spanish landscape suffers, and lorries pollute. But what are the alternatives? Should we stop eating vegetables? Should they be sent from North Africa, as the documentary seems to suggest? Or should Europeans produce them themselves, at the cost of making them too expensive for the poorer customers? Another complaint seems to be that "industrially" produced food does not taste as good. Maybe so. But what are we talking about here? Are we concerned with world famine and malnutrition, or with the gastronomic whims of spoilt Europeans? The Pioneer executive in Hungary (who has probably been fired since as the worst ever spokesperson for the company) regrets that organic egg-plants are being replaced by "hybrid", Round Up-ready ones, because he finds them less tasty. But apparently, the hybrid model makes it possible to increase production, and hence (by the law of supply) feed more people at lower costs. So what is the priority here? I also found myself very much in agreement with Nestle's CEO when he explains that organic food is not inherently superior to "industrial" food (nutritional tests seem to confirm that), and that "natural" does not necessarily mean good. Finally, I found that much of the context for a proper judgment of the absurdities involved was lacking. For instance, we are told that in Vienna, enough unsold bread is destroyed each day to supply Austria's second-largest city. Now why is that? It is in the interest of each bakery to produce as much bread as they will sell, no more, no less, because each loaf of bread thrown away means a financial loss for them. So the free market forces are working in the right direction, and by multiplying the centers of decision, they also make it more likely that well-informed, rational choices will be made. So how does the documentary suggest we avoid the waste, and beat the market at its own game? By having a Politburo forcing every citizen to queue for hours for his or her daily allotment of bread, and shooting those who do not show up, or forcefeeding them the stale bread? My guess is that the waste is probably produced by two factors: first, government food safety regulations, which also force supermarkets to throw away enormous amounts of food; and second, the taste of rich, self-centered customers for fresh-out-of-the-oven bread, which is also responsible for a rise in the price of bread (as I always said, the problem with the free market is that it is the best system for giving consumers what they want, and consumer wants themselves may be evil, or at least callous.) Another factor may be that government regulations are preventing the creation of small businesses involved in distributing the stale bread, and that the welfare state has destroyed the charitable spirit in the population, so that no one thinks of actually setting up charities to redistribute the bread to the poor. Or maybe many of the alleged poor do not want stale bread either. I did learn a few things from the documentary, though. One is that when you fish deep-sea fish, their eyes will blow up as they are brought to the surface. I wish I had known that when I was thinking about eliminating fish from my diet. I'm also glad that "We Feed the World" is encouraging people to go vegan (I know of one such case, though I also know two other people whose eating habits have not been affected by it.) The fact that I myself went vegan months before watching it actually made me less responsive to part of its message, which is that small producers should not be put out of business by large ones (and that therefore we should all pay much more for the food we eat, though of course the filmmakers will not admit it.) For example, I was not too sorry about the fisherman about to retire, all the more so as I suspect that some of the restrictions he complained of were actually intended to protect endangered species, though he claimed it was "all about money". As a whole, I think there is something wrong about this kind of documentary, which gives a very concrete-bound, out-of-context perception of problems, together with the explanations of the "little man" who may actually not really understand what is happening (the only exception is a UN representative.) I would very much like to see the likes of the Cato Institute or the Mises Institute produce their own documentaries on the subject.

