A telegram has just arrived ant the Persichette home in Italy. It seems that their late grandfather's second wife, Maria Juana, is traveling from Venezuela to Italy to visit her stepson and... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
A young man gets a pleasant surprise when a comely "relative" agrees to teach him the rudiments of sex.
You may also like
Lover Boy torrent reviews
Harsh L (au) wrote: Well, it takes Ajay Devgn to make 'Singham' out of a 'Bodyguard' style film.
Sarah K (es) wrote: i don't know why y'all are hating on this movie, it was actually pretty good. the ending was a little bothersome but all in all i would recommend this. definitely better than most chick flicks.
Laurel S (br) wrote: I love all the Blue Collar Movie. I think its because of the half redneck thats in me. but they are epic!
Anthony I (ca) wrote: Vanilla Sky is what happens when a great director wins an award, gets surrounded by Yes men, and gets the opportunity to have full reign of his dream project. This has vanity project written all over it. It's just gobbledygook. I understand why people hate this movie. Cameron Crowe really didn't care if this movie polarized his audience, and it astoundingly did so. But, the people that liked it, to my estimation, either looked into it too deeply, understood it's intentions or just laughed at how utterly incomprehensible it was. I gave it a chance, and I was oddly entertained by it. At times I couldn't believe what I was watching, but I had to keep going. I feel aggravated, but accomplished for having watched it. Cameron Crowe has unfortunately never made a decent movie again after this. You can see that it's his tipping point. Pretension and sticky saccharine gloop practically are pouring out of the seams, about to burst. I'd like to get a Life Extension, and dream that Cameron Crowe still makes good movies like Almost Famous.
Robin T (ag) wrote: Scorsese work is verry effective again.Daniel-Day Lewis is another time extremely intense in 'The Butcher".Leonardo Dicaprio is always excellent.The New York of the 19th century is reproduced verry well.The only thing who missing for a perfect movie is a little shorter duration.
Sebastian G (ag) wrote: He betrayed the LLAAWWWW!!!!
Honghui Y (fr) wrote: Can't get enough of the Allen-Keaton combo!
Trenton R (ag) wrote: The animation is pretty, and Tim Curry delivers in his role as the villainous Hexxus, sadly the rest of the film turns out a completely boring, preachy, and totally forgettable experience.
Aleksandar (de) wrote: Wow... this is crap! Absolutley boring! Interesting plot, weak realisation!
jay n (jp) wrote: Harmless idiocy with a cast of veterans making the foolish shenanigans palatable. Don't go in expecting anything but a frothy family movie that stretches credibility and you will enjoy the film.
Cameron J (br) wrote: "Torn curtain reveals another play; torn curtain, such an expose!" To turn off the Television, as the classy little title suggests, this ought to be quite the seductively intense thriller... up until you find out it's mostly a political "thriller". Well, it's a political thriller by Alfred Hitchcock, so a little bit of high tension is to be expected, even if the film does feature Julie Andrews. You've got to give Hitchcock a little bit of credit for sticking with certain stars from his English roots, and not going completely Hollywood, but come on, Hitch, it's hard to not get a little perked up when Andrews is around, even if her co-stars are people who have a tendency to make you think thriller. Oh my, Paul Newman in a political/legal thriller, now that is brand-spanking new... and I mean that seriously, because this film did come out well before "Absence of Malice" and "The Verdict". Wow, it's pretty amazing how Hitchcock did oh so very many films by the time he hit the 1960s, or at least it would be if he was a little more consistent with his thrillers' intrigue. No, this film is fine, but, if you'll forgive my slightly ambiguous reference towards actual torn curtains, there's only so much to keep light from shining on shortcomings, or, for that matter, the characters.Being so heavily driven by its characters, the film's characterization is layered in its depth, but through only so many moments, because in so many areas, the film feels a touch too underdeveloped for its own good, expecting you to place a fairly thorough understanding through certain developmental ambiguities, but ultimately slipping up on its intentions, even though there's something perhaps too recognizable about the characters and story here. Conventions are often subtle, yet they still stand firm enough to be undeniable as blows to the legs of momentum in this thriller, whose degree of predictability softens some bite in dramatic height within this formulaic narrative, and, quite frankly, doesn't need to be there. There's a decent potential for genuine uniqueness in this political espionage thriller that would have driven the final product's storytelling intrigue a long way, and sure, the execution of