Overseas and Under Your Skin

Overseas and Under Your Skin

Ida is a woman who was adopted to Finland from Africa as a child. Ida is an unemployed seamstress approaching her thirties and still lives at home with her activist mother Kati. Kati wants ...

Ida is a woman who was adopted to Finland from Africa as a child. Ida is an unemployed seamstress approaching her thirties and still lives at home with her activist mother Kati. Kati wants ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Overseas and Under Your Skin torrent reviews

Brandon C (au) wrote: This Scooby-Doo was hilarious. The constant dodging of the romance by both Fred and Daphne in this one made for a very hilarious running gag. The villains were also hilarious in this one since they were either extremely incompotent or were just flat out hilarious or both. And the songs in this Scooby-Doo are extremely catchy and will be stuck in your head forever.

Wai S (nl) wrote: bringing back childhood nostalgia

Marischa B (ru) wrote: About Cherry pulls every punches to make sure you can see Cherry's sweet side. Reality is there, you can see it clear as day, but the story is all about her innocent nature. The bad things are presented, but not dwelled upon. You get to know her and by the end you just wish to get to know her more, that's how sweet she is.The camera moves are well chosen, the point of views and focus done just right. The scoring is just as sweet as the main actress and all the characters are well played. The scenario is a great balance in time and subjects, presenting you a lot of tidbits, in a concise manner that you can easily ingest.It's almost perfect. The only reproach I can make is that it is so sweet, it has no punch. I must admit, I didn't care that it didn't. I will watch it again many times, that is a guaranty.Easily listening. I highly recommend it to the naughty one waiting for a candy inside of you.

Username V (br) wrote: Una pelcula que contena un gran potencial para ser una buena comedia familiar, pero arruinada con un humor insufrible algunas veces, referencias a la cultura de MTV que no pegan con la temtica y que la hacen bastante olvidable, una lista de clichs tan larga como la misma biblia, y un final atroz.Eso s, este es el mejor drcula que he visto en mucho tiempo, y Tartakovsky le dio una direccin grandiosa y la animacin es buena, pero un guion de mierda no lo arregla nadie.

Dann M (ru) wrote: From writer/director David Mamet comes the political thriller Spartan. When the daughter of an American politician is kidnapped the secret service calls in black ops specialist Robert Scott to find her. Starring Val Kilmer, William H. Macy, Ed O'Neill, and Kristen Bell, the film has an impressive cast. And, Mamet does an excellent job at creating tension and suspense. However, there's a certain ambiguity to the plot that muddies things up a bit. While it has some weaknesses, Spartan is still a smart thriller that's full of excitement and intrigue.

Aaron C (mx) wrote: The Blair Witch version of JFK. It's a little crazy, but not entirely effective because the concept goes from convincing to implausible.

Ryo S (jp) wrote: Call me hopeless romantic, but for me this is one of the sweetest romantic comedy of all. Warm, funny and full of heart. Sandra Bullock is awesome in this film..same with Bill Pullman full of charms. I don't know why, 90's romantic comedy films are so much better than nowadays.

Andrew N (es) wrote: Could be Stanley Tucci's worst movie ever.

Andrew M (nl) wrote: Sleepless in Seattle is interesting in that it's a romance, and yet the two main characters are very rarely seen onscreen at the same time. The fact that these two characters are separated by thousands of miles sort of splits the film into two sections: a tale of grief and father-son drama after the death of a wife and a mother, and a story of a young woman who is stuck between a relationship with a fianc and being in love with a man she's never met. In terms of performances, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan are both solid in portraying these characters, with the former in particular truly standing out with a balance of charm and emotional moments that he so consistently delivers.Unfortunately, everything else in the film falls apart, and struggles to live up to its unique premise. Nora Ephron mostly fails to deliver the same kind of organic character development that made her past outing, screenwriting work on Rob Reiner's classic When Harry Met Sally, work so well. Ephron seems to think she's delivering some sort of tongue-in-cheek look at the tropes of romantic comedies, especially when it comes to Meg Ryan's half of the story, and yet she delivers every single trope in the book and follows every beat you expect. The promise the film sets up in the first act is utterly wasted as it slowly devolves into a third act full of moments that are too idealistic for their own good: idealism in romance can work when handled correctly, but this film sacrifices logical character motivations in favor of it, and it hurts the film more than it helps it.If you're going to watch any 90s rom-com, stick with When Harry Met Sally. Aside from two memorable performances from Hanks and Ryan, it doesn't flow as well and lacks the same kind of impact of Ephron's past work.

samantha m (fr) wrote: a back in the day movie

Alex G (fr) wrote: One of those sequels that is just as good as the original and completely different. While it follows the same ideas, the perspective switch and the surprises and build ups are different. If you are wondering where the TRINITY KILLER ideas came from, here it is.

Nate G (jp) wrote: Although, not a bad movie, Slaughterhouse Five does not live up to the greatness of the book, by any means. I know that is the cliche thing to say, but thats the truth of the matter. The movie has a lot of things to enjoy, such as the intriguing idea of the story, and the uniqueness of the protagonist. The best part of the movie is the way it did a good job of portraying the anti-war aspect of the novel. I think the area that this movie missed, was the lack of narration. The narration of the book is what made it so great, and this movie almost entirely lacked that aspect. Without it, I'm not sure the film could be totally comprehensible to a viewer who hasn't read the book. All in all though, the acting was decent and it wasn't a bad compliment to the book. It just doesn't seem to have a lot of power to stand alone.

Carlos O (au) wrote: ESTA PELICULA QUE QUIZAS PARA ALGUNOS PUEDE PARECER UNA PELICULA MUY MALA, PARA MI TIENE COMO UN VALOR SENTIMENTAL, LA VI HACE MUCHOS ANOS EN UNA EPOCA QUE ATESORO MUCHO Y ME TRAE MUY BUENOS RECUERDOS. APARTE QUE NO SE PUEDE NEGAR SU INFLUENCIA, FUE LA PRIMERA VEZ EN LA HISTORIA EN QUE NOS PRESENTAN UNOS ZOMBIES QUE NO SON MUERTOS, SI NO PERSONAS INFECTADAS CON UNA BACTERIA, LO MISMO QUE RECIENTEMENTE HAN RETOMADO PELICULAS COMO 28 DAYS LATER Y REC. SE LAS RECOMIENDO, NO ES EXACTAMENTE UNA BUENA PELICULA, PERO PASARAN UN BUEN RATO.

Magnus S (mx) wrote: Solid performances but too slow.

Miroslav G (us) wrote: Dull, tedious, overlong, and just a mediocre war epic overall. And to think that it beat Martin Scorsese's Goodfellas for the best picture Oscar back in 1990, by first time director Kevin Costner, no less (talk about adding insult to injury). On top of that, the film's story has been done much better in other films, most notably in The Last Samurai.

Buddy J (us) wrote: This movie catches you by surprise like it did to me considering I read all the books. Both stars were perfect in every way.