J'entends plus la guitare

J'entends plus la guitare

For those who were young, living under the delusions of love and soft drugs in Paris, May 1968 - even if the guitar is still playing, they can't hear it any longer.

For those who were young, living under the delusions of love and soft drugs in Paris, May 1968 - even if the guitar is still playing, they can't hear it any longer. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

J'entends plus la guitare torrent reviews

Julien A (de) wrote: Pas grand chose a sauver de ce film franchement pas terrible, mais pas tout a fait haissable. Tout ca se regarde sans deplaisir, mais ne procure pas le moindre rire, dure pour une comedie. Le scenario arrive plus ou moins a laisser un bout de gras a tous les acteurs, et du coup on cherche forcement a savoir qui s'en sort le mieux. A ce petit jeu, mention speciale a Joey Starrn assez efficace dans la caricature du footballeur bad boy / grosses cylindrees.

Peter D (us) wrote: Great under the spotlight movie. Sad that many of the American audience are a little too closed minded.

Heather M (au) wrote: No way I am ever watching this cornball of a movie.

Rachel C (jp) wrote: I was glad when a film about an environmental disaster was set somewhere other than America but this was a huge disappointment; aside from the visuals the film is sooooo slow and the story a little unconvincing.

DG j (mx) wrote: Much like STOMP THE YARD and STEP UP, HOW SHE MOVE showcases the hypnotic choreography and mind-blowing talent that make step dancing such a popular part of youth culture. In her film debut, Rutina Wesley portrays Raya Green, a high school student hailing from the projects. Her intelligence and drive bring her to a prestigious private school, but she is forced back home after her sister's death from a drug addiction soaks up the last of Raya's tuition fund. With her parents working round the clock to make ends meet, Raya finds herself gravitating to her former friends from the neighborhood.

Erin W (us) wrote: Now I want to be in a spelling bee!

hopper k (it) wrote: i likes dis one very much.

Dana A (ag) wrote: I got this confused with the Tim Robbins movie of the same name and was VERY surprised to see this. What was even more surprising was how long and boring it was despite its hopeful beginning. This was pointless, plotless and just annoying.

steven s (kr) wrote: excellent movie must see deeply moving

Thomas A (ag) wrote: Having watched the American adaptation "No Reservations" previously, the plot of the movie quickly became familiar to me. Nonetheless, it does provide an entertaining watch as a whole.

Red L (fr) wrote: Interesting biopic of two musical sisters. I don't follow the world of classical music, so I had never heard of Jackie du Pre. The movie does make you care for her and the waste of her life cut short by MS.

Jenna I (gb) wrote: Felt like a complete rehashing of the first film-down to the same exact fight with the same exact guy as the first film- but with less motivation, less emotion and heavy-handed writing.The first movie felt more sensitive and subtle, focusing on Rocky's sweetness in juxtaposition to his physical strength. While the world is shown to view Rocky only through his weaknesses, by the end of the film you realize that these supposed 'weaknesses' (his honesty, his sweetness, his social awkwardness, his inarticulateness) are not only actually strengths, but they're also his virtues.In comparison, Rocky II feels like the discarded alternative script for the initial movie- as if they wrote it, realized it wasn't clicking and then decided to rewrite it to the Rocky script we know and love. In this movie, Rocky now suddenly has sarcastic one liners and a sort of knowing-wink self-awareness that he originally lacked (in stark contrast to those around him!). They turn Adrian into a flat plot device just to hammer home some drama in case you were bored by Rocky's real-world issues of being unable to get a job and/or his lack of interest in fame and glory in comparison to his domestic satisfaction.But Rocky was never in it for the glory, he just wanted to be taken seriously by his peers. Now that he achieved that after the first film, why not just focus more on his contentment with his newfound self confidence? Or, focus on the unjustness of his real-world issues of not being able to get a job because, despite his boxing achievements, he's still viewed as somehow lesser than the rest of the world. In there lies the more compelling movie- a movie about how those with disabilities and/or lower IQs are unfairly maligned in society. Unfortunately, while Rocky II definitely touches upon this theme, the movie choose the shallow way out by focusing on more contrived plot choices about fame, glory and the sport of boxing, therefore losing what made the original character so compelling.Even the camerawork was bland this time around. PLUS they removed the wah-wah pedal from the theme song therefore de-70s-ing it aka bland-ifying it!!! (This is the worst part!)I did enjoy Apollo's plot this time around, I almost wish they had spent more time on him. But the reason Apollo is so great in Rocky II is because they actually deepen your understanding of his character!Look, in general this wasn't a -bad- film but in comparison to the first it's such a cop-out. If I had just seen this without seeing the first film I might have even thought it was fresh. But as a sequel it adds nothing to the series, and I'd argue it actually takes away from it by adding nothing to the characters/tweaking with them to make them more broadly 'digestible.' If this was television, it would have been a good follow up episode, but as a movie it fell flat for me.

John B (fr) wrote: Wonderful movie with a great cast in this timeless classic and one that I just loved as a kid, must see

Steve G (nl) wrote: Still the greatest stunt in Hollywood history.

Kyle B (es) wrote: Though Watts gives a good enough performance to make this movie watchable as does Melissa Leo, this is a really dry, stale piece of work that makes you suffer more than any character in the movie. del Toro and Penn are good but sometimes go into over acting moments as does Watts but the script is all out of whack. Movies sometimes can benefit to the mystery of being out of order and letting the audience piece the puzzle together but this one is just not even a fun one to do so. Alejandro's crowning achievement is most definitely Birdman as I did not like Babel all that much either

Mad M (au) wrote: Great movie. Great plot. Could have watched them develop the prison world for hours. Gibson does well.

Valerie P (jp) wrote: I didn't really find this film to be particularly impressive. It felt as if I'd seen it all before, and it was tedious in its predictability. The cast was actually quite impressive, and the faults of the film did not lie in the acting. Tom Felton's transformation from snobby boy-wizard to a frail, naive Frenchman was captivating. Strikingly fraught with emotional tension, Elizabeth Olsen's performance made me reconsider my regard for her as just another hanger-on; riding on the wake of her sisters' childhood fame. I don't regret the time I spent in this dark, Parisian world; however predictable the journey was, but mediocrity is not enough in today's cinematically saturated world.

Thomas B (au) wrote: **It's not very good. But it's certainly not a complete catastrophe. The movie has the charm of the original Enterprise crew, who admittedly are on auto-pilot, and also have what at first appears to be a promising story. However, as we all know, it didn't pan out like it should've done.