A sus trece años, Catalina empezó a asociar la prosperidad de las niñas de su barrio con el tamaño de sus tetas. Pues quienes las tenían pequeñas, como ella, tenían que resignarse a vivir en medio de las necesidades y a estudiar o trabajar de mesera en algún restaurante de la ciudad. En cambio, quienes las tenían grandes como Yessica o Paola, se paseaban orondas por la vida, en lujosas camionetas, vestidas con trajes costosos y efectuando compras suntuosas que terminaron haciéndola agonizar de envidia. Por eso se propuso, como única meta en su vida, conseguir, a como diera lugar y cometiendo todo tipo de errores, el dinero para mandarse a implantar un par de tetas de silicona, capaces de no caber en las manos abiertas de hombre alguno. Pero nunca pensó que, contrario a lo que ella creía, sus soñadas prótesis no se iban a convertir en el cielo de su felicidad y en el instrumento de su enriquecimiento sino, en su tragedia personal y su infierno.. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Sin tetas no hay paraíso
- Stars:Linda Baldrich, Giovanni Francisco Bolivar, Francisco Bolívar, Oscar Borda, Manuel Cabral, Isabel Cristina Cadavid, Juan Sebastián Calero, Linda Lucía Callejas, Fabio Ivan Restrepo Cifuentes, Monica Gonzaga, Alan Gonzalez, Adrian Selket Jimenez, Herbert Garcia King, Adelaida López, Edgar A. Gomez M.,
|Download||Sin Tetas no hay Paraiso[Dvdrip/Audio Latino]||DVDRip||39||41||1.02 GB|
You may also like
Sin tetas no hay paraíso torrent reviews
Logan O (mx) wrote: A funny comedy that actually had some realistic feeling in it for example when there in the truck and the RPG hits the back and they the main character Ben stiller is in shock it shows some real effects and when it made fun of platoon I just laughed on the inside.
Henry R (de) wrote: This movie very poignant. But after that it is a coming of age movie. Coming of age to me means that certain events, places, people, or experiences must take place in order for us to make a permanent transition from childhood into adulthood. This movie highlights that stage in our lives. Be warned this movie is not for everyone. In a nutshell its about a young 13- year old lebonese girl who is experiementing with her body for the first time. And the good things and bad things that result from this. Mostly bad though. The movie follows her as she explores cultural differences between age, sex, race, and puberty. She also endures racism at school & home. She endures racial slurs at school such as "wetback", "brownbag", "sandnigger", and yes even "terrorist". Hence the title Towelhead. Through it all she grows and learns things about herself she didnt know. May also remind you that this movie is not for everyone as it does feature a sex scene between a 13 year old and a fourty something year old man. A teen masturbating in her desk during math class. A dead cat in a freezer. A young boy really really enjoying his fathers playboy magazines. And among other obscene scenes. Through it all i found myself hitting the pause button and telling myself " no he/she did not just do that" then rewinding and saying oh yes he did. And thats how you know youve come across a great movie. The same writer who made American Beauty wrote this movie, although I wasnt a fan of that movie, I find myself being a fan of "TowelHead". Only because I appreciate a good coming of age story with round characters who run into thick and unconventional conflict. I hope if you see this movie you can appreciate the same. Also I appreciate the price I bought it for; $1.99. But even if you find it for $20 it will be worth every penny.
bill s (gb) wrote: Tries to be Mean Girls meets Heathers but falls way short of the mark.
Steven W (nl) wrote: A decent movie- although it reduces the concept of lust into a state of being, and it would have been good if there were actual consequences for giving into one's lust. The ending was not surprising in the least, and the entire time, I kept asking myself... what is it about this guy that's so damn special?
Carlos O (de) wrote: Nice tale of life stories. Recommended for reflect about life.
