You Shoot, I Shoot

You Shoot, I Shoot

A hired killer pairs up with an amateur filmmaker to provide clients with satisfying footage of enemies getting whacked in this black comedy. Business is down, so hit man Bart is thrilled when Mrs. Ma hires him to kill her enemies -- and film the murders. But Bart's first video killing stinks, so he hires filmmaker Chuen. Although business subsequently picks up, their notoriety creates complications.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:94 minutes
  • Release:2001
  • Language:Cantonese,French,Japanese
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:explosion,   murder,   wig,  

An assassin teams up with a director to filming the killing he do. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

You Shoot, I Shoot torrent reviews

Knox M (es) wrote: Well made but forcibly moving and more of a salute to the fans than a documentary.

Nick K (ru) wrote: The vast majority of this movie is just plain weird and absurd. However, the ending, as Anwar comes to terms and finally realizes exactly what he did so many years ago, is the film's major payoff.

Brad W (it) wrote: A pretty awesome start turned into a bomb of a movie. If they took the time to put money into this and not CGI everywhere they went, it might have worked. Interesting story, how much is true though? I thought Ifans played the role superbly though.

Lisa R (kr) wrote: I liked this film. It was charming and not as 'dark' as far as I'm concerned as some others reviewing the film seemed to think. If this film is dark then I'm a Dutchman compared to thousands of other films. It was light hearted and fun....

Summer D (nl) wrote: I found the movie to be quite boring.

Justin W (jp) wrote: i saw this in seattle while hoping for a good ol' slasher flick set in my home state...what i got was completely different, but not enough to leave me disappointed. this is a documentary of a town in wisconsin loaded with murders and cases of madness. it's pretty interesting. i didn't get to see what i was hoping for, but what i got was still an enjoyable experience.

Denise C (jp) wrote: Oh my goodness!!! I have never cried so much through a movie. For an unadvertised movie, this one is definitely worth watching. I loved it!!

Taba H (de) wrote: Kammottava lansimaiselle yleisolle suunnattu Hong Kong-ohjaajan kammotus, aanitehosteet ja sekava editointi, seka taistelukohtauksien kuvaaminen aasialaisille tunnusomaista, juonessa hirveita alyvapauksia, ei pida lahestya...

Augustine H (fr) wrote: 9 Oscars including Best Picture? This hypnosis is surely the shittiest joke the voting crews have ever played on us.

Quincy T (gb) wrote: John Doe asks a valid question, "What if law fail to protect civilian?". It's a very intriguing premise, and the film succeeds in involving the audience to mentally invest in the dilemma. For the sake of enhancing the social nuance, it portrays the story with back and forth pace as well as accounts from journalists, lawyers and polices. However, it's also very heavy-handed in its execution, many other movies have done better with more refined production.The title is pretty self-explanatory, this is the story of a vigilante called John Doe, who kills repeated offenders. Unlike most movies, it's presented in almost exclusively in cameras' point of view, such as recorded interviews, homemade video or CCTV. This semi-mockumentary approach does have its merit, it's easier to produce participation for viewers as though they are watching news or investigative journalism. Unfortunately, it's a tad too ambitious in creating layers as well as multiple perspectives on its timeline.Most of the recording feels awkward, it tries to reveal information in order for audience's benefit, like Social Network. As the killing becomes well known the situation escalates, creating more perspectives from many other characters, most are delivered with the same found footage style. This becomes convoluted and restricted, as too many accounts are choppily edited for shock effect. At some points it becomes too fervor in delivering its message, it literally screams at audience. While it could be effective, V for Vendetta and Dark Knight films have done better with subtler method. Its strong point lies in the visual. The graphic is crisp and pristine, the scenes are very polished, which makes the mockumentary style more confining. It could have portrayed the scenes with poise, and links them together smoothly. For the acting, its main characters perform well, especially John Doe himself. Characterization has a few problems though, they might be one-dimensional and the plot exaggerates John Doe's ability, dumbs down the law and vilifies his victims till the point of Satan incarnation himself. This film might make audience contemplate on its theme, if so it has already succeeded, but the means for that goal is crude, almost preachy. It could have reached out more with elegant, delicate and rich discussion.

Jamie I (au) wrote: A word of advice, friends: if you're going to spend time on a movie set do not go see the movie. I spent time on this movie set as it was filmed in AZ. It wasn't a bad movie. I mean Jason Bateman (my love) was hilarious. I just had a really hard time believing they were in Saudi Arabia. I mean, hello, I was there! And I swear I saw some cactus during the freeway scene. It's funny two of the major scenes I saw filmed which took hours to film lasted maybe five minutes. It's weird. Surreal. My advice, if you didn't spend time on the set go see it. Aside from the purposeful shaky camera work it was pretty good.

Will L (au) wrote: Russ Myer's magnum opus, "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", combines skin with satire to deliver a truly original comedy. It features deliciously over-the-top acting and a great original soundtrack, and most importantly, it is absolutely 100% unpredictable. It's a film that film buffs, in particular, will definitely appreciate.

Thomas B (br) wrote: For a comedy it's often light on comedy but there are some truly great scenes which elevate it above the mess. Full review later.