Act of Dishonour

Act of Dishonour

In a land beset by endless strife, nothing must get in the way of the preservation of honour - even if that means sacrificing a loved one. Mena, a young, beautiful bride-to-be, lives in a small, remote village in northern Afghanistan, a harsh landscape that still shimmers with breathtaking colours. Respecting the deeply conservative local customs, she and her fiancé, Rahmat, have little contact yet cherish a special bond.

In a land beset by endless strife, nothing must get in the way of the preservation of honour - even if that means sacrificing a loved one. Mena, a young, beautiful bride-to-be, lives in a ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Act of Dishonour torrent reviews

Jacob F (kr) wrote: The Running man is not a good movie. It's not well known for its complex script and characters, or it's incredible acting and directing. It's famous because of Arnold's sheer likability as an action star. He delivers his lines terribly in this film, showing no signs of emotion. But that's part of the fun, he still does a great job in the action sequences and just has tons of charisma, it almost seems like it's enough to carry the film. Sadly it's not.The film is poorly written, doesn't set up a believable world, or have much world building, and is haphazardly directed. The special effects in the film also look very dated. If you wanna see Arnold kill people, blow stuff up, and spout cheesy one liners (this film does have quite a few) there are far better choices available. Skip this one.

Chase V (it) wrote: This movie is mostly style over substance but also no style. The film is more laughable then scary at points and you wind up not caring, I literally was checking my iPod and almost stopped watching, also one thing that's interesting is how much nudity is in this film. I've never really been so up tight about nudity (wolf on Wall Street is one of my favorites) but it has to have some kind of reason to be there. The movie begins with a very hardcore lesbian in sex scene and in the end it was so the director could film it and also show off some gore(I'll get to that in a second). I would have been so mad if any of the characters were referenced later on in the film but no, these characters were only in the film to show them make out. Now if this film tried to do something with the amount of sex in this film in the vain of something like David croeneburg or Clive barker that would have been fine but in a movie about possessed kids it's kinda uncomfortable especially since this kinda includes the kids. Also that's another thing I said it was about possessed kids but really I'm not even sure it's about that, it instead focusses more on the parents so much that you actually forget they're In the movie and when they begin to do weird stuff it actually is more random than build up. Also do point is that the kids hardly do anything it's the parents that do the killings and other scary stuff so much who begin to wonder what the director was actually thinking. And also the ending is about as sudden as a car crash it just hits and a you don't know what but also you can't help but laugh at what happens in the movie, and just doesn't explain anything and feels more like a scene in the middle of the film the an actually ending. One more thing that I say before I finish up is how grotesque the gore is. Now normally I'd be praising a film about having some awesome gore but in this it's just ridiculous and funny, I kept thinking to myself "man if this was Jason I would be in love with this movie" but instead I'm laughing at how impossible and crazy it is. It's sad cause for awhile I was really wanting to see this but now I am just disappointed in this. It's just a boring, pointless movie with enough nudity to make the most straightest man scream but a shirt on.

AD O (nl) wrote: war and horses. dead cute boys. felt worse for the horses. ugh. what's it all forrrrrrrr.

Cynthia S (au) wrote: This movie was really, really good, in my opinion. I was enthralled for the entire 2 hrs. I was amazed at how it all ended, also. Nice twist. This movie was well done, and well acted. An absolute gem, in my book.

Emily L (br) wrote: i think i may have cn it...but i dont remember! :D

Michelle C (us) wrote: This is so much more than just porn. Sure, there's a sex scene at every turn, but no porno I've seen has been as thought provoking, funny, endearing, sensual, or well-cast as Raspberry Reich. I'm sure the use of continual on-screen titles to emphasize the dialogue of the characters and slogans of "the revolution" divides audiences, but I enjoyed it. It gave the film its own unique style and made it audacious. It also lent a gravity and sincerity to the characters' convictions; without this, I don't think the film would have felt as legitimate. This film is perfect for any exploitation lover.

