A story about how joy and happiness can be the most powerful weapon ever. A young unicorn is ordered to be taken from his home by the gods. They are envious of little Unico's power to bring...

Unico the magical Unicorn is born with incredible powers that make people happy. But that angers some very jealous gods. They order the West Wind to cast the tiny Unicorn into exile and ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Unico torrent reviews

Frisby 2 (ca) wrote: I no longer fear hell (if it existed) thanks to this "movie".

Jrmie L (mx) wrote: Quelques bonnes blagues mais le film a une histoire extrment mince. Le film se construits autour de ces blagues qui aprs moins d'une heure commence a tre ennuyeuse. Mme si le film ne dure que 1h30 on trouve quand mme le temps de s'ennuyer

Rob L (kr) wrote: Such an interesting mad max twist. With good acting and a very smart idea. It is not common for sci fi, action movies to put this much thought into it. It is brutal, dark, and the best kind of "R" rating. Without pushing too many limits and not adding anything because just because. Possibly the best movie of 2010.

jeroen v (ag) wrote: Theatre is not film, and film is not theatre, Abbas!

Joo C (de) wrote: Sienna Miller's portrayal of Edie is so compelling that you instantly feel compassion and attraction for her character, her charisma makes you love her, she did a great job. However, despite her acting, the movie seems to be in a rush to get somewhere, sometimes the moments go by too fast and details are forgotten. Overall, it's an interesting movie that would benefit from a calmer direction and a longer length, to give time for people to absorb the details.

Amanda W (ca) wrote: absolutely adore this movie!!! stupid idiotic and just damn funny , best ever !!!

Private U (ag) wrote: I think part of this was filmed in Government House.

Anand K (jp) wrote: One of those movies where it turns out this guy is in on it and this guy and this guy etc making everything they did in the movie before that point make absolutely no sense.

Mark V (ru) wrote: Almost a perfect film. John Candy was one of those guys from the 80s movies that could make any comedy entertaining just being himself. My only fault with this movie is "I hated Bug!!! Why would John Hughes cast "the boy who could fly" in his movie. Lol. Something about that dude was generic and off putting. His face alone was enough to make me depressed.

Edgar C (kr) wrote: From IMDB's Trivia Section:"After screening this film, Nico Jacobellis, manager of the Heights Art Theater in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, was charged with and convicted of possessing and exhibiting an obscene film. He appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court, which overturned the convictions, ruling that the film was not obscene. In a concurring opinion, Justice Potter Stewart made his famous pronouncement concerning what was pornography: "I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurring)."When I saw Godard's A Married Woman (1964), I thought it was the first film to portray the intimacy of an affair from such a passionate and human point of view, like a humble love letter to the irrationalities of the soul and the pleasures of the flesh.Naturally, I was wrong.The controversy that Les Amants achieved in such a conservative decade like the 50s (that is not a criticism) was just a secondary consequence. I always find it interesting to talk about the perceptions of on-screen sexuality considering the decade as a dependent variable, taking the films as independent variables, because they are simply done in the way they are, assuming complete independence from the censors (I take this assumption because of the intentions of the scandalous and equally revolutionary New Wave movements all around the world, especially France, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Japan). Our perception of what constitutes pornography or obscenity is entirely dependent on our moral formation, which is dictated by society since your birth. Our life and human interactions are an endlessly, nonstop, complex amalgamation of teachings, stimula, free will, impositions and own judgment. What is taken today as maybe daring or bold, even tame, was considered obscene 50 years ago: that's what I find fascinating. That's the topic that opens a debate that I would like to call: "Society's permissive nature is causing its own destruction VS. Society is progressively more open-minded to alternate means of expression". Maybe we're in the middle but always want to take one extreme side: "I am either black or white". So, between the two things that I mentioned in the VS. showdown, which one would better explain our increasing tolerance to the portrayal of violence, sex and profanity in mainstream releases?So what constitutes obscenity or pornography? Is it the graphic content or is it the entire connotation? Was it made to arouse or is there a full story behind that is not seeking opportunities to portray sex at every corner? Or is it both? That takes me to the flawless, thought-provoking, extraordinary, iconoclast erotic masterpiece In the Realm of the Senses (1976). I remember this guy saying: "Stop with this pornography vs. art debate! It is obviously both!" I loved how this person was convinced of his own perception being the truth and nothing but the truth, as if taking a middle stance was so easy. Of course, I entirely disagreed. The graphic content was there, but the film's aims were entirely different: to explore the human condition through a true-story examination of physical extremes attached to a human man-woman relationship with a meaningful political background to subliminally suggest the impositions of human behavior. shima was a genius.Cinema is an art form, and therefore, all of its stories are too regardless of how they are portrayed, from heartfelt dramas to exploitation of any kind. Malle is no provocateur - which still would make him an artist in the full definition of the word. However, he believes in the power of imagery. A correctly placed image can communicate too much. If you employ the basic aspects of storytelling as effective companions, then you have a winner. Cinematography here couldnt be better: in fact, it is one of the best in the history of cinema, I dare to say. The camera is a master of the characters' fate, including their future uncertainty. That's precisely the film's most brilliant twist: Jeanne is a woman who ends up with no regrets, but yet with a disturbing self-discovery of her persona, completely afraid about the future, but eager to know what the future has prepared for both, even if it is disaster.Les Amants is as honest as the straightforwardness of the title. There is no hidden message or implied allegory. It is a story about lovers, about how everything began, and the frustrating events preceding such a steamy, torrid affair. I was in love with the imagery even if I never sympathized with what I was seeing from a moral point of view. I believe in faithfulness being a component of true love, and I believe in the internal and external stability that faithfulness brings along. God bless the life of Jeanne Moreau, an extraordinary actress who had the guts to do what nobody would have done in commercial cinema.96/100