Carlos (Mauricio Ochmann), 21 years old, decides to get married to Camila (Adriana Fonseca), his 18-year-old girlfriend, when he finds out that she was pregnant while he was away for five years. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
7 mujeres, 1 homosexual y Carlos
Carlos (Mauricio Ochmann), 21 years old, decides to get married to Camila (Adriana Fonseca), his 18-year-old girlfriend, when he finds out that she was pregnant while he was away for five years.
You may also like
7 mujeres, 1 homosexual y Carlos torrent reviews
Jackson C (jp) wrote: I believe this is a monumental film that suitably represent the heart and soul of today's China. The success story of three businessman that is interluded with love stories and other side stories that are both funny and interesting, but also at the same time marks their transformation. With determination and dream, it is possible to be successful in China. film also act as a fine tribute to all those amazing Chinese businessman, and how hard and painful they have worked for the success of today. No question, this film represent today's China.
Jake J (us) wrote: a cool #2 movie is nicely done then the 1st #2 100 percent vs. #1 75 percent
Peter F (nl) wrote: Claire Denis captures some shocking images of war-time atrocities in this film, but it's undermined by the film's scattered plot, and lack of substantial character development.
Pedro O (fr) wrote: Kinda good movie, some weird thing going on there. Good story.
Niloo R (au) wrote: i really, really enjoyed this film. such nuanced, layered, real characters. i could completely connect with each, and it was very interesting to see the interplay between them. such a perfect marriage between plot and character here. it was just a little bit off for me, because i didn't personally resonate with the themes at a visceral level (but that's completely a personal matter and has nothing to do with the craftsmanship of the film). i also found bier's cinematic style a bit hectic, but i could appreciate the aesthetics. overall a rather great film, definitely worth a watch!
Fabio L (it) wrote: It has to be seen to the end to be believed, beautiful mind- fucking, psycho-thriller film.
Nathan F (es) wrote: An aged Godard; here at 71; is a difficult concept--at once because his reclusiveness accords him his Legend status and any releases that bear his mark that find their way into mainstream cinema intimidate with their mere presence; is there a more portentous mark to bear for a film, having crossed the millenium, then UNE FILM DE JEAN-LUC GODARD alone on the screen; a credit and a cipher. And also, because we, accustomed as we are to the shorthand camera-work of his Black and Whites to the smooth agility and technicolor of Coutard; and to his always youthful, snappy and fresh punch-throwing intellectualism; his romantic infatuations and meta-indulgences; are a bit fearful that this once enfant terrible may, in fact, be growing old, and that his output, as expansive and incredible as any artist's span, may be finite. In Praise of Love, Godard's most recent 'mainstream' fare--in contention for the Palme d'Or--In Praise of Love is unlike; perhaps at times in opposition to; his earlier, younger, works. It is worth noting how age has made him sometimes crass; while he's been touching on 'the Age of James Bond and Viet Nam' since 1966, it never seemed to reach the level of despite it does here with all the Karinas glowing on the screen. Here; he lashes out without salving with punchlines and songs; Hollywood is out, Spielberg is out, America is out. Some critics are excessively critical of this; after all, Godard has paid homage to enough American films in his time that he has certainly synthesized enough of our culture that he cannot entirely deflect his own barbs; but, enough, the man is old--the black and white photography here is grainy, noisy, steady; in its image is the graceful patience and dismay that age has brought--the second half has the colors bleeding and mutated; like a purposely figmental attempt to be modern and new. The story is a ghost; it appears and disappears, its existence is objectionable, but its trail felt; black cards are inserted randomly into the picture--they read, "Something." There are musings; set to the kind of piano notes that slow time; characters face away from the screen and talk about love, life, and the fiction of adulthood--this last focus is the most revealing and interesting; Godard's own life seems to adhere to his pattern of young and old and nothing else; there must be a fissure somewhere down the timeline where you cross from one to the other; In Praise of Love is Godard's admission, confession, that he has crossed over to the other side; and still daring to disturb the universe.
