Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters
A fictional account of the life of Japanese author Yukio Mishima told in four parts. The first three parts relate events in three of his novels: The temple of the Golden Pavilion, Kyoko's House, and Ranaway Horses. The last part depicts the events of 25th November 1970.
- Stars:Ken Ogata, Masayuki Shionoya, Hiroshi Mikami, Junya Fukuda, Shigeto Tachihara, Junkichi Orimoto, Naoko Ôtani, Gô Rijû, Masato Aizawa, Yuki Nagahara, Kyûzô Kobayashi, Yuuki Kitazume, Haruko Kato, Yasosuke Bando, Hisako Manda,
- Country:USA, Japan
- Director:Paul Schrader,
- Writer:Paul Schrader, Leonard Schrader
A fictionalized account in four segments of the life of Japan's celebrated twentieth-century author Yukio Mishima. Three of the segments parallel events in Mishima's life with his novels (... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters torrent reviews
(us) wrote: Tempted to give it 4 stars, since it was so quickly obvious that it was trivial and pointless that we all started having a very pleasant conversation and eventually just turned it off entirely... thus much more entertaining than a lot of movies I give 3 stars too.
(gb) wrote: Pretty much the Bollywood version of Pretty Woman... kind of.
(fr) wrote: i remembered loving this in my early teens so my stars are for the nice memory
(jp) wrote: Another goodie, from a usual bad boy.
(kr) wrote: So first you see a duck reading a porno then you see him get sucked in the sky for no reason and then you get to see Howard nearly have sex with a human woman!! What the hell?
(ru) wrote: It has some chilling moments. An enjoyable film.
(it) wrote: I love Shirley Temple
(ag) wrote: This film is all about Bette Davis. She is amazing and her performance just carries the film. You find yourself just watching her the entire time. After winning Best Actress in 35 and 38 the only thing that stopped her had to be Vivian Leigh and GWTW. What a 5 year stretch. Speaking of which this film gets lost due to the fact it was released in 1939. Watch the extra commentary just on that year and you learn so much. The seminal year for film in classical Hollywood. The score to the film is so good and so understated as anything by Max Steiner was. His touch helped lend the film a sadness that just accentuated what you watch with Davis. Finally it was cool seeing both a young Ronald Reagan and a pre-stardom Bogie. A real crying film, make sure you have some tissues before watching.
(au) wrote: A stretch. Charming but weak storyline.
(mx) wrote: Following his Old School Road Trip, and long before his epic Hangover, Todd Phillips went back in time to remake the classic School For Scoundrels, with disappointing results. The story follows an insecure loser in love, who takes a class on how to become more appealing to women. His teacher is a total player, who teaches the class to the best of his abilities, but in the end, he has the same goal as the others, and ultimately falls for the same girl as the loser. When seeing a Todd Phillips comedy, that is unrated, and features Billy Bob Thornton, you should expect to see a raunchy good time, but that's not what happens here. To Phillips, keeping as close to the original story was more important than modernizing it for today's audiences, and the result was a film that fails to live up to expectations. This film needed a major injection of raunch, the kind Thornton became known for in films like Bad Santa. Instead you get what amounts to an average, mediocre, comedy. In this film, Thornton is paired with Jon Heder, Napoleon Dynamite himself, but as with that film, his monotone lovable loser act, gets old very quickly. This film has all the makings of a wild ride and a terrific comedy, but instead it falls flat on it's face, as just another ordinary, run of the mill, romantic comedy.
(br) wrote: In the vein of Tales from the Crypt or Creepshow, The Theatre Bizarre gives us a collection of horror stories. Some are good, some are ridiculous (the candy one? What the hell was that?). The theatre itself was the scariest part. It's okay for horror buffs, that's about it.
(au) wrote: Somehow people used money and high end equipment to produce a film with no characterization and no reason to like like the goodies in this simplistic comic book "adaptation". There are some extremely overcooked CGI moments in one scene, that will sort of blind you, but also make you aware of how obvious computer generated animations look compared to real footage.Back in the 1960's Marvel created many of it's best characters, although they were designed specifically to be the most identifiable thing on the printed page, most had supernatural powers, with some limitations for storytelling purposes, and story arcs meant little to the genre, as the stories were designed to go on, and on, and on. To put it bluntly, comic book characters rarely make great cinema, and when film makers start putting story ideas before franchise marketing, the world will be a better place.
(gb) wrote: Switched it off! Not a huge fan of Aussie movies.
(jp) wrote: Did it make me feel good? Yes. I thought it was just a nice, light hearted, simple movie. I know Americans get bored rather fast these days, and the attention span is low, but if one is willing to chill out and just enjoy the simple, then the movie will work.
(us) wrote: The critics obviously have a problem with God. As you can tell it was decent 77% from the people, 15% from the critics. The critics didn't give it a chance because they didn't believe in God. May not be the best movie ever but for real. Don't judge because you don't believe in God. I don't believe in ghosts but I still watch ghost movies. If you don't believe don't watch or judge on the intended audience not you not believing in God