Wan Fei (Joey Yung) is a promising Chinese Opera singer who is secretly in love with Ho Fung (Nicholas Tse). She plans to sing for him from the stage, but, in a tragic accident, dies mid-song. Years later, Wan Fei's ghost returns, and finds that part of her spirit has been reincarnated in the form of Chor-bat (Eason Chan). Wan Fei still longs to sing her song for her lover, and, after much humorous confusion, her dream is fulfilled.
- Stars:Eason Chan, Joey Yung, Nicholas Tse, Hei-Yi Cheng, Jacky Man, Anthony Wong Chau-Sang, Christine Ng, Kate Yeung, Shun Lau, Robert Lo, Lorry J.C., Stephanie Che, Arthur Wong, Hang-Sang Poon, Cheung-Lung Kai,
- Country:Hong Kong
- Director:Patrick Leung,
- Writer:Kin Chung Chan
. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Demi-Haunted torrent reviews
(es) wrote: The least worthy TIFF audience winner in years. It sure is interesting, but never really takes off or connects.
(mx) wrote: *1/2 out of **** Philip Gelatt's "The Bleeding House" has aspirations to be creepy, thrilling, violent, and philosophical all at the same time. The director - who also served as screenwriter - seems to have Michael Hanake's "Funny Games" in mind when it comes to the concept he's dealing with; he wants to display brutalized and violent horror, but with a clear message that could either come off as meaningful or down-right hypocritical. Let's just say that if you didn't like Hanake's film - which obviously served as inspiration for Gelatt's - then you might actually find yourself enjoying "The Bleeding House". You'll end up in the exact opposite situation, however, if you reverse those two so that it turns out that you actually liked "Funny Games". Either way, I think it's pretty obvious which film you should appreciate more over the other. In short, "The Bleeding House" just doesn't work. A few things here-and-there are decent, sure, but in a whole it's just not all that impressive. I've seen plenty of independent horror movies - some better and others worse than this. Still, I don't think that should act as an excuse for Gelatt's straightforward failure as both a director and a storyteller. He lacks a style - which is typical of first-time filmmakers in the independent field, but nonetheless unacceptable - and he also lacks a purpose. The movie he's made is essential a remake of all the films that influenced it; there's not much more to say as far as its main ideas go, and in a sense, I think the film is aware of this; because it's almost like Gelatt didn't make any attempts whatsoever to say something relatively new. So we've got this traumatized family - father, mother, daughter (Alexandra Chando), and son - supposedly divided by a tragedy not too far in the past. The incident that left each of their individual lives and their accumulated family in pieces is illustrated early-on only through images of a burning house and talk of murder. Slowly, the film takes us through an afternoon into a night with this troubled family; with a dinner scene that seems to beg for our admiration in terms of its "atmosphere" and "unnerving" nature. After dinner has been served, eaten, and ruined; the night is finally upon us, but things are about to get even less ordinary. As the son is exiting the home; he sees a peculiar and well-dressed man walking up to the house. This same man greets the father and eventually the mother, introduces himself as Nick (Patrick Breen) and is allowed entrance to the household. He will stay there for the night. However, he seems to know that the family harbors some deep, dark secrets; and he's about to make their night, to state it as vaguely as possible. If you desire a description of the night to come that is, say, a little more...blunt; then perhaps I should mention the part where Nick starts knocking out the family members one-by-one and hooking them up to blood-absorbing machines that he had hidden inside the little briefcase that he carries in and out of the house. That's as far as I'll go with the story. If you're interested, you won't want me to spoil the big secrets and revelations that come with the film; some of them may act as mild pleasures. You might even like this film; I know plenty of critics who were - much like me - very critical of the movie, while a few swam against the tides and pronounced their admiration for the feature. I've said it once before, perhaps in a different review for a different film, but I'll say it again; I support independent filmmaking all-the-way, and while I dislike "The Bleeding House" immensely due to the fact that I was simply unable to forgive it of its often massively distracting flaws, I would never tell anyone NOT to see it. Yeah, I don't recommend it in the slightest, but if you want to see it; then see it. Who knows? Your reaction might differ significantly from mine. I like it when a filmmaker wants to go places where few filmmakers would dare explore for even a minute; but there's successful execution of a good idea, and then there's pretension. "The Bleeding House" really doesn't have a whole lot going for it; it's a slow, unrewarding experience with the aspirations of an art film. I don't think it ends up being one, though. It's just too typical; while it wants ever-so-much to be atypical. There are some high points - including some ominous shots of the house at night and the performance from Breen, which itself has its ups and downs - but they aren't enough to cover up the fact that "The Bleeding House" is a bloodbath undertaking the qualities of what could have been a thought-provoking and interesting horror-thriller. But Gelatt does no more - and no less - than bleed his admittedly ambitious idea completely dry; until it's reduced to a (very) cool poster and a few menacing visual tricks.
