The film starring Woody Allen, Gene Wilder, Louise Lasser is directed by Woody Allen. A court jester make a decision to help the queen to solve her delicate subject. He gives her an aphrodisiac to control the seduction. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask
Seven segments related to one another only in that they all purport to be based on sections of the book by David Reuben. The segments range from "Do Aphrodisiacs Work?" in which a court ...
You may also like
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask torrent reviews
Antoine F (ca) wrote: this movie was no good due to the fact it went off when it became interesting now the writer musta had a writer's block because they never told us what happened I'm curious I guess we'll never know why so I give it 3 thumbs down.......
Carlos M (mx) wrote: The plot is too conventional and feels somehow incomplete when it comes to showing what was exactly so special about the character that propelled her into recognition and fame, but this is a decent film with some strong performances and a gracious score.
Frances H (kr) wrote: Enjoyable action flick with lots of thrills--not quite up to Bourne standards, but still an entertaining watch.
Private U (jp) wrote: very very nice n funny show!!! watch if if u r down..it will cheer u up!!(provided you never watch this before..)
Lily D (kr) wrote: exelente una de las mejores historias de amor y amistad
Brian B (gb) wrote: The best part about this movie is Morty, er uh Muerte. Stanley Tucci is good at stealing the show.
Tony M (au) wrote: As a family movie, Problem Child is watchable but nothing great. 2 stars.
Jamiee (fr) wrote: holy eff i wanna see this
p b (de) wrote: Yeah it's Sandra Bullock. Not one of her best moments - if there is any? If I could I'd X the star!
3568 C (es) wrote: In the late 1990's I was picking through my father's old VHS collection and came across this film, never having heard of it before. I plugged it in his VCR (remember those?), got 10 minutes in, and labeled the film "80's B-movie schlock". An hour later, I found myself still watching, completely engrossed. In the years since, this film has become an old staple that I return to regularly whenever I cannot find anything on DISH Network which interests me. It is the definition of "a classic".
Robert H (gb) wrote: Despite this being my first time going through the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, I am keenly aware of the general public attitude toward them. So, I knowingly lowered my expectations for this third entry in the series. Even with those lowered expectations, I still wasn't prepared for how insipidly stupid it would be. Yes, there was plenty of Superman action. Yes, the special effects were as good as ever. The acting was fine. But the story? Oh my god! Richard Lester was merely a hired gun on SUPERMAN II, due to Richard Donner being fired. Here he was in charge the whole time, and the sillier aspects of that film were given too much free reign here.The plot this time around is certainly one of the weakest aspects of the whole film. In short, an evil corporation that has ambitions for economic domination taints Superman with synthetic kryptonite (laced with tobacco tar), and this splits him into evil Superman and good Clark Kent. All of the best parts of the first two films are either shoved to the side or left out entirely. This means hardly any Daily Planet, and Lex Luthor is nowhere to be found. The replacement just doesn't compare favorably, no matter how much I didn't like Lex Luthor's characterization before. That being said, Superman having an identity crisis was an intriguing idea, but the way it's executed is so hamfistedly literal that it kills whatever impact it could have had.However, in the interest of not coming off like I absolutely hated the film, I will say that the technical aspects of the film were really good. All of the special effects were handled well, and the flying sequences were deftly handled, even if it's fairly apparent now how they were achieved (front projection). I also thought the cinematography was excellent, with a number of beautiful shots of landscapes and scenery. As previously stated, the acting was fine. In the TV special on the making of SUPERMAN II, Christpher Reeve talked about how he preferred playing Clark Kent because he was more relatable as a person. Here, the plot allowed for him to explore a darker side to Superman's personality, which I'm certain he had a hand in seeing as he's the film's star and it probably gets tiresome playing the same character over and over again. That one aspect of the plot is something I'll give the writers kudos for. If only they (and the director) hadn't made the film so silly...What's wrong with the film is nearly everything else. Richard Pryor plays an opportunistic con man and computer genius (who discovers his talent in a computer programming course). There is absolutely nothing wrong with Richard Pryor. I quite like his standup act. However, he seemed extremely out of place here. In general, the silly tone just rubbed me the wrong way and there was too much reliance on slapstick for laughs. A perfect example of this is the opening scene which just went on far too long. At some point, it felt like I was watching a Keystone Kops movie than a Superman film. Beyond that, some elements of the story were nonsensical and just plain stupid. First of all, is this the same Clark Kent/Superman who reversed time to save Lois Lane and gave up his power to be with her (temporarily, at least)? If so, then why does he go back to Smallville and almost immediately hook up with childhood friend Lana Lang? Also, compared to the villains' schemes in the previous two films, the plot to turn Superman into a jerk (so that they can dominate the coffee industry?) seems like a step back. Not only that, but they bungle the one clever plot element by having Superman literally fight Clark Kent, and then having the "evil" side just disappear when Clark Kent puts a choke hold on him. And when you think about it, kryptonite is pretty stupid as it is. I could go on, but hopefully I've made my point.Overall, SUPERMAN III feels like a huge step back in storytelling when compared to the previous two, which I didn't exactly love to begin with. Entertaining? Yes, in some respects, but this one was borderline painful to watch. The idiocy displayed on screen was barely tolerable. Richard Lester was allowed to indulge in his slapstick tendencies to a degree which wasn't possible in SUPERMAN II (since he had to use stuff that Richard Donner shot), and the result was rather unflattering. Having watched nine of the original Superman cartoon shorts, at times this felt like a return to that style, which I was not a fan of. I'll give the filmmakers credit for making a visually appealing film that displays some technical prowess. I also still get goosebumps when I hear John Williams' iconic theme. But literally everything else works against that to make an unfortunately sub-par film.
Joshua L (de) wrote: This wasn't great but it was pretty interesting and quite creepy.