She's So Lovely

She's So Lovely

Maureen is pregnant and her husband Eddie is missing. Nervous, Maureen shares a couple of drinks with neighbor Kiefer, who tries to rape her and then beats her. When Eddie returns and finds his wife bruised, he goes ballistic, shoots a paramedic and is put in a psychiatric institution. Ten years later, Eddie is released and finds that Maureen has divorced him and is remarried with three children, one of whom is his little girl Jeanie. Eddie goes to reclaim his wife

On the days of his missing, Eddie's wife is raped by a neighbor although she is pregnant. When he returns, he feels heart-broken and full of rages and shoot the culprit. It's been ten years from his first day in psychiatric institution and now he is released. Eddie feels desperate after seeing his ex-wife enjoying her life with new husband and three children, whom one of them is his little daughter. He decides to reclaim his ex-wife. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

She's So Lovely torrent reviews

Kanyanta N (mx) wrote: Loved the animated series, but I can't afford to pay Hollywood for the same thing done much better than this.

Tyler M (fr) wrote: While a good movie, it was pretty sad to see how many of these guys have nothing to grasp onto besides their former glory. I think I did like the King of Kong more, but this one was good at showing a broader range of the gamers in the day instead of a dramatic clash of the titans type movie. ... $14,000 for a piece of erotic art yet he still lives with his parents? Eesh.

Catherine D (de) wrote: Z is for Zurdo. And there it is: 26 films in as many days. My Rotten Tomatoes journal has had a worthy 5th anniversary. 10-year-old Zurdo (Spanish for "Lefty") certainly doesn't have it easy. The child of a single mom, he spends his days suffering through school (where his teacher binds his left hand to make him use his right) and delivering the lunches and laundry that his mother spends all her time toiling over. But in those few precious moments of free time, there is nothing Zurdo loves to do more than shoot marbles, to the cheering of his best friend. And he's good at it - he's never lost, and has many jars of won marbles to prove it. News of this gets around, and soon a champion from a far-away village, the "Wizard of Santa Maria" has come to challenge Zurdo to a match. The date is set and the whole town gets involved, betting amounts far above and beyond their means to show their support for Zurdo. Then again, not everyone is rooting for the home team: the rich man and the police commandant decide to play the odds for the opposition, and then blackmail Zurdo into throwing the match, first by threatening his uncle, then his mother. Zurdo is torn, but ultimately decides to play his best and go for a win, which he achieves only by cutting his own left hand in order to gain the final deciding point. Upon his victory, the commandant tries to shoot Zurdo but instead hits his long-lost father, who is thereby revealed (and recovers from his wounds, unlike the commandant, who meets his end as every villain should). So Zurdo claims the day but gives up marble-shooting thereafter, instead gaining his father back again. Yes, admittedly this Mexican film was my desperation to find a title that began with Z. If this film was made for anything more than $50,000, someone was definitely wasting money. The acting is uniformly dreadful. The art direction is basic and the direction only interesting in that it takes the perspective of its 10-year-old protagonist (i.e. the bad adults are seen looming large over us). The special effects would be worthy if the film had been made 20 years before. The production just seemed like a bad TV movie: the snow was clearly speckled grey and black and looked more like ashes, and the rain was remarkably responsive to directorial cues. And the plot - well, it's something I'd never think to make into a movie, probably because it's a terrible idea. Not that a child-like morality play featuring marbles isn't interesting, but not when it includes prostitutes, street punks, robberies, kidnapping, and violent murders. Overall, a bizarre film with terrible production, far too graphic for a child but simplistic and silly to an adult, a mishmash of genres and ideas, none of which are really developed.

Chris W (kr) wrote: Pretty decent for an indie film. The cast all do a pretty good job, and the story (although derivative), was captivating and intriguiging due to the way it was edited/unfolded. Not the best film, but still quite interesting and intriguing, and worth a look.

Anthony V (es) wrote: A boring, dumb waste of time.

Robyn M (de) wrote: I'm not sure whats worst reading the hallmark book or the movie? Animal farm is low budget, bad camera job of a film. It's bad enough i had to watch this in social class and compare The war of communsiom with aniamls fighting the farmers.This is a twisted movie so depressing it's not made for childern or depressed people.Don't bother or waste your time with this film, check out "Babe" for great barn yard humor.

Jessica H (kr) wrote: at times gross but mostly lost in concept.

Camille L (ag) wrote: Rudy est un film bourre de bons sentiments, parfois manipulateur et qui sous-estime le talent de ses seconds roles (Jon Favreau, Charles S. Dutton et surtout Vince Vaughn). Mais Rudy est aussi un film tres touchant, sincere et plutot bien filme (surtout dans les scenes de sport) par le veteran David Anspaugh, deja auteur du film Hoosiers, avec des performances d'acteur parfaites. Sean Astin est epoustouflant en underdog et parvient a sublimer un scenario un peu etrange. Quant a la musique de Jerry Goldsmith, elle fait son effet : larmoyante mais efficace. A l'image du film.