(nl) wrote: I did not understand it. At all.
(it) wrote: I really enjoyed this movie, the dream sequences were hilarious and well done and the movie was beautifully filmed.
(kr) wrote: I was not interested in seeing htis but had to as I needed background noise...&, let me say, WHAT?! However, it is interesting that the FEMA issue was addressed here, 1 year before Hurricane Katrina...interesting
(us) wrote: always makes me happy
(ag) wrote: It was a ok movie about the different between men and women.
(gb) wrote: The Eighteenth Angel is different from other Evil "Lucifer" Movies. Rachael Leigh Cook was a best choice for the role. In my Opinion she has that "innocent" sort of face. I enjoyed this Movie. The Idea they came up was Awesome. The Movie gives something to Mystery and Horror Fans. I liked the locations they Filmed the Movie, it gave the Movie and Story more touch. Cats are great to look from Far, but I never get near them. They just make me nervous, though never had any "Cat-Omania" with Cats. I always enjoy the whole Movie, but the End disappoints me.
(br) wrote: I was hoping I'd discovered a forgotten gem. Wellers is great, but the rat scenes unhinge the viewer through their sloppy direction.
(gb) wrote: It's rough around the edges, but Coffy is still a wholly enjoyable blaxploitation feast. It may not have the same type of b-movie guilty pleasure as similar movies, because it's actually a decent film on its own right, with interesting characters and an attention-demanding performance by Pam Grier. Too bad her horrendous Jamaican accent is ridiculous. Not a big deal though.
(de) wrote: good WWii actioner post WWII
(us) wrote: slow going but a good storyline.
(kr) wrote: Bastante lenta, pero me gusto.
(br) wrote: This movie was good, although nothing new as far as story line. Bernie Mac was funny as the dad who does not care for his daughter bringing home a white fiancee (Kutcher). Kutcher's character spends most of his time trying to be accepted by his soon to be father-in-law. It's a cute movie and worth renting.
(ru) wrote: I was praying for it to be over from the second it started!
(it) wrote: a heartbreaking, viscerally real, intense, powerful and empowering film. every performance is this, and I mean every single one, is Emmy winning material and fantastically, brutally real, and honest. an important film regarding the subject of the AIDS breakout and a fantastic film on its own as well. fantastic performances, a great script, and wonderful direction. highly recommended.
(au) wrote: This movie is awesome! Pushing the limit of M and having an awesome story, does not mean that it would only 42%!!!
(kr) wrote: One will always wonder how can this one beat Godfather and grasp 8 Academy Awards in 1972. But really, Cabaret deserves the honour, especially for Bob Fosse and Liza Minelli. Although it is not as moving as Moulin Rouge! or as funny as Chicago, it is still a milestone (it's in the 1970s!) in the genre of musicals. Those songs and dances are just amazingly enjoyable. Just don't miss it please!
(ru) wrote: I'll admit that silly romantic Nicholas Sparks stories are one of my guilty pleasures. Having said that, this movie is awfully predictable, unrealistic and cheesy. I also have to point that the puppies of her dog are a complete different breed and at the moment that they "were born" they clearly had like 3 months. Point number 2, doesn't matter how many years pass Gabby and Travis don't ever get old, their hair is always the same lenght, the same color, the same way. I know that I may sound like an annoying complainant but if they're gonna make a movie and spend a lot of money on it at least they should put more effort on the little details...
(ag) wrote: Great movie. Loved it