Sakuya: Slayer of Demons

Sakuya: Slayer of Demons

The eruption of Mt. Fuji in 1707 released hordes of demons from deep inside the earth. Sakuya, the young daughter of a samurai killed fighting these demons, accepts a mission to travel to Mt. Fuji and defeat the evil spirits. Accompanying her on her journey are two veteran warriors who served her father, and Taro, a young kappa, or river spirit, whom she has adopted as her little brother. Along the way, the two warriors have doubts about Taro's loyalties, and the young kappa himself must decide if he will stand with his own species or with the humans who have cared for him.

The eruption of Mt. Fuji in 1707 released hordes of demons from deep inside the earth. Sakuya, the young daughter of a samurai killed fighting these demons, accepts a mission to travel to ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Sakuya: Slayer of Demons torrent reviews

Jordan R (ca) wrote: An almost unnecessarily sad film.

Phillip W (ca) wrote: Very good movie excellent story highly recommend.

Ollie W (us) wrote: Fraught. uncomfortable and heartbraking. Estate life in Britain as only they know it. Arnold is a goddess. Unbelievable debut short which fully deserved its Oscar win.

Jed D (nl) wrote: Despite a horrible career for Chris O'Donnell, 29 Palms was simply one of the most enjoyable movies I've seen in a long time. His performance along with a superb supporting cast consisting of Keith David (They Live, Marked for Death) Michael Rapaport (True Romance, Higher Learning) and Michael Lerner(For Richer For Poorer, Newsies) were perfect for this film.

Phillip D (ag) wrote: Beautiful! When Ultraman takes flight at the end you will believe in him! I think this rendition of the M78 hero did a lot with a classic character! Long live the Next!

Sabine B (nl) wrote: This was entertaining. I left the theater smirking because in the film the main character says "That's what she said." completely seriously. Ha. I and one other person in the whole theater laughed at that. This was so cheesy, there were cool bits.. slightly Twilight Zone. All the women in this film were ridiculous. This film was rather ridiculous. I liked it.

Joshua L (mx) wrote: Eerie silent film with ground breaking effects. This one ranks along some of the very best.

Jessie C (ag) wrote: I was really excited about this one because of how iconic James Dean is and because I had never seen something with him in it before, and honestly, I was disappointed. I was really annoyed throughout the entire movie. I read a little bit more about the movie afterward and it enlightened me to the film's strengths that gave it "classic" status, which helped a little bit, but I can't ignore the fact that this was a really annoying movie.I don't usually pay too much attention to film titles, but this one truly says it all. Bunch of angry suburban kids causing mischief for no reason, essentially. I get that there was an element of emotional neglect from adults, which fueled their teenage debauchery, but it played out like a bunch of spoiled white kids messing everything up for everyone else because they didn't know how to deal with their problems. It's a real issue, this painful separation between generations, but this movie was so melodramatic about it. I hate to compare negatives (because a negative is a negative and that's that), but there are a multitude of other more important, more devastatingly horrible issues out there. I don't expect every movie to tackle an societal problem, I get that some movies are just fun, but if they wanted to make a drama about a problem, they should have picked something else. I just didn't care. I didn't feel bad for these kids.It was so dramatic, the story was weak, a vessel for the studio to make money off of Dean more than anything. That's like every Zac Efron movie. Not much substance, but with an exceptionally attractive male displaying both strength and sensitivity- it's a formula to make profit. That's why I'm surprised this is a classic. Seems like something a 1950s Teen Nick might put out for a quick buck or something. The story-telling was bizarre, also. They tried to do some kind of "let's get this story started and fill in the blanks of his past later," which I've seen work many times, but it just didn't work here. I felt like I came into a movie halfway through, too many details merely implied, too many rapid jumps in story/relationships, just made it frustratingly mysterious for no reason. Pacing was so strange. Starts out ominous and tense, then after bad things happen, it gets light-hearted and silly.The only things I really enjoyed were the aesthetics, and I'm not sure how much credit they should get for that considering the ~aesthetics~ I enjoyed so much were just how things looked back then. I also did see the spark that has made James Dean so legendary despite his short career/life. His acting was over-the-top, in my opinion, at some points, but he really did have something about him that was fascinating.Such a bizarre film to me. By the time it was over I had more questions than I had answers and that is enormously frustrating. I really, really didn't like it but I'm so confused that I didn't enjoy such a widely beloved film so I might try to give it a viewing again but I highly doubt it.5/10Bye love you

Joel C (gb) wrote: THE BEST ACTION MOVIE EVER, ENOUGH SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeff B (kr) wrote: I found this film relatively underwhelming. The main issue is that the film tries to be too narrative or a film about fiction too lyrical, and instead of being something of merit, like a best seller, it turns rather pedestrian in the process.We've got a writer (Roy Jansen) who's trying to get published but can't, so he finds a manuscript in an old briefcase bought at a second-hand shop and publishes it as his own. The story is being told by an author, Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid), and as the movie unfolds, one may begin to wonder who the narrator is. Is he the plagiarized author, the old man, or someone else? For we have a story within a story within a story. Hammond who is telling a story about Jansen (Bradley Cooper) who later in the movie is being told a story by the old man (Jeremy Irons). Of course you have some wonderful actors here, but the material just seemed a bit strained, as if the film in its attempt to be taken seriously bit off more than it could chew. I don't know what it is about films that portray authors a particular way, but they often seem to get it wrong. How do I know? I've been writing for years and have a degree in writing. I've never experienced the tragedy and melodrama most writers in films have, and neither have my writing friends. We aren't full of angst, drugs and alcohol, or some muse that makes us appear different from anyone else. Stuck in Love comes to mind when I think of writers portrayed very unrealistically. The Words wasn't as bad but close. And I love Irons but the story telling just got boring after awhile and seemed to suck the energy out of the room rather than build it, maybe because his part went on too long. Just tell the guy you wrote the book already. All this flowery melodrama just ain't working (Remember Dora's analysis of Rory's book? "In this one, you're just so real.") Writers are often told to just get to the point, don't bore the reader, but maybe screenwriters don't get that same message. This just sounded like a writer who doesn't know how to write talking about how a writer writes. Right? Oh well. The final scene between Hammond and his love interest Daniella seemed to actually be going for something a little ethereal, some mystery, merit, and depth, but then the conclusion is just plunked in the viewer's lap at the end. OK, the Jansens's were happy. Wha--?. And finally, why the old man came forward to tell Jansen that he had plagiarised his book is never given a satisfactory reason. Again, promise of something of merit and import is just left cold on the table. Not terrible but certainly not something to write home about, if you will.

Katarina I (jp) wrote: soo gross and pointless