Back Home

Back Home

True story about the genocide in 1994 in Rwanda. The director, J.B. Rutagarama is a survivor of the genocide.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:100 minutes
  • Release:2006
  • Language:French
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:genocide,   rwanda,  

A peine sorti de prison, Kamel ( ) est expulsé vers son pays d'origine, l'Algérie. Cet exil forcé le contraint à observer avec lucidité un pays en pleine effervescence... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Back Home torrent reviews

P B (jp) wrote: Pretty good but really screwed up

Jj S (au) wrote: Compelling. Grim. Disturbing. Very well done.

Caesar M (br) wrote: Earlier in 2014 a filmed titled "The Legend of Hercules" was released and it was absolutely terrible. Especially it leading star Kellan Lutz who was incapable of showing any personality and acting talent in the title role. If you were to tell me "The Legend of Hercules" was knockoff by "The Asylum" I would believe you, except "The Asylum" actually managed to make a better Hercules movie with significantly less money. The saddest part being if there was actually more effort put into it's screenplay and production it could have been entertaining. Hercules Reborn follows Arius seeking help from the mythical hero Hercules to save his wife and his town from it's new maniacal king. Despite his name being in the title Hercules is not the film's protagonist. Instead it's Arius in a conflict that gets resolved in a by the number fashion. Protagonist power hungry mentor betrays protagonist by kidnapping his wife and killing off the current holders of power, protagonist goes to seek help from a famous character in the same job field to help him in his rebellion, but upon first impression in seeing the legendary figure is a pathetic drunk or in a pathetic state he loses some hope. Until a moment arrives to prove his identity in a situation requiring him to save the protagonist and the legendary character takes a chance to redeem their name to his/her former glory. Just giving that rough summarization on the first act is enough for experience film viewers and storytellers to predict how the film will play out. There's no twists of any sort to the story that is dead set on a straightforward delivery. Like every character in the film Arius is unengaging. Characters are one dimensional so there's not much to read into and motivations are strip down to the lowest common denominator. Everything is kept at a basic level simultaneously committing the screenwriting crime of being rush and lingering too much on something established. Whenever there's any possible room for characterization it's rush and whenever you're given a scene where you know the purpose it'll linger on it. Clearly that's some backward thinking in screenwriting. That's not even taking into account the story doesn't take advantage of Hercules as a character. In the film, he's not a demi-god going on fantastical adventure based on any of his famous stories. While the intention was clearly made to make Hercules more grounded as a character it's a decision that horrifically backfires especially when providing no characters of any depth. If given more time to fleshed plot devices and characters the film would have had an okay story. With some developed characters it would made the predictable journey feel less dull and uneventful. Now on this corner we hear there are stories that claim this man is a God, has the strength of twenty men, and is a nearly unstoppable warrior. The actor that plays Hercules is none other than John Hennigan, or as some wrestling fans might him as WWE Superstar John Morrison. John Hennigan is not a good actor when he has to speak, but the script he's provided requires more of his physical mannerism than actual line delivery. Despite his physical appearance Hennigan understands how to play the pathetic aspect of his character usually stumbling whenever his character is drunk. His inability to maintain his composure when drunk helps with the illusion that maybe Hennigan is not that great of a warrior. He's also convincing in his action scenes, though it would be nice if the director knew how framed or shoot an action scene. Hennigan only falters in his line delivery, but his performance is above average since Hannigan knows how to portray the character on a physical standpoint. The only other actor that might register with viewer is James Duval (Frank the Rabbit from Donnie Darko) who gives a bad performance. He's very off in his comedic timing and shares no chemistry with any other actor on set. Than there's Christina Ulfsparre who's nothing more eye candy on screen. Her scenes don't amount to much aside from showing her in peril as the token damsel in distress. Finally Christian Oliver is the leading man and he's bland. Oliver is given a typical role with little range to do show more emotion. Action scenes on the other hand are all terrible. In every single action scene the camera is way too close to making it difficult to make out what's going on and the choreography behind the action scene is atrocious. Looking as if they were the rehearsal take instead of the actual finalize action scene. Adding to the bad action scenes is a shaky camera that makes it that much harder to enjoy an scene if in the faint chance you can make it something out of it. As for the editing, that's also terrible with too many frequent cuts destroying any sort of flow in the action scene. Another issue is something I never expected to criticize. This film lack of extra hurts the grand scope it wants to pretend to have. The lack of numbers makes everything smaller, in particular to the ancient cities when depicting a crowd at most you'll see on screen close to twenty. Although, knowing the studio history to be cheap it's a surprised the location the film shot at gives off the ancient city vibe it's trying capture. Hercules Reborn is a knockoff and there's no hiding that fact, but as a film it falls victim to being uninspired dull trite instead of an entertaining B movie "The Asylum" more often gets wrong than it does right. It could have been entertaining if more effort was put into it. There's little for viewers of all kind to gain, especially those into B movies will find the film lacking inspiration in anything it does.

