Flower & Snake: Zero

Flower & Snake: Zero

Misaki Amemiya is an assistant inspector for the Metropolitan Police Department's Community Safety Bureau who becomes ensnared in a trap while investigating a mysterious illegal video ...

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:113 minutes
  • Release:2014
  • Language:Japanese
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:Flower & Snake: Zero 2014 full movies, Flower & Snake: Zero torrents movie

Misaki Amemiya is an assistant inspector for the Metropolitan Police Department's Community Safety Bureau who becomes ensnared in a trap while investigating a mysterious illegal video ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Flower & Snake: Zero torrent reviews

Tara D (nl) wrote: Hands down worst movie I've seen in a long while. Don't know what these critics are waffling on about. Where's the negative star option.

Ted C (de) wrote: Starts and ends in the same place and goes nowhere in between.

Gary B (jp) wrote: An interesting but not quote compelling documentary about the collective hacking group Anonymous.

Ryan H (mx) wrote: Really makes you think...

Cameron F (kr) wrote: Lee misses again in this drama about whistleblowers that focuses on the controversy and becomes preachy.

Cameron L (ag) wrote: pretty good. i'm not a fan of heart-warming sports movies, but this one's about hockey, and the cast really shines.

Bengel W (gb) wrote: A well written script giving incite into the daft life of public service. Photography is well lit and makes the emotions and feeling flow giving a rough edge to the story. Actors give strong performances showing the difference in social standing and culture well. AAhhh the movies really can make you look like a princess. Nibbles: Candyfloss.

margot k (de) wrote: An all time favorite. The humor is subtle and characters quirky yet believable. Add the visuals of the Scottish seaside and a score by Mark Knopfler and you can't help but feel good.

Trevor W (kr) wrote: Maybe you had to grow up with it.Although the production design and musical score is astounding and the action is mildly fun, the utter cheesiness and multitude of coincidences don't hold up. Come at me.

Laura C (mx) wrote: Love these movies as a kid...just don't remember them now!

WK J (kr) wrote: Things would have been different if you had returned our egg!

cli o (jp) wrote: nothanks not my kinda thing

Melissa A (ru) wrote: another of my fav's~quite the tart, but get's what she wants. then get's it in the end~

Gordon T (ru) wrote: I saw BLOODSUCKING FREAKS when I was 12 or 13 years old (on video in 1984), and it (along with JOHN BOORMAN'S DELIVERENCE) TOTALLY "messed-me-up." Are images HARMFUL to children? An EMPHATIC yes. Even though BLOODSUCKING FREAKS (aka THE INCREDIBLE TORTURE SHOW) is an outrageous GRAND-GUINGOL comedy, a 13 year old may not realize that he's watching a comedy; and the BRAIN-SUCKING and CASTRATION and QUARTERING (where they sever all four limbs from a woman's body in EXPLICIT and GRAPHIC detail) may seem kind of serious to the 13 year old kid watching it. In fact, anyone with kids 12 and 13 years old: make them watch this film and see how they react to see if I'm joking or not. Figure its an experiment: CAN an image actually be HARMFUL to 12 and 13 year old children? (try it out guys and report back to me) ha ha ha ha --Another "DAMAGING" scene I saw as a kid is the "cut" of the film SNUFF appearing in FILMGORE where the "Snuff-film maker" cuts-up a-girl-lying-on-a-bed with an electric wood-saw . . . to me, at 13 years old), I wondered if the scene was real since there REALLY ARE snuff-movies out-there where dudes actually murder people on camera and then clandestinely pass-around the (usually 8mm footage). When The snuff-film maker DID sever the lady's hand from her arm, the fingers DID twitch as though it were a real hand. (so, what's a 13 year old supposed to think? a real woman had her hand sawed-off and her real-hand was twitching on the bed with a lot of blood leaking from it. Its called SNUFF, there are real SNUFF-films in existence therefore the hand is real; a woman's hand was really sawed-off her wrist; at least to a 13 year older's rationale. I "grew-up" working in my family's funeral home so death and decay is pretty commonplace to my life-experiences up to that age, but JOHN BOORMAN'S DELIVERANCE where one guy screws another guy over a log in the woods SNUFF, where a woman literally gets SAWED-APART on a bed and the aforementioned BLOODSUCKING FREAKS totally screwed with my 13-year-old mind. -- You guys are probably CRACKING-UP heartily, well, if you have children of your own or nieces or nephews who are around 12 or 13 sit them down to watch DELIVERANCE, BLOODSUCKING FREAKS, and FILMGORE (and/or SNUFF) to see if either of the three movies screws with their heads. again, figure you're doing an experiment to see if images really are HARMFUL to children. Remember, show BLOODSUCKING FREAKS to a 12 or 13 year old kid; as adults, BLOODSUCKING FREAKS wouldn't seem real so the experiment won't work on an adult; try it only on kids. and then tell me how the kid reacted. I'm interested in your results. CAN images actually HARM CHILDREN; is the question. ha ha ha ha ha

David J (fr) wrote: Nothing terribly horrible, but this movie was not memorable in any way. I'm having trouble describing it right now.