Love Letters

Love Letters

A story of love and obsession. A young radio personality who, after her mother dies, discovers she had been having a love affair for 15 years. Now she finds herself recreating her mother's romance by getting involved with a married man.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:98 minutes
  • Release:1983
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:Love Letters 1983 full movies, Love Letters torrents movie

A story of love and obsession. A young radio personality who, after her mother dies, discovers she had been having a love affair for 15 years. Now she finds herself recreating her mother's ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Love Letters torrent reviews

Leong C (kr) wrote: Nothing like a good old spaghetti western flick... simple, stylish, violent

JY S (ru) wrote: Fuyuhiko Nishi's High Kick Girl delivers on the martial arts, but not much else.Their isn't much in the way of plot for this 80 minute production. The film is extremely easy to follow, despite the fact that it takes a while for it to become clear as to where the story is going. The pacing is rather quick, and that is because most of the film is taken up by karate fights.There is no shortage of action and the final 35-40 minutes, which is basically half the film, is a long drawn out showdown. The karate is real and the choreography is amusing. The sound effects are rather weak, which lessens the impact of hits, although this does help display a high sense of realism. Contributing to the massive amounts of time on the action are the slow motion shots and replays. The replays aren't for single moves either. Entire segments of 3-4 moves are shown again in slow motion. In the end, it adds up to too much.There isn't much to the acting, which isn't perplexing, but watching Rina Takeda whoop some butt with her karate is a delight. Tatsuya Naka also steals a ton of the spotlight as he displays his real karate skills.In conclusion, High Kick Girl is a barrel of karate with a moral message.

Ben D (jp) wrote: Oh Living Proof. How horrendously terrible you are, although, I still enjoyed watching you immensely. This is one of the best unintentional comedies I think I've ever seen. I mean it's up there with The Room and Troll 2. Now, I am going to rate this movie objectively. I'm not giving it a 6/10 simply because it made me laugh, oh no. I'll tell you right now, this movie is getting a 1/10, no question about it. Just keep that in mind. Okay, where to start with the problems in this movie? It's actually extremely difficult since literally everything is wrong with this movie. Hmmm... lets start with acting, why not? To say it is not good would be an understatement. Our man guy Dr. Slamon (not salmon thank you very much) is played by someone who has probably never acted in anything before ever. Judging from this performance anyway. The only character traits he seems to have is getting hilariously pissed off at people and running in slow motion (seriously, I'm not kidding. I think there is a total of like 5 minutes of running. It's worse than a Tom Cruise movie.) Now to be perfectly honest, I don't remember a single side character's name. All I do remember is, they all sucked at acting and Amanada Bynes played one of the characters (who also really can't act). Moving on to writing! The writing is both the best thing about this movie and the worst. Best, because it's really funny, but worst, because from a filmmaking perspective, it is some of the most clunkiest, most awkward writing I've ever heard. None of it sounds slightly realistic. It sounds like something that belongs on Days of Our Lives or something of the sort. I can properly describe it, you really need to hear it yourself. The pacing is all over the place as well. Maybe like 4 or 5 times, the movie will jump forward to a year later. Now, I realize this is about hopefully getting a cancer drug approved, which takes many years, but that doesn't excuse lazy pacing. Simply jumping forward in time just doesn't work. If you haven't realized by this point, these filmmakers had no clue what they were doing, even if they had good intentions. Those things are like the main problems, but trust me, there are countless miscellaneous problems that didn't really fit any of these main categories. For example, whenever they cut to another scene, they'll use a blank, white screen to transition, and it looks so cheap. Stuff like that. Now, you may say "oh, this is obviously a joke." "They knew exactly what they were doing when they made this." And to that I call bullshit. They were serious about this movie. You can tell. There are several, serious toned emotional scenes where you are actually supposed to care about the situations unfolding on screen. They even have a "this film is dedicated to Dr. Slamon" (the real life guy) at the end. They clearly thought it was good enough for them to dedicate it to this guy. I sincerely hope he hasn't seen, or heard of it. It would be a shame for his legacy to have been told is this garbage pile of a movie. That about covers this movie really. Now, this movie is awful. 1/10, like I said. But, I still highly recommend you watch this movie. It's just too damn enjoyable to miss. It is not quality filmmaking, but you don't watch it for that. You watch it for the same reasons you watch The Room, or Troll 2, or Birdemic, or any other "so bad it's good" movie. Too laugh your ass off, beginning to end. Have fun! (Also take a shot every time his drug might not make it to the next stage or whatever. You'll be dead in like 30 minutes.)

