Anne of the Thousand Days

Anne of the Thousand Days

Henry VIII of England discards one wife, Katharine of Aragon, who has failed to produce a male heir, in favor of the young and beautiful Anne Boleyn.

The film is based on one of the most famous tragic and love affairs in the past. It is about the love story between King Henry VIII of England and his second wife Anne Boleyn who is unable to produce a male heir which leads to a disastrous consequence. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechersSize
Download   Anne.of.the.Thousand.Days.1969.1080p.BluRay.x264-PSYCHD1080p11710612.03 GB
Download   Anne.of.the.Thousand.Days.1969.1080p.BluRay.H264.AAC-RARBG1080p1111102.77 GB
Download   Anne.of.the.Thousand.Days.1969.720p.BluRay.H264.AAC-RARBG720p1081051.75 GB
Download   Anne.of.the.Thousand.Days.1969.BRRip.XviD.MP3-RARBGXVID1021041.83 GB
Download   Anne of the Thousand Days720p4339932.48 MB
Download   Anne of the Thousand Days1080p33472.05 GB

Anne of the Thousand Days torrent reviews

Paul M (es) wrote: Very pretty, but where's the hook? After an hour, it still seemed to be just a straightforward robbery-on-the-run story, with nothing interesting or intriguing pulling me in - so I turned it off.

Tony C (br) wrote: Now THIS is how you do a vampire movie. The germans deliver. You got your lesbian fangers, blonde studly hero, action and gore galore. It'll wipe the antiseptic taste of the Twilight movies right out of your mouth.

Noname (br) wrote: Decent drama/thriller but i felt it was a bit strange sometimes. Its about a young girl which see visions involving a man hunting her for some reason. She gets the same flashbacks when she become older and tries now figure out why this is happening... Okey movie but i have seen better.

Hadley S (mx) wrote: Good movie. Much better than I thought. It's in mostly Dutch, but has some English. Takes place mainly in New Zealand.

Lewis E (es) wrote: Even with my reluctance to expect anything near a proper stand up, 'Dave Chappelle's Block Party' was slightly disappointing. Snippets of stand up comedy, while funny, are not sufficient to please fans of the comedian and although I'm aware of the select group of artists on stage, most of the music was not recognisable enough to get me in the groove. This documentary can be admired for highlighting Chappelle's socially conscious side but it frustratingly lacks a substantial comedy or concert performance which would have proven more enjoyable.

Dave J (gb) wrote: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 (2000) Rules OF Engagement WAR/ DRAMA Fictitious war movie made in the same manner as "For A few Good Men" except that the overall experience is inconsistent because watching this movie is like reading a confusing novel. The title is 'the Rules Of Engagement' which the term is used on a particular situation where Terry L. Childers played by Samuel L Jackson has just been named colonel since his long time friend and confident has just retired from the army who was also a colonel, he is given an assignment to protect the ambassador (Ben Kingsley)of the US embassy since it's being ravaged by both protestors and fanatics of Jihad somewhere in the middle east. As a result of 3 marines being killed while on the roof what seemed like the shootings came from some snipers on a roof or ledge, Childers then orders the rest of his marines to shoot and kill the protestors down below what seemed like at first they were throwing stones, and that the only people who were doing the shootings came from somewhere else other than from down below. After the elected official of national defense hears about this bloody bloodbath which "only" harmless women, children and old men were being slaughtered by Colonel Childers command, he is then gets prosecuted for firing at them since their was no indication that the shootings came from the protestors and it was really a civilized peaceful protest. It is then he asks the help of his old friend after spending many years in the service together to be his lawyer who is Tommy Lee Jones as Hayes 'Hodge' Hodges. The director William Friedkin dicks around his audience since it was later revealed that some of the protestors did indeed have weapons and were really using them on the marines who were trying to dodge from being fired at except that at the beginning we never saw any of those guns- just the people on the roofs, and then the next thing you know, the immoral secretary of defense decides to burn the only proof to free Childers since he has a reputation to maintain- this is pure hogwash. The other thing the film failed to address is that if some of the protestors were shooting, you'd think there were pictures of it to prove to the audience that gunfire came from the ground and not just from the roofs, because the shootings finally did stop after the marines opened fire. I mean, where had all the weapons from the ground disappeared to and how had the cover up been so pristine. This alone contradicts the film since if their was any firing then we should be able to see what the marines had also seen which are guns on the ground since the shooters are also dead besides the women and children which the only evidence was one video tape which the secretary of defense had later disposed of by way of burning it in a fireplace for the intentions of using Childers as a scapegoat to keep relations with the middle east. all i can say is that if it wasn't for Tommy Lee Jones performance this film would've really sucked since Guy Pierce looked like a total dork as prosecutor. 1 out of 4 stars dumb

