. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Imposible torrent reviews

Private U (gb) wrote: its subtlety is the most beautiful thing about this movie! in the times where over the top loud movies are earning the bucks....lootera entertains with wonderful songs, a good plot and mature acting! Motwane lives upto the standard he set with Udaan!

Poli L (au) wrote: Better than I thought it would be. almost as good and funny as Kung Fu Hustle. Subtitles were intentionally hilarious. Can't wait for the next one...

Alison O (de) wrote: Former game show host/comedian Andrew O'Connor was the brains behind Peep Show and here he directs that show's two leads in this big screen outing. Although Mitchell and Webb share little screen time together, the quality of the cast is impressive and this is by no means the flop it was labelled as upon release. Worth a look.

Sajib K (ca) wrote: It's sometimes saddening to see a director leveraging shock therapy to put a conclusive remark on spectator's minds. This movie has enough materials to prosper without that - a sweet, romantic couple, another lonely wife deprived of her better half's attention and wanting to get rid of the shackles, a prospective extra-marital affairs although I have to appreciate the idea of 'undefined relationship'; still the film abruptly ends in with heartache. Nevertheless, it's a delectable drama with inspired casting (both of the leading ladies are ravishingly sensuous and enigmatic on screen) and overall, magnificent, jaw-dropping view of the majestic Kanchenjunga.

Doctor S (ca) wrote: Hiss. Weak tedium from Seduction Cinema with no effort to tell a story about prehistoric women in a land of flatulent dinosaurs with some terrible connecting material. It's just a flesh fest which gets very boring, and seems that way for the apathetic cast too. Admire the cover, avoid the movie - Misty Mundae isn't even in it very much. And it does not last 2 hours 10 minutes as listed, it just feels that way.

stefn birgir s (gb) wrote: Bruce Campbell gets to do, what the man does.

Drew C (kr) wrote: I'll have to re-watch it to get a better opinion of it.

Doug P (us) wrote: Disappointment!! i thought I was going to see some sweet Boobies! $#!+ it had a stroy line! Turn it off my friends!

adam u (ru) wrote: It was better then Club Dread .but not as good as Super Troopers

Corey W (jp) wrote: Until the Longest Yard remake, this was the best football movie.

Tibor B (it) wrote: A truly marvellous Kaurismaki film in my opinion what he does best - it's an almost anti-romcom, following the connection made between a sadsack garbage truck driver and an equally sadsack checkout girl. Brilliant portrayal of two social outsiders who strike a very human connection, and personally I found it more touching than any number of traditional romance films. Brilliant!