Frances H (fr) wrote: Philip Seymour Hoffman gives a really good performance with de Niro as an unlikely duo in the interesting film by Schumacher. Hoffman's Rusty is charming and warm, while very humanly vulnerable and makes this movie.
Cole P (au) wrote: There's a reason why Jackie Chan's Who Am I? is called "Jackie Chan's Who Am I?"--the kung fu stuntman perfectionist literally saves a cliche storyline and a rather egregrious formula from total destruction. I recently reviewed this childhood favorite and my brother noted its similarity to North by Northwest. In this day and age, audiences have been bombarded with action-thrillers about a fugitive man on the run from mysterious attackers; the existential case of mistaken identity. The exception here is that we haven't seen it with Jackie Chan. Kung fu action movies (actually, Asian movies altogether) run differently from Americanized productions. There's a smaller budget, but money does not diminish the quality of the Asian action films I have seen--including this one. With a smaller budget comes a more down-to-earth approach to filmmaking. Stunts are less CGI oriented. Safety nets and harnesses are abolished. The star of the picture is simultaneously his own stunt double. Car chases are "fast and furious", not heinous and hilarious like a Vin Diesel picture I wish to forget. For these reasons alone, Who Am I? differentiates itself from the other standard action movies and accomplishes thrills and entertainment that we honestly care about. The story involves the discovery of an underground piece of granite with the force of an atomic bomb, which, several megalomaniacs thirst for. We see only a snippet of the actual rock formation in this movie. The origins of this destructive pebble are never unearthed or elaborated upon--for this reason, (in true Hitchcockian formula), it becomes the film's McGuffin. Almost no sooner than the rock explodes into a digitalized title card, we are introduced to South African scientists who are researching the limitations and capabilities of this rock. Before they can provide mankind (or the audience) with any conclusive explanations, they are absconded away by Marine Corp Special Ops. Jackie Chan is one of these soldiers. In the disarray, the abduction was actually a set up, administered by corrupt CIA agents, and momentarily after that sequence, the helicopters crash. Chan escapes but loses his memory. And so sets forth his formulaic venture into uncharted territory, meeting sly women left and right, fraternizing with unscrupulous masterminds, and fighting unarmed kung-fu henchmen. I'll admit that the plot is wildly ridiculous, but if audiences have any knowledge of Jackie Chan, they'll know about the facetious elements of his pictures. Who Am I? is actually one of the most ambitious Chan projects. Even though we're faced with an unoriginal concept, it's still illustrated with some dignity (void of any quixotic bullshit like, say, Mission Impossible). Jackie Chan directs all of the action sequences; he's able to highlight and accentuate the danger of abduction while never once firing a weapon. He yields a fine chemistry with his female counterparts (Mirai Yamamoto as the impetuous Yuki and Michelle Ferre as the "femme fatale"); the fight sequences run like clockwork and are ferocious and exhilarating. I only wish the story was more secure. I for one am still curious about the rest of that explosive pebble. Who Am I? is a stylistic and refreshing take on the mistaken identity formula. Chan's impeccable eye for action keeps the film roaring with entertainment despite an insipid plot. I'm a little bummed that they couldn't have made this film in the 1950's; Chan would've been hanging from George Washington's nose on the Mt. Rushmore monument. The REAL monument.
Nicole T (ca) wrote: Would have been even better if it was cut down to about an hour and a half. 3.5 stars.
Matthew R (jp) wrote: A funny worthwhile film that has aged well.
Jenna I (ag) wrote: This is an absurd movie about the absurd things that people do and believe in-- there's nobody left unscathed. Extra half star just for the sheer audacity of it all, way to hammer your point home by actually going out and doing it yourself Herzog
Macaulay G (es) wrote: Add a Review (Optional)
Alexander C (au) wrote: Looks interesting will try to find and watch!
Caitlin F (it) wrote: I love Henry Fonda in this movie he was brilliant and so brave in the film!!!! :D
Price P (fr) wrote: Good movie with tons of action but some scenes took forever to get finished