Japan Japan

Japan Japan

Fresh out of the Israeli army, gay 19-year-old Imri moves to Tel-Aviv, but he's got a bad case of "yellow fever" and dreams of relocating to Japan. When he's not searching for porn, Imri hangs with his friend, works a low-paying job or sleeps around. The work of first-time feature film director Lior Shamriz, this provocative movie offers clever dialogue and strong performances.

The movie tells the story of Imri, who at 19 goes to live in Tel- Aviv, but dreams of moving to Japan. Through his relationships and encounters and in diverse cinematic tools, we are ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Japan Japan torrent reviews

Leon J (nl) wrote: Never run, never will..

dingo d (jp) wrote: An interesting film, with differing viewpoints on a social conundrum. On the one hand, a French Socialist leftist "heart-wrencher"; on the other hand, a well-acted presentation of conflicting interests.

Lewis E (mx) wrote: Not the goofy slapstick comedy that tends to be squeezed out when they jump on a rising comedian's bandwagon. Applies decent self-deprecating humour with sincere conflict of identity and exploration of the Muslim and Jewish faith. Ending is a bit too ridiculous for feasibility and the comedy is not quite laugh out loud quality but the majority of material amongst the anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic humour suffices. A less funny 'East is East' would be the best comparison.

Harlan H (br) wrote: Oh my God this was bad. Just bad.

Alexandra L (gb) wrote: I don't like easy anti-Bush movies...

Alan V (us) wrote: Starts off strong, then descends into preaching, maudlin violin music, and his most ridiculous stunts yet. And as always with his propaganda films, it relies more on footage of crying people than facts. He manages to raise a few important points, though. PS It's not an anonymous donation if you brag about it in a nationally released movie, Michael.

Rosalind R (de) wrote: about to watch it now. oh boy

JAQUAN (it) wrote: it was great i love the part went patt teaches ben how to shoot baseketball

Johann M (de) wrote: This 1972 musical film starring Liza Minnelli, daughter of the great Judy Garland (The Wizard of Oz) tells the story of a love triangle of a singer, a teacher and a playboy in Berlin's Weimar Republic. The story unravels as the Nazi party grows until it takes over, all narrated among the musical numbers of a cabaret.Academy Award record with most wins but no Best Picture win.

Rafal K (jp) wrote: I'm not sure if it was because this movie is so old, or because it's just not my type of cinema, but I simply couldn't take it....

Coleman H (us) wrote: One of the best movies ever made. What a message!!! I still shed a tear at the end. This is what Scouting is all about. If you have not seen this movie, and you are a scout leader, get it and watch it.

Mark D (it) wrote: A tragic comedy that only can be Italian. Loren is superb as the prostitute turned .................. erm, personal mistress? Marcello Mastroianni as the ever suffering Domenico puts in a great performance. Another fine De Sica Neapolitan fairytale.

Mark S (jp) wrote: A bit of a dry run for John Sturges and Steve McQueen (and Charles Bronson for that matter) before they collaborated on the classics The Magnificent Seven and The Great Escape. It was a huge stroke of luck for McQueen that he got the role of Corporal Ringa after star Frank Sinatra wielded his power and took it away from Sammy Davis Jr after briefly falling out with his Rat Pack cohort. McQueen gives by far the best performance in an okay war film plighted by a meandering romantic subplot.

Mark H (us) wrote: In post war Italy, a man gets his bike stolen, which is his only source of income (courier), and tries to get it back. The story sounds simple, which it is, but in fact it's much more than that. Film on a very human level.

