Stream in HD   Download in HD


Virgin People

Virgin People

Three sisters live in a paradise where men are metaphorically and literally serpents of temptation.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:120 minutes
  • Release:1984
  • Language:Filipino,Tagalog
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:murder,   mountain,   marriage,  

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechersSize
Download   Virgin people_1983(VHSRip)(PINOY Bomba 80's)_mangKanorOther40501.19 GB

Virgin People torrent reviews

Mirkku S (ru) wrote: Beautiful animation and cute characters, but the movie was very unnecessary and not that good. Dory is at her best when she is more in the background.

Anna C (it) wrote: A classic thriller, it could have been an episode from Criminal Minds....

Jennifer T (fr) wrote: I had to see what all the fuss was about with this movie. And I saw it-this movie is very inspiring, touching and a great film about a horse named Secretariat aka Big Red. Loved it!

Jennifer I (fr) wrote: It's like a british version of Waiting.

Phi L (fr) wrote: very painful to watch.... or remember

Michael F (es) wrote: While the story is lackluster, the performances, and characters enough to keep you entertained.

Devin H (kr) wrote: gets 3 stars because the commentary was funnier than the movie was. i appreciate good commentary tracks.

Derek O (au) wrote: Loved this movie. It's basically the story of a girl, a gun, and the courage she must find in order to use it. The thing that elevates this out of your typical small crime drama are the originality of the characters and the direction they push the story. Don't get me wrong, you get your barfights, your shower scenes, your double-crossings -- they just don't happen in the fashion you think they will. All these characters have issues that are compelling and that service the plot in unexpected ways. I swear there are scenes where two characters are laying in bed where you don't know if they are going to have sex or shoot each other. Also it is a pleasant surprise as the movie progresses that even the most simple characters are more than they seem. Milla is amazing, Dorff gives a gem of a performance, and writer/director Lennon coaxes some great moments out of even the most simple, quiet scenes. Great flick.

Benjamin W (ru) wrote: There was something revolutionary in the first film of this series, but Naqoyqatsi seems to lose that point. While the footage is interesting at times, the visual filters are way overused and the CGI unnecessary. In fact, these two techniques almost ruin the entire point that they were trying to make (which was pretty heavy-handed at times). If the director had kept the simple beauty of slow-motion and time-lapse photography of (essentially) stock footage, then this might have been a better film. And yet, as it stands, this film was a mess.

Jeff B (kr) wrote: Middling teen comedy in the vein of "After Hours" where we follow one man on a night where seemingly everything goes wrong. I like Will Friedle, but even for one of his movies this wasn't much. Very campy.

