The movie follows four fragile young people seeking to challenge social conventions and their own tolerances by engaging in scheduled partner-swapping, fleeing London to start an unconventional utopia, creating a world of fantasy that eventually overwhelms them. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Amorous torrent reviews

Irfan K (ru) wrote: Very well made, highly recommended. For the roots of the South Korean miracle, and the many little battles to achieve democracy.

Carlos M (fr) wrote: A superior and scarier sequel (prequel actually) that serves best as an example of what the first movie should have been but wasn't, given that, contrary to the silly sheet tricks of that one, we're offered this time a more interesting development of the paranormal activity.

Lance B (au) wrote: It had it's funny moments, but it really wasn't great. I wouldn't watch it again.

Megan G (gb) wrote: This was a really interesting, (and funny at times) documentary on black women and their hair. I learned a lot, that's for sure. Chris Rock is a great documentarian. I imagine there are many black women who are upset with him about divulging trade secrets, however!

Mark E (es) wrote: I don't know what all the bad reviews are about. This is a really good British film.

Farah R (ca) wrote: One of the worst films I've ever had to sit through.

John F (br) wrote: the story of a girl and her horse. a teenage girl find a mustang and her quarter horse owning father wants nothing to do with it.

Barry M (us) wrote: Possibly one of THE funniest films I've ever seen.

Edith N (de) wrote: No More to Say, Even With Images To be honest, I shouldn't have watched this one yet, because I haven't seen the second one. However, given that the trio is not narrative in the strictest sense, I'm not sure how much difference it makes. It is also true that this trilogy is not the only one like it, a film of images set to music without a true storyline to it, and perhaps there are only so many of those you can watch if you do not actually yourself do drugs. However, if anyone is going to be interested in watching movies like this--and not being on drugs at the time--it ought to be someone with an appreciation of the music of Philip Glass, and I certainly meet that requirement. It is sadly true that, for most of the film, I gave up paying attention to what images were flickering across the screen in favour of instead reading and listening. Writer-director Godfrey Reggio may have had a lot to say, but I think this film is best summed up by the fact that there's a feng shui artist credited. Once again, our title comes from Hopi; my familiarity with these films leads me to believe that "qatsi" is Hopi for "life." At any rate, the premise of this film rather seems to be that the way of the modern world is a life in conflict with one another and with nature. I admit that I'm reading a lot into a series of images set to music. There are no words in the entire thing except credits and the title card defining "[i]naqoyqatsi[/i]" for us. However, I think it's extremely significant that a film released in 2002 would show us, in a collection of spinning corporate logos, the Enron logo. That cannot be a coincidence, given that I doubt most people had even heard of Enron before it collapsed in such a spectacular fashion. Come to that, it is a film wherein there are spinning corporate logos followed by spinning symbols of various religions and not that far off in the film from images of mushroom clouds. Seeing this, I am even more certain that Reggio is no fan of modern life. This one, unlike [i]Koyaanisqatsi[/i], does show lingering images of people we know things about. There is a lengthy stretch, for a film of this nature anyway, where we are shown studio portraits or perhaps wax figures of various historical figures. (One is Abraham Lincoln, which is why I think possibly wax.) When we stare into the face of Fidel Castro, it is impossible not to put him into historical context. Yes, there is recycled footage from World War I--indeed, I think there is quite a lot more stock footage in this one than Reggio would like us to consider--but quite a lot of the focus seems to be on celebrity culture and the pervasiveness of corporations. Which, okay, I have ranted about a time or two myself. However, I think there's a bit much of it, and I missed the extravagance of nature from the first one. Honestly, if a film with no plot or dialogue could be said to be preachy, this one was definitely it. I am also less than pleased with how manipulated the images were. I have recently discovered a piece of software that is basically a free version of Photoshop, and I've been playing around with its tools. However, my primary consideration in manipulating my own photographs is that they [i]not[/i] turn out like much of this film, where you are far more conscious of the processing than the pictures. That, and I mean, how many images of mushroom clouds, manipulated or not, does one film really need? Practically all the manipulation of the first film was speeding things up, showing the shadows of clouds rushing across the deserts of the American Southwest and so forth. By 2002, it seems that was not enough, and there was this drive to keep it seeming modern. But as we all know, the more work you put into making something look modern, the more dated it will look even as little as five years later. This was ten years ago, but it would not have surprised me to find out it was older than that. Oh, I'll still get the second one, when I get to it. (You guessed it. I didn't do them in order because their names are not in alphabetical order.) I'm curious as to which of the first and third it most resembles. Maybe it will even turn out to be a steady decline, which would be interesting. Certainly I can't compare it to any of the director's other films, because these are pretty much the only features he has ever made. I could take the time to look and see what else he's done, because of course you can't coast that long on a mere three films. Even Terrence Malick has done more than that! And of course, I'd still be interested in getting the score, because Philip Glass is still one of my favourite composers. There are even a few minutes where I was captivated by the imagery--there is swirling smoke at one point that was simply lovely, until those blasted corporate logos appeared. I just can't help wondering if what Reggio had to say was all said with [i]Koyaanisqatsi[/i].

Alberto G (gb) wrote: Very interesting (and surprisingly accurate) telling of some elements in Beethoven life. Even if the theory by Bernard Rose (director of cult fave Candyman nevertheless) of who was the immortal beloved in a letter found after his death, is not supported by a single scholar, this is a fine piece of storytelling.The editing was a bit choppy and it was not as elegantly striking as it could have been, but the acting by Gary Oldman made the difference. It is sad, romantic, powerful and inspiring all at the same time.Wanted to watch this the moment it came out but got lost in the shuffle. Well worth the wait.

Victor N (ag) wrote: The more I see it, the more grandiose it is to me. Simply unmatched.

Jake H (fr) wrote: I really didn't have high hopes for this movie. Me and a couple friends were hanging out, when one of 'em suggested we watched it. I kinda figured I could endure an hour and a half of cinematic agony, but to my surprise this movie was pretty damn entertaining! The action was cool, some parts were pretty funny, and Travolta's intense and over-the-top performance suited his character perfectly. It has its flaws, but overall I really had fun with this movie.

Bryan J (mx) wrote: Not bad by any means, but it really doesn't leave you much to figure out. Still, it's entertaining and makes for a good rental. Watch "The Rock" or "Face/Off" if you wanna see the best of Cage's action days...

Carlos M (es) wrote: The main problem with this first Star Trek film is that it is not original at all and looks more like a stretched TV episode that tries too hard to be 2001: A Space Odyssey, dragging endlessly in long, contemplative scenes that seem to exist only to show the higher budget.

John B (mx) wrote: In my opinion, this is the best that we have seen of Michelle Williams on screen. Reichardt brings out genuine emotion in a very touching story of a woman on the brink of survival. Unfortunate circumstances put her on the street and make her reliant on the good will (or lack thereof) of a small town in Oregon.