Sexykiller, morirás por ella

Sexykiller, morirás por ella

A femme fatale fashionista at a trendy design school embarks on a brutal and bloody killing spree, while gleefully evading the hapless cops assigned to the murder cases.

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Sexykiller, morirás por ella torrent reviews

Greg B (br) wrote: "CHIPS" is a buddy cop comedy/thriller about an FBI agent working in Miami (Michael Pena) who travels undercover to Los Angeles to work as a Highway Patrol cop who is supposed to uncover corruption in the department. He partners with Dax Shephard and the two troll each other and develop an interesting dynamic. Though the film is replete with laughs, a lot of the jokes fall short and all the comedy makes for an ill-defined plot. I don't understand who the villains were in the film and what they were even doing. The character development and plot get caught up in a whirlwind of raunchy sex jokes that don't even land half the time. This film at least has entertainment value --------------------------------------------------- C+

Simon W (gb) wrote: This was a decent mystery. It had enough intrigue to keep me interested. Vinnie Jones is a very entertaining actor, and I watched this strictly because he was in it. Derek Jacobi is a great actor, and in this he is good, but he plays a character that doesn't have much depth. The ending made no sense, and what it implied was just silly. Worth a watch if you like Vinnie Jones, or are jonesing for a decent mystery.

Hila R (kr) wrote: its just weird to see Alona Tal in american movie, but it suits her very well. I liked her more in supernatural. Btw the movie was good, just another teen movie like any other.The consept is reapting itself.

Greg C (de) wrote: wow. I don't know why I didn't watch this sooner

Corey W (gb) wrote: I love No Limit and Gary Busey, but they all took it too far with this one.

Arjun A (au) wrote: It liked the movie, but Grendel was just painful to look at, it hurt my soul to see something so ugly, the movie picked up from this horror in the second half, and I came out pretty satisfied.

Kenneth E (fr) wrote: Even though I miss the original's imperfections and rudeness, (such as the kids' over-the-top delinquencies,) this is the film that the first one should have been. There is a greater sense of excitement now that the players are older; the stakes are higher, the teamwork speeches are more believable, the competition is fiercer.

Andy P (nl) wrote: A children's classic!

Adam F (it) wrote: I can't say that "no one cared" while "Critters 3" was made because some of the actors are ok in their roles, but this is lazy throughout. Nothing about the previous film alluded to a sequel being needed and it's pretty obvious seeing the results here that there wasn't a story left in the vault that demanded to be told, so the question remains: why was this movie even made?The story is set some time after the events of the previous film (in fact we get several shots of "Critters" and "Critters 2" in order to bring the audience up to speed on what the Crites are). Annie (Aimee Brooks), her young brother Johnny (Christian & Joseph Cousins) and their father Clifford (John Calvin) accidentally bring with a batch of Crite eggs with them after a family vacation. When the eggs hatch and cause havoc in their dilapidated apartment building, things are made worse by the crooked landlord (William Dennis Hunt). Leonardo DiCaprio also stars as the landlord's son Johnny and an ally of Annie's in this battle for survival.I like "Critters" and I think it's got some legitimate charm. "Critters 2" isn't great but at least it has the distinction of being a horror movie set on Easter. This film? It's got nothing interesting to show. To begin, the plot doesn't make any sense. A bunch of tenants are stuck in their apartment building and the Crites run wild eating people. The phone lines and the power get cut, making it "impossible" for them to get help because of a contrived plot development with the landlord. You'd think someone who lives on the ground floor could have broken a window and gone to yell for help, but no. Either the people in this building are too dumb to think of that, or they just happen to live in a ghost town where the skyscrapers are lit up, but no one lives or works in them and there is never any circulation in their neighborhood.I understand the movie would have been over within like 15 minutes if Annie and Josh had managed to contact the police as soon as people started getting gobbled up, but that's the problem. This is just a bad plot for a "Critters" sequel. It needed to be set on a derelict space station or an isolated island or something and that crooked landlord? Ditch him altogether. More than that, we're supposed to swallow some truly unbelievable events, like characters getting tangled in some wires for at least 20 minutes without figuring out a way to get themselves freed or an attic so massive that someone could get lost in it.I almost feel insulted watching the picture. Why such a long montage of the first two films detailing what happened previously in the town of Grover's Bend? Did director Kristine Peterson just assume that this story would be so awesome and epic that it would get the greatest word of mouth of all time? Would people hear about the majesty and think to themselves "well, I haven't seen the first two films but this direct to VHS sequel sounds so awesome I HAVE to see it!" Maybe a time traveller told him that because of the casting of Leonardo DiCaprio this film, despite it's consistently awfulness would earn itself some attention? I think it speaks volumes that the inner continuity of the film can't even get itself straight. Charlie MacFadden (Don Keith Opper, reprising his role yet again) explains in a scene that it all began in 1984... and later we're told that the events in Grover's Bend actually occurred in 1986. Did someone even proofread this slug-brained script? Then, the picture ends in a big "to be continued", forcing you to slog through what is sure to be another probably terrible sequel after this one. Well, I own it so I guess that's what I'm watching next!"Critters 3" is so poorly put together and made with such little care that I can just barely manage to give it a half star out of five. Why? I don't know. The Crites aren't entertaining, they're just Gremlin knock-offs at this point, complete with the TV watching and the stupid gags. Maybe I can encourage people to watch it for the acting? Certainly not. Most performers are alright but at least one actress, Diane Bellamy is about as convincing as a 3 dollar bill when it comes to her big scene where she's screaming in terror while being eaten alive. There's nothing stellar when it comes to the story, or for the special effects. The best I can say about those is that they're consistent in quality, but that's not saying much. I guess the half star comes from the fact that I foresee the next movie being even worse and if that's the case, I want some room to go even lower. Please prove me wrong. I really thought "Critters 3" was a chore to sit through. If you happen to do so though, stick all the way to the end of the credits though, there's a joke in there that you "don't want to miss". (On DVD, September 15, 2015)