Mister X (fr) wrote: BY PAMELA DE GRAFFBorn Innocent sparked a torrent of controversy when it was released as an NBC World Premier Movie way back in 1974. Tame by today's standards, it was the highest rated television movie that year due to the unparelled graphic nature (by TV standards) of its depiction of sexual abuse. Re-airings were heavily censored well into the 1980's, after public outcry following the original broadcast. The film was cited by the FCC as part of the justification for enforcing new family friendly, prime-time viewing standards. NBC was later sued in Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Company, 126 Cal. App.3d 488 178 Cal. Rptr. 888 (1981) when it was alleged that the nework's broadcast of Born Innocent inspired the Coke bottle rape of a nine year old California girl.BORN INNOCENT (1974) WRITTEN BY: Gerald Di Pego based on the 1958 novel by Creighton Brown Burnham DIRECTED BY: Donald WryeDonald WryeFEATURING: Linda Blair, Joanna Miles, Kim Hunter, Richard Jaeckel, Allyn Ann McLerie, Mary Murphy, Janit Baldwin, and Tina Andrews GENRE: DRAMA TAGS: LESBIAN RAPEPLOT: Negative social forces and institutionalization alter a young, middle class teen's character and personality when she is thrown into a state school for girls for running away from home. COMMENTS: Linda Blair perpetuated her reputation for lurid roles immediately following The Exorcist in 1974's Born Innocent. Blair plays fourteen year old Chris Parker, a sensitive, high-functioning girl from a highly dysfunctional home, thrown into reform school with a bunch of low-functioning savages for being a chronic runaway. Not that's there's any reason why Chris wouldn't want to remain at home in her family's tiny house, with a Freudianly-tortured, violently abusive father (Jaeckel), a brow-beaten, soul-charred, mentally absent mother (Hunter)l, or a timid, wishy-washy, ineffectual, brother (Vogel) who decides to betray her. The fact is, her parents remanded her custody to the court in retaliation for Chris informing on their abuse of her to third parties.The state girls' remand center is the cinematically stereotypical reform school: run by a semi-incompetent staff of idiots, with slovenly handlers, and idealistic, but disillusioned teachers. It's populated by the absolute dregs of society, including violent, physically abusive lesbian bullies. Born Innocent features some maudlin, scenes, such as one in which a pregnant girl is wrongly thrown into isolation, where nobody hears or responds to her screams as she miscarries. Yet the film is, despites it stereotypes and clichs, believable and thoughtfully written, presenting a dichotomy between its sensationalism and its introspective credibility. Joanna Miles plays Parker's somewhat idealistically naive academic instructor who realizes at once Parker doesn't belong in a state school. The teacher exerts her tenuous influence in an attempt to protect Chris while helping her keep her sense of identity and resilience. It's a challenge, because Chris is caught between her defective family, the shortsighted juvenile system, and a pack of predatory creeps in her dormitory. The key is held by a callous, one-size-fits all bureaucracy, which lacks the sophistication and administrative nuances to properly handle Parker's case. The juvenile justice administration drops the ball and a conflicted Parker plunges into the depths of the reformatory's tier structure after a desperate escape attempt.The overall theme of Born Innocent, consistent with its title, is the old Romantic notion that people are born without fault, but are corrupted by society and its evil institutions. Born Innocent actually does a pretty good of making it's argument. The reform school it depicts is a pretty appropriate place for most of its inmates. Yet classifying as a criminal a middle class and sensitive girl like Chris Parker for a victimless and justifiably motivated legal violation (running away from her abusive father), and then throwing her into a state correctional colony spirals to an almost inevitable result. Parker becomes mentally institutionalized, hardened, callous, and manipulative, as she begins to work the system in a calculated way. While not everybody buys the notion that environment and society are completely to blame for some individual's downfalls, Born Innocent successfully argues the point in Parker's case.It's worth noting that the focus of Creighton Brown Burnham's 1958 novel was weighted more on the humanitarian motives and optimistic efforts of Parker's instructor to elevate Chris from her tragic circumstances, than on the tawdry horrors of being confined in a reform school. Born Innocent is most notable for it's infamous lesbian rape scene, in which four teenage bull dykes ambush Chris in the shower and forcibly assault her with the handle of a toilet plunger. Shocking and sensational for the time of the movie's release, the scene is neither tawdry, nor salacious. It's an upsetting, frank depiction of a brutal, enraging violation. The sobering sequence calls attention to the deplorable fact that penal institutions of all sorts delight in refusing to prevent or adequately punish daily homosexual rape among other abuses.Yes, Born Innocent is a bit moralistic and this, along with some distinctively 1970's production elements make is seem a bit over the top by today's standards. It might be tempting to joke a little bit about the subject matter and tis treatment in Born Innocent. As such, it's also meaningful to retrospectively interpret the picture by the spirit of the times in which it was released. Born Innocent made a momentous dramatic impression on it's audience and generated years of discussion, outcry, and controversy.Most movies about girls' reform school are pretty deplorable, amounting to little more than an excuse for nudity and sex bordering on soft porn as a substitute for realism or meaningful storylines. Born Innocent is the exception, It approaches the serious filmmaking of several solid films about boys' reformatories, such as Bad Boys (1983) and Scum (1979).Addendum:Four days after the the September 10, 1974 NBC broadcast of Born Innocent nine year old Olivia Niemi and her female minor companion were raped with a Coca-Cola bottle by other minors on a San Francisco beach. The assailants later stated that they had watched and discussed the film, which inspired them to make the attack. Through her guardian ad litem, Olivia sued NBC. Her attorneys argued that NBC was aware from studies that suggestible personalities might imitate the crime depicted in the film. They further argued that Born Innocent was particularly likely to have such an effect, and that the network aired it without a sufficient warning in the interest of obtaining the highest possible ratings. Under article 1, section 7 of California's state constitution, the plaintiff demanded to present the issues factual issues to a jury trial, but this was denied by the judge, who instead, viewed Born Innocent in it's entirety and concluded that the movie did not didn't promote violent or depraved actions. He rendered a judgment in favor of NBC. This judgment was overturned on appeal. The state appeals court reversed the ruling and remanded the case for a jury trial. The jury in the subsequent trial decided in favor of NBC. Olivia appealed to the California Court of Appeals which upheld the lower court's decision and observed that finding NBC liable would have a chilling effect on broadcast freedom of expression, and that television networks would become inhibited in the selection of controversial materials. Citing the 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the appeals court concluded that the deterrent effect of subjecting the television networks to negligence liability because of their programming choices would lead to self-censorship which would "dampen the vigor and limit the variety of public debate." Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Company, 126 Cal. App.3d 488 178 Cal. Rptr. 888 (1981)Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Company, 74 Cal.App.3d 383, 389 141 Cal. Rptr. 511 (1977

Aditya M (br) wrote: Star Wars fans might find something to like in this, but I didn't enjoy it. The characters were mostly irritating, and the humour quite uninspired. It does pick up a little bit towards the end, when we see a slew of cameos. I know this film has been muddled with a lot by the producers, so I don't know what the original cut would have been like - but this one's a Menace.

Nim T (it) wrote: Excellent film. Dustin Hoffman's acting of Raymond really leads to a different taste of his acting.

Arum Padma O (de) wrote: Some parts are nice but it's overally cliche

Darine S (de) wrote: Loved it .. not the end though !!