Isaac L (fr) wrote: Alt. Title: How Not to Make a Spoof Movie

Alex r (us) wrote: I really enjoyed the original Heavy Metal, and thought it was a fine animated featured that blended many film genres. As well as that, the film boasted a great soundtrack filled some truly awesome hard rock, heavy metal songs. This sequel on the hands is a step down the classic film, and it never really becomes anything truly entertaining for the viewer. The problem with the film is that the music selection just doesn't work, and it's late 90's rock, metal music that just doesn't cut it. The original worked very well because the songs were varied, and each artist selected had some truly awesome tunes to bring to the film. With this follow up, the filmmakers offer up a good film, but it never realizes its full potential. The film is enjoyable, and entertaining, but the film could also have been better. I really wanted to enjoy the film a bit more, but I felt that stories didn't work, and that the original didn't need a sequel. Heavy Metal 2000 should mostly be seen as a curiosity, and in many ways that's how the film plays out. The film is average, but never becomes great by any means, and it's a shame because this could have been a great sequel. However the music just doesn't have that timeless quality that the original Heavy Metal did, and this one lack s any real memorable story. The original, every segment was great, original, funny, horrifying and action packed. This one just feels like the filmmakers tried to replicate the formula of the first, but it never realizes its potential because, the first picture was so good, and is a film classic. Nonetheless, this film is good, never great either and it's not that bad, but for a sequel, it suffers the same faith as so many other sequels have, and that's to make a sequel that matches or exceeds the original, which this one certainly doesn't do.

Shelley S (br) wrote: nice family movie, was sad in the middle great acting by aamir khan

Jennifer T (it) wrote: Sexy. Romantic. Funny. Susan Sarandon and James Spader are wonderful in this. I would like to own this movie one day. Good love story about younger man and older woman.

Charles P (au) wrote: ....yeah. So, anyway, gender roles are reversed, Gerard Depardieu is raped by a feminist theatre troupe 'cause they want to know what it's like to rape' (not be raped as that would be unpleasant) and then he finds King Kong's son by the corpse of said Kong (Dino DeLaurentis Kong no doubt). That's about 22 minutes in. Uh...then...uh...you get to see Depardieu naked, if that's your thing. He's young enough and speaks English with a thick accent. I'm sure that's a fetish for someone. Everything is a fetish now.

PainTrain62 (nl) wrote: it's the best movie he's ever made!!!!!

Alex r (au) wrote: Mario Bava's feature length debut Black Sunday is a stunning gothic horror film that still manages to terrify decades after its release. Beautifully shot, Bava's film possesses atmosphere that elevates the tension on-screen. This is a fine horror film, and a stunning debut by one of Italy's most iconic masters of horror. Black Sunday is simple in its storytelling, and works on so many levels. Films like Black Sunday are much better than most because they use atmosphere to effective buildup the terror, instead of focusing on jump scares like we see in many of today's horror films. Black Sunday is also a very well acted film with a magnetic performance by actress Barbara Steele. Mario Bava would later helm other great horror films, but Black Sunday still reigns as one of his finest. Bava has been called a pioneer in Italian horror, and with this impressive first feature, he crafts a terrific atmospheric horror tale that is absolutely terrifying due to the way it was filmed. I've said it before, atmosphere is key to creating effective terror and with Black Sunday we get just that. It's a subtle, yet truly terrifying film that ranks among the finest of Italian horror films. The fact that the film uses simple elements to create a truly memorable film is proof that when a filmmaker uses few elements at his disposal, then he's able to make something truly memorable and highly entertaining from start to finish. If you love classic horror films, then give Black Sunday a viewing, for its short run time, it truly grabs your attention from beginning to end, and with some great performances, well paced direction from Mario Bava, this is a definite genre classic that no horror fan should miss.

Lucy K (us) wrote: I loved this movie. I first watch this movie when I was 6 and I just loved everything about it. Ann I'm not much older I'm in my early teens now and it still has a special place in my heart.

Tristan P (de) wrote: Without a doubt, the WORST DRACULA MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN!!! (Although Gerard Butler in DRACULA 2000 remains the worst Dracula performance ever) I'm tempted to say "Worst Dracula movie EVER!", because although I haven't yet seen every Dracula movie, I can't imagine one worse than this. Poor David Suchet...

Gavin P (jp) wrote: Not bad for Hitchcock's second effort! Some easy to spot models/green-screen, but you have to give it the benefit of the doubt, seeing as it's 1940! Decent plot, considering this was filmed during WWII and not afterwards with hindsight to help, which makes the intrigue and mystery interesting. The windmill scene was quite fun and the plane crash was made to look realistic enough. Nice to see a war story from a reporter's POV, rather than a soldier.

Jon R (au) wrote: In Hardflip's embarrassing grasp for relevance it makes the critical mistake of back benching the only two relevant "actors". Four lines from Brian Sumner or Christian Hosoi about faith holds far more clout with any skateboarder than 1h 48min of poorly scripted, overly preachy and contrived drama.