Andrew G (kr) wrote: "You don't wanna dress like them White girls! Don't try to be one of them." Deepak Ahluwalia -- Naveen Andrews In British Legal History, there are few cases that are as widely known and recognised by that of Kiranjit Ahluwalia. It was talked about much when it was in the news, and it was extremely controversial due to its determining on the court's judgements of provocation. The case saw Kiranjit suffer 10 years of abuse from her husband Deepak. As retaliation one night that she had been abused, she took a flammable liquid, poured it on a sleeping Deepak, and set him alight. It sparked mass media attention, at a time where it was widely known that the British Police Force were strongly racist at the time. The film Provoked is a dramatisation of that story. As a student of Law, I didn't watch the film to be entertained or see it as art: I saw it to see how the legislation on defining Provocation in court changed. However, that doesn't mean that I didn't recognise the good and bad things about the film, as I was still in my film-buff mindset as I was watching the film. So I've already stated that the case followed Kiranjit's killing of her husband. The film displays Kiranjit's life in prison and appeals, and follows flashbacks that show that Deepak was initially a very caring husband, but soon became the abusing man that we know him has. He drank a lot, slept with other women, and often raped Kiranjit; claiming that it was his right. It was a truly sickening story, further cemented by the fact that it was a true story. It's hard to believe that people can actually be so cruel and despicable. I've not felt so much sickening emotion and pure sadness towards the human race since the Elephant Man. However, I hated the flashback way of revealing parts of the story. There were certain parts of the case that weren't revealed until the court scenes. When they show the flashbacks, they seem to be too distracting. The best example I can give involves Deepak's mother in court. She states that she herself never witnessed Deepak abusing his wife. Straight after this statement, a flashback is played. It shows that she witnessed a cruel act and reveals that she was aware that her son was having an affair, something that was against their culture. The scene cuts back to the court scene. The reason that this was put into the film was to build tension, and was supposed to make us hate the film's adaptation of the person. It didn't work, and it was completely unfitting. It doesn't have a sense of subtlety. I have a major problem with the plot though, and it only lasted a couple of seconds. In the case, it is known that Kiranjit set fire to Deepak intentionally: it was her actions. In one of the flashbacks, it tries to hint that it was an accident. The scene begins with Kiranjit performing the acts in the case, when Deepak suddenly awakens. He begins kicking around, and knocks the candle that Kiranjit was holding out of her hand. It's clear that she didn't throw it on him; it's portrayed in the film as an accident. It completely goes against the rest of the film's idea of defending Kiranjit's actions on the basis of Provocation. That's a huge problem that really brings the film down. It's even more frustrating because it's so simple to look at this and think "That's not what happened in the case". I know people are going to attempt to defend this action by saying that it's a fictionalisation of the actual event, but it's still completely opposite to what the film is trying to set out. Imagine if in the Elephant Man they changed it so that everyone believed that the person who ran the Freak Show never hit John Merrick, but the film then show us clips that show that he never caused any harm to him. It would completely go against what the film had already established. Aishwarya Rai plays the lead role as Kiranjit Ahluwalia. Rai does a good job at imitating the person we had seen in the news story videos. However, I never felt the emotion of her. When we were meant to be feeling sad about her remembering the time she was raped, I wasn't convinced by the performance. It seemed that the genuine shock and the sorrow that the character was experiencing was being forced by the Actress. The same can be said of Naveen Andrews as Kiranjit's husband Deepak. I never bought him as the abusive husband that he was meant to be. I know that they were trying to portray them as real people, but it doesn't change the fact that they weren't convincing. What annoyed me is that they got Robbie Coltrane in the film. Coltrane is an actor I like. Coltrane is a respected actor and a big name in Britain and it seems that they hired him just for his name. He's completely miscast as Kiranjit's lawyer towards the end of the film. Any actor could have played the role. I felt cheated a lot of the time with the emotions. It didn't seem to be the actual story at times trying to get a reaction from you: rather the score. It was unbelievably strong, and tried to manipulate your emotional reaction to the situation. When the anger of Deepak was about to be displayed on Kiranjit, the score would get really strong and would be heavy on drums and such. It was a lazy technique that the film followed, and ruined what could have been the film's strongest element. One of the biggest weaknesses of the film is the dialogue. It's terrible. It sounds really clich and not at all like real speech. The court scenes are uninteresting because they are poorly written, and it says a lot when I dislike a Court Scene. Provoked is a story that was worth telling; but I don't think that it should have been as a film like this. The end result is a film that would just as easily worked as a TV Drama, or perhaps a documentary. As a film, it really falls short. I'm not criticising it for telling the story of Kiranjit's court case, because it was a hugely important event in UK Law. I just feel that it shouldn't have been told the way it does here. Andrew's rating: 3 out of 10

Chris B (ru) wrote: It tries (unsuccessfully) to recreate the family feel of the first film by throwing a host of new characters together but there seems to be something missing. It was almost like the previous actors (bar Walker) refused to come back unless for big money and therefore a quick replacement job was done. Some decent chase scenes and again this fits into the mythology of the franchise (but an audience at the time would not have known that). I think the main issue was that the relationship between Walker and Gibson was just too antagonistic for the majority of the film and then turned to a strong friendship really quickly. It tried to recreate the relationships of the first but feels like a cheaper rip off.

Sara H (au) wrote: hehe.. yea.. normal PPG stuff..

Corey B (kr) wrote: Phillip Hoffman is good as always but in all honesty this movie isn't that good outside of him. Doesn't really show the dark side of being a gambling addict.

