Abigail Lesley Is Back in Town

Abigail Lesley Is Back in Town

A seductive woman, who left her small fishing town long ago after being caught with another woman's husband, returns to shake up the place by seducing everyone, including the woman and her girlfriends.

An erotically-charged soap opera, Sarno style. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Abigail Lesley Is Back in Town torrent reviews

Paul D (ru) wrote: Good concert footage made better through a fictional surreal background story.

Greg R (gb) wrote: L-A-M-E One of the worst most contrived movies I've ever seen. Just awful

Mary A (ru) wrote: Rebecca Hall is a terrible actress. Her voice, body language and facial expressions frustrated me. I think this movie could have been better if a young Cameron Diaz played that part or somebody of the like.

Cedric L (es) wrote: Interesting historical drama.

Mei L (mx) wrote: I don't know why the hell I watched this. No excuse, really. Staggeringly condescending, and, simply, just annoying all round. I felt so sorry for Julia Roberts - I loved her as the happy-go-lucky hooker in Pretty Woman, but absolutely loathed her as the successful modern woman in this. Talk about #firstworldproblems

Casey B (kr) wrote: Great visuals and not-too-bad voice cast, and its slow pace is something I can deal with.

Chris O (es) wrote: This was an interesting movie to watch a decade after it was released and you realize how far the fairy tale genre has really come, with twists like Maleficent and the upcoming Into the Woods stealing the show out from under the sugary sweet archetype. It's also a pleasant reminder of how far Anne Hathaway has come as an actress. She started her career with many of these sweet princess roles, essentially Anne Hathaway playing Anne Hathaway. She did it well, but it's a good thing she's branched out since then. I also enjoyed the addition of Cary Elwes, who as always played Cary Elwes very well. I enjoyed the random cameo of Heidi Klum as a giantess. That being said, this was not a good film. It's a trotted out old narrative stuck in a deep rut, a classic fairy tale with a couple of schmaltzy and supposed-to-be-funny twists. I also found myself peeved that the story brought out issues of patriarchy, classism, racism, and servitude without even trying to actually address critical issues. Just as one example, I found myself miffed that Ella got to break through her "gift" but the Prince, who was born into a class system at the high end of the privilege spectrum. He mentioned several times that he had never felt like he would be a good leader, that he didn't get a say in the matter, but where was his resolution, his freedom. It all basically went away because some pretty girl told him he'd be good at it. I guess it's more important to obey social order than a magic spell. And don't even get me started on how problematic it was that the only black character was the neglectful fairy godmother, perpetuating the archetype of the bad black mother. Ok, sorry, getting off the critical high horse now. This is a cute movie and all. It's entertaining enough and full of wonder, charm, and reasonable acting to keep young children afloat. However, some adults may not be able to look past the blatant use critical race/class issues as a plot device without true engagement or resolution.

Carl C (br) wrote: Sorry, but... this is a case of The Emperor's New Clothes for me. I just don't get the hoopla about how "great" this film is. You watch it "hoping" something will happen. Never does. i don't like movies that don't engage me, or that keep me looking at the clock wondering when it will end. Just don't get it.

Jason L (ru) wrote: Average movie. Hate the way it ended...

Jonathan M (ca) wrote: That it was great to be there seems sure, but watching it is not quite as compelling. Hendrix burns a guitar, The Who smash stuff, people wake up in fields.

Donald H (ca) wrote: Elvis Presley is such an AMAZING actor...his movies touch me deeply...what did you say Meg? Just a sec.......he.....actually......DOES HIS OWN SINGING in the movies too....is there anything he CAN'T do? Oh, is he? When did that happen....?

