The Lovers

The Lovers

A shallow, provincial wife finds her relationship with her preoccupied husband strained by romantic notions of love, leading her further towards Paris and the country wilderness.

Bored with her husband, bored with her polo-playing lover, will the middle-aged heroine go away with the young man who gave her a lift that day when her car broke down on the way back to ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


You may also like

The Lovers torrent reviews

Mark J (kr) wrote: Joshy is real... and real, real funny! While Joshy isn't perfect, it succeeds in spades at being not only real but also in being laugh out loud funny. The low-budget vibe lulls the veiwer into low expectations, only to overachieve and deliver some of the best, real and comedic performances of any movie in recent memory. The cast from the most insignificant star-studded cameos (Aubrey Plaza, Paul Weitz, to name only of few of the many) to the top billed, and lesser known main players, acting was all universally excellent. Comedy Central stars Nick Kroll and Brett Gelman strike notes of both comedic and dramatic genius on the razor's edge of lunacy and believability. There's a scene where an in-your-face pep talk, a bebe gun, and a drunken imitation of the famous sportscaster Harry Caray come together for three solid minutes of comedic gold. I don't want to give away what happens, but it was a rarified marriage of writing, directing and acting that made "Joshy" feel special in the moment. It's fair to sum up "Joshy" as a combination of Duplass brothers mumblecore meets Wes Anderson eccentricity. When your movie is a trainwreck of Duplass Bros meets Wes Anderson, how can you go wrong?

Howard F (nl) wrote: Dragged a little for me. But wonderful character sketches. And acting was superb.

Anthony V (ca) wrote: This movie gave me cancer

Nathan W (es) wrote: A movie which is creationist bullshit, and indoctrination. Not only is it done on false pretentious with many of the scientist that were interviewed. It was also deceivingly edited. Not to mention that when interviewe Richard Dawkins wanted to see the movie, he was removed from the theater.In the end its a bad movie, not only because it is filled with false information. It was made by fraudulent pretenses to the people that were interviewed and then maliciously edited.

Michael O (fr) wrote: Very unique insight of a derange man living with very normal people, I am very surprised he did not sexually assault some of his victims.

Neil M (us) wrote: There's slow paced and there's stationary. For what should be a 'road trip' the pace is utterly dreary and the story forgettable. Few laughs, no characters to connect to, avoid.

Shajie K (ru) wrote: 2011 - Mom, SHarWatched it because the new one was coming out. Comparing the two it's obvious which one is better for obvious reasons ;P

Claudette A (us) wrote: How scary, what happens to alien abductees & what they go through. There is more to this universe than just our planet & human beings. Interesting story but the film was a little slow.

Charles P (ag) wrote: Richard Pryor plays a blind man, Gene Wilder plays a deaf man: That is the joke, and I didn't see (or hear) anything funny about it.

Clinton V (fr) wrote: Why did they bother making this one? The last episode of the trilogy was really quite bad, and the Bandit just ain't the Bandit without Burt Reynolds. Anyway, there were a few funny parts but mostly nothing new.

Jackson M (br) wrote: A spit in the face of an excellent book by Stephen King. Filmed like a B-movie this is a bad movie.

Alexander C (ca) wrote: I think im going to throw up miss Fanning.............