Juli N (gb) wrote: Pointless meandering tripe filled with vacuous caricatures!

frederator d (fr) wrote: with the style of a low budget television sequel topped off by weak acting and offkey humour, Revenge of the Nerds II is another typical sequel that no one asked for and no one recieved well! Accept this time it was a real sequel which makes it worse!

Mister C (ca) wrote: Diana Ross should have won the Oscar for her brilliant portrayal of jazz legend Billie Holliday in a riveting performance produced by Motown legend Berry Gordy along with Suzanne DePasse and directed by Sidney J. Furie.The screen chemistry between Diana Ross and Billy Dee Williams is a moment of cinematic bliss. Nominated for an impressive ten Oscars including Best Picture,Best Director and Best Actress for Diana Ross who for the first time became the second African-American actress since Dorothy Dandridge to be nominated for the Oscar. In short,an impressive array for great filmmaking with some electrifying performances for Diana Ross herself. Along with Billy Dee Williams, Richard Pryor, Sid Melton, Adolph Caesar and Scatman Crothers,and Virginia Capers. "Lady Sings The Blues" is celebrating it's 40th Anniversary.Originally Released: October 12, 1972Running Time: 145 minutes. MPAA Rating: R

Steve S (au) wrote: I only saw it because I watched it in a medieval history class. It really wasn't THAT bad. It gives a nice message. It did, however, have its share of corny parts, even by 1972 standards.

Ashley H (de) wrote: The Muppets is a cute movie. It is about a Muppet fanatic with some help from his two human compatriots must regroup the Muppet gang to stop an avaricious oil mogul. Amy Adams and Jason Segel give excellent performances. The screenplay is well written. James Bobin did a great job directing this movie. I enjoyed watching this motion picture because of the adventure and humor.

Jonathan B (ru) wrote: Somewhere in The Railway Man is a really great movie just dying to get out. It has it all, a strong and able cast (Colin Firth, Nicole Kidman and Stellan Skarsgrd take leading parts), a good, moving plot about a difficult period of history, some great cinematography and boasts Frank Cottrell Boyce as a part writer. However, it doesn't quite reach the level it should. Don't get me wrong, it is a solid enough film but it feels lacking in impact. The story concerns an old soldier and railway enthusiast who is unable to come to terms with his awful treatment by the Japanese as a prisoner of war during WWII. Forced to help build the infamous Burmese railway, he is tortured as punishment for his pivotal role in building a radio by which the Allied POWs are able to find out about the progress of the war. Firth's character is very reserved and quiet, obviously traumatised by his experiences. He is prone to night terrors and rages which threaten to drive his new bride, played by Kidman, away and destroy any chance of happiness he has. It is then he learns from a colleague in the British Legion that his torturer is still alive and showing tourists around the camp where he was held. Based on a true story, this should have been horrific, moving, tragic and uplifting, really taking the viewer on an emotional journey but it just seems to miss its mark and I was somewhat disengaged rather than drawn in by it. Trying to pitch all the different and difficult emotional elements just seems too hard a task and I think, the problem is that we don't really get to know enough about the two leads. This is especially true of Kidman's character Patti. She must have been an incredibly strong and loving woman but she is given very little depth to help the viewer understand her. That fact that she loves Eric (Firth's character) very much is taken for granted but never really picked apart or examined and, personally, I feel that the movie is the poorer for this omission.