Jesse O (mx) wrote: Surprisingly, not as bad a movie as one would reasonably considering that, by this point, this was all about the cash grab and not necessarily about telling stories with Freddy about his backstory and what made him the way he was. What made the third film better than pretty much every other sequel was the fact that, while not necessarily giving us a lot, it gave us something into Freddy's origin and what could've been done to stop him, for example It also brought things back to basics with Freddy just haunting people in their dreams before, theoretically, gruesomely murdering them. It might not have been as good or as effective as the original movie, but I still worked. Nightmare 3 also worked because it felt like an actual continuation of what we had seen in the first film, whilst completely ignoring the second one, with good reason. This one, however, tries to tie its events to some of the characters that survived at the end of the third film and try to justify it as a continuation. I think the filmmakers realized, for some reason, that people would've seen this as a shameless cash grab, as this was released just one year after the Nightmare 3 came out. So, because of that, they brought back characters from the third film to make it so it felt like something that was planned out as opposed to a shameless cash grab. Of course the characters that survived from the third film are killed off very early here, so it's not like any of the events from the previous film actually mattered. I don't remember much of the second movie, to be honest, but this is the first movie where Freddy turned into a sarcastic asshole with one-liners before murdering his victims. This is the Freddy I grew up loving, but it's, obviously, not the best version of the character. The best version of the character is the one that made you fear one of the most basic human needs and that is the need to sleep. I mentioned this in my review for the first film, but sleeping is the only sanctuary some people have. Like if they had a shitty day, then they can go to sleep for a couple of hours and wake up feeling refreshed. Freddy fucks with all of that when you enter his world. People are actively fighting to stay awake. It takes something as simple and as necessary as sleep and it made it terrifying, at the time at least. That's the best version of the character and, honestly, the original design, is the more thoughtful of any of the of the 80s slashers. Like Freddy broke you down at a psychological level at first before murdering you. Jason, Michael and Leatherface are big lumbering brutes who are just out to kill you. While the chase itself is a big part of it, it's not necessarily as terrifying as someone trying to break you psychologically by making you refuse to sleep before killing you. While I think this film does keep some of the original ideas close to its heart, there's also no denying that this isn't really anything more than just a cash grab. And, of the original franchise, it was the most commercially successful of them all, so the trick worked. But there's not really much to this movie, honestly speaking. The movie does a real shitty job justifying its own existence by forcing in characters from the third film that survived. It honestly feels completely out of place because, Joey and Kincaid at least, never really feel like part of a group. They're just a plot device to get you to the point where the new group featured in this film start to believe that Freddy might be real. There's really not much to the film to be honest, but it isn't terrible in any way actually, it just feels like it's an excuse to have Freddy kill unsuspecting teens for no real reason. At least the third film tried to have it be that the kids Freddy was going after were the remnants of the original Elm Street kids, whose parents were part of the group that burned Krueger alive and stuff. It doesn't exactly with the timeline itself, but it's at least something of an explanation. But this movie doesn't even try to give you a reason for why anything is actually happening. It's just happening because it is. There are some cool deaths though, like when Krueger kisses a character and he keeps sucking the air, and life, out of her body like she was a deflating balloon. And there's this cool scene where one of the characters is slowly transformed into a cockroach, based on a scene early on in the film that 90% of people probably forgot. It was a really cool scene visually. Krueger's death is also pretty cool, all things considered. Freddy has some funny one-liners, but this is obviously the point where the series jumped the shark. You could've made the argument that the 'jumping the shark' occurred with the second film, but the third installment was a considerable improvement. This one regresses several steps back without really adding anything new to the lore and to what we know about Freddy. I don't expect the fifth film, which I will be watching shortly, to really improve on this, but I'm hoping that it'll, at least, over some goofy fun. With that said, not a bad movie in any way, but there's nothing here that you really need to see and there's no real reason for this to exist other than to make some money.
Facebook U (fr) wrote: Very well done. The wife goes so far as praising Bradley in uncertain terms. He eerily impersonates the sniper. Good story, not too USA, savior of the world. Clint Eastwood does a great job to avoid any political or moral argument except for a few hints that all is not so great in this war. We only see the tip of the iceberg of Chris's story. The great bits, the strifes, the family. It's not too surprising that the USA make what is in fact a glorified assassin into a war hero. "He saved so many lives", well yeah, by killing even more! Only the USA lives count of course. When wecompare the lives of the people on the terrain to the US soldiers, these have it hard. The US never had to fight a better armed and better organised army at home. They no doubt fear this so much, that they have no scrupules imposing it on others. Hey, war is never at home this way.
Huw G (us) wrote: A particularly cutsie indie film, but so endlessly melancholic it's hard to really enjoy all that much. On top of that, several times, McGregor's character is jarringly inconsistent, and there's quite a few rather contrived moments too.
Anthony M (jp) wrote: One of the best horror movies I've ever seen. Really grabbed me.
Scott P (us) wrote: Quite a bit of fun for a dumb horror movie.
Adrian Z (fr) wrote: New karate kid on the block makes friends with a breakdancer, but as formula would have it, many enemies from the local dojo for bullies. On paper it's an obvious Karate Kid cash-in, but No Retreat No Surrender is on a whole different, lower level. It's ridiculously cheesy, features genuinely incompetent plotting, and over-acting right out of an Ed Wood movie. That said, it's all done so earnestly that the it actually manages to be engaging for much of the first half of the film, and it achieves a rare balance between being both intentionally and unintentionally funny. However, the fun fizzles out in the seond half of the film as it takes a astounding turn and sees our hero get trained by, um, Bruce Lee's ghost (played by a guy that does not resemble Lee) through various very repetitive montages, leading to a final confrontation with a very cringeworthy Jean-Claude Van Damme. If someone was to set out to make a bad movie, they probably would not succeed to make it as bad as this turned out to be without seemingly trying, but therein lies the cham of this film. It's got the "so bad it's good" factor completely nailed down.