Robben M (au) wrote: Ken Russell has, for the longest time, earned my ire for making TOMMY THE MOVIE.I can only wonder what would compell a man to make such a monstrosity, but upon viewing this little gem, it is clear that he only went downhill after his film THE DEVILS. Here, Ken Russell still playfully builds up his scenes for usual madness and manicky behaviour. It's all deliberately mannered and it's all part of the fun. Some may call it brash and vulgar, taking Sandy Wilson's patische musical and mutating it into a five headed beast that wears fishnet stockings and makes love to you in the hardest and most enjoyable manner. It's easy to see where the sympathies lie: Twiggy, the nimble star of hte picture. She is so nervous, so small, and so cute. After a while it gets annoying because that's all she ever looks like. Cute. And everyone else is hamming it up so much she looks like a little angel. Truly, Russell is so hellbent on making Twiggy innocent and pure that the other characters reach an almost insane status of cariacture. Fellini and Gilliam could never top what sorts of personalities Russell comes up with. Then again, that's the whole point. It is a film of objective and subjective points of views. Everyone has an opinion and dream, regardless of how grim and awful reality is (the film alternates between a troupe putting on the show 'The Boy Friend' and the fantasies each character has in a musical number). The show is tacky and overblown, and so are the exaggerated fantasies! After awhile, the line between reality and fantasy blurs to the point where the 'backstage' world starts to break out in song and the 'dream' world starts to grow into incredible spectacles of their own, completely independent of the film's encompasing story: love conquers all. It's silly of course and the characters know it too. But is Ken Russell advocating dumb-pure-innocence over cynicism and cold-heartedness? Or is he simply showing off his cinematic techinque with wild colors, wild editing, wild camera movements and wild acting? Maybe a little bit of both. On a side note, the tackiness of the stage sets becomes transcendent in its ridiculous decor: A train is illuminated by white neon, an ocean made of cardboard has swimmers coming in from all sides as a sparkling sun smiles in the back, spotlights flying around like banshees, tableux settings go haywire as pieces of sets start twist and turn and the after awhile, the stage itself becomes a character; it is after all, the setting of so many of the characters fantasies (most elaborately are the visiting film director and Twiggy. Cecil B. Dethrille as he is called, imagines crazy Busby Berkely style segments. He seems to be looking for inspiration and the next big actor or potential actress) It never feels too long or too short. Most of the musical numbers are about as close to perfection as can be. Often ken russell typically contrasts certain things on screen such as a lively opening number shot in a flat, two-dimensional perspective from FAR away. It's so far away that it really does feel like we're sitting in the audience. By the second act (yes, the film is quite epic, though because of the light-speed pace it never feels that way) all bets are off and we're looking at the action from the stage box (Dethrille's point of view, which, by the way, is probably the greatest name ever.) then the play really gets wacky but it is to be expected since this is, after all, a Ken Russell film. Like I said, this was his film period of restraint (ha!) and craft. Unlike his later films which become imitation Russell or worse, parody, THE BOY FRIEND embodies his best traits. (well constructed, brilliantly witty script, great set-ups for scenes and wonderful situations and of course, dynamic direction that not only makes it fun for the filmmakers and actors but for the audience as well) In some ways, THE BOYFRIEND was way ahead of its time, overshadowing film musicals as CHICAGO, MOULIN ROUGE, HAIRSPRAY, and others. If only it had been made today, it might've been a critical and commercial success but alas, time and fate has been very, very cruel to Russell. Not only time, but the studios as well. This film doggedly refuses to be released onto DVD, which is denying film buffs and viewers alike a chance to view a groundbreaking film, and it really is. All the conventions that are commonly broken today were done then, and Russell emerges relatively unscathed by his own problems (the film is periously close to suddenly turning into another PENNIES FROM HEAVEN, a similar but awful attempt at a patische 30's musical, and Russell's crudeness has not yet manifested itself as badly as it did in TOMMY, MAHLER, and, worst of all, LISZTOMANIA...) Fortunately, THE BOYFRIEND ends up being a delightful romp through the dreams and exaggerations of what we think a backstage world is like. This may be the last 'great' Ken Russell film. (THE DEVILS is undoubtedly his best, even better than WOMEN IN LOVE.) After this, he sadly went into sharp-decline for whatever reason. At least he left this little (HA!) valentine to movies and musicals...who would've thought he'd be so adept at making such a movie?

Rohan D (au) wrote: Nowhere as good as FnF. I hope they never make a sequel to this.Nice cars is all its got,not much else.