Breaking the Girls

Breaking the Girls

A naive college student loses a scholarship at the hands of a classmate and makes a pact with a mysterious friend to kill off each other's enemies.

Sara, a college student who was slandered by a classmate, finds herself framed for murder by Alex, who initially proposed the perfect, untraceable crime. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Breaking the Girls torrent reviews

Gaasuba M (au) wrote: Beautiful. And I love the stories. There are a few inaccuracies in behavior here and there but not too many. However, this should, most definitely, not be marketed as a documentary. There is no information beyond time periods. It has practically no narration, and what it does have, isn't informative at all. It never so much as states a single dinosaur name, let alone information about it's muscle structure, brain size, or other helpful information. Good piece of art, not a documentary.

Seth E (nl) wrote: Terrible acting filled with horrid one-liners. Cool fight scenes and all but a weak attempt at a movie.

Edward C (kr) wrote: How to Train Your Dragon 2(2014)Staring: Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, Kristen Wiig, Jonah Hill, Cate Blanchett, Djimon Hounsou, Kit Harington, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, T.J Miller, America Ferrera, Craig Ferguson, Kieron Elliott, Philip McGrade, Andrew Ableson, Gideon Emery, Simon Kassianides, and Randy ThomDirected By: Dean DebloisReviewTHE TRAINING IS OVER.You know when the first film came around I did not want to see it, but after I saw how many good reviews it's sequel was getting I decided to watch the first part just to catch up to speed. It was actually pretty good. But holy crap was this more fun.This film now has Hiccup traveling to new worlds with his Knight-rider dragon Toothless to find more dragons to keep safe. He is meant to be the new chief but doesn't want the position that badly because he doesn't know what kind of person he is. Among his travels he upsets a Dragon snatcher who is capturing as many as he can for Jargo Bloodfist. Hiccup meets his mother and brings his family back together to stop Jargo from controlling all the dragons.These films in particular are interesting kids films that I'm pretty sure any kid would like to see, if and when the third film does come which I'm pretty sure it will, it will probably be the best of the trilogy because this is actually based on a series of books the first book of the same name.The movie is more engaging and fun then the first, it exceeded my expectations, I wasn't looking forward to this either like I said word of mouth made me change my mind so I had to see what all the fuss was about.Jay Baruchel is voicing Hiccup once again and delightfully so, I don't any other voice would fit the character. Gerard Butler voices his father and he was the best actor in the first film and he steals the show yet again in this sequel. I can't tell who voiced who when it comes to the rest of the cast but i still found them all to be good as well.The direction is every bit as good as the first film if not even better. I really liked the 3-D animation this film everything is moving so fast that at times the film feels so energized during the flying and fight sequences it's like a jolt.All the elements of a good animated motion picture are present it has good pacing, fun sequences, and a nice cast to top it all off. I give How to Train Your Dragon 2 a four out of five.

FilmGrinder S (gb) wrote: 76% Effective haunted island story, had me tense a couple of times.

Evan H (jp) wrote: cute little movie. Not too much happens but they do sing and stuff. I liked it for the fact that it was filmed in San Francisco. It's not a big budget movie but it doesn't matter because it comes off as being cute and funny!

Ethan H (es) wrote: It works but only just. Feels like we have seen it before.

Marc R (br) wrote: An elegiac poem of the sad and lonely and the equally lonely landscapes of the American west. This film is refreshingly direct in its focus, fascinated by the singular characters at its center, which always seem to drive the narrative rather than some term paper thesis or contrivance. But belying this narrow focus is a wide-eyed camera that takes in all it sees, which leaves infinite room for quiet contemplation, even as silences are filled by that iconic score.

Stuart K (kr) wrote: Conceived, produced and directed by Pete Walker, whose brand of low-budget schlock proved to be remarkably effective, as proven with The Flesh and Blood Show (1972) and House of Whipcord! (1974), this was shot back-to-back with the latter film, and it's equally as nasty and sinister as that was, it makes for uncomfortable viewing, despite a game cast. It tells the story of Dorothy Yates (Sheila Keith), who was convicted in 1957 for having cannibalised 6 people, and she was sent to a mental institution, her husband Edmund (Rupert Davies) was sent down, but was released shortly afterwards, as he faked insanity to be with his wife. It's 17 years later, and Edmund's daughter from a previous marriage Jackie (Deborah Fairfax) suspects that Dorothy is on the verge of a violent relapse, especially after Edmund finds tarot cards hidden, (which were present during the original crimes in 1957), and Edmund and Dorothy's daughter Debbie (Kim Butcher) is going off the rails with her rebellious behaviour, and she's showing signs of what her mother did when she committed the murders all those years ago. It's a very upsetting and unsettling films, with moments that mirror with what was to come in The Driller Killer (1979), (you get the impression Abel Ferarra got ideas from this.) But, it's a very lurid and unsettling horror film, it's surprising that they got away with blood and gore like this even for then.