Edith N (br) wrote: Why Doesn't Oliver Stone Like Chronology? I can't decide how Oliver Stone casts people in his movies. I mean, don't get me wrong; Sir Anthony Hopkins did a fine job in this and became one of the few actors I can name to have played two US Presidents, and to critical acclaim both times. Paul Sorvino was so good as Henry Kissinger that I didn't even remember that it was him half the time. And, you know, Powers Boothe is good at playing crazy and self-centered, so he's a perfect choice to play Alexander Haig. On the other hand, Bob Hoskins as J. Edgar Hoover? (With the rumoured homosexuality turned up to eleven, nibbling fruit out of Wilson Cruz's mouth, even.) I suppose it's possible that most of the casting on this one was wonderful, though most of the figures I would spot in a lineup are completely forgettable to me in the finished film. But no matter how spot-on the casting is for the most part, there's always at least one guy who's completely out of place, isn't there? Really, it's a good thing that I already knew most of this story going in, because it's presented in such a way that I'm not sure I would have been able to work it out just from the film. It is, of course, the life of Richard Milhous Nixon, thirty-seventh President of the United States and the only one to resign. As played by Sir Anthony Hopkins. We learn some about his childhood in California (though not the bits with my grandmother)--his Quaker mother, Hannah (Mary Steenburgen), and his surly father, Frank (Tom Bower). We whip back and forth through his life in flashbacks and, seemingly, flashforwards, seeing the death of two of his brothers, his courting of Pat (Joan Allen), and any number of the political races he won and lost. Mostly, this is the portrait of a bitter, resentful man, scarred by a cruel father and having been an outsider in one way or another his entire life. Even when he was elected President, it didn't seem as though anyone liked him. I read a book recently about how the best leaders in times of crisis are people with mild-to-moderate depression, bipolar disorder, and similar conditions. (It's not a bad argument, so far as it goes; the book is called [i]A First-Rate Madness[/i].) The book posits Nixon as being mentally healthy and explains how that was part of the problem. Stone, I think, mostly diagnoses Nixon with a bad childhood and a massive inferiority complex. My reading has suggested to me the possibility of untreated schizophrenia, to be honest; [i]A First-Rate Madness[/i] says it isn't paranoia if they're actually out to get you, but that indicates to me someone who hasn't read the Enemies List. I mean, the expanded list is a doozy, but even just the original list of twenty names says something about the man. After all, several people on the list got there for work they did against political opponents who weren't even Nixon. Number nineteen, and this is on the twenty-name list, was Paul Newman. Yes, that Paul Newman. However, Stone doesn't take up much time with psychological analysis here. This is, at its heart, a bunch of stuff happening. There are a few moments that look, based on how they're filmed, to be hallucinations, but it's hard to tell if that's the case or not. What's more, Stone isn't bothering much with political analysis, either. He doesn't waste any time explaining why anyone wins any given election other than an acknowledgement that an effective Wallace campaign would have essentially guaranteed a McGovern win. But as far as Stone seems concerned, all of Nixon's losses can be boiled down to people just not liking him. Which isn't completely off the mark, admittedly, but doesn't help when it comes to the question of why he ever won any elections. It's either that he doesn't think political analysis is the point or else that he assumes that everyone watching his film will already know. Or possibly some combination of the two. This film is too long and yet says nothing. It jumps around in time to the point that it's hard to say when half the events in the movie take place if you aren't already well acquainted with Richard Nixon's life and career. It raises the interesting point that Pat didn't want to be a politician's wife but then basically does nothing with it. This, almost more than his fondness for ludicrous conspiracy theories, has a great deal to do with why I don't like Oliver Stone very much. I remember being deeply moved by [i]Platoon[/i] when I saw it over a dozen years ago, but I haven't been impressed with anything Oliver Stone that I've seen since. I think he might be one of those directors who's come to believe his own press. I'll also confess that one of the issues I have is that I saw him on [i]Celebrity Jeopardy![/i] once, and he seemed dumb as a post and yet, as I recall, lucked into winning because he was the only one to get Final Jeopardy! right. Wolf Blitzer looked like he was ready to punch Oliver Stone. Which would have been entertaining.

Stacey T (ru) wrote: Great movie. You'll never look at "Sam the Snowman" the same way again.

Ed Q (kr) wrote: Another conventional biopic. Yawn.

Sue S (kr) wrote: Critters is a fun little movie with very cool looking little monsters. Most of the actors are great. Scott Grimes as Brad is a great child actor. Dee Wallace is always great. This movie does have kind of a slow start but it's never boring. I liked the characters but I have to I really enjoyed the little monsters aka Critters. They just look so cool. There is not a ton of gore in this movie but enough blood and cool effects to satisfy a horror fan like me. If you like practical effects and cheesy 80's dialog you'll love this movie.

Cathy L (es) wrote: Heart Like a Wheel Heart Like a WheelSynopsis: Shirley Muldowney is determined to be a top-fuel drag racer, although no woman has ever raced them before. Despite the high risks of this kind of racing and the burden it places on her family life, she perseveres in her dream.Starring: Bonnie Bedelia, Beau Bridges, Leo Rossi, Hoyt Axton, Bill McKinneyDirected by: Jonathan Kaplan

Tay W (kr) wrote: love the cast , soo funny lol

Eric E (de) wrote: Feel-good movie of the Summer... of 1980! Directed by Eastwood in his usual, somewhat melodramtic style, fun movie about dreams, ideals, helping others, and being true to yourself. Sandra Locke, Clint's realy life girlfriend at the time, is the overacting love interest in this one. Fun flick!

Tyler H (nl) wrote: I should hate this movie. I should. Every film-buff bone in my body is telling me I shouldn't like it. Everything about it should make me relinquish and curl up into the fetal position. But I don't. I like this movie. I enjoy just kicking back and watching this flick. There is nothing intelligent or redeeming about this movie, but I like it nonetheless. It's a guilty pleasure, really. Watch it for laughs, action, cool cars, and girls. It's the perfect example of a teenage boy movie. Solely off of that I shouldn't like it, but I do anyways.

Joseph S (fr) wrote: Not only is it funnier than most movies, it has better car chases too!