Japan Sinks

Japan Sinks

Japan sinks! Proving once again that Japan will never cease to find inventive ways to destroy itself on screen, this summer's blockbuster Sinking of Japan brings apocalypse through tectonics. Based on Sakyo Komatsu's best-selling novel, Sinking of Japan was first put on the big screen in Moritani Shiro's 1973 classic. In 2006, director Higuchi Shinji remakes the disaster movie, taking the story to

Japan will sink down to the deep sea. The governments only hope is evacuate all Japanese to some other countries. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Japan Sinks torrent reviews

Kevin L (us) wrote: Not a single character is worth liking or following, nor is there a full 3-act story to actually tell. Red State sets out to outrage for the sake of outraging

Darren B (fr) wrote: Oh. My. God. There isn't enough cheese in Wisconsin to stack up to this movie. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. I expected a *little* bit of campiness but it was nonstop. The beginning showed promise, with the subtitle background for each character "Life expectancy : They wouldn't kill a cripple, would they"? But that's where the entertainment ends. The gore was gratuitous but extremely fake, while the scare factor was about a 1/10 and the predictability factor was somewhere closer to 10/10. Avoid this stinker.

Brandan W (nl) wrote: Johnny Galecki is great in Bookies. His performance is nothing less then stellar. I've seen him before in other things, but always dismissed him as character actor. He shines in Bookies. If this movie had a higher budget, his performance would have garnered him an award. Galecki plays Jude, which is the most developed character in the movie. Also the character I hated. That's probably why I noticed Galecki's excellent performance.Rachel Lee Cook sadly has the weakest character. Her acting wasn't weak, her character was. Without giving anything away, there is a scene where Stahl tells her he has given up, then she lectures him that he should give up, I'm sorry, didn't he just say he did give up??The plot gets weak toward the end. You'll need to lend some creative license, but not so much that it enters the "Oh Come ON!" stage.Good movie, worth the rental, or even purchase it in the bargain bin.

Indira S (ag) wrote: i literally fell a sleep, while watching this :D

allie s (br) wrote: really fun movie, for any elvis fan. the cast, and directing are great. obviously it is a fairy tale, but a good one. check it out

Will L (de) wrote: An ingenious collaboration between Sam Raimi and the Coen brothers, it has its flaws (most of them caused by too much studio involvement), but they are overcome by its bizarre blending of Hitchcockian crime-noir and violent, Tex Avery-style slapstick. It's cast, comprised entirely of B-list character actors, carries itself surprisingly well, and the gags never stop comin'. Hilarious, exciting, and quite unique.

Otter S (fr) wrote: why oh why has such a great film only got 17%

Ken D (nl) wrote: A dated comedy that is more smart than it is funny.

William R W (de) wrote: Good, but very disconnected from what I want. Not much humor at all.

Adam E (kr) wrote: Entertaining black comedy with a clearly genuinely drunk Peter O'Toole. The jokes are very hit and miss and the setting is pretty bland (so is Guttenberg, obviously) but overall this is a watchable effort, just don't expect Beetlejuice...

Paul Z (ca) wrote: This buried New Hollywood pearl literally follows and watches a single-minded outsider from Colorado who, having netted a position on the American ski team upon the lay-up of another athlete, fanatically chases the objective of winning, with a full-blown indifference to etiquette and professional fine points. David Chappellet is a cad, a handsome rough-country bumpkin who veils his social anxiety and lack of knowledge with a bold mystique. In reality, he'd simply be an ignorant rube, but here he enters the abundant class of antiheroes who rallied round to characterize American movies of their vital, unforgettable period. Even then, Chappellet gave the impression of being an aloof, intractable character, and his tough, emotionally unapproachable nature maybe contributed to the film's market letdown. Regardless, his dogged insubordination was the yardstick tackle at the time: Consider Beatty in Bonnie and Clyde, Hoffman in The Graduate, Fonda in Easy Rider, Nicholson in Five Easy Pieces and One Flew Over Cuckoo's Nest, Gould and Sutherland in M*A*S*H. So while Chappellet's posture was wholly egocentric instead of rational, his impulse to beat the system and go his own way did not then feel as radical as it does today after the Reagan and post-Reagan eras of manufactured sports victories and champion cops who treat mass destruction like a football game. One of the film's trademark properties is hand-held footage from the viewpoint of the racers, which had never been done in a feature film before and was no Sunday stroll when the skier was doing over fifty miles per hour and the 35mm Arriflex camera weighed forty pounds. Whether or not one wants to speak in terms of its time, the film was and still is outstanding in its aura of the velocity, reverberation and pressure of competitive skiing. The chomp of the snow, the bone-freezing and muscle-constricting time lags on gusty mountaintops for a skier's rotation to come, the unstoppable tick of the timer, the archaic appearance of the skis and soft boots are all minutiae encapsulated with terse, nimble, confident strokes. Olympic connoisseurs were undivided in commending the film's correctness and candor, a scarce phenomenon in the far-fetched universe of Hollywood sports movies. Going for an induced documentary tactic considerably shaped how the film would come across, as did the selection of hard-core verite cinematographer Brian Probyn. Together, Probyn and director Michael Ritchie have here a more or less internal documentary about Redford's body, capturing it from angles that highlight his geometry in conjunction with his attractiveness. Multiple times, Redford stops to look in a mirror and observe himself with unopinionated, unaffected frankness. Their gritty, biting drama is stark, distilled to its densest connective tissue, as keen as arid residue. Several of the film's evocations of character and emotion go unspoken, staying within unless discriminatingly stimulated. Chappellet is a man of few words who won't budge by the narrowest margin, and it's consistent that the film frequently cuts away right when it appears he may be strained to say something, to be slightly more human than normally seems. All that he hides is suggested throughout his stopover back home in a Rockies town. His father, a friendless stick-in-the-mud, is a man of even fewer words than his son, and the curt, indignant, and self-centered outlook he squeezes out toward David's fortuity betrays all we require to go on about David's egocentric relentlessness. The undercurrent of the climax is whether or not Chappellet will allow being given the high hat by a stylish yet emotionally unavailable Swiss beauty throw him off on the slopes, and Ritchie's deliberate, atmospheric debut eschews all the frills that would classify American sports movies by the time Rocky emerged seven years afterward. It's gristly, cynical, painstaking, minimalist and declines to fabricate unwarranted enthusiasm. The film is courageous in securing itself to a character as minimally sympathetic as Chappellet, and Redford never loses sight of the role to comfort us that he, the actor, may be less conceited and selfish than the guy in the script. Chappellet is an unmitigated self-aggrandizer, and while Redford would play such parts again, he never did so quite this uniquely, with such craving invigorated by formative years. The ideas of Downhill Racer are lucid, having to do with the temperament of rivalry and the sacrifice of triumph. The brilliant closing line of Ritchie's important second film with Redford, The Candidate, "What happens next?" said by Redford upon being elected, is understood in the ending of Downhill Racer.