Edith N (ru) wrote: American Fascism Must Hide Behind Democracy I'm not sure the [i]Citizen Kane[/i] comparisons are quite fair. And I don't just mean because I don't think it's fair to compare much of anything to [i]Citizen Kane[/i]. I'm thinking more along the lines of how the story doesn't even line up with [i]Kane[/i] as well as does the one of that one Mexican wrestling movie I watched. There are a few similarities, and we'll get into those in a minute, but there are more differences. The issue seems to be a similarity of plot structure and a character who gets into politics for reasons other than the best interests of his fellow citizens. And let's face it, there are plenty of stories about that which don't have much to do with [i]Kane[/i]. And given how badly [i]Kane[/i] did in its initial release, I'm not sure any studio would risk copying it so soon. As it was, the movie was uncommercial enough, even given it was the early days of World War I. War hero Robert Forrest has died in an accident, having driven off a bridge which went out in a storm. His wife, Christine (Katharine Hepburn), is refusing to talk to reporters and has shut herself up in the family estate. Steven O'Malley (Spencer Tracy), who has been reporting on the war in Europe, comes back to the US with the plan of writing about the "true" Robert Forrest. The hero of millions. And this isn't intended to be some kind of hatchet job; he sees Forrest as having been a great man who was what the country needed in a time of crisis, and he wants to immortalize that man as war sweeps the world. Only when he finally gets in to see Christine, thanks to Charming Urchin Jeb Rickards (Darryl Hickman), he discovers that there is something going on which the public knew nothing about. There was more to Robert Forrest than the hero of the Ardennes and inspiration to youth everywhere. For one thing, it turns out his mother (Margaret Wycherly) was secretly alive and living on the property. So here's where it's like [i]Kane[/i]. Robert Forrest, a complicated man of uncertain past, is dead. A reporter tries to piece together his life by talking to those who knew him. And . . . that's pretty much it. For one thing, O'Malley isn't much interested in Forrest's childhood. He's really only trying to piece together one night. He talks to fewer people, and the people he talks to have more interest in keeping what they know secret. It isn't even just that they're trying to preserve his image; most of the people here are trying to preserve his [i]secret[/i]. And while Charles Foster Kane had secrets, he had secrets that he was trying to keep from everyone. Robert Forrest had an inner circle who knew the truth, and from the outset, they put up a united front against Stevie O'Malley. There were those devoted to Charles Foster Kane, but they didn't know the real man any more than anyone else did--and didn't much like each other, either. What's more, that unfair comparison only serves to take away from the real blessings of this movie. As it was made, the United States was just beginning a horrible war with an enemy as much philosophical as martial. It was a war many in the country had spent years trying to avoid--and not in the way that those campaigning for peace did but by simply trying to prevent the United States from entering. After all, people in Europe and Asia had already been at war for some time. And one of the things American propaganda would begin to teach, and had even before Pearl Harbor, was the differences between Us and Them. Robert Forrest's dark secret was one that was shared by many Americans, and it is important to US history that the people begin to see that women like Christine Forrest--brave and strong, loving and patriotic--could choose their country when they thought they were betrayed by a man whose values and beliefs were antithetical to what he'd said he stood for. She is American Womanhood, and she's Anti-Fascist. She is, however, not entirely suited toward being played by Katharine Hepburn, and that was the problem with wartime movies. With actors, you took what you could get. It's arguably true that, had John Wayne actually gone to war instead of just acting in war movies, he might not have a career left when he came back. But the big-name stars were all off overseas, and John Wayne, among others, filled the gaps. Scripts were mostly about the war or else intended to take people's minds off the war. And Spencer Tracy did do a good job in playing the serious investigative reporter, a man who's seen war and knows what the dark side of it looks like. He's believable as a man who sees the US as a shining beacon against fascism. And so forth. And it's true that he was great with Hepburn. We just today picked up the complete set of the movies they made together, and while some, like this one, will be new adventures, others will be old friends. But this is definitely not the best of the lot, because it's forced into a shape the Tracy/Hepburn relationship just didn't fit.

Justin J (fr) wrote: This is a perfect example of B horror, and its easily a throwback to old 80s B horror. The movie is a somewhat weird anthology and to me the three shorts really are not that good. The third short is easily the best but the wrap around story or the main story involving a babysitter is the best part of the movie! The acting is very amateurish, and the picture is..well...obviously low budget but bloodshed and creepy clown is well worth giving this a rental!

Vince B (ru) wrote: Terrible movie. Terrible direction. Terrible writing and terrible acting. Really, all that can be said for it is that it's an interesting example of early technicolor. Even one of my favorite film actors, Laird Cregar couldn't save it and wound up playing a cariacture of a "pirate" better suited to halloween than the silver screen. And not only is this movie bad, it's offensive as well! Typically to see this kind of misogyist rot you had to wait until the 50s, but this movie was definately ahead of it's time.

Jim R (it) wrote: I grew up in New Jersey and this is a terrific movie.

Clare M (de) wrote: Incredibly well acted film that would have been much more enjoyable with a tighter script and more creative direction. Repeatedly the director uses visual metaphors to stand for the Internet, or people using the Internet, that made me feel catered to"as though the use of the Internet is not a common thing most viewers would be familiar with. Sadly it was also most likely hurt a great deal by the subject of the film telling those who are his followers to not see the film" when obviously the greatest audience for the film would be those who look up to Julian Assange. Definitely still worth seeing for the acting and the interesting story of how mr. Assange founded WikiLeaks.