Tumbling Doll of Flesh

Tumbling Doll of Flesh

Kana tries to end her starring role in an abusive porno. For her, the end comes only after she's been reduced to a "Tumbling Doll of Flesh".

Kana tries to end her starring role in an abusive porno. For her, the end comes only after she's been reduced to a "Tumbling Doll of Flesh". . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechersSize
Download   SNUFF REELS . vhsrip . xvid . andtr666666 ...Other3843700.35 MB

Tumbling Doll of Flesh torrent reviews

Sean C (it) wrote: This is big dumb fun aimed pretty much just at the boy's. It's slick, moves quick and doesnt require a lot of thinking about. It'll make for a fun but forgettable rental so do as the characters do in the movie, get some beer in, sit back and switch off...

David D (fr) wrote: An original premise but somewhat dull action

Babak I (gb) wrote: My first instincts told me not to bother watching this movie based on all the bad ratings. Eventually I came round and watched it and what an absolutely absurd movie it was!! I wish I had stuck to my guns and avoided it entirely!

Krista M (ca) wrote: DO NOT watch this movie if you have children. It is very morbid and upsetting. The plot was very enticing because Danika's premonitions left me wanting more. Every premonition revealed a little more of the story line and left me with more questions. By the end, it was apparent what had happened and was very unsettling. I would not recommend this to any mothers!

Teemul J (de) wrote: A real masterpiece!! Brings a new perspective on life..

Rachael C (ca) wrote: This film was meant to depict emptiness and it did exactly that. If you normally skip art-house movies then definitely skip this one. I got the point, I just didn't think it was that well made. Skip to the last 20 minutes if you want to see what is definitely the most shocking and compelling part of the movie.

Mark S (ru) wrote: the thing about the sequels of the re-animator series is that they follow suit of the original.basically this one takes place 8 months after the massacre that happened in the first one. a bunch of bat shit crazy stuff with the reanimating agent again and they make a bride out of a bunch of different body parts.not so sure about the head with the bat wings attached tho.also what bothered me about these 2 is david gale's severed head that was able to talk... did they not take the vocal cords into consideration here?

Harpreet S (jp) wrote: A very good film, if not great by the master Pasolini. I actually did not understand it, very difficult to understand the dialogue in the modern day story. I loved the volcano setting in the other story, very beautiful. I also loved the "famous line" said by the main character of that story. Should be seen again and again to fully understand.

Martin K (gb) wrote: Samurai film that kickes ass ;)

Steve G (de) wrote: Baby Peggy was not in a lot of it.

Vasco M (ru) wrote: Has a few moments but it's ultimately a "meh" movie.

Carlos R (ca) wrote: The writer of the book The Beach, that eventually became the movie by Danny Boyle and Leo DiCaprio eventually became a screenwriter and wrote the likes of 28 Days Later and Dredd. Footnote, when he saw the original Judge Dredd to make this film, his first directorial effort. He pulls it off nearly flawlessly. He is a magnificent sci-fi screen writer, so no one in the know went in expecting any different. Intelligent, engaging and thrilling to boot, this movie is not all I expected when I sat down to watch a film with a man sitting opposite a robot woman. Coming off having seen Morgan first, I sort of suspected it to be similar fair. Scary, thrilling and about an intelligent AI talking through a glass.It could be argued that the movie is about AVA, but as my friend at Lesson's From The Screenplay point out, her point of view is limited to that room. The whole time you are caught wondering what does she know that she's not saying? What is Oscar Issacs's character really have up his sleeve? and Is this robot really flirting with a person? You don't know because things are told from the visitor -Domhnall Gleeson's perspective. In their world Issac's created a superior competitor to Google and has used it to acquire land that it takes two hours to fly over in helicopter. There he spends his days getting drunk. He comes across as unlikable until near the end, but never quite redeems himself. They are trying to find out if she can pass a Turing test, which it seems evident early on she IS capable. So why is the visitor there?That reveal is one of the better one's in the film, also coming near the end. Also, unlike most Sci-Fi films, it does not need very much in term of effects, except for the occasional bare robot moment (or background) it is devoid of them. It is just three, or 4 people in one location but can lack the proper gusto that would pull absolutely everyone in, even though the story is still solid. You are given just information throughout this story though that by the end, when all is tied together, you are taken aback by what has just occurred and how you missed it. you were engaged by the storytelling and set up. One might predict somethings, but will likely not get the whole picture. This is where it deviates from Morgan. Morgan is telegraphing at every turn - you COULD predict she was going to lose it on every one and the results that follow. And the ending, so unfair and utterly astonishing to me.

tyrese c (au) wrote: what the hell is wrong with these critics? its funny as hell and has good acting, directing etc. its a great film.

Private A (ca) wrote: Great film you should watch it