Two youngsters declare to their parents that they want to get married. Not sometime in the future but as soon as possible. The story is told from the children's point of view. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Two youngsters declare to their parents that they want to get married. Not sometime in the future but as soon as possible. The story is told from the children's point of view.
You may also like
S.W.A.L.K. torrent reviews
Tom D (it) wrote: This is a bad sequel to a terrible movie. The script is not surprisingly full of cliques and ridiculousness. The actors try their best but the material they have to work with is very weak.
Al P (jp) wrote: Who's that guy in Scarface????
Shawn S (br) wrote: I spent most of the first half of this movie trying to figure out what the fuck was going on. After I figured it out, it still didn't make sense.
John B (br) wrote: Not quite as irresistible as the title suggests. Sam Neill is sugar sweet whilst Sarandon and Blunt turn in performances that confirm their talent. The plot is all too predictable until the final twist.
Khaled M (us) wrote: Nine years after their first meeting Vienna and this time it's in Paris. Linklater and his talented actors allow you to indulge in their conversations like friend sitting with them at the same table or strolling along the streets of Paris,. A movie with zero visual effects but can capture all of your senses just with the cast brilliant performance.
Enrica C (ca) wrote: Nice comedy. Julianne Moore and Pierce Brosnan do have chemistry but that's not enough to make "Laws of Attraction" a good movie: the plot is very dumb, predictable and meaningless at some point. You'll understand where this is all going after a few minutes, and if you're a fan of strong female characters you'll probably get terribly mad at Audrey... But the soundtrack is good, and some of the locations are just delightful. I got relaxed. And that's good enough for me. Or at least it was yesterday night.
Matt R (mx) wrote: This is a dumb movie, but enough of its absurd moments are so hilariously bad that it attains a fun B-movie status.
Brett H (fr) wrote: Robin Hood: Men in Tights is an obvious spoof of the classic, Robin Hood story and largely sets its satirical sights on Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves which came out a couple years prior, but the film's lackluster execution and lame jokes let me down in a big way. I'm a fan of Mel Brooks' style of comedy, but the writing for this movie just wasn't there and many of the jokes feel like they were aimed at 10 year-olds as I was cringing more than laughing. The story is exactly what you'd expect, apart from the stealing from the rich part, as this, Robin is more just a nuisance to the king and the sheriff of "Rottingham", but uses his charisma and skills with a bow and arrow to get out of situations him and his merry men, have gotten themselves into. The cast is fairly solid and Cary Elwes is clearly having a great time, beaming constantly, but he can't rise above the childish script and the film really only provided a couple chuckles for me, mostly at the random-as-hell song and dance moments. Funny-man, Dave Chappelle appears and surprisingly says/does absolutely nothing funny and his character honestly didn't need to be there! Basically, if you're a Mel Brooks completionist, it's passable for a one-time watch, but as a stand-alone comedy it is seriously lacking.
Gregory M (us) wrote: Another really great adventure story that no one has ever heard of. Two explorers going off into Africa looking for the source of the Nile and nearly going insane makes for a great story! <3
The Critic (br) wrote: Sidney Poiter's directorial debut sees himself as one-half of an odd couple fighting against white supremacists who want to return Negroes back to the fields as slaves. Poitier is, as always, a solid and commanding screen presence as Buck and is complimented by Harry Belafonte who, as an unconventional preacher, is the only complex character here. The rest of the cast are relegated to two-dimensional roles, thus the film fails to compel when not relying on the otherwise excellent action sequences or sparring between the two leads.
Tim S (au) wrote: While I still feel that The Lady Vanishes is my favorite Alfred Hitchcock films, I don't discredit something like The Man Who Knew Too Much. I haven't seen the American remake that Hitchcock did many years later with James Stewart and Doris Day, but this is a wonderful film, and what seems to be the real beginning of how he makes films. The film is also notable as being one of the first English-language films starring Peter Lorre, who spoke no English but learned his lines phonetically. The film may not be perfect. It may not be well-drawn out or have characters that we care about as much as we'd like, but it's still a great blueprint for what's to come with Hitchcock's career, specifically The 39 Steps, the remake and North by Northwest.
IOnell S (us) wrote: Simple, bien contada, bien actuada. Una historia lamentable que cada vez se repite ms.