Alison O (fr) wrote: All tea and seasides, this stellar movie is perfect afternoon/rainy Sunday fodder, the twin forces of Dames Dench and Smith delivering winning turns. A young Polishman with a broken ankle is found on the beach below their cliffside cottage and the two spinster sisters administer some TLC.

Lawrence B (kr) wrote: Hot on the heels of 1999's supernatural smash "The Sixth Sense", Robert Zemeckis' similar combination of ghostly horror and psychological thriller doesn't quite hit the mark. The would-be shocks and twists are predictable, Ford and Pfeiffer feel miscast and the film just doesn't come together as well as it could have done. Zemeckis certainly rams things up in the finale, putting Pfeiffer's long-suffering heroine through an ordeal that would have made Hitchcock's leading ladies consider themselves lucky. Unfortunately, the film's earlier subtlety explodes into an overblown, cartoonish ending, which is an on-screen definition of overkill Entertaining and engaging enough but no "Sixth Sense".

Kyle M (ru) wrote: With pure ham from Jon Voight and a snake that roars and is voiced by Scooby Doo, Anaconda is pure and ridiculous cheese,

MEC r (us) wrote: This movie had potential, but fell through the cracks. To bad.

TheMumblelover (es) wrote: Didn't have enough going for it the acting wasn't good though Rickman was fine. Their is no chemistry between the brother/sister relationship to make it believable. the script wants to tackle a taboo but it fails because no one actually cares, including the viewer.

Jomer B (es) wrote: Masterly portrayed as an inspiring romantic poet, Robin Williams barges in to compel the hearts of dearly men who walk the road more traveled by.

Alan C (ca) wrote: LOL, love this movie!

Timothy S (jp) wrote: I don't know why the aftermath of the Vietnam War resulted in so many landmark films and yet only one filmmaker has been able to properly capture the trauma surrounding those touched by the Iraqi conflict. For the record, that filmmaker is not Irwin Winkler. His film, "Home of the Brave", is a huge disappointment. This is an obvious, heavy-handed drama with some good writing and a couple of strong performances. Samuel L. Jackson is almost always very good even in the worst of films, and this is no exception. There are a few over-the-top moments here that are either embarrassing or unintentionally funny, but Jackson also provides the film's few genuine moments as well. The scenes with his wife and son are touching, but the rest of the cast doesn't fare quite as well. Curtis Jackson is totally forgettable in a stock role that doesn't really give him a lot to do, and Jessica Biel is all wrong for her part. She's been good in other films, but it's hard to take her seriously in this role. She doesn't look like a war veteran, and she doesn't act like one either. When she gets her Vietnam-era prosthetic , I felt sorrier for the actress than her character. I thought technology had come a little farther than that. But the real problem here lies with the script. These characters feel more like excuses for the screenwriter tow ax poetic on the virtues and drawbacks of the war than real people. They're like talking heads extolling obvious talking points and the writers go to great extremes to make them fit into the context of this story. Other than Jackson's handful of good moments, none of these characters have any genuine dramatic impact. Sadly enough, the same can be said for "Home of the Brave". This is a glib and obvious movie.

Mark R (fr) wrote: Probably the most boring film in the marvel cinimatic uninverse so far but still really enjoyable.

Tonya V (kr) wrote: I love this movie! Mel Gibson is always great!

Mark B (es) wrote: I always like to see actors from shows I like do other things. Dr Who is my favorite show since the '80s. I have seen some bad press this, but that is more reason to watch, so I will

Brian G (au) wrote: What is arguably one the most beloved story lines in the Batman mythos, is slaughtered by Bruce Timm's juvenile desire of Batman (Bruce Wayne) and Batgirl (Barbra Gordon) having a sexual relationship. As the scene where both Batman and Batgirl engage in coitus, it is utterly unnecessary and demeaning to both characters but more so Batgirl. The scene really derives from not only the film but the story as it takes you out of it and even cheapens the second half of the film which is the good half. That being said Mark Hamill and Kevin Conroy do an amazing job reprising their role as the Joker and Batman as they carry the film on their own. If you have the opportunity to only watch the last 45 minutes of the film, take it.