Bravehearts

Bravehearts

A documentary about youth politicians changes radically on July 22nd 2011, when a right-wing extremist murders 69 people at a summer camp run by the Workers Youth Party.

A documentary about youth politicians changes radically when a terrorist commits Utøya-massacre of 69 party kids while filming. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechersSize
Download   Til.Ungdommen.2012.DOCU.NORWEGiAN.SWESUB.PAL.DVDR-TV2LAX9DVDR38344 GB
Download   TILL.UNGDOMEN.2012.DVDrip.Swesub.XviD.AC3-Mr_KeFFDVDRip35481.33 GB
Download   Kacha Chor 1977 Drama 916mB AVI Hindi DaXclusivesOther3634916.62 MB

Bravehearts torrent reviews

Jolie B (nl) wrote: It wasn't the most awesome film I've ever seen, but it was enjoyable for me. It was interesting enough to make me go look up Afshin Ghaffarian and learn a bit more about him, so that's something.

sarah j (ca) wrote: best movie I have ever seen

Ryan M (fr) wrote: Stereotypically hilarious!

Andy S (es) wrote: On the surface this is a sweet little documentary about the nature of love. The problem arises when you learn that it is only about 50% true. The film looks, acts and smells like a documentary. Its shot that way, its cut that way, it's structured that way.. HOWEVER.. the actual relationship between Michael Cera and Charlyne Yi is fiction. I think the film is important for that as the lines blur more and more as to what is documentary and what is fiction it's harder to know what is truth and what is fiction. Sure it's harmless here, but when Michael Moore does it, but then just calls it "entertainment" there is a huge problem. I think this kind of film sets a dangerous precedent in that others might be OK shooting documentary style and just create whats "real", altering reality for those viewers who are not in the know. Sure we have had fake BS Mockumentaries before and such things as Blair Witch which claim (at least from a marketing stand point) to be real. This, however, with it's innocent approach to seeking answers about love seems a con and a twisted lie once it's all revealed in the end when we see that the Director (who is a main character) is actually played by an actor. Charlyne Yi appears to be a sweet and interesting person, but who knows.. maybe thats all "entertainemnt" as well.

Adam R (fr) wrote: Atrocious! I am embarrassed for Judge Reinhold. (First and only viewing - 3/1/2010)

Jay R (jp) wrote: One of my favorite movies, and an eye-opening movie for anyone whether gay or straight. FAQs takes a look at some of the social problems in America from the eyes of the gay minority. It is a slower-paced and thoughtful movie, yet it never lost my interest. The story follows a gay teenager living on the streets of LA until he is "adopted" by Destiny, a drag queen who takes in homeless gays and lesbians. As a "family" they face oppression from straight gay bashers and the general hatred from business owners and the public. Their mission is to define who they are and be at peace with it, changing perceptions along the way. The only disappointment is that the artwork for the film does not do it justice at all, which affirms the fact that one cannot judge a book (or a film) by its cover. This movie also gave me one of my favorite quotes: "our kisses are like bombs going off in the straight world." :)

Terry R (de) wrote: It could have been; truly, it should have been ... but alas, it just wasn't. Sigh. Definitely needs a new director! Kate's good, girls are good, men are good, location is good, story is good --- to make it great would require more than this director had it in him. Or her. What a shame, too.

Tasha S (jp) wrote: Iv always loved this movie

ALRAQY (fr) wrote: Add a review (optional)...

Magill F (br) wrote: A team of badass Asian prisoners are sent into 'Nam to fight the Vietcong for...no...actual...reason. Unbeknownst to our heroes, their mission was canceled immediately after they had jumped out of the plane and parachuted down behind enemy lines. They then proceed to kick butt and take names all through the jungles of Vietnam, meeting up with a high-kicking contraband smuggler/balloon salesman and a trio of secretly evil Vietnamese girls (who are prone to stabbing men in the crotch) along the way.This movie has everything you want in a grindhouse kung fu flick: the plot is laughable and the subtitles (at least in the version I watched) are horrible, and yet the action is pure fun to watch. A truly awesome war/kung fu popcorn movie.

jane k (gb) wrote: I took my 9yr old niece to see this. It was so boring I had no choice but to leave the movie after 25 mins and politely asked for a refund. It was boring to the core, my niece was too happy to leave as well.

Jeff B (us) wrote: Just kind of a meh story spoils the final part of an ad hoc trilogy from John Ford. Wayne sticks around the background while this boring plot unfolds, but is enjoyable as a love interest for Maureen O'Hara and an estranged father for Trooper Yorke.

