Esmeralda is a teenager with an unusual obsession: she collects lost, forgotten or discarded objects from people she doesn't know and keeps them in a box beneath her bed. This is the tale of three objects in the box and the people behind them, all in some way incapable of relating to the person they love most. It is also a tale of the box itself, and of how Esmeralda learns to open it, to feel and to hoard the most valuable thing of all: human relations. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Insignificant Things torrent reviews
Jenn T (es) wrote: Not bad for a horror movie.
Josh S (it) wrote: Great movie learning to accept others.
Kristina K (fr) wrote: Looks like something a 15 year old Edward Burns would write. Even Lauren Graham, Bryan Cranston and sexy Matthew Davis do not make this movie better. What a mess, what a stupid stupid movie.
Kruna P (jp) wrote: iskreno pogledala sam samo pocetak ali prelosa verzija francuskog apartmenta iz '96.krenuvsi od GLUMCA,glume pa scenarija
Jason H (ca) wrote: Not bad, if your in the mood for a mentally disturbed beautiful, young girl who play men like violins...
Roderick M (au) wrote: Sad as hell! Hard to watch
Connie W (mx) wrote: Excellent! Jimmy Smits' acting & the scenes where he & his (just-gettin'-a-green-card) wife finally fall in love...are SCORCHIN' hot!!!
Heather H (au) wrote: I seriously tried to like this movie. I mean it has four actors I enjoy (Eric Idle, John Cleese, Sadie Frost and Catherine Zeta-Jones), but the only thing I enjoyed about this film was when it was over. The only part that made me laugh was seeing Zeta-Jones portray a woman who wanted to marry a man because of his money, seven years prior to her marriage to actor Michael Douglas. Barbara Hershey was creepy looking and extremely irritating, especially in all the flashback scenes. Poor John Cleese is completely wasted. Rick Moranis seems wrong for the part he plays, in my opinion. The premise of this movie sounds as if it could be interesting, but alas Eric Idle's co-writing could not save this disaster. If I were involved with the film, I doubt I'd even include it on my resume. If you are not a fan of British humor (which this film barely has any sad to say), it is definitely one to stay away from. If you just want to see how Zeta-Jones looked prior to her American film career, then this is your chance, but don't say I didn't warn you that this film will bore you within minutes.
Eric T (es) wrote: Creepy movie with plenty of odd twists that begs to watched again. Haven't done so yet but a nice mix of plenty of directorial influences.
ray h (ca) wrote: This movie is the second of a two part adaptation of a 1960s novel. It is set in France after WWI. The story unfolds over a few decades. It is a tale of conspiracy, greed, murder, love lost, revenge, and probably some others. The story held my interest.Two of the lead actors are prominent in French film. Both actors are very good. One is Le Papet (Yves Montand). He is the aging head of a long standing local village family. He is a man of few scruples. The other is his nephew, Ugolin (Daniel Auteuil). He has perhaps a bit more moral substance; but, is also a mental lite-weight. He is easily manipulated by his uncle.They go about scheming and plotting. But, things dont ultimately go fully to their advantage. There is some revenge/justice meted out.The movie, and its precursor, JEAN DE FLORETTE, is worth a look.
Tom S (fr) wrote: A bit redundant, but its surprisingly raw eroticism makes it both arresting and sexy.
Tony P (ru) wrote: The production value is low and most of the performances are embarassing, but what Thunder Road lacks in quality it makes up for in style and swagger. Robert Mitchum is the screenwriter, songwriter, and star of this sluggish action drama, so naturally the movie has a smoking, hungover honesty throughout. And of course the necessary doses of womanizing and heroism. The car scenes and shoot outs are a dated and over the top, but entertaining in all their badass, vintage glory. I particularly enjoy the film because of it's close relationship to my home. It's not an unfair presentation of backwood Tennesseans, but certainly is a Hollywood perspective. It does well at divulging the mentality of Appalachian moonshiners and their long-lasting struggle with the law. The craft and complications of the business is the heart of the story, which is very well developed. The rest of it (the romances, the jealousy) sort of hangs overhead and slows it down. Nonetheless, the movie is raw and tough, with lots of one-liners. One thing I will never understand... how the hell Mitchum convinced MGM to cast his son as his younger brother. Just ridiculous.
shanna F (de) wrote: Great movie I really enjoyed this film excellent story line