Alex K (it) wrote: My favorite movie, i love how anderson make me believe in the story and the characters.Great performance by both lead actors

Angie M (gb) wrote: It has to be one of the funniest movies I've watched. Those scenes in the "men's group" were hilarious in a "WTF was that?" way. Kevin McKidd is gold as the clueless but sensitive Leo. He makes his character so very believable. Jennifer Ehle is so adorable, and I could feel the chemistry between Leo and Sally. James Purefoy is undoubtedly dashing, but his character was too much of a douchebag. However, I have to say, I don't think I can watch the scenes between Vorenus and Mark Antony in 'Rome' the same way again!And Tom Hollander... he was just classic comedy. I think my sides split everytime I saw him on screen. And to think he's the same stoic, no-nonsense, Cutler Beckett in PotC! Hugo Weaving was... so weird... he made me laugh, which was the point, anyway.All in all, it's a cute movie and quite refreshing in its open-mindedness regarding fluid sexuality. If you don't mind the camp, it's a fun way to spend your 1.5 hrs.I do have one complaint, though, and it has nothing to do with the movie itself. It's just the VHS I rented did not have closed captioning. The accent was pretty hard to follow, and I missed out on a lot of the subtle jokes!

Nathaniel T (ru) wrote: Horrible. Cliched. Boring. Inaccurate.

Alexander P (au) wrote: not the worst film ever made - not happy that they re-edited footage from the first film with Vosloo's image/voice - Durant is cool again, but just not as stylish as the first Raimi effort

Jase N (br) wrote: He's the heir to the Madison Hotel millions but to win his father's respect, and his Fortune 500 company, grown-up goof-off Billy (Adam Sandler) must repeat all 12 grades of school-in just in 24 weeks!

Andrew K (br) wrote: Ice-T is a homeless bum who is "hired" by some rich snobs to lead a hunting expedition. He soon finds out that he is only leading the group because they are hunting him. This movie had almost all of the ingredients for a great movie. The actors are committed, and they do their damnedest. The story is really strong. The production value is decent, and, when it works, it is actually pretty suspenseful. There are two big problems: the director and the editing. Huge gaps in continuity and logical progression. There are such huge swings between good scenes and god-awful crap, you really have to wonder who was behind the scenes. The answer: the director of Bones and Bulletproof... Like I said, it works sometimes. Unfortunately, the unintentional humor really disrupts the flow. I would recommend watching it with other so you can joke/chat during the crappy parts.

Alexander C (us) wrote: Looks interesting will try to find and watch!

Jimmy P (de) wrote: Yorga can rip off Edward Cullen's head easily.

Marko B (au) wrote: ?rimmisen kmpel ptk, ei toimi milln alueella!

Gregory W (br) wrote: great noir and Hayden is still my favorite male actor

Allan C (es) wrote: WWII espionage and intrigue about George Raft trying to intercept documents that might sway Turkey to side with Nazi Germany. The story, written by W.R. Burnett with uncredted work by William Faulkner, is solid, if unspectacular. However, it's director Raoul Walsh's tough directing style and supporting performances by Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre that really elevate this film to being something memorable. I'd never sen this film before, but I liked it quite a lot.

Dave M (kr) wrote: The romantic comedy "Baggage Claim" (PG-13, 1:36) is the entertaining story of a single 30-something woman looking for Mr. Right and dealing with serious pressure from her family to find him - right now.Montana Moore (Paula Patton) is a flight attendant who wants to settle down, but her search for a husband has been impeded by the demands of her job, her high standards, and the occasional two-timing boyfriend. When Montana's younger sister announces her engagement, Mo feels the pressure, especially from her mother (Jenifer Lewis). Mo's well-meaning co-workers and friends (Jill Scott and Adam Brody) hatch a plan to use their airport contacts to let Montana know when one of her old boyfriends is flying somewhere (since "everyone flies during the holidays") and get Mo on the flight for a not-so-chance encounter. After all, one of her exes may have blossomed into the man she's looking for.Mo has 30-days to find a great date -slash- potential mate to take to her sister's rehearsal dinner - to satisfy her own goals, and to get her mother off her back. Mo's 30,000 mile odyssey leads her to encounters with former suitors played by, among others, Taye Diggs, Boris Kodjoe, Trey Songz and past Oscar nominee Djimon Hounsou. All the while, Mo's childhood friend (Derek Luke), who lives in the apartment across the hall, is there to encourage Mo and just be a friend when she needs one.The story's path may be predictable, but the journey is still pretty enjoyable. The major characters are charming and funny - especially Mo (although Patton does have a tendency to overact at times). There are a number of laugh-out-loud moments and the movie has some important things to say about family, friends, life and love. What's "B" stand for? "Baggage Claim", that's what.

Spencer H (au) wrote: Fine adventure film.