China Strike Force

China Strike Force

A young Chinese Security Officer, Darren, is called for Team 808, which fights against the smuggling of drugs and corruption. Noriko, a Japanese Interpol officer, collaborates with Darren for the destruction of a large international drug cartel. At the same time, a senior government officer's daughter is suspected of corruption.

A young Chinese Security Officer, Darren, is called for Team 808, which fights against the smuggling of drugs and corruption. Noriko, a Japanese Interpol officer, collaborates with Darren ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

China Strike Force torrent reviews

rick r (ca) wrote: "Hatchet III"-the non-stop onslaught gorefest! The third installment of the Hatchet franchise came on like gangbusters, with a fierce body count, grue-master deluxe amount of gory kill shots that really was like the 4th of July. This one, directed by BJ McDonnell, held true to the stylized massacre that has become synonymous with the name Crowley. The thing that really sets this it apart from the other two films is the insane amount of firepower and action-styled explosions that almost pays homage to "Friday the 13th: Jason Goes To Hell-opening sequence". Only slightly though-because what was a momentary thing in that film was an extended Apocalypse now folderol of spent shells, grenade and thunderous sound effects. Really the only times the story rested on the melodrama and character builds where the moments that featured Danielle Harris' character. Most of the action and carnage was reserved for the "guns-a-blazin'" scenes. "Hatchet III" was set up as 'man's belief that he can maintain or regain control over anything he faces- including the supernatural or impossible-only to realize it just may be a delusional assumption'. After all Victor Crowley systematically eviscerates strike forces and government officials with rabid savagery. At moments it seems to only cover the fact that the writing may not hold up within the story or the fact that it may have been written with more insecurity to the script than desired. Kind of like "sky flowers" for the audience to distract from a flimsy story line. Can't really say but as I was hearing the set up to finally putting Crowley to rest I felt a little "brake squeaking" moment in the back of my mind-especially considering only moments earlier it was made very clear that there was no killing the monster that was Victor Crowley. However considering the last breath of the film, that original clarity, of Crowley's inability to die, may very well hold up. I sure hope so because, all negative aspects aside, I really do enjoy the "Hatchet" films and they seem to embody the original spirit of the slasher genre set forth in the 80's. And the kills scenes and gory effects are awesome. Even if the blood and gore look a little more pumpkin-y prefab than I would like to see splattered across my nightmares. In all aspects, within the "Hatchet" mythos, "Hatchet III" stands as close to solid as a sequel to the original and even the lesser affective "Part II". There isn't much in the lines of character build here but somehow I didn't mind because the cast was stellar and visceral onslaught was a true gruesome spectacle to see. Even with the kind of flat finally between Marybeth and Crowley which really does beg the question "why did crazy blogger lady just join in and dust this sh*t in part two?" I mean she seemed to be crotch rocket strapped to the whole Honey Island legend and Victor Crowley thing so why wasn't she up in the sh*t earlier in the story. Maybe I missed something. Which is a good reason for me to watch this along with "I " and "II" over and over again. "Hatchet" really does provide much desired blood into the fictionalized slasher genre that somehow the very human psycho killer just doesn't give us.

Fai D (fr) wrote: A really cool coming-of-age film.

Regi H (au) wrote: It was fine. Some jokes hit, some didn't. Some animals looked like they were really talking, some didn't. Some of the animal performances were good, some weren't. Its better than the normal Adam Sandler & Crowd movies.

Ed H (ru) wrote: Good story telling, beautiful camera angles, should be a good candidate for a Hollywood re-make.

Ivan D (ru) wrote: Movie based on a comic book, so don't expect philosophy much :)

