Wild Cherry

Wild Cherry

With help from her best friends (Rumer Willis, Kristin Cavallari), a high schooler (Tania Raymonde) turns the tables on a jock (Ryan Merriman) who plans to deflower her.

A virginal high school senior decides to get revenge on her jock boyfriend when she discovers he's only dating her in hopes that she'll end up in his teams' "bang book". . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Wild Cherry torrent reviews

Nicholas M (nl) wrote: a little too awkward at times

Fong K (ca) wrote: Featuring not a young actor, the ensemble cast of geriatric thespians oozes worldly-wise exquisiteness like old wine in this chic arthouse piece, albeit its glacial and long-drawn rumination on the decadence of luxurious high living and one old man's pursuit of one great beauty so as to write again.

Jamie C (ag) wrote: Just like the first it's slow and not allot happens until the last 20 minutes, But there was a few more jumps on the way, Choosing to make it a prequel paid off, But most of the time we find ourselves watching security cameras hoping for something to happen then being let down.

Cameron J (mx) wrote: I would say that Jimmy Page and Jack White will tell you that things will indeed get loud, but The Edge isn't nearly as exciting of a "lead" guitarist, and plus, this film isn't quite as exciting as you might expect. No, this documentary is pretty entertaining on the whole, but really, I find it kind of funny that this film celebrates the skill of Jack White, - some bum who wastes his potential on a bunch of noisy technical experiments, broken up by the occasional decent riff - The Edge - a groundbreaker in the art of tricking people into thinking that you're a good guitarist - and Jimmy Page, one of the great rock guitarists of all time. Don't get me wrong, while Davis Guggenheim is known for making questionable decisions as a documentarian, - such as the idea of making a pro-Obama re-election short film (Well, Dave, sounds like you yourself to learn about an "inconvenient truth" or two) - I get this line-up just fine, as the filmmakers wanted to study upon the diversity of guitar styles and wanted to get three different types of guitarists: an Irishman who isn't good, an American who you can barely tell is mildly good and an Englishman who is good. Besides, it's not like Page had anything better to do, because Robert Plant is off singing with somebody somewhere out there, John Bonham is in the same place that he's been for the past few decades, and, well, no one really cares that much about John Paul Jones. I'm kidding, I'm sure Jones is perfectly proficient, it's just that Led Zeppelin boasted one of the great rock vocalists, one of the great rock guitarists, one of the great rock drummers and, last and decidedly least, some bass player you couldn't hear through all of the loud vocals, guitar work and drums until he hopped onto the mellotron to simulate violins that the band was too lazy to get. Huh, now that I think about it, maybe this film should have gotten Roy Harper so that he and Page can shut up about "jugula" and answer a better question: "Whatever happened to John Paul Jones?" Well, people, sadly, this film neither answers that question nor explains that reference (You're on the internet, so look it up, you bums), but rest assured that it is still a reasonably informative and decent documentary, in spite of its fair share of flaws that go beyond questionable choices for guitarists to compare Jimmy Page to. The documentary is a layered one that meditates thoroughly upon varying aspects that are relevant to the three hosts, even in light ways, so it's a bit difficult to fully describe the focal structure of the film, and it doesn't help that not even the film is able to keep up with itself, taking on studies upon the lives and careers of our hosts, the artistry of rock music, the technicality of guitar, the varying and consistent aspects to the process of learning to be a guitarist, and several other aspects that ultimately appear to be more than this film can chew, as the final product jars back and forth between its worthy, but jumbled up layers. The film is a bit too overblown, or at least ambitious, for its own good, juggling a wealth of aspects that the storytelling can't keep in a fully organic order, thus resulting in focal unevenness, when there is, in fact, focus, that is. As much as this film can't afford to slow down, considering that it only has just under 100 minutes to cover a whole lot more material than you might think, there come points in which storytelling slows down to bloat itself on excess material and aimless filler than leave focus to meander, before devolving into repetition, then finally aimlessness. When the film drags its feet, it gets to be kind of difficult to tell where exactly things are heading, with the aforementioned focal unevenness doing an organic and clear flow in storytelling no favors, so when you step back, the film's biggest issues are of a focus nature, as the final product really isn't as stable as it should be as a layered documentary, and that would be easier to forgive if this film didn't have an atmosphere that goes along with the structural limpness nicely. It's interesting how this film's title directly cautions you that things "might get loud", but when you get down to the final product, when it quiets down a bit, as it often does, while it doesn't ever become completely cold, momentum slows to an atmospherically dry crawl, with only so much liveliness and color to direct your attention away from the fact that, much too often, you're doing not much more than observing pure filler in the midst of storytelling that is focally confused already. The bland spells could be more abundant, but they are present, leaving you to meditate upon the other storytelling issues, of which, there are more than there should be, as there is plenty of potential within this documentary, and a fair bit of its goes achieved, yet in too many places, the documentary loses its grip on things, including your investment, which never slips completely away, yet drifts too much for the final product to stand as truly rewarding. Nevertheless, the film is still so well-done in plenty of ways that it's hard not to appreciate it, maybe not to where it compels all that much, but certainly to where it's easy to enjoy this relatively high-profile rockumentary, partially because the film has the production value to catch your eye in a way certain other documentary's don't. Certainly, Erich Roland's and frequent Guillermo del Toro and Robert Rodriguez collaborator Guillermo Navarro's cinematography is by no means all-out stunning, but it is more handsome than you'd probably expect from a documentary film, having a very handsomely theatrical lighting that colors up realism with cinematic dazzle, while clever framing gives you a tight feel for the environment and immerses you into the rooms occupied by the film's three hosts, who further engage, not necessarily on a visual level (That Jack White fella's decent looking, but oh boy, The Edge and Jimmy Page nowadays are in no way complimentary to the film's visual appeal), but on a musical level. Sure, the intensely noisy and intentionally frantic tastes that Jack White typically celebrates is unappealing, like it is when it goes embraced by plenty other contemporary rockers, while U2's efforts prove to be hit-or-miss, and Led Zeppelin's efforts prove to be, well, come on, by Led Zeppelin... and, by extension, also kind of hit-or-miss (Yeah, they're one of the greatest bands ever, but they still got carried away sometimes), so this film's musical aspects aren't consistently gripping, but more often than not, whether this film is touching upon the classics that inspired our hosts, or showcasing highlights by the hosts themselves, the documentary offers a generally entertaining soundtrack that effectively breaks up the slow spells with compliments to entertainment value. Visually and musically, the film has enough appeal to color things up and keep you from drifting too far out of the final product, but all the good cinematography and music are is polish, and seeing through that polish is no trouble if you're trying to obscure substance shortcomings, thus this film tries to keep substance alive, as well it should, considering its subject matter. Like I said, this documentary is very layered in its focus, so much so that it has trouble juggling all of its layers and gets to be kind of uneven, but it's easy to understand why this film is so eager to bite off more than it can chew, as there is a lot to the tales of our three hosting guitarists, and the film tackles about as much as it can, whether it be anything from the technical aspects of instruments to rock roots, or anything from our hosts' individual styles to the hosts' life stories, thus making for an albeit overambitious, but uniquely structured documentary that offers a wealth of potential. On paper, the film has a lot to say, and when it comes to the delivery of such material, director Davis Guggenheim, or at least on the whole, because, like I said, pacing and focus gets to be an issue in storytelling, yet not to where it becomes difficult to see what is done right in Guggenheim's direction, whose plays with Greg Finton's editing and other compliments to the documentary's structure stylishly immerses you into the film that is, of course, most carried by its hosts. Yeah, I joke about how Jimmy Page is a guitar god among a potential squanderer and some Irishman who didn't really have all that much potential to begin with, but Page, Jack White and David "The Edge" Evans all have a certain distinguished artistic integrity that gives you an understanding of their depths as both musicians and people, thus creating a kind of charming intimacy with the hosts that is sometimes colored up when chemistry falls between the hosts during their interactions, and often gives you an appreciation for the hosts as the tellers of a layered tale who earn your investment time and again, no matter how much it goes shaken by hiccups in other forms of storytelling. Like I said, what is strong about the documentary is strong enough for the final product to border on generally rewarding, and while such overall goodness goes diluted by shortcomings, the film keeps you going more often than not as a generally entertaining and interesting, if flawed rockumentary. When it's time to unplug the amp, an overambitious documentary's sloppy juggling of a wealth of material layers results in focal unevenness, while moments of repetitious dragging, sometimes exacerbated by atmospheric dull spots, result in an aimlessness that further thins out the final product's kick, leaving underwhelmingness to ensue, but still go challenged enough by handsome cinematography, lively music and intriguing subject matter - often brought to life by stylishly immersive areas in Davis Guggenheim's direction, and consistently carried about as much as it can be by its trio of charismatic and reasonably respectably distinguished hosts - for "It Might Get Loud" to stand a messy, but generally enjoyable study on the electric guitar and its place in rock. 2.75/5 - Decent