Haravikk K (nl) wrote: This instalment in the series appears to have been developed entirely by the greedy executives who want to leech more cash out of the franchise, as this entire film is literally a copy of the 2nd one, which in turn had a plot borrowed heavily from the 1st film.Here's the formula; blonde bimbo says Candyman too much and proceeds to have the eponymous hook-handed villain murderously follow her about until the end. The plot is almost *literally* identical to the 2nd film, with a big carnival, stupid police, the protagonist having the murders pinned on her, blah, blah, blah.If someone does happen to force you at gunpoint to watch this, then expect a film in which nobody is trying very hard; other than the director of course, who is busy adding so many cheap scares into the film to the point that you'll see every single one coming, and at the cost of every other element of the film.It's hard to really call this a series, when all three films all have fundamentally the same plot with nothing truly new anywhere to be seen.

Kurt A (es) wrote: Quite simply this is a very unique horror film that actually delivers. The concept is disturbing and the execution is spot on. This movie has believable performances and excellent casting throughout. You will never see another movie like Faceless, it's a one of a kind.What makes it so unique? The story does. It starts when Dr. Flamand's sister Ingrid takes a jar full of acid to the face! The acid was intended for the Dr. but the attacker missed. This leaves Ingrid with raw meaty flesh hunk for a face. Obviously, she's unhappy about that but what can they do? I know! Let's steal a model from Paris and put her face on Ingrid's body! (Hence the title) But when Barbara (the model) goes missing her rich father (Telly Savalas) tells Sam Morgan that he "wants her back, no matter how much it costs" and sends him to France. The rest of the movie shows Flamand trying to find ways to restore Ingrid's beauty while Sam tries to track down Barbara and bring her home. Oh but there's so much more.This movie is messed up on a lot of levels. From the concept of a beauty clinic with a secret passage that leads to a padded cell dungeon to the extremely promiscuous acts of voyeurism this movie proves it is not intended for the whole family. Why should it be? It's about stealing someone else's face! Needless to say as the surgeries mount so does the body count which eventually lures Sam to the clinic with an end result of epic proportions. The end of this movie will send a shiver down your spine. No happy endings here, no sir. They simply would never make this movie now, it's far too controversial. Nobody would make a movie about an ex-nazi surgeon mercenary who takes pride in his ability to surgically remove people's faces. You can quote me on that.With all that twisted stuff and killing they still found time to sprinkle in some comedy and it was truly appreciated. First of all they play the theme song about 94 times in this movie to the point where every time you hear it you start laughing. It's actually pretty catchy. Also, there is a hilarious scene at the apartment of a homosexual photographer who used to shoot Barbara. When Sam comes barging in looking for answers the only thing that can get in his way is DOUDOU! It must been seen to be believed. Also, the trailer for this movie is epic, it might be my favorite trailer of all time. Check it out!In conclusion any horror fan has to see this movie. This isn't some cutesy teen American horror flick. This movie is an unadulterated, screwed up, European mind flogging in it's purest form.

Christian C (us) wrote: Great cast, but somewhat underutilized. Good mystery.

Al H (br) wrote: The best part is the Robert Rodriguez segment.

Deidra R (ag) wrote: Add a review (optional)...

John C (ru) wrote: sex, violence, murder, greed and good performances and the fact this movie is based on true story and about saddam huseins son