Serge C (ru) wrote: [color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']STANDARDIZED MOVIE EVALUATION (06/19/06 revision)(comments may contain spoilers)[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']I. CONTENT (out of 3 stars plus bonus, composite of sub-criteria bellow): ---> 1.5<---i. PHILOSOPHICAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL DEPTH (out of 2 stars, where very shallow = 0; shallow = 0.25 or 0.5; somewhat deep = 0.75 or 1.0; deep = 1.25 or 1.5; very deep = 1.75 or 2.0)---> 1.25 <---[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']*Does the movie provide deep insights into psychology of an individual? (0.25 for somewhat deep, 0.5 for deep) Y-0.5 personal inner-struggle [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif'] [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']*Does the movie provide deep insights into psychology of a group? (0.25 for somewhat deep, 0.5 for deep) Y-0.25, edgy spousal interactions [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif'] [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']*Does the movie provide deep philosophical/cosmological insights? (0.25 for somewhat deep, 0.5 for deep) Y-0.25. the nature of ?love?, ?wealth? etc?[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif'] [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']*Do the movie?s insights care significant philosophical/political implications? (0.25 for significant, 0.5 for very significant) Y-0.25, ?We appreciate someone after we loose them?[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif'] [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']ii. SCREENPLAY ORIGINALITY (out of 1 star, where very banal = 0; banal = 0.25; somewhat original = 0.5; original = 0.75; very original = 1.0):--->0.25<---[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']*Is film?s screenplay creative (0.25 for a positive answer)? Y[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif'] [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']*Is the plot generally difficult to predict (0.25 for a positive answer)? N, too predictive[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif'] [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']*Is film?s ending original (0.25 for a positive answer)? N, clich ending[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif'] [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']*Does the screenplay particularly excel in any of the above (0.25 for a positive answer)? N[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']+ BONUS FOR CONTAINING CONTROVERSIAL & UNPOPULAR TOPICS (up to 0.5 star, where controversial topics = 0.25; unpopular and taboo topics = 0.5) [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']II. PRODUCTION (out of 2 stars plus bonus, composite of sub-criteria bellow): ---> 1.75<---iii. ACTING (out of 1 star, where very ineffective = 0; ineffective = 0.25; somewhat effective = 0.5; effective = 0.75; very effective = 1.0):---> 0.75<---*Do actors portray their characters effectively (0.25 for a positive answer)? Y[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif'] [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']*Do actors interact among each other effectively (0.25 for a positive answer)? Y[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif'] [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']*Do actors connect with the audience (0.25 for a positive answer)? Y[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif'] [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']*Do actors particularly excel in any of the above? N[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif'] [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']iv. PRESENTATION (out of 1 star, where very ineffective = 0; ineffective = 0.25; somewhat effective = 0.5; effective = 0.75; very effective = 1.0): ---> 1.0 <---[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']*Are visual elements effective (0.25 for a positive answer)? Y[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif'] [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']*Are acoustic elements effective (0.25 for a positive answer)? Y[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif'] [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']*Is the film?s flow & duration effective (0.25 for a positive answer)? Y[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif'] [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']*Does the presentation particularly excel in any of the above (0.25 for a positive answer)? Y, great visuals, nice flow[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']+ BONUS FOR PRODUCING ON LOW BUDGET (up to 0.5 stars, where up to one million dollars budget = 0.25; up to half a million dollars budget = 0.5) [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']TOTAL STAR RATING: ---> 3.25<---[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']GRADE & RECOMMENDATION (above 5.0 = A+," Very Good Movie, Highly Recommend"; 5.0 & 4.75 = A," Very Good Movie, Highly Recommend"; 4.5 = A-, " Very Good Movie, Highly Recommend"; 4.25 = B+, "Good Movie, Recommend"; 4.0 & 3.75 = B, "Good Movie, Recommend"; 3.5 = B - "Good Movie, Recommend"; 3.25 = = C+, "Fair Movie" ; 3.0 & 2.75 = C, "Fair Movie"; 2.5 = C-, "Fair Movie"; 2.25 = D+, "Poor Movie"; 2.0 & 1.75 = D, "Poor Movie"; 1.5 = D-, "Poor Movie"; bellow 1.5 = F, "Very Poor Movie") :---> C " Fair Movie" <---[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']IF YOU LIKE THIS MOVIE I ALSO RECOMMEND: N/A[/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif'] [/font][/color][color=black][font='Arial','sans-serif']BALANCED MPAA RATING (not biased in favor of violence and against sexuality, where G = no violence, no sexuality; PG = OK slight violence, OK slight sexuality; PG-13 = OK moderate violence, OK moderate sexuality; R = OK explicit violence, OK explicit sexuality; NC-17 = OK extreme violence, OK extreme sexuality)--->PG-13 for moderate violence<--- [/font][/color]

Tristan M (fr) wrote: I'm not one to review movies of this type, and typically find myself bored with them. But this is a amazing movie. Sean Penn delivers his best performance, and the other actors do great as well. The cinematography is good, and so is the script. It's so sad, powerful, well done, and simply great. Sean Penns best movie

Nick G (nl) wrote: The absolute best of Broken Lizard's work. Mother of god.

Daniel S (us) wrote: Exactly in order, my 2nd favorite pokemon film

Clay B (de) wrote: THE VERY THOUGHT OF YOU (1998)

Patrick W (ag) wrote: Star Trek's attempt at a murder mystery/political thriller. Story was the idea of Leonard Nimoy's and the entire movie seems pretty flat until the end when the crew of the Enterprise has to race to stop an assassination. Guess the entire original cast needed one big send off before the Next Generation cast took the torch.

James A (ca) wrote: A poor 80's comedy that moral tells us grades aren't important when trying to get into an ivy league school.

Jaime L (mx) wrote: One of my favorite movies of all time

Art S (de) wrote: A young girl is murdered on Hampstead Heath. The police investigate. The young girl's fianc is questioned but he has an alibi. Then, suddenly, she is discovered to have been black but passing for white. Prejudice rears its ugly head; in 1950s London many people apparently feel no shame for voicing their bigotry. The fianc's family harbor such unfounded hatred in their hearts. But another suspect, a black man, appears and the cops latch onto him. Director Basil Dearden manages to keep this tense police procedural moving and thought provoking while not telegraphing its conclusion (that is, keeping the murderer's identity a secret until the very end). Nigel Patrick is solid as the police superintendent who seems fully aware of the wrongs of racism even while his partner seems to condone or even support some of the negative sentiments. Still, it would have been great if more of the characters more vigorously presented an anti-racist message (rather than simply looking askance or suggesting that any group could be the targets of prejudice. But perhaps the'50's are too soon to hope for such an explicit take on the problem? In any event, the crime genre formula mixed with an examination of social problems/social issues is a dynamite combo and worth hunting down.

jesse k (kr) wrote: I liked this movie. I think Cage is an interesting actor.

Mike T (ru) wrote: A bizarre and overcomplicated stuffed turkey of a movie with those manipulative golden coin type storytelling that impresses a mind like my own. I just love the gold shower, this movie is a golden coinage dream!!

Jayakrishnan R (nl) wrote: 89%Watched this on 28/01/16Far far better than many of the widely acclaimed and popular American comedy films, Nebraska is poetic in it's themes about old age and occasionally heart warming. Terrific acting from June Squibb, Will Forte, Bruce Dern and Bob Odenkirk add to the film's taste.

Joetaeb D (mx) wrote: A stylistic yet uninspired retread of I know what you did last summer (I didn't really like that film either), Sorority Row fails to distinguish itself from it's inspirations.

Phil H (br) wrote: Probably one of the most mental films I've seen in a while. A limited budget holds the film back but hell the film is just crazy