Emmanuelle in Hong Kong
Yan and Emily have been married for two years. Since Emily is cultivated in a catholic way and considers sex to be a sin, their sex life is always miserable. To save their marriage, Yan hires a nobleman, K, to give Emily a lesson in sex. Yan cooks up a scheme to kidnap his wife and lock her up in a castle for three months for the tutorial. After the training, her attitude towards sex has been changed, but Yan is still unable to please his wife...Yan and Emily have been married for two years. Since Emily is cultivated in a catholic way and considers sex to be a sin, their sex life is always miserable. To save their marriage, Yan hires a nobleman, K, to give Emily a lesson in sex. Yan cooks up a scheme to kidnap his wife and lock her up in a castle for three months for the tutorial. After the training, her attitude towards sex has been changed, but Yan is still unable to please his wife...
Yan and Emily have been married for two years. Since Emily is cultivated in a catholic way and considers sex to be a sin, their sex life is always miserable. To save their marriage, Yan hires a nobleman, K, to give Emily a lesson in sex. Yan cooks up a scheme to kidnap his wife and lock her up in a castle for three months for the tutorial. After the training, her attitude towards sex has been changed, but Yan is still unable to please his wife...Yan and Emily have been married for two years. Since Emily is cultivated in a catholic way and considers sex to be a sin, their sex life is always miserable. To save their marriage, Yan hires a nobleman, K, to give Emily a lesson in sex. Yan cooks up a scheme to kidnap his wife and lock her up in a castle for three months for the tutorial. After the training, her attitude towards sex has been changed, but Yan is still unable to please his wife... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Emmanuelle in Hong Kong torrent reviews
(mx) wrote: You'll either embrace it or you won't. Personally I found it oddly fascinating. Maybe not as much as Leviathan but Manakamana is a totally different mind of film. Human , insightful and oddly emotional. If the idea of simply watching passengers ride a cable car up to a temple intrigues you then give this documentary a go.
(mx) wrote: The most important things are the hardest to say.
(ca) wrote: May not stick to the facts of the real story, but Hayden Panettiere's performance more than makes up for it.
(ru) wrote: The gimmicks and set up will usually stay the same obviously, but the execution is done far better this time around.
(au) wrote: Parnormal Activity 2 is just as scary as the original.
(ag) wrote: One of my favorite movies.
(de) wrote: Crappy production, but it's a likeable story behind it all. My mom fell asleep and I struggled not to follow in her footsteps. However, I found Christian Kane (if you look past the incredibly ulgy earrings) and Michael Weatherly very good-looking in this movie.
(jp) wrote: Hey guys, are you in look of a good nap? Great, then boy do I have a movie for you! It's Gerry, a film about walking.Before I begin this review, I need to share my thoughts on two things. The first is Art House Cinema. You may be thinking, "The guy with Gizmo from Gremlins as his Profile Pic whose favorite movie is King Kong and thinks RoboCop is deep and complex must hate Art House Cinema". Actually no. There are many Art House movies that I like. I love some Terence Mallick films (not Tree of Life) and am a huge fan of Guillermo Del Toro, but Gus Van Sant....He's the second thing I needed to discuss.I loved Good Will Hunting and Milk. But then there's the Psycho remake. Yeah remember that piece of shi- I mean art! Apparently Van Sant hated that film seeing how he spat in the horror movie genre's face and jumped to Gerry. Sorry, I mean Walking: The Movie.It really doesn't matter that this film stars two talented men, it's still trash. While it may be well shot and doesn't look bad, the story doesn't hold it up. At All. Here's what must to have happened to get this thing made: Van Sant: So two guys are walking through the desert! Okay, that's all.Producer: Maybe if we added Transformers, and padded it out for the first 90 minutes!Van Sant: Um that's not what I-Producer: Go make your walking movie, I've got Bay on the line!That's all I can assume. I mean how does a studio say yes to this? I wouldn't have, even if I were a major company. Here's the other thing: I live in Vegas, where I'm surrounded by desert. Even if I'm no Van Sant, I could have gotten my buds together and told them to walk for two hours! Cut it, Print it, Done!I hated Gerry. A boring nap of a film that isn't even worth thinking about. It gets a 10 for being a bit well shot, but nothing else can support this overrated piece of shi- Sorry, art.
(mx) wrote: Good movie. Great acting by Pacino.
(fr) wrote: OMG!! I just watched this film on the documentary channel and this is a very powerful documentary about what really went down at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. This film leaves one really wondering that the government really didn't want a peaceful resolution to the stand off, and it leaves many questions and doubts that David Koresh was not Jim Jones, in that he didn't have a death wish. Yes, Koresh misinterpreted the Bible in hugely wrong ways and wanted to separate his people from a society that he viewed as too wicked; but the government never truly proved their case(s) that they we're stockpiling illegal weapons or they had illegal drugs or that Koresh himself was a child abuser ...the government just acted to eliminate Koresh and his followers without due process and the film leaves the viewers with the thought that the FBI didn't really want Koresh in custody to try him but to simply just get rid of him...because the grandmother of Koresh and her attorney went to the ATF/FBI and told them that they could be the intermediary between the govmt. and the branch davidians, but the gov. just dismissed that idea with some further disturbing comments...watch it to find out! The govmt. never had any independent intermediaries between them and Koresh..it's either the govmt.'s way or death. This is such an interesting documentary that makes you question and discuss what really happened there, yet we will probably never truly know the ultimate answer....only God knows.
