Country-Western Wildcats! Marsha Jordan - the first real star of Sexploitation - is Sweet Georgia, the sex-crazed nympho wife of rancher Big T. Unfortunately, because Big T is an ugly, abusive drunk, Georgia looks for her lovin' elsewhere - starting with Cal, the stud ranchhand, then moving on to Virginia, Big T's daughter, who spends her days riding her horsey in the nude. Of course, since Georgia's only Virgina's stepmom, the two think a little down-home girl-girl action is perfectly fine, especially around a romantic campfire. But when Georgia makes it with dumb ol' Leroy, everything gets violent. Yup, just when you think you've got this film figured out, an accidental death somehow escalates into one grisly murder after another.
Country-Western Wildcats! Marsha Jordan - the first real star of Sexploitation - is Sweet Georgia, the sex-crazed nympho wife of rancher Big T. Unfortunately, because Big T is an ugly, abusive drunk, Georgia looks for her lovin' elsewhere - starting with Cal, the stud ranchhand, then moving on to Virginia, Big T's daughter, who spends her days riding her horsey in the nude. Of course, since Georgia's only Virgina's stepmom, the two think a little down-home girl-girl action is perfectly fine, especially around a romantic campfire. But when Georgia makes it with dumb ol' Leroy, everything gets violent. Yup, just when you think you've got this film figured out, an accidental death somehow escalates into one grisly murder after another. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Sweet Georgia torrent reviews
(fr) wrote: Only Ricky Gervais can be so intentionally awkward, all the time. Cringeworthy, hilarious at times and ridiculous throughout. Must watch for fans of The Office.
(ag) wrote: Victoria Justice and Jane Levy are something to look at, but the film itself is Un-fun Sized.
(jp) wrote: need to finish watching
(it) wrote: Not sure what people are talking about. The movie is pretty good, but not amazing. The acting was great. Pacing was satisfactory. The story was pretty good. It was a solid B movie.
(es) wrote: I honestly can't say I liked this movie. Really, I thought it shood be very good, but no. The story is very clever, but the movie used it in a terrible way, this movie has probably just two good actors, Gimatti and Watson and at least for me, only of them is really good, wich is Paul Giamatti. This movie shood also not be considered as a comedy, because I don't think I laughed during this movie. This movie is about Paul Gimatti (that's righ, he plays himself), who just hates his life and he is tottally miserable, reeds an articule about Soul Extraction. He goes to the place and sees that lots of people have done that and Dr. Flinstein says that it will make him feel better. Paul let them removing his soul. Paul, after a while, actually feels a bit better, but then, he finds out that having a soul was actually better, he comes back to that place and wanted his soul back, but... he soul was stollen. Sow, Paul Giamatti had a pretty good act and, as I like to say, was the "thing" that made this movie disirve a three star rate. Really don't know if I recommend this movie or not.
(mx) wrote: It's a bit cliched but it's funny
(gb) wrote: Even though, Alex O'lachlan is sooo sexy, I really couldn't get into this movie. It was alright. There were some funny parts in it, but I just thought it was too slow.
(ca) wrote: Disturbing true-life tale of madness that resulted in the brutal murder of a woman and her daughter by their maids, two sisters. Sylvie Testud plays Christine, the elder sister who harbors an unnatural attraction for the less intelligent, younger Lea (Julie-Marie Parmentier) that develops into obsession. The film develops slowly, at times revealing the anger that lies just below the surface in Christine, and at other times showing how the two girls feed each other's fantasies about how their lives would be under other circumstances. Add in a mother (Isabelle Renaud) who seems to care little about her daughters other than how they can make her life easier. The acting is credible, the script plausible and the action keeps one engrossed, especially that of the two sisters interaction when they are alone in their room. The violence at the end is graphic and brutal, but mercifully off camera for the most part. We see the blows and hear them connect, but the actual impact is just out of the frame. There can be no doubt that Christine has taken leave of her senses by the end of the film, and one feels pity for her for that reason. This is a well-done film, just not a whole lot of fun to watch.
(jp) wrote: I loved this movie when I was a kid. The music was great along with the storyline. GREAT movie overall. I still watch it now as an adult.
(br) wrote: Just was not into this at all.
(es) wrote: stupid and way overlong...yet i felt the need to revisit. 25+ yrs later and it's just as bad.
(ru) wrote: At first i thought this was a good movie, but it turned out to be very disappointing.
(nl) wrote: It's wonderful to finally see Lang's first Dr. Mabuse film in it's original 4 1/2 hour cut. It's certainly a huge investment of time, but I found this to be an extremely rewarding experience. The film isn't as visually extravagant as "Metropolis", but there's some magnificent imagery here and a wonderful aura of corruption and Weimar sleaze. There's a tendency to associate silent films with broad, out-sized flamboyant acting, but I was struck by how reserved the performances really are here and by some of the incredible economy in the narrative (odd to say for a film that takes half a day to watch, but it's quite episodic and is more like a serial than a feature film). The only downside is that the copy airing on Netflix has some pretty extreme problems with interlacing that detracted a bit from the experience.
(br) wrote: The Warner Bros. Animated Batman movies rarely fail to disappoint and Batman: Assault on Arkham is no different. Essentially being an animated Suicide Squad movie, Assault on Arkham packs a lot of characters into a complex storyline to result in one of the series' more violent, sexualized, and superior entries.
(us) wrote: A Sweeping But Slow-Paced Epic!Originally written January 17, 2012--Albert (Jeremy Irvine) and his beloved horse, Joey, live on a farm in the British countryside. At the outbreak of World War I, Albert and Joey are forcibly parted when Albert's father sells the horse to the British cavalry. Against the backdrop of the Great War, Joey begins an odyssey full of danger, joy and sorrow, and he transforms everyone he meets along the way. Meanwhile Albert, unable to forget his equine friend, searches the battlefields of France to find Joey and bring him home.The latest from Steven Spielberg is good, but not great, in my opinion. I'm sure he will be nominated for a Best Director Academy Award and the film itself will be nominated for Best Picture, but I found it extremely slow-paced. Still, the cinematography was beautiful and John Williams, as ever, delivered a fantastic score. I'll give it four out of five stars.