16 ans ou presque

16 ans ou presque

Successful lawyer finds out he is suffering from a rare disorder that makes him act like a teenager

Arnaud Mustier, lawyer and brilliant philosopher, arouses the annoyance of his younger brother Jules, age sixteen. One day, Arnaud is a victim of a late adolescent crisis. Helped by Jules, he is going to catch up this phase of the life which he did not live. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

16 ans ou presque torrent reviews

Sue R (au) wrote: Good movie, one of Ray Liotta's best performances

Jesse O (au) wrote: For what is supposed to be a goofy comedy, this film is way more serious than it really needs to be. And it's also a complete mess, structurally speaking. It doesn't really know how to balance the comedy and its more serious horror aspects into a coherent package. This movie follows the formula set by Your Highness in that you take something, or in this case a set of characters, and you make them as foulmouthed as humanly possible in the hope that a lot of cursing will turn unfunny material funny. In this case, the priests are foulmouthed, drunkards, living in sin in order to make it easier for demons to be drawn to them. And that's a good, and actually a pretty clever, idea that I think more exorcism movies should employ. The problem is that the movie was way too concerned about making sure that the priests said as many F-bombs as possible than actually making the script funny. Priests saying cocksucker repeatedly is only funny once, you need more than just cursing to make a film funny. It almost feels like a 13-year old that just discovered cursing for the first time wrote this. You know how when you discover cursing you wanna use it all the time, even if it doesn't make sense. That's how this movie feels a LOT, and I do mean a lot, of the time. And that's a problem, because it really doesn't feel like any real effort was made into tightening up the script, making sure that everything is funny or scary, depending what the scene called for, or making sure there's a good story involved. The movie loses big points for that. Some of the fight scenes are also embarrassingly shot, like they just did it in one take and didn't bother to check how that turned out. The film also wastes a perfectly talented cast because, and I like Dan Fogler, but I have no idea why he was here. He didn't contribute anything to the movie, almost like all of his stuff was edited off the movie for some reason. He seriously didn't contribute anything to the cast, at all. And none of the other Hellbound Saints really did. Well, with the exception of Angus, Larry and Elizabeth. There's three characters that, very easily, could've been cut out because they contributed absolutely nothing to the group. It's just little things like that, that bother me. It's like, why waste a perfectly good cast if you're not gonna do anything with them you know? The film has some decent gore near the end, but it's not nearly enough to save the film. By this point, it is simply too late. And there's also these weird interviews that talk about the events of the film after the fact, and they're so weird, because they're way too serious and the tone of the movie doesn't with that at all. And there's also the ending of the interviews, which are shown before the credits roll, that allude to something really big happening after the events of the film you've just seen. Almost as if they were setting up a sequel. It was a good idea in theory, but they're so out of place in this film, that you immediately tune them out. They didn't register with me because I really didn't care at all. I really didn't like this movie at all, in fact I kind of hated it. And I hate it even more because this could've been a good movie. The concept is more than interesting, but it's more concerned about cursing a lot and not really trying to make a good movie out of this concept. I'll go on record as saying that RIPD was better than this. So think about how bad this movie must be.

Heather M (ru) wrote: This was a great interpretation of 'Emma' with some Bollywood flavor. Some of the dance numbers didn't line up with the musical selection, but it was still an entertaining movie. I loved Aisha's manipulations of the character's love lives even though they all paired off differently than expected.

Brandon S (nl) wrote: Gnaw is a excuse for a horror film plays out like a British rip off of hostel, but lacks everything that Hostel had. This film has not one scary moment, all the gore looks like cranberry sauce out of the can, and the cast sucks from the good guys to the bad ones. All that and then topped off with no reasoning for anything and a killer that runs around the woods with a mask made out of pelts, CRAP!

Ethan M (jp) wrote: so funny great to watch with friends

Air A (kr) wrote: Another off-beat bollywood movie about 21st century relationships ... and where you realize Mallika can actually carry a role !

Andrew S (mx) wrote: I don't know what's wrong with you people. Overlook it's deficiencies. It is cool.

Isadore H (br) wrote: I went into this one with high hopes, a film with Daniel Craig, directed by Mathew Vaughn, it was a formula for great stuff. Later Cake was alright, but I was expecting a little more than what I got. The plot is at times hard to follow, but still entertaining. The performances were all pretty good except for The Duke character, and not enough to Tom Hardy was in this. Everything was solid here, it just failed to deliver that special something that should've made this excellent, and I don't know what it is, maybe it was because I didn't care for the characters as much as I wanted to. Nevertheless, Layer Cake is still a pretty good movie and the clever twist where you never here Craig's characters name is pretty cool.

gary t (jp) wrote: wow umn just seen this movie 4 the 1st time n think that this is a good movie 2 watch..its got a great cast of actors/actressess throughout this movie..i think that both emily watson n john turturro play good parts throughout this movie,,its a sad movie but its an enjoyable movie 2 watch..i think that stewart wilson n massimo sarchielli play good parts throghout this movie..i think that the director of this Drama, Art House & International movie had done a good job of directing this movie because you never know what 2 expect throughout this movie n its got good scenery throughout this movie..its a good Drama, Art House & International movie 2 watch

