Get the Girl

Get the Girl

A wealthy young man is conned into staging a fake kidnapping in order to be a hero and win the affection of a girl he's madly in love with. But when one of the hired kidnappers is accidentally killed during the charade, he's forced to actually save her life while not revealing that it's been a ruse all along.

A rich man attempts to stage a fake kidnapping to win the heart of the girl he loves. But things go out of control when the hired kidnapper is killed accidentally and now he's forced to actually save her life in deed. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechersSize
Download   Get.the.Girl.2017.BDRip.x264-JustWatchX264104100360.36 MB
Download   Get.the.Girl.2017.720p.BluRay.x264-JustWatch720p1041004 GB
Download   Get.the.Girl.2017.1080p.BluRay.x264-JustWatch1080p1041004 GB
Download   Get.the.Girl.2017.1080p.BluRay.H264.AAC-RARBG1080p1011011.67 GB
Download   Get.the.Girl.2017.1080p.WEB-DL.DD5.1.H264-FGT1080p1011003.06 GB
Download   Get.the.Girl.2017.720p.WEB-DL.XviD.AC3-FGTXVID1011002.51 GB
Download   Get.the.Girl.2017.WEB-DL.x264-FGTX264101101761.99 MB
Download   Get.the.Girl.2017.WEB-DL.XviD.AC3-FGTXVID1011011.2 GB
Download   Get.the.Girl.2017.WEB-DL.XviD.MP3-FGTXVID1011001.09 GB
Download   Get.the.Girl.2017.BRRip.XviD.MP3-RARBGXVID101100779.4 MB

Get the Girl torrent reviews

Valeria P (ca) wrote: Captivating movie about a very little known aspect of the Civil War.

Chakubuta M (fr) wrote: The ending killed, a fine plot, great turns all through!

Rosalina L (au) wrote: Hahaha. Bisa dibilang satu-satunya film si kembar Olsen yang aku suka :P

Scott M (kr) wrote: It's basically stand-up comedy made into a movie...well it's basically one gigantic monologue with tiny interruptions that don't matter.

Amy W (nl) wrote: kinda corny don't you think?

Tara H (ag) wrote: Fritz Lang's modernised adaptation of Emil Zola's 'La Bete Humaine'. Gloria Grahame is at her most hypnotically seductive, with Broderick Crawford as her thuggish husband.

Jenn M (es) wrote: Adorable!!! There really aren't any movies that come out these days that are remotely comparable to this gem. Wasn't sure if I would like it when I started to watch it but wow, I got hooked!

