http://www.rarefilmfinder.com/showfilm.php?id=30750
HD Trailer:
It´s strange, but in this case is the trailer maybe better than whole movie, because it shows
almost everything interesting, has subtitles and it´s in Full HD
Verified dvd rip:
Spoiler: |
Spoiler: |
She is 18 now. But in the time of filming she was 16ptguardian wrote:Thank you for the request but she is 18 and our cut off for posting a REL is 16 years of age. This could go in verified off topic. It does look interesting.
I am downloading now and will post screen shots later. Perhaps it may be moved to REL? We will see.jezevex wrote: She is 18 now. But in the time of filming she was 16and this should be decisive. And the role is even younger (15 y.o.)
Only if the actor and role are related to children. It is like saying Traci Lords movies belong here. Technically she was 16 during some of her films but nobody knew this and everybody saw her as an adult because she looked like, acted like and for all practical purposes was an adult.jezevex wrote:she was 16and this should be decisive
You are entitled to your opinion especially since you contribute considerably more than most. Your rational sucks considering this is a childhood oriented site and your lack of respect on this issue only encourages others to post likewise. As I have said before I like most of your posts but think it would be wise not to mix adult sexual oriented films with kid movies. Just my opinion....starfish21 wrote:i love your choice of example,Ptg, 'Traci lords'![]()
i grabbed this movie last week,i was intending to check it out,although the amount of nudity kinda hinted that it wouldn't really belong here.the under16 age limit should obviously not be an absolute.it's only a guideline.i never look for the age of actresses before deciding whether a movie should be posted here.if she looks young,thats good enough for me.i can't be arsed with rulebook waving.