Gonalo M (de) wrote: Te deja mucho mas claro ver ambas historias en paralelo. Ambos piratas, hasta con las banderitas

Ben R (gb) wrote: I kind of loved this movie a little. It seems like so many romantic comedies nowadays, even the good ones, involve character archetypes put in different plot scenarios. You've Got Mail: rom-com over Internet chat, and the twist is that the people who fall in love are business enemies! Friends with Benefits, No Strings Attached, and countless others: people trying to have a casual relationship but getting too invested and falling in love. If you give Moonstruck a descriptor like that, the central conceit is that a woman falls in love with her fiance's brother.The thing is, most romantic comedies rely entirely on those goofy conceits, but Moonstruck is so much more than its central plot. Moonstruck has something that most of those movies don't have: actual personality. There's the cast, full of unique characters both funny and full of heart. It's more than just the cast, though; it's the setting, and the family dynamics, and the pace, and just the overall feel of the movie. As the movie went on, I began to feel a sense of magic. It just feels refreshing and unique, maybe partly because it incorporates the Italian culture.One thing that bothers me in romantic comedies, especially older ones, is that the characters sometimes seem to fall in love way too quickly, just because the movie requires it. That problem exists in this movie, too, as Ronny tells Loretta he loves her after, basically, one conversation and then a night of sex. There's only a couple scenes of them together after that before Loretta says she loves him too, and it's a little silly. But you have to give movies like this the benefit of the doubt, and it helps that Cher and Cage have really solid chemistry in the movie, and their first couple conversations definitely leave an impression.That extremely fast-paced romance leads to a pretty unrealistically pat ending. Johnny comes home and conveniently breaks off his engagement with Loretta, so she doesn't have to go through the pain of admitting she betrayed him. The script smartly makes up for that a little by tying it into the themes of fate and luck; Loretta has spent the whole movie making choices based on the superstitions that her husband's death reinforced, so it's fitting, in a way, that Johnny's arc feeds into that same theme. (Speaking of Loretta's husband's death, I like how it's shown to have deeply affected her, yet the movie doesn't focus too much on it or have Loretta break down crying with how much she misses him. Instead, it's treated refreshingly lightly.) There's also a pretty pat ending to the conflict between Loretta's parents. Her father actually cheated on her mother repeatedly with no real hint of remorse, but eventually Rose says, "Stop seeing that woman," and he said, "okay." He doesn't really apologize, and most conventional movies would require him to follow a preordained, formulaic arc in which he begs his wife to take him back and promises he'll never do it again. But this movie isn't concerned with that. Rose and her husband will probably have more conflict in the future, and he might see other women. There's something deeper here, some real marital problems, and Moonstruck doesn't really dig deeply into that. Despite all these pat endings, though, despite the effortless reconciliation between Johnny and the family, the end of the movie manages to feel satisfying because it emphasizes the simple moments of forgiveness that family requires, and it emphasizes familial bonds altogether.That conflict with Rose and Cosmo is certainly affecting, but even aside from the infidelity itself, Rose is a fascinating character. First of all, she's hilarious, dropping pretty much all the funniest lines of the movie. I love how she asks Loretta if she loves Johnny and she nonchalantly replies, "no," and I love how, at the end of the movie, Rose is dismayed to hear that Loretta actually loves Ronny. I also loved that scene that she shares with the man in the restaurant a lot more than I expected to. It's an easy bond that forms, and there's some really well-written dialogue, enhanced greatly by the two excellent actors playing Rose and Perry. Perry had a surprising amount of nuance to his character, and I can't tell you how happy I am that it didn't actually end in them having sex, even though the characters flirted with the idea. Rose is such a strong, intelligent woman, and I love how well she knows herself and everyone else in the movie.I want to end on a simple and relatively minor thing. I loved Rose's brother and his wife. There was something about Louis Guss's portrayal of Raymond that perfectly captures all the romance in the movie. I love how he points out the moon. The moon is a motif that works excellently because of its background in the story and because of its undeniable beauty. I love how it unites all the characters as they separately watch the moon and think about the love in their lives. It's a simple and elegant metaphor that adds to a movie full of personality and magic.

Private U (au) wrote: A poorly dubbed Italian splatter rip off with the worst acting and with very poor attempts at humour. Whats not to like? Recommended to all you gore fans.

Ian C (mx) wrote: Isaac Hayes stars as Truck Turner a maverick bounter hunter. When he kills a pimp his bottom bitch seeks revenge and puts a hit out him. Turners gun makes Dirty Harrys 44.Magnum look like a rentboys Muff Pistol. Up there with the cream of Blaxploitation cinema.

Benjamin W (es) wrote: One of those sad and tragic movies about a man down on his money and down on his luck. The only thing keeping him alive is his loyal dog and an undeterred spirit of eventual optimism.

Ryan K (us) wrote: This is so unwatchable, tasteless, and ugly that it works.

Luke N (gb) wrote: Because of my slight insanity i have developed over the years, i have grown incredibly patient, and able 2 wait through almost anything, so the way too long length of the lone ranger, didnt really affect me.I thought it was a fun, action packed, and very interesting (plot wise) movie. Although it was deffinetly WAY too long, i still liked it.