Edith N (gb) wrote: Not Exactly a Barrel I don't know when this was relative to her marriage to Joe DiMaggio, and I don't care enough to bother looking it up. However, there is a certain amount of parallel between his fears of her and her character in this movie. She was beautiful. She was considered the very definition of sex appeal at the time. He was afraid that she would cheat on him. He didn't like everyone staring at her, and [i]everyone[/i] stared at her. I mean, she doesn't even really do anything for me, and I can't help looking at her. In this movie, however, she wasn't the devoted wife who also happened to be a sex symbol. In this movie, she really was cheating on her husband, she really was betraying him. Of course, she was also a deeply unpleasant person in the movie, not just the sad and hurt thing who had been born Norma Jean. We don't know a lot of her background, but this is a woman who turned her evil outward, not inward as the actress did. Ray (Max Showalter) and Polly (Jean Peters) Cutler have been married for three years and never got a honeymoon. Finally, they are on their way up to Niagara Falls to a little group of honeymoon cabins, where they will be vacationing--and meeting with J. C. Kettering (Don Wilson), who runs the cereal company for which Ray works. Unfortunately, the couple who were in the cabin the Cutlers reserved are still in it. He is George Loomis (Joseph Cotten), and she is his wife, Rose (Marilyn Monroe). He is substantially older than she, and he knows that there is a reason she keeps obsessing over the same song, "Kiss." It doesn't mean anything to him, but it obviously means something to her. Ray and Polly are visiting one of the touristy places, and Polly sees Rose Loomis kissing a man (Richard Allan). And then, George Loomis turns up missing. A body is found, and Rose is taken to identify it. She collapses in a dead faint. Focus was taken away from Polly Cutler when Marilyn Monroe was cast. In a way, she's still the main character; after all, it is she who ends up on that boat that distracted me so in that one shot of special effects. She is the one who sees Rose with Patrick. She takes Rose to identify the body; she goes to be with Rose in the hospital. Rose slinks across the screen, and we see Rose first. However, this is Polly's movie to give away. Oh, she isn't really necessary to the story. We could watch the whole story through the eyes of the Loomises, or even Inspector Starkey (Denis O'Dea). Heck, we could watch it through the eyes of Mr. Qua (Russell Collins), the owner of the cabins, for all it really matters. However, we see it through Polly, who is also just about the only likeable character in the whole piece. Ray is a twit. George is ill, to be sure, but underneath that, he's selfish. Though nowhere near as selfish as Rose and Patrick. The inspector is not well enough defined to be likeable or unlikeable. Polly is, and she is enough. Every once in a while, I encounter movies which are clearly intended to cash in on a location or other gimmick. Sometimes, they make that location or gimmick essential; the whole of [i]North by Northwest[/i] is based on Hitchcock's mental image of a man hanging off the faces of Mount Rushmore, for example. On the other hand, there is [i]Counsellor at Law[/i], a movie made two years after the construction of the Empire State Building and pointedly set there despite the fact that it literally makes no difference whatsoever to the plot. This movie lies somewhere between the two. That bell tower becomes important to the plot, for one, and the falls are a constant weight on the story and vital to the ending. However, the ending could be rewritten to involve a different threat without damaging the story too much, and it's hardly as though there are no other bell towers in the world. I do, however, believe that the honeymoon aspect of the location is important--after all, the story of George and Rose Loomis is about the betrayal of love. It would help, I think, if we ever knew why they'd gotten married in the first place. Given Marilyn, and especially given this Marilyn, I can think of several reasons. He might have money. More appealing is the idea that she needed him to get her out of somewhere-or-another. She loved Patrick, but either she met him after she married or else she didn't think he could help her with what she needed. In my head, he's a kid from The Neighbourhood, wherever that is, and she didn't think he'd amount to much. She's the kind of woman who relies on her sex appeal so much that she's wearing lipstick in the shower, and she didn't consider getting out based on her brains. Maybe she didn't have any. Polly Cutler loves her husband even though he's a twit. Rose Loomis doesn't love hers no matter how passionate he is about her. We never really know enough about her to be sure that she really loves anyone, probably not even herself.

Abigail D (es) wrote: This was a really cute romantic comedy--but *not* cutesie. Barbara Stanwyck can portray the subtlest emotion with a look, a smile, the movement of an eye. The plot is good--not too likely in the real world, but plausible within the context of the movie. The moral aspect of Stanwyck's character's stealing is not softpedaled or brushed aside as no big deal--it *is* something that must be rectified--but she is a real person, and there is hope of redemption. Not the conventional happy ending (I'm *not* saying it was an unhappy ending), but hopeful and realistic. Sweet and thoroughly charming. I would recommend it.

Mary Kathryn P (br) wrote: The stylized quirkiness you come to expect from Howard Hawks and the hilarious talent you come to expect from master of faces Cary Grant, makes this film pure gold. Another comedy classic for Hawks.

Riccardo R (ag) wrote: Una roba completamente insensata, che per mi ha strappato qualche sorriso.Oltre non mi spingo perch non mi sembra una trovata poi cos geniale.

Todd S (ru) wrote: There is an old saying that says, "too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the broth". This is an apt metaphor to describe the Incredible Burt Wonderstone. While I'm not crazy about magicians, how could you not be excited for a comedy starting Steve Carrell and Jim Carrey? They are certainly two of the best comedic actors around and I hoped this film would be a can't miss, but it was far from it. In a parallel situation, Carrell and Carrey are trying to one up each other in the same way that Wonderstone and Gray are in the film. This results are a film that is sloppy and a complete waste of time and talent. The story takes place in Las Vegas, where for twenty years Burt Wonderstone (Steve Carrell) has been the only name in magic. One day a newbie appears on the scene, one with a TV show and a high risk element to his act. Steve Gray (Jim Carrey) makes Wonderstone appear old and outdated, inspiring Burt to up his game. This film simply wasn't funny at all, as the producers tried to pit David Copperfield against Criss Angel. It was an interesting idea for a film, just not a comedy, because magic simply isn't funny. Watching these guys share idiotic dialogue, while they perform stupid tricks, that nobody would want to see, isn't funny. There isn't much more to say other than this film was a complete bust, with almost no redeeming qualities what so ever. I am still in a state of shock, that a movie with so many comedic stars could turn out to be this bad, but it really does prove that too many cooks is never a good thing. I'm sure the cast all had their own ideas and all tried to interject their own unique styles into the film, but it simply didn't work.