Edith N (it) wrote: Those Dresses Will Take Some Altering! Okay, so I admit it. Someone on IMDb made the claim that, at one point in the movie, Jean Harlow's dress slips and you can see her breast. And I checked. Frankly, this was at least in part so I could grouse about the ridiculous things people see in movies when they want to see them. We are a pattern-seeking species, and it's caused some trouble for people over the years. However, not in this case. That is very clearly Jean Harlow's dress coming down and exposing her breast. She also does not appear to be wearing anything under the dress. As to how it made it past the censors, well, there are two answers. One is that the slip is so quick that you can miss it, and it certainly doesn't appear to be scripted. The other is that this is a pre-Code film. The standards were considerably looser; the censors had less power. I've no doubt that Joe Breen would have seen it, but under Joe Breen, it couldn't have been made anyway. Clark Gable (who would be 112 today) is the steely-eyed captain of a boat that sails the eponymous seas, Captain Alan Gaskell. He has long been entangled with Harlow's "China Doll," Dolly Portland. He is trying to shed her, and just as she buys a ticket so that he can't get rid of her for the length of a voyage, out of his past steps the lovely English lady, Sybil Barclay (Rosalind Russell). Gaskell plans to quit his job at the end of the voyage, marry her, and return to Surrey. Of course, the route is dangerous; they are carrying a shipment of gold, and many ships have been taken by Malay pirates. It's almost as though they have an inside man who knows when the shipments are to be made--and they do. It is Jamesy MacArdle (Wallace Beery), friend to Gaskell and ardent wooer of the sexy, fierce Dolly. She finds out his secret and wants to tell Gaskell, but his own foolish actions make her just as willing to let him die for his mistake of jilting her. It is strongly implied that Gaskell and Dolly have been sleeping together; certainly, when Gaskell finds out that Dolly has been in Jamesy's cabin late at night, he's willing to believe that she was sleeping with Jamesy. Her open sexuality is one of the primary differences between Dolly and Sybil, one of the ways you can tell that Sybil is really a lady. It is never suggested that Sybil cheated on her husband; it is suggested that Gaskell fled to Asia rather than try to seduce her and betray a friend. There is essentially no overt sex in the movie, Harlow's breast notwithstanding, but the implication of it is everywhere. The Code would later be ferocious about the implication of sex, rooting it out wherever they could find it. (The screenwriters were usually smarter than the censors and hid it in there anyway.) However, without that implication, Dolly's claim over Gaskell loses its force, and the characterization of Dolly slips a bit. What's more, Crime Must Pay. I don't want to give away too much (yeah, I know; it's a seventy-eight-year-old movie, but had you ever heard of it?), but one conspirator with the pirates escapes punishment, as do the pirates, and the implication is that another will probably not get the sentence possible. Of course, "escaping punishment" is a slippery definition, but Joe Breen tended to be pretty adamant that the failure of crime to pay meant that [i]someone[/i] had to stand trial. It wouldn't matter that the route between Hong Kong and Singapore is now that much safer. What would matter was the Law. Only one character who had anything to do with the piracy is going to stand trial, and that simply wasn't considered good enough. Silly, I know, but there it is. Besides, he would have preferred that Gaskell reject all connection and merely look upon the whole thing with Noble Regret as the Sinner Was Made to Suffer. Think Humphrey Bogart saying goodbye at the end of [i]The Maltese Falcon[/i], and you'll start to get the idea. I would have liked considerably less of the superfluous drunk guy (Robert Benchley) and considerably more of Isabel, Dolly's maid (Hattie McDaniel). A better writer could have developed Dolly's torment; a better writer probably would have realized that you can't be grabbed that forcibly around the throat that often and not be left with bruises. Dolly shouldn't have to tell anyone that she's being threatened; someone should be able to tell by looking at her. Come to that, a better writer might have thought to establish that Gaskell was the only person on the crew she trusted to give her information to. Okay; Jamesy says he will kill her if she goes to Gaskell with what she knows. He can do it; it wouldn't be all that difficult, and certainly it's easy for him to dispose of the body. However, he can't stop her from talking to any of the other crewmembers, can he? Or from sending her maid to talk to Gaskell? It just seems that the solutions are too obvious and are ignored anyway.

RODNEY G (nl) wrote: COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER BUT FOR A SMALL TOWN SETTING OK MOVIE

Dean B (it) wrote: It's okay. Meh, the movie is so confused it'll leave you confused. The voices tries to be funny at one point, gory another and just flat out disturbing another. It has elements that would make a good psychological thriller but it's too muddled with what genre it wants to be: a horror, thriller, comedy. What stops this from me giving it a 1.5 is the great performance of Ryan Reynolds and the voice acting form the cat and dog. could have been a great thriller but too confused. Good to watch for a bit of fun until disturbance occurs.