(gb) wrote: To paraphrase one critic, 'is it possible to say that it sucks, only nicely?'It's silly, the acting's bad, and it's just a kid's movie. But, I still enjoyed myself. Any Star Wars fan (episodes 4, 5, and 6 that is) probably will too.
(it) wrote: this is a film that Critics love to hate. The fact that everyone was expecting just a generic female version of superman, they missed the entire point of the film. Im not going to go into a big speal about a strong female figure, or empowering women, those facts are blaitant. The point of this film was to tell a completely different story, away for the superman franchise. why have more of the same?The superman films dipicted a big strong man coming along to save the helpless woman and save the earth. Supergirl tells a story in a more fairytale like way. Supergirl being transported to a strange planet to fight the evil witch and her horrible monsters, and save her home.This film has been a favourite of mine since i was 6 years old, and still remains one today. i will admit watching this as a 20 something year old i clearly see that some of the acting and diologue verges on cheesy, but the story itself is still remarkable.A few points need outstanding praise. the score by Jerry goldsmith is amazing. in my opinion surpassed the superman score performed by john Williams. This was the first role that helen slater (supergirl) ever landed, and she is flawless as the maiden of steel.I highly recommend this film and consider it a classic.
(br) wrote: Blood For Dracula is the best of the Andy Warhol horror series has Udo Kier in his career defining role as the Count on his search for "wirgin blood". The film has an original take on the classic, Dracula has tapped out Romania's supply of virgins so he pulls up stakes and settles in a house with a family that sports four daughters. Too bad they are not all virgins as Kier has more blood coming out of him then going in throughout the film. Campy as hell with a great style to it and the supporting cast with Dallesandro, De Sica, and even Polanski making appearances. Age has made this film better by gaining one of the larger cult followings. Fantastic finale!
(gb) wrote: Director Howard Hawks rarely made misfires, even LAND OF THE PHARAOHS was a great movie, but this Edward G. Robinson movie about the wild and wooly California coast during the gold rush era of the 1850s is curiously lackluster. Basically, it concerns a ruthless underworld boss, the mail-order bride that goes to work for him, and the innocent drifter that she falls in love with much to the chagrin of the crime boss. As greedy Luis Chamalis, Robinson wears an ear ring and owns the biggest casino in San Francisco called the Bella Donna. Miriam Hopkins is Mary Rutledge and she has come on a square-rigged ship from New York to marry Dan Morgan, but she learns on her arrival that her fianclost all his gold as well as his life at the Belle Donna gambling tables. Dan was a poor shot and poor shots do not live long in San Francisco. She refuses to leave town and winds up working the roulette wheel for Chamalis, the very same roulette wheel that brought about the death of her fianc. Luis nicknames her Swan because she is as soft and desirable as a swan. Eventually, Chamalis demands love and attention from Mary, but she denies him these affections. One day Mary takes a horse and rides in the country, but she is caught in a soaking downpour and takes refuge in a cabin. As it turns out, the man in the cabin has just settled in is a Jim Carmichael (Joel McCrea) and he is just passing through, too. This young prospector has dug sacks of gold out of the earth and is heading into town. No sooner does Jim see Mary than he falls desperately in love with her. He stumbles into the Bella Donna and loses all his gold on the roulette wheel. Mary feels guilty because she has cheated Jim, just as her fianc was cheated. At the same time, Luis--who rules the town--with the help of a cold-blooded killer, Knuckles (Brian Donley) suppresses the local newspaper editor Col. Marcus Aurelius Cobb (Frank Craven) from publishing derogatory stories about him. Things take a turn for the worst for Luis when Knuckles murders a miner Sawbuck McTavish (Donald Meek) and eye witnesses see him. Earlier, Luis got Knuckles out of a tight spot by calling in a favor from a drunken judge, but Knuckles is not so lucky this time around. Not only does he kill Sawbuck, but he also kills Cobb. The newly formed vigilante committee led by Jed Slocum (Harry Carey, Sr of ANGEL AND THE BADMAN) and his followers hang Knuckles on the spot and go after Luis. Meanwhile, Mary and Jim try to escape from the jealous Luis. Just as it appears that the hero and heroine are going to bite the dust, the vigilantes show up and prove the standard moral that crime does not pay and haul off Luis. There is nothing particularly outstanding about this Hawks movie. The dialogue by two Hawks collaboraters Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur is nothing special and neither is this movie. Hopkins makes an unsympathetic heroine until she falls from fellow New Yorker Jim. Walter Brennan steals the show as Old Atrocity, a sneaker grifter, who is never up to anything good.
(br) wrote: 161113: How times have changed. Lethal Weapon is still a good film but suffers from a few dated qualities. From Riggs' hair to his question of Murtaugh "What are you, a fag?" this film is showing its age. I always had a bit of trouble with Mel Gibson's portrayal of someone allegedly suffering from mental health issues. He came across as unconvincing to me. This time around, I'm feeling it a bit more. "Hate him back, it works for me" is a response I'm familiar with. Gary Busey's contribution as the villain Joshua cannot be understated. He completes this film.