Noted Celebrity Photographer, Michael Grecco, sets out to capture the essence of the AVN Awards and Convention where the best in American Pornography is displayed, celebrated and honored. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Naked Ambition: An R Rated Look at an X Rated Industry
Noted Celebrity Photographer, Michael Grecco, sets out to capture the essence of the AVN Awards and Convention where the best in American Pornography is displayed, celebrated and honored.
You may also like
Naked Ambition: An R Rated Look at an X Rated Industry torrent reviews
Amy H (ag) wrote: Asian version of Indian Jones!! It's not bad, but too many characters here and there for no reason!
Thea M (it) wrote: Just don't even pick it off the shelf! I could only watch the 1st 15 mins & we turned it off. Crap dialogue, crap acting .. crap everything. I would recommend this movie to someone you DON'T like.
Mayank F (kr) wrote: no justice to the hype. There's nothing much you can love bout SUNDAY rather than arshad's comic timing and shetty's direction. But childish script makes it a failure.
Colin M (nl) wrote: pretty entertaining, funny, but also maddening.yet more proof that the US government loves to waste it's tax payers money.
Troy F (jp) wrote: What you're going to think of Battle Royale 2 really depends on your expectations. If you're open to a new direction in the story and a different focus, you may find there's a bit to admire here. However, if you're like most people, chances are that while it's not reasonable to expect a sequel that repeats what we already saw in the first, that you expected at least for it to retain the same admirable qualities of the first with bloody, chaotic and satisfying action, spontaneous character developments that add some identification with the students we follow and thus establish our main characters, and a darkly comedic undertone. Well... barely any of that is here, so you'll face some disappointment.Battle Royale 2 at the best regard can be said to take an interesting direction here. While the first film left some things ambiguous, but not necessarily in need of answers, this film takes a go at following a new story while defining the aftermath of events from the first film, and its premise is very well. The Battle Royale crisis has escalated to an ultimate high, sparing war and terrorism as the two surviving characters from the first film now lead a resistance against the adults. On the other note, a new set of high school students are ployed into the same trap that began the first film (knocked out on the bus, wake up at a base surrounded with soldiers). It's awfully similar to the first, a teacher who's an absolute dick and has an obsession with tic-tacs (WTF?) and the hesitant students who suffer a bloody demise. What sets the film into a real interesting direction is that instead of having the students kill each other, they must kill the resistance leader Nanahara using guns and artillery, and each person works in pairs: if one dies, the other dies too, which becomes ultimately chaotic on the battlefield. The film certainly retains the bloody nature of the first film, but the problem is that its not as satisfying here. That's because this film takes itself ultimately seriously, the violence is mindless, and its less chaotic when the students are faced with taking down another force as opposed to each other. Secondly, we're never sure who's the main character or whose film it is. It's less character driven, not to say the first really was considering its minimal backstories and such, but we at least got to know some of these characters and know who to identify. Here, it's almost non-existant, so why care about anyone other than the two main survivors from the first film? Thirdly, the film's decision to be more dramatic and political isn't a bad thing, but it does slow the film down and makes it ultimately less entertaining. This is what I meant about the film taking itself more seriously. It's boring, and gets lost in war and action.I feel bad for picking on this film because I compare it so heavily to its predecessor, but it can't be helped. I respect what the story did, the ending isn't so bad, and I like the film to some extent. But this film is just so much drier compared to the first that is just pales greatly. You watch the first film, you feel satisfied, entertained, then go to this one and it's a bit of a sleeper. In the end, you feel like it was an interesting sequel that offered a bit, but at the same time offered very little to warrant its existence. I could probably watch this again, but for the most part, I'll continue to view the fist film many more times and accept that it ended off fine as it was.
Lee C (de) wrote: Once again a great British cast shows what Hollywood will always be missing, personality that comes across with a realism, humility and is utterly genuine.
Michael H (gb) wrote: Strange Movie- 1993 never recall hearing bout this oneJohnny depp, Jerry Lewis, anywho different
Indu R (es) wrote: This movie was alright, not as good as the original. Still funny and entertaining.
Ben B (br) wrote: Very funny moments and Brooks has an interesting chest and back hair pattern.
Tor M (es) wrote: Sweet film about New York. Much talking, mostly we hear Woody's voice.Shot in black and white, but not sure if fittingly so. It does not ruin much, but it don't bring much either. It's a bit outdated, but it still got loads of charm and a pretty straight forward story. Personal dilemmas and choices are in focus, and it's the driven factor of the film.Not especially funny, but witty at times - mostly by sayings and phrases. Some memorable lines here too. It's pretty shifting or wingly, in a good way - since it's not that entertaining. Small curves with up's and downs is truly fitting. Mariel Hemingway's biggest film, she's great here. Allen is like he always is and this feels like a personal film indeed. Probably on my top five woody Allen list, but not one of his best for me.7 out of 10 harmonicas.
Louis K (it) wrote: One of the better Elvis movies; music is great; plot very good.
David G (ru) wrote: The only reason to watch this film is to get a snapshot of what London was like in 1974. It's a real shame that Brannigan is so bad. There are a host of great actors in this movie but it simply doesn't work.