this story concept has its refreshing areas, but when the conventions are hit, they hit hard as a reflection of certain laziness. Needless to say, a sense of laziness isn't exactly helped by a questionable pace, for although underdevelopment certainly shaves off a couple of minutes in this almost 130-minute-long thriller, the final product is ultimately overlong, overdrawn with material that spaces out certain segments into unevenness, and isn't even dynamic enough to keep up tension, let alone structural focus. I don't know if the film is unfocused at times with all of its meanderings, but it's certainly aimless, dragging along, even on paper, with a sensitive potential for compellingness that Alfred Hitchcock, as director, shakes, quite frankly, bringing in the thriller to life in plenty of places, while blanding matters up in others with a sense of autopilot which reflects a sense of laziness. There's not much uniqueness or particular inspiration to Hitchcock's direction, and that would be fine if this thriller's juice was richer in other areas of storytelling, which is decent, with strong moments, but ultimately too under-inspired, when not overblown, for the final product to excel. Potential is lost, and reward value is with it, but the final product isn't exactly forgettable, meeting lazy areas with inspired areas, and ultimately crafting a decent interpretation of an intriguing story.As much as I complain about this film's being overlong in its execution, to tell you the truth, through all of the meanderings that Brian Moore plagues his screenplay with, I can see plenty of meat to meditate upon in this minimalist, but intriguing dramatic thriller, whose political intrigue and human weight blend organically and intelligently behind an at least conceptually layered study on morally questionable characters and biting political tension. There's plenty of potential to Willis Hall's and Keith Waterhouse's story concept, and Moore does it injustice in far too many places for it to be drawn into a truly rewarding final product, yet at the same time, Moore plays a big part in bringing this effort to the cusp of rewarding, through clever dialogue and some tight set pieces to keep you going in between the moments in which characterization proves to be well-rounded. Both undercooked and overdrawn, Moore's script has a glaring inconsistency to it that, if overcome, would have allowed reward value to be firmly secured, yet as things stand, the highlights in Moore's script are pretty solid in their distinguishing depth, further distinguished by a cast that is more consistently solid. Primarily subdued, this dramatic thriller offers only so much material for the esteemed cast to really play upon, yet when the performers are asked to bring things to life, they often go well beyond the call of the duty, and that especially goes for the leads, with the unevenly used Julie Andrews nailing emotional distraught as the love of a man endangered by disturbing misdeeds, while leading man Paul Newman combines his classic smooth charisma with light dramatic layers in order to deliver on a biting atmospheric performance. Well, perhaps Newman is simply playing Paul Newman, but the trademark effective lead presence, backed by a supporting cast rich with talents, - each one of whom stands out at one time or another - carries the film when Alfred Hitchcock isn't doing the job as well as he usually does. That being said, Hitchcock, as director, does get the film pretty far, albeit with a storytelling formula that was, at this point, too tired to be inspired enough to overshadow the underwhelmingness, but still had enough juice to draw a solid bit in the way of intrigue through an audacious attention to gritty detail, if not a thoughtful attention to dramatic layering that engages more than limps momentum out. There are a number of moments in this film that are pretty strong, and while they don't do a whole lot outside of frustrating by providing mere fleeting glimpses into what could have been, they still stand as worthwhile highlights in a drama that is generally engaging enough to serve the patient well with compellingness, however limited it may be by lazy aspects.When what remains of the curtain is drawn, bite is too obscured by developmental shortcomings, conventions, dragging and atmospheric cold spells to storytelling for the final product to truly reward, but an intriguing story concept is done enough justice by clever writing, solid acting and decent direction to make Alfred Hitchcock's "Torn Curtain" a reasonably entertaining and often compelling espionage thriller, even though it could have gone further.2.75/5 - Decent
javier l (fr) wrote: good movie reminded me of my 2 cousins
Hunter W (it) wrote: Pitch Perfect is audacious, clever, and presents enough quotable moments to offset its cliched story; its not your traditional musical, but then again, its not your traditional girl's night out story either.
Lenora A (nl) wrote: Such a sweet movie, good cast, good story and surprisingly delightful!!!