Marco F (ag) wrote: PATCH ADAMS is disgusting, treacly garbage. I hated it from beginning to end. It is a manipulative, sickeningly awful movie- it's basically cheap, simple bullshit that inadvertedly trashes and mocks the very concept of new ways of developing medicine of any kind. I know it has good intentions, but the naive idiots who made this movie simply do not understand that this kind of this story combined with the sanctimonious character Robin Williams plays simply does not work. What a waste of Robin Williams' brilliant skill. The movie is so shameless, it tries to engineer sympathy with considerable force, through metaphorical liposuction. That's sickening. The fact that it pisses over the entire work of the real Patch Adams and ridicules it to the point of a joke is awful. Shame on the filmmakers- they ought to be ashamed.This movie is stupid, manipulative, tasteless, and utterly disgusting- I strongly urge you to avoid it.

Jay R (au) wrote: I can not see Maurice Dean Wint as anyone but the guy in Hedwig...lol

Ed A (kr) wrote: Such a slow film but visually stunning... A real passively impactful film that hones in on raw human emotions...

Mark S (mx) wrote: Recommended by Scott W.

Allan C (us) wrote: Smart corporate drama along the lines of "Executive Suite." Suite came out two years earlier, but this tale from screenwriter Rod Serling is far more cutting and acerbic. Van Heflin plays an new idealistic executive moving up from the trenches who's being groomed by corporate head Everett Sloane to replace Ed Begley. It's a film about ethics, greed, and abuse of power. Sloan gives a frighteningly strong performance at the corporate head. The board room scene where Sloan dresses down Begley in front of the other executives is so uncomfortable and so terrifying, it's possibly Sloan's best performance. I've never been a huge fan of Helfin and and actually have always been baffled how he became a star, but he is serviceable as an idealistic man-of-the-people type of executive. Overall, this is terrific drama who's politics about an uncaring bottomline driven corporate America is just as applicable today (if not more so) than it was in 1956.

Jon B (us) wrote: Unrealistic characters, bad acting, awful ending.

Joey F (ca) wrote: Wes Anderson is amazing. This film is amazing. The characters are all so fleshed out and likable, the story is touching, and the visual style is impeccable.