Adam N (jp) wrote: A Cartoon Network Original Movie, Firebreather is a CGI based film based off the Image comic book series of the same name. The story follows Duncan, a teenager who was born half human by his mother and half dragon (referred to, in a homage to Japanese monster movies, as Kaiju) by his father. Duncan is attending a new high school and hopes to have a regular life. But when he has a run in with an obnoxious bully, it is revealed he has the power to breathe fire at will. This attracts the attention of his father, who abducts him in hopes of raising him as the next King of all Kaiju. Duncan then ensues to fight random monsters, as well as the usual cliched secret government agency that somehow knew all about it. While the story is quite predictable at times, and the animation is rather puppet-like, the design, the voice acting, especially Jesse Head, the voice of Duncan, and the action prove quite entertaining. The idea is quite fresh, especially among the onslaught of today's barely original anymore super hero movies that come out these days. While some of the side characters may seem underdeveloped, especially the two Kaiju antagonists, the story as well as the action barely manage to eclipse that, as well as Duncan's awesome display of fire breathing, which is no doubt the best CGI effect of the whole movie. While the movie' beginning doesn't exactly peak the viewer's curiosity at first, those who watch all the way through will hardly find themselves dissappointed. Overall, Firebreather earns a 3.5 stars out of five.

Byron C (gb) wrote: It was damn good! Scary is fuck! It's worth watching at night.

Ida B (jp) wrote: I told my friens "please, let's not rent this one" but they did anyway... I had expected something like "hipp hipp hora" but even though it had an simular theme it was nothing like it. It was a beautiful movie with such an innocent (even though the poster don't indicate it...) that it really tuched me

Corinne C (au) wrote: Excellent story and cast. Disturbing and heartbreaking.

Jonathan Y (nl) wrote: Have you ever been out with some aquaintances, and suddenly one of them insists on showing you this awesome movie that he and his buddies made last weekend? And he puts it on, and you're kind of entertained for about five minutes, but after that you start to wonder when something compelling is going to happen, or when some interesting characters are going to show up, or even when anything resembling a coherent plot is going to materialize? And you start checking your watch because the movie just keeps dragging on and on and on, and then you actually start to hate the experience of watching it, since the characters aren't just boring, they're downright obnoxious, and what's more they're doing that not-acting-but-still-overacting thing that only happens in terrible student films, which still wouldn't be so bad except everything that's happening in the movie is so deliberately, smugly random that in the end you're left feeling like you just wasted 90 minutes of your life watching an inside joke that you're not privy to? That's 'Home Sick'.

Duyum D (de) wrote: Beautiful Italian movie from a Turkish director. Unrequited love, Infidelity but the movie is not about that, more so it's about people you come into interactions with and how some of them leaves a part of them in you.

Samuel H (fr) wrote: an amazing adaption of Shakespeare. Such a dark beauty this movie is. Filled with revenge, murder, and unsuspectable cannibalism.

Kenny S (ru) wrote: Who would have thought after Darkman 2 that another crappy direct to video sequel would both be made and be just as bad. Jeff Fahey is actually BETTER than Larry Drake was in Darkman 2, but he's not enough to make you like or care about this movie. I was literally dosing off during the climactic final showdown scene...and I was NOT that tired before I started the film. Arnold Vosloo is a little more energetic this time, but he still sucks. Also it was clear from the get-go that this one was gonna just liberally rip scenes from Darkman 2 as a cost cutting measure.

Paul D (fr) wrote: Well told tale of the one mans struggle against society to preserve its own history. There's some good quirky characters too.

Jessi O (es) wrote: It's an alright movie, Denzel is always good, but I liked it cuz I just returned from Uganda and loved seeing bits of the country that I love! :)

Dade L (ca) wrote: This movie was done super well. It showed that Roddy Piper had the acting chops and he opened the door for people like Dwayne johnson.This also had a lot of social commentary of the 80s as this country became a consumer nation. I love how it was done . Everything about this movie is good. a must watch

Jonathan M (fr) wrote: Takes the coming of age film genre and does something original with it. It looks great, is well acted, and has a scope that extends beyond the bounds of its family drama. Also worth noting that it isn't really a movie about incest, as it is at times touted be.

Ash M (ru) wrote: American Beauty is much deeper in context than what the audience thinks just by watching it one time. Absolutely love this film in every way.

Brett A (mx) wrote: Ok. I feel if I watched this ten times I would decide it was ten different stories. My current theory is that it is meant as an examination of compulsion from different angles. But which storyline is real? Does it matter?

luke v (de) wrote: this is no doubt the most nastiest, most disgusting, movies I've seen in my life!!!!!! But despite how gross it is, its not half bad. it has an interesting story, likeable characters, and grossly awesome effects! so yeah totally check it out!!!!!!!