Girls on Top

Girls on Top

The adventures of three teenage girls - Inken, Vicky and Lena - and their quest to have their first orgasm.

Inken (Diana Amft) is an eighteen-year-old girl, frustrated for not having had an orgasm yet with her boyfriend. Her two best friends are Vicky (Felicitas Woll), who is in the same ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Girls on Top torrent reviews

Joshua L (br) wrote: Kinda dumb but effectively creepy. I liked it.

Sanjay V (kr) wrote: My fav hero movie... very fast movie...

Parker M (ca) wrote: 3 Stars out of 4 After decades of torturing conventions, Jean-Luc Godard has perhaps delivered his swan song - Film Socialism. It's not one that is life altering, but his film is a good one - the last final cry and aggressive style of a director fighting against all cinematic discourse. Once again he will drive you nuts. His films are not kaleidoscopes, they do have a linear progression: it's a tale of three symphonies, moving together in harmony but backlashing conventions through a style that wrings similarities to Godard's somewhat better Made In U.S.A. The symphonies: the first is entitled Des Choses Comme Ca ("Such Things") which takes place on a cruise ship involving a medley of people who are multilingual, ranging from all sorts of the societal spectrum: detective, UN official, and a war criminal. The schism of culture and ideas is explained through the subtitles and some footage taken on cell-phones - a smart subversive implication on the rise of the 'new age' (dramatized in The Social Network). The second symphony is Notre Europe ("Our Europe"), kind of an ironic title since political Europe has never been Godard's amigo. This one surrounds a group of children trying to get their parents to be the tribunal of their childhood. What we can take from this episode is a series of themes regarding liberty and fraternity. That is little new ground broken for Godard. Then we reach Nos humanits ("Our Humanities") which ends by visiting six legendary sites: Egypt, Palestine, Odessa, Hellas, Naples, and Barcelona. In this wind down, Godard interchanges sequences of the Odessa staircase from The Battleship Potemkin to footage of children swarming the staircase today. That sequence while suggesting the modernized 'free' land is also jarring as it is aberrant. Godard has no problem incorporating Sergei Eisenstein montage and then taking any sort of familiar cinema technique and ridiculing and destroying it before our eyes. If you expect a spectacle out of Film Socialism, you will be underwhelmed. Usually spectacles are so obviously pretty that their visuals are mere poetry. Godard, I think, has always hated 'poetry', as he I'm sure hates 'cinema.' With his anti-bourgeois scheme, he takes Film Socialism and renders his beautiful filmmaking as irrational, clustered, and disjointed. We are not sure why he saturates the screen in one part - but does it matter? It's Godard and his madness propels our fascinations towards him. Film Socialism originally played at the Toronto International Film Festival back in September. My father went to the first screening and was amazed by the visuals, yet the subtitles did not work. What you had, I would assume, was a film visually intense but not the least provocative. Seeing it now (and in subtitles, that problem has been fixed), Film Socialism is magnificently shot in a unconventional yet tonic kind of way, but its subtitles add a different dimension to the lexicon of the film. When people speak the subtitle does not regurgitate what they say, but it fragments their speech into certain words (example: "what the heck is Godard doing?" would become "Heck Godard Doing?"). Amazingly, you get it right? You can still understand the film gracefully. Godard, in his final tribute, targets the fragmented language of the world, our divided cultures, while also teasing the verbosity of common discourse. In particular in any foreign film. But did I enjoy Film Socialism? I did, not as pure entertainment and not as a politically correct analogy. Godard's colourful metaphors contain a modesty - since we do not know exactly how the film progresses (rationally) it gives us little established conclusions. That is a good thing, as Film Socialism is not trying to hammer home its exposition. It is satisfying to watch a film that is so inventive and in its own world yet it never succumbs to self-righteousness or perhaps a blas perspective on the world and cinema. In fact, Godard's expression becomes so humble in the end his style contracts to a one-liner: No Comment. He really doesn't I think. By now, we can confer that Godard hones his style. When his music intones and then cuts dramatically, we laugh along with him. His films are always subversive jokes after all. When audio comes out of one speaker in the theatre, we do not panic. That is Godard daring us to leave the theatre and blame the theatre for poor sound quality. If you do not believe me that Godard really challenges you, allow me to provide an anecdote. In my theatre, which consisted of twenty spectators or so, I submit 6 of them walked out. They were not expecting a film as audacious, or more precisely, audaciously muddled. It won't speak to you immediately because Godard is not a simple auteur. He won't be obvious but he will likely torment you into respecting him. When the movie ended the lights did not turn on and the reel kept going. We sat in silence for two minutes unsure whether the movie was over. The usher entered and apologized, suggesting they were having trouble with the lights. I laughed, not at them but at Film Socialism. This technical error is something apposite to Jean-Luc Godard's style. This is a minor Godard film, yes. But it was in these little joys: audience members walking out and faulty lights that made me boost the film up half-a-star. Why? No Comment.

Dawid J (fr) wrote: 'everything is illuminated' meets 'four lions'.

S (de) wrote: Good movie! Loved the cast.

Michael P (ca) wrote: You have to watch a lot of bad horror movies to find the good ones ... this was one of those stinkers. Not bad enough to turn off, but very ordinary, especially in terms of acting.

Maurice V (ru) wrote: A really bad B-flick, crappy story, and a terrible soundtrack, I just gave it 1 star because of Eric Roberts great, but too short performance.

Irakoe C (es) wrote: such an amazing movie!! it'll make u laugh and cry but mostly smile. i highly recommend it!

Kris B (es) wrote: A beautiful movie with images as poetic as the words written by Reinaldo himself, portrayed brilliantly by Javier Bardem. This has been on my very long (and almost forgotten) watch list and I can now see what all the fuss was about with Johnny Depp. With his minimal screen he managed to play two very polarising characters with such dripping sensuality he's beyond "cool"

William L (nl) wrote: 10+ years before the whole Walter Reed hospital scandal broke.

Tommy K (au) wrote: Yes, the first ten minutes are the saddest you'll ever see in your life, but the rest of the movie is better than everyone else makes it out to be, with stellar animation, memorable characters, and an engaging, emotional story. Best Pixar movie ever!

Robert G (es) wrote: Now I admit that the only version of The Gold Rush movie I have seen is the 1942 version which is Charlie Chaplin re-edited and did a voice over narration. Even Chaplain considered the 1942 version as superior to the original. But eventually I will watch the original version, just not right now.

John M (kr) wrote: A story you'd expect to see in TV format. Phone-in performances and very very light on exposition.