Edith N (fr) wrote: Forerunner to the Great Musical Spectacles It seems odd that this movie is in B&W. Oh, I know. Colour was only a few years old at this point, and it wasn't being wasted on musicals. And I like B&W quite a lot. Normally, I have nothing bad to say about it. But MGM Musical is a specific genre in my mind, and it is one notorious for its Glorious Technicolor. I expect a certain kind of colour palette from an MGM Musical, and it's odd not to have one. Also, I think the only B&W movie I've ever seen with Gene Kelly was [i]Inherit the Wind[/i], which is a very different kind of movie. Fred Astaire was one thing; his career started only about as far after the origin of sound as this one was after the real beginning of colour. Fred Astaire was different. But Gene Kelly always felt to me to be someone from a later era, and colour was very much part of it. Judy could go either way, but Gene? Even if he wasn't colourful himself, he lived in colourful worlds. Here, he is headlining vaudevillian Harry Palmer, a baggy-pants comic. One day, he rolls into another small Midwestern town at the same time as the troupe led by Jimmy Metcalf (George Murphy). The other star of Jimmy's troupe is Jo Hayden (Judy Garland), and Harry recognizes her for the talent she is. And Jimmy recognizes them as having the chemistry they do and gives her a way out. She and Harry go on the road together, and she falls in love with him. But he is about to leave her and join the act of Eve Minard (Mrtha Eggerth) before he realizes he loves her. They have dreams of someday playing the Palace, and she is putting her brother, Danny (Richard Quine), through med school. And then, World War I comes. Danny volunteers and goes off to fight. Harry is drafted just as they finally get that booking at the Palace. He damages his hand so that he can get out of the draft just long enough for their booking, but he does so on the day Jo gets an unfortunate telegram . . . . Oh, come on. You know she's going to get that telegram from the minute Danny shows up in uniform. Probably sooner, if you realize that the story will involve World War I in some significant way. Just as you know that, one way or another, those vaudevillians are going to play the Palace. That one is true even if you have no idea what playing the Palace even means, because they certainly talk about it enough. As with various other of the movies we've watched in the past, the plot of this is only sort of the point. You know from the first moment that Gene encounters Judy on that train platform that they're going to end up together. It's just a matter of how. You know that Jimmy is going to pine over Jo to no avail. You know that Eve is going to try to come between Harry and Jo. And you know that there's going to be a happy ending, no matter what difficulties there are in reaching that place. Because this does have some things in common with the colour extravaganzas to come. More important by far to this kind of movie are the songs. And with very few exceptions, what they have gone with are period numbers; hardly any have a copyright date more recent than 1919, and several of them only have an approximation. Yes, one or two of them are anachronisms, but only one appears to have been written specifically for the movie. This helps in preserving the period feel to the movie, even when it's somewhat violated by Judy's costumes. Gene Kelly does not get the chance to show off his dancing to the extent that he would in later films, but he's no slouch, either, and the pair work together with all the grace you'd expect. Judy matches well with his joy, the thing I have always loved about watching Gene perform. Possibly, they have tamed his dancing a bit so she can keep up with him, but then, he can't keep up with her vocally. She helped to give him this chance, and it is in the music that they show what their strengths were. Actually, I was looking for a different movie of the same title which does not appear to be available from Netflix. It's on one of the lists of Movies I Should See Before I Die. While I didn't think this one was great, I did think it was in pretty special company. Certainly better than a lot of movies I've encountered on those lists, and I'd argue even more significant than some of them. After all, Gene Kelly is one of the best-known stars of all those glorious musicals. [i]An American in Paris[/i] is on most of them. Oh, yes, part of the issue here is that this movie doesn't feel as draggy. Even though I know now that [i]American in Paris[/i] isn't three hours long, my brain won't accept that. There's more plot to this one, because Judy Garland is technically the star, so the plot is divided between them. This one isn't as beautiful--again, it loses something I think vital to this kind of movie by being in B&W, which is [i]not[/i] a cry for colorization. But there are a lot of movies we wouldn't have if we hadn't had this one first.

Matt M (de) wrote: The famous tale of Gulliver's travels through the small town of Lilliput is recreated for the screen in a very underwhelming and lazy mixture of live action and animation. Certainly, in 1977 something technically better could have been made.

Bill R (es) wrote: Pretty bad, but the cast made it amusing. (Draco Malfoy and Bucky Barnes in a terrible horror movie!)

Joonas S (us) wrote: An interesting but flawed film noir from one of the masters of the genre. The plot is rather incredible but the atmosphere is gripping. You can't help but adore Gene Tierney. See Laura (1944), Fallen Angel (1945) and Where the Sidewalk Ends (1950) to better appreciate Preminger's noir style.