A DARING EXERCISE IN ULTRA-VIOLENT EXTREMES.

Ryuichi is a mobster driven by his desire for power and memories of his lost childhood. His younger brother Toji has just returned from his education in America. Together they will experience the rough life lessons of gangster existence. Meanwhile, Detective Jojima finds himself increasingly drawn into the Yakuza world as he becomes more and more involved in mafia affairs to raise money for a life-saving operation for his daughter.

TRAILER

IMDb.com || letterboxd.com

  • klu9@piefed.socialEnglish
    4·
    2 days ago

    Unfortunately, the usual legit sources don’t seem to have this one but Tubi has a couple of other Miike movies (Full Metal Yakuza, Izo) and Fawesome has one (Deadly Outlaw: Rekka).

      • klu9@piefed.socialEnglish
        2·
        1 day ago

        I used to assume if it was on the Internet Archive, it was legit, but over time I realized basically anyone can upload anything they want there.

        And, given how notoriously fiendish rights issues can be, the fact that the uploader has uploaded a range of films from completely different production companies and distributors would suggest to me it’s a fan uploading things they are not licensed to.

        (Checking out the files of another person who also uploaded Dead or Alive there, they seem even less likely to be a licensed source.)

        • Sergio@slrpnk.netEnglish
          1·
          1 day ago

          Hmmm… lemme think this through… I guess there are three categories:

          • licensed stream provided by a company. i.e. tubi (which is free and adblockable) and I guess Fawesome but I never used Fawesome so dunno. ofc Amazon Prime and those other “stream rental” places like Disney and Paramount fit here.
          • companies that provide places for you to upload videos. like Youtube and Dailymotion. I guess Archive fits here.
          • sketchy websites that provide free streams of movies that are almost always pirated. I think these are ad-driven? I dunno much about them.

          Now I distinguish btween these because of the following use cases:

          • a) the community !fullmoviesonyoutube@piefed.social only allows posts in the second category. you don’t really post Tubi links or sketchy website links there.
          • b) on Mastodon, the Monsterdon watch party requires that any movie have a free (possibly ad-driven) viewing option in the first category. ofc it’s great if there are also options in the second category.
          • c) This community’s sidebar says “If posting links for people to watch the movies let them be legal ones. (Free is best but not when it’s shady, you dig?)” Clearly the first category is OK bc it’s legal and not shady. Clearly the third category is NOT ok bc it’s not legal and it is shady. What about the second category? hmmmm… it might vary by country. I’m not a lawyer but I think the US law is that the company (like youtube) cannot be sued by the copyright owner for hosting a movie that someone uploaded, IF they appropriately respond to a request to take it down. I don’t know for sure what the legality is for the viewer, and for the uploader. I think that: whether the uploader has monetized the video plays a part, maybe? And it seems odd to expect the viewer to confirm that all the media (including the music) has been properly licensed, in a video that they are about to watch. For that reason, I think youtube videos are OK. And I think archive is in the same category as youtube, right? I believe archive does respond to copyright takedown requests, so they are a legal and not shady place to find media.

          I’m not 100% sure about any of that tho.

          • klu9@piefed.socialEnglish
            2·
            19 hours ago

            Yeah, it gets complicated and I am not a lawyer.

            But if the material is under copyright, and the uploader is just some random person, not the copyright holder or a distributor licensed by the copyright holder, then I won’t post it here, due to community rule #3.

            What I personally will link here, according to my interpretation of rule #3: free-gratis content from the following kinds of source:

            1. Licensed streaming VOD services, that only offer movies for which they have signed deals with copyright holders. That includes Tubi and Fawesome; even though they are free and have silly names, they are not pirate services. (IIRC both owned by Fox/Disney.) I consider 100% of content on those sites legit to link here. There are other such free services, like Free Movies+ (like my Fear City post), Flixhouse, The Archive (different from the Internet Archive) etc.

            2. YouTube links from channels that appear to be licensed distributors of that content. I go to the channel’s homepage or “About” page and see if they say they are licensed to distribute that content. (Admittedly, I am mostly just taking their word for it.) Example: Filmix, whose About page says " Please note that all movies have been licensed for publication on YouTube and are geo-restricted to the corresponding territories of the rights holder. " E.g. I originally watched Skyscraper and Maniac Cop on licence-claiming YouTube channels (although I later found out there were better versions on Tubi or Fawesome).

            3. Public domain content, from any source (the Internet Archive, PeerTube, YouTube, etc.) E.g. I posted The Yesterday Machine from a YouTube source, found via Cinetimes.

            4. Cinetimes is a “metasite” that collates movies from source types 2 & 3. Basically, they claim to have already done the filtering out of unlicensed content for you. Again a matter of trust, but here is their page on copyright. A test search for “dead or alive” did not return those results from the Internet Archive that I feel are not licensed, so they do filter out at least some unlicensed uploads.

            What I won’t post here (re rule #3):

            1. Obvious copyright-infringement links like P2P, cyberlockers, pirate streaming, Popcorn Time-type stuff etc.

            2. YouTube / PeerTube / Internet Archive links that do not convince me they are from licensed uploaders. Obviously, this requires some effort on my part beyond just deciding if it’s on YouTube etc. Occasionally, I’ll find a movie on YouTube, check the uploader’s channel and see that it claims it’s licensed but something convinces me otherwise. E.g. one didn’t actually give the titles of the movies, just descriptions. Dodgy! Another had big studio flicks that no way were going to be licensed to some pissant little YouTube channel, let alone for free viewing.

            If the uploader’s offerings are too good to be true for free, I won’t link here. Just because YouTube/Internet Archive hasn’t taken it down yet doesn’t mean it’s actually legit.

            • Sergio@slrpnk.netEnglish
              2·
              19 hours ago

              A cautious take, but fair enough. I’ll add one additional complication: I belive that a copyright holder, when they see a video that someone else uploaded and that contains their material and is monetized, has the option of requesting that the monetization go to them (the copyright holder) instead of to the uploader. So there may be some videos that are obviously not uploaded by the copyright holder, but that the copyright holder has decided are OK to remain up and are getting compensated for it. However, I don’t have a source for this.