Forbidden Fruit

Forbidden Fruit

Two 18-year old girls from a christian fundamentalist community flee to a city for a summer job.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:104 minutes
  • Release:2009
  • Language:Finnish
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:religion,   guilt,   dancing,  

Two teen girls from a very restrictive Conservative Laestadian faith community, go alone to Helsinki for the first time. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Forbidden Fruit torrent reviews

Tanvir M (br) wrote: Parts of it doesn't make sense, and some exaggerated antics can be annoying, but the end product is surprisingly likable due to some good performances, and because of the important messages it carry about the elderly in a non pedantice manner.

Cara B (de) wrote: i was diasappointed in the lack of a coherent and well connected plot but the concert footage was ace.

Mitch C (ru) wrote: I heard about this film yesterday. it sounds fantastic I can't wait to see it

Deb S (jp) wrote: The story of high school senior Danny (Steven Kaplan), who's spent a small fortune on the hotel room, limo, and tux for his prom. What he doesn't have is a date because he's torn between taking someone with whom he can become romantically intimate and his best friend Camille (Alia Shawkat). In the meantime, his parents' divorce weighs heavily on his mind. Danny is a good kid who yearns to see his parents (the perky Cheryl Hines and the hilarious William H. Macy as Ernie who has turned to the web in order to find his soul mate) get back together so they can become a real family. ~Spoiler~ I absolutely loved the scene with Ernie, who is so bent on getting Danny a date for the prom that he ditches a date (with a character played by the gorgeous Jennifer Tilly), runs halfway across Hollywood and winds up picking an older and slightly plump prostitute for Danny to take to the big dance.

Fernando C (ru) wrote: turistas is one of those movies, I know it will be silly, dumb, everything it makes a bad movie, but I know I will like it

Chelsea D (br) wrote: Generally not funny, a lot of the same material as the first. Some laughs, but most of the material was male-oriented, where as a comic I would think your trying to get more than just one side of the gender gap to laugh.

Frances H (ag) wrote: Although the first half of this film is rather slow and too prosaic, stick with it because the second half is definitely worth it.

Isabelle W (it) wrote: PUTA atuao da protagonista (Sigourney Weaver).

jay n (it) wrote: Gorgeous locations and unbelievable hair lend interest to this soap opera. Everyone is incredibly young and beautiful. Suzanne is as usual the best thing in the film.

Walter C (mx) wrote: Maureen O'Hara plays Judy O'Brien, a woman who wants to become a professional ballerina but doesn't have confidence in herself. She accepts a job playing a stooge for Lucille Ball's burlesque show. There is a rich playboy they both are in love with and a guy who is in charge of a ballet company thrown into the mix. Lucille Ball's character steals every scene she's in and the dance sequences are well done. The plot isn't the greatest and the love story between O'Hara's character and the rich playboy is weak. The whole rich playboy subplot was probably the worst part of the movie.

walter c (de) wrote: I loved this film. Is the plot unique? No. Is the cinematography revolutionary? No. Is the portrayal of this mid-aged recovering alcoholic actress executed well? YES. The previous reviewer mentioned something along the lines of how the hand-held shaky cam was just a copy cat gimmick of older indie films and how this is just another drab danish film to do the exact same crap yet again. Tell you the truth, that sounds like the rantings of an A-list film snob. Granted that the hand-held method, 3D, CGI, and dozens of other cinematography related methods are very frequently used purely just as gimmicks and very often don't add anything to the actual film, it still is a legitimate tool for cinematographers to use, and can be used to support the nature of the film. I think we're bombarded with these gimmicks so often, and so often get nothing out of it, that many people just start associated that visual tool with being distracting and pointless, even if used properly. Also, I think there was a mention about Michael Falch, and how this Comedian turned serious actor wasn't any good because he was trying too hard and overacting, and to be fair, I think that observation was due to a preconceived notion about the actor because the reviewer was familiar with him. I never heard of Michael Falch and have no idea who he is (before the film at least) and thought nothing of the acting in a negative way. I would've never guessed that he was a comedian. He was very good in the film and very convincing and obviously a natural born actor. Anyways, back to the film. Like the title says, this is a slice of life sorta movie. It is not a mapped out plot that goes from point A to point B, but rather the Director just lets us into this woman's life and gives us permission to observe her most intimate and personal moments. Thanks to the amazing (Merryl Streep Level) acting of Paprika Steen, this observation is fascinating, and it's so convincing, that you often feel very uncomfortable and filled with anxiety because like in real life, when we are faced with adversity, we often struggle to find a path to walk on, and we often do things that surprise even ourselves, and find ourselves in situations that we never planned on being in, and suddenly realize we have no idea how to escape. You just can't help but relate to the situations in this real-life reconstruction. This is only supported by the hand-held cinematography. The truth is, almost every story out there has been told at least 100 times in some form or another, but how many of those attempts are successful? Maybe 1 or 2? Sometimes never. We see so many crap movies about recovering alcoholics and people battling with their inner demons/children/careers that it's just not interesting to see anymore, so that's why we need 200 million dollars movies just to catch our eye and hold our attention. With it's simple formula, Applaus does what the majority of films out there cannot, and that is holding your attention firmly. It doesn't do this with big bells and whistles, but with a very careful and caring attention to detail that keeps you in a constant state of uneasiness that dips and rises from sadness, to suspense to moments of simple joy throughout the entire runtime. If for nothing else, see this film for the amazing and refreshing acting of Paprika Steen who is actually being nominated for Best Actress I believe.

Jacob D (ag) wrote: Sweet mother of god.