Jonathan D (au) wrote: For me, as for many small children, the cruelty of schoolmates, bickering between me and my siblings, and feeling misunderstood by adults were all sources of hurt, frustration, and genuine heartache. I remember putting on my Superman cape, my Ninja Turtle bandana, or my Batman mask and retreating to the backyard or, mother forbid, climbing onto the roof of the house to escape into the recesses of my imagination. There, I could be whoever I wanted to be.When real-life bullies exploited my physical weakness and avoidance of violence, there in the grass I was more powerful than a locomotive and faster than a speeding bullet. In my imagination I wouldn't need to fight; bullies respected my strength and backed down. If my loving parents ever showed exasperation at my limitless energy and rightfully attempted to place limits and rules, I'd pretend I could fly away, never to be held down. When older siblings, entering adolescence, balked at my immature playfulness, I dealt with the very real heartache and confusion by pretending I was a hero or a king. Then, I was adored, appreciated, and loved. I became someone who saved the day and earned the respect of those around me.For that reason I, like millions of readers across the decades, identified so readily with Max, the protagonist in Maurice Sendak's classic children's book Where the Wild Things Are. Dressing like an animal to escape his home life, he imagines a land of creatures and monsters that make him their king. A brisk ten sentences in length, the book tapped into something primal in my childhood heart.Spike Jonze's hour and 45 minute film version expands on Sendak's vision without straying from its essence, and like E.T. and The Goonies, addresses real-world stresses that effect children in a straightforward, matter-of-fact manner even as it interweaves them with its fantasy. In fact, the entire film is a wonderful hybrid of the real and the surreal, and rings true to the oft-forgotten emotional experience of childhood.If this all sounds is. This is not a lighthearted kid's movie, and I wouldn't take young children to it. Not because it's inappropriate, because it isn't, but rather because adventure and fantasy are not used here to simply entertain. Rather, they purposefully and honestly dissect the broad spectrum of young feelings: fear, love, embarrassment, joy, loneliness, belonging, fun, rejection, and the sheer exhilaration of physical play. The film's Max learns, through his experiences, to make sense both of his own feelings as well as his mother's experience. He gains a taste of what it means to grow up and to be responsible for the welfare of others, and just how taxing (and rewarding) that can be. Ironically, while Max comes to comprehend adulthood, adult viewers are reminded of what it really means to be a child. While based on a book for young children, the film version seems more appropriate for adults and older kids looking to understand each other while being wowed by impressive fantasy.And it is impressive. The artistry of this film is simply stunning. While many family movies rely too heavily on special effects, Where the Wild Things Are was wisely shot in real forests, with its young actor interacting with real Wild Things (which is to say, real-life actors in large animatronic suits as opposed to computer-generated beasts). While it is true that a giant fort and the Wild Things' faces are CGI, these visual effects are integrated seamlessly, giving the film has an organic quality. Wild Things approximates the blurry line between imagination and reality experienced by kids. The handheld (but not shaky) camerawork adds to the earthy realism, and some of the warm autumn colors captured during moments of sunrise and sunset are gorgeous to behold. The Wild Things themselves are always fun to look at, and the technical wizardry in their design deserves an Academy Award. Young actor Max Records is movingly real; he never seems to be acting and never appears to be coached by a director). He simply conveys what it is to be a nine year-old. The vocal work for the Wild Things is top-notch, and despite the movie's often melancholy tone, there are moments of great humor and genuine wonder. Though Where The Wild Things Are ultimately has a good deal of warmth, heart, and soul, this is a bittersweet tale with profound themes whose sadder moments will likely alienate those just looking for a good time, as will the time it spends on introspection. Younger children, as well as those seeking pure entertainment, may find themselves bored and restless. For those up for the challenge, however, it is a fine family film that doesn't insult one's intelligence.

Adam L (ca) wrote: This movie made my whole family laugh, cry, and most of all, feel Alive Inside ourselves. We don't usually go to see documentaries, but this one is special. Very recommended!

David P (nl) wrote: The finale is good and I do appreciate the homages to earlier Batman movies and the TV show. The real problem is it just too long and drawn out. It spends way too much time telling the back story of Batman. Also, I'm not impressed with Christian Bale's Batman performance. The growly gruff voice just doesn't add any value to the character. Bale is like George Lazenby. Lazenby was in a really good James Bond movie On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Lazenby's performance as Bond was awful. Begins is an ok movie at best, but Bale's performance doesn't do anything to make the movie any better.

Brad S (jp) wrote: This is a fun film from Robert Zemeckis with Bruce Willis, Goldie Hawn and Meryl Streep who seems to be having a blast. Hawn and Streep take a potion that gives them everlasting life, but there's a catch..they must really take care of their bodies. The film is silly, but an easy and enjoyable watch,