Seb and Aaron have overspent and built up debts on their credit card. Aaron decides to take matters into his own hands and secretly films their sex life to broadcast online. The money pours in until he gets caught! Realising that the scheme could sort their financial problems, Seb agrees to allow things to continue until they are back in the black. When their friend Jem arrives and suggests a third party might help them make even more cash, things start to get a little tricky....

From the makers of Shank and Release comes this raunchy British comedy about a young couple who decide to broadcast their sex life via webcam to pay the bills. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


You may also like

Buffering torrent reviews

John R (br) wrote: 141010: The first word that came to mind, about 3/4 of the way through, was "shocking". This is a tough portrayal of the old west. It wasn't pretty, and neither is this film.

Mattias A (ru) wrote: Most of the movie felt like it didn't know where to go, the story felt lost (as well as being very unoriginal). The humor was enjoyable as much as it was cringe worthy. The motorcycle chases were visually stimulating and exciting.

Tatsuhito K (us) wrote: A screwball comedy is not my favorite genre because most of the time a lot of the characters in those movies are really loud and annoying. In the case of Why Stop Now, it's the mother played by Melissa Leo and she does a great job playing a self-centered, despicable mother. The plot is not the most groundbreaking one, but it works fine for the film. Loved the script and the performances. Why Stop Now is all over the place, but still a thoroughly enjoyable comedy.

matt v (it) wrote: This film is one of many of direct-to-video films that action superstar Steven Seagal has released. And it's undoubtly the worst film he has ever released, direct or theatrically. Seagal himself is barely in the film yet his name is above the title and he is billed as the main character. But the film itself isn't even centered around him whatsoever. The storyline itself is weak and has pretty much been used already. It's pretty much just a group of people running back and forth in a hospital trying to find a way out and trying not to get eaten by creatures that are neither vampires nor the undead. It is pretty much a waste of money and 94 minutes I will never get back. The acting makes you sick. Just a bad movie.

tiara j (br) wrote: i want to see it again

Justin T (jp) wrote: A lighthearted take on subject matter that would otherwise be heavy and emotional.

Andy V (us) wrote: decent, but I'm not sure what the hype was about

Med W (de) wrote: Pretty standard war actioner staring the fat racist one

Wyatt C (ag) wrote: Cypher is an extremely messy film that lacks the major components of a successful thriller: a clever premise, a strong central character, and a sense of stakes. While brainwashing does arguably make for an interesting idea, the filmmakers muddle the concept with an uninteresting plot about competing software companies that never really seems to make a whole lot of sense. The film's hero is even less intriguing. Perhaps due to the lackluster narrative, Sullivan never gets a whole lot of depth, and the choice to hold out on the character's motivation for being involved in the plot until the end has the effect of making the viewer never really invest in the character. The over abundance of life-or-death situations, therefore, seems of no real consequence. This also helps explain why the stakes seem negligible. In addition, the plot takes place in an unrecognizable world, which alienates the viewer. What's even more aggravating about all of this is that the film replaces these vital components with a rush of jarring cerebral effects, which merely add to the confusion and overall silliness

Dan J (jp) wrote: Linney and Hoffman warrant a rental.

Alex S (ru) wrote: Good action drama with Christopher Walken playing a mercenary who is sent to overthrow the government of an African country.

Deadly V (kr) wrote: Just one word... Phenomenal!