Harry W (de) wrote: With such a hugely talented cast lined up, Sneakers offered too many big names to pass up.With a big-name cast and a thievery plot, Sneakers is clearly a contemporary attempt to resurrect the glory of the caper genre which has not been notorious for decades. However, Sneakers also attempts to go very legitimate in its path and reduce the humour to a minimum. There are still some jokes in parts thanks to the charms of the cast, but Sneakers is a film with minimal comedic edge since it desires to be a very legitimate film. Unfortunately, it ends up in a conservative state as a result.Sneakers was not the fun experience I was expecting. Though it makes an effort to be a caper film, Sneakers also makes the effort to be a part of the conspiracy thriller genre. As a result it evokes slight memories to star Robert Redford's past in the espionage thriller Three Days of the Condor (1975). However, it doesn't follow the same practical path that Three Days of the Condor did since it spends the majority of its focus on the characters talking out all the theoretical details of their scheme. Sneakers is therefore not much of a practical film, but one more concerned in finding thrills within logistics and conspiracies. This means that the dialogue is very much a lot of little things contributing to building a bigger picture without managing to craft sufficient drama in the process. The story manages to keep moving through all this, but it does it at a dull pace without ever taking a second to do anything with the characters.Sneakers has a script which is too machine to capitalize on the talents of the cast. They are talented at what they achieve in the film, but there is a lack of humanity in the experience due to the story's insistence on depicting everything through talking and implications without actually putting them up on the screen. Sneakers has a great story implied in its subtext, but what it actually brings to the surface proves to be a tedious and mind-numbing collection of conversations which get so caught up in conspiracy jargon that it becomes easy to lose interest and focus very fast. It never has any surprises after that because once Sneakers establishes its path it meanders its way through it from start to finish with a lack of dramatic satisfaction as a result. I walked away from the film having learned nothing except being reminded of how talented Sidney Poitier is as an actor, and I couldn't help but feel like a lot of talented actors put their time into a film which was not up to the standard of their talents.In terms of style, the cinematography is able to constantly give viewers of Sneakers a claustrophobic feeling. Most of the shots occur within rather small spaces and occur very close up to emphasize the tension of the small spaced surrounding the characters. However, it is rendered rather mute by the fact that the lighting in Sneakers is a major technical flaw. With so much of the film taking place at night or within confined rooms, there is minimal lighting that ultimately makes its way onto the screen and causes the film to be essentially a massive blur of shadow. It's possible to see what is happening if you look closely enough, but doing so is far from an enjoyable experience and certainly does not give the film the effective atmosphere that it truly desires. To transcend a script this boring, Sneakers would have to stop getting distracted by its many characters and subplots. It would also need to use more engaging character interactions and music if it wanted to build the atmosphere it aspires to, but the fact that it gets bogged down with such poor lighting is simply a rookie mistake on behalf of director Phil Alden Robinson. Quite frankly, an ensemble film with a large collection of talented names that condemns the cast into spending the entire film talking a lot of theoretical language which is not ultimately put into all that much practical use. But this doesn't prevent them from bringing in solid efforts.Sidney Poitier is the best actor in Sneakers. The legendary actor proves that he has still lost none of his charisma after all these years because Sneakers proves his ability to transcend a big-name cast with a performance that stands above all others. Despite the very machine nature of the film's plot, Sidney Poitier is the most humane aspect of the feature due to his ability to find raw tension in every scene. The intended atmosphere of the film is grasped by the tenacious dramatic charisma of Sidney Poitier who flows along with the story so easily that every second he is on screen is nothing short of a treat.Robert Redford is a natural skill as well. With an organic edge of sophistication to him and a natural ability to work in an ensemble, Robert Redford is able to keep his dramatic spirit consistently alive while bouncing off all his surrounding actors. Robert Redford captures the intended level of tension and keeps it active in the role while managing to ensure he has a tenacious understanding of all the science behind the film. He is swift with his line delivery and always to the point yet restrained enough not to push the dramatic limits on his character, effectively bringing natural charisma into his part.River Phoenix has always been a well-respected lead actor, but Sneakers is an opportunity for him to work with an ensemble cast. Unfortunately, this means that his talents are reduced to minimal screen time and his charms are largely underutilized even though they are clearly distinctive. There is insufficient screen time given to Dan Akroyd as well who really brings in an intelligent supporting effort.So Sneakers has a skilful cast led by the enormously talented Sidney Poitier, but with repetitive imagery, an abundance of talking and a shortage of characterization, it is far from compelling enough grasp viewers.