Stream in HD   Download in HD


Dust Be My Destiny

Dust Be My Destiny

Embittered after serving time for a burglary he did not commit, Joe Bell is soon back in jail, on a prison farm. His love for the foreman's daughter leads to a fight between them, leading to the older man's death due to a weak heart. Joe and Mabel go on the run as he thinks no-one would believe a nobody like him.

Embittered after serving time for a burglary he did not commit, Joe Bell is soon back in jail, on a prison farm. His love for the foreman's daughter leads to a fight between them, leading ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechersSize
Download   Dust Be My Destiny 1939 Dead End Kids Billy Halop Bobby Jordan JOther3634699.03 MB
Download   Dust Be My Destiny 1939 Dead End Kids Billy Halop Bobby Jordan JOther2943341.14 MB

Dust Be My Destiny torrent reviews

Tim S (ca) wrote: Birdemic 2: The Resurrection is the sequel to one of the worst movies ever made: Birdemic: Shock and Terror. It's somewhat miraculous that this film got a sequel at all, because the first film is so terrible that nobody in their right mind would give these people money to make movies. Everything from acting, direction, sound, editing, etc, is all horrible. There are a few moments in this one where it was shot sort of competently, but not enough to warrant praising the cinematography. The last film was known for its unintentional comedic value because it was so terrible, but the filmmakers have embraced that and made this one a little more self-aware, which doesn't always work. It's still a "fun" movie to watch, but I think the original had a lot more going for it in terms of quality, of which it had none, but more fun none.

Erwin M (kr) wrote: The camera is all over the place, zooming in and out for no reason at all. The story is weak, but not necessarily bad. Under another director's vision, and with a revised ending, this movie might work.

Ben C (mx) wrote: Not as good as the first, and the first wasn't even that good.

MiYon R (jp) wrote: Sarah (Jaime King, My Bloody Valentine), her husband, Jason, and their six year old son, Sammy, go to Vancouver for Jason's Uncle Raymond's funeral. During their stay at Aunt Mei's house, Sammy starts seeing ghosts. He ends up in a coma at the hospital after nosing around the basement of Uncle Raymond's warehouse. Soon, Sarah sees them, too.Desperate for answers, she visits a local pharmacist who shows her a sketch of the spirit with Sammy - her skeletal hand reaching for his exposed heart - that he drew a year ago. He tells her the spirit has imprisoned her son's soul and Sarah has until dawn on the last day of Ghost Month to find out what the spirit's motives are or Sammy will be lost forever.The R rating has me baffled. There are some disturbing images but not near as gory as The Grudge and that's rated PG-13. There is no sex or nudity, not even a side boob. I don't even recall a single swear word. This is more mystery & suspense than it is horror, in my opinion. The scares are good but the acting is terrible. Pei-pei Cheng as Aunt Mei and the adorable Henry O as Sammy are very believable but King is a whiny mess and Chen doesn't understand the use of facial expressions.If mine is the first review you've read of They Wait, then let me advise you not to watch the trailer if you want an awesome scare in the beginning of the film!

Jacquelin C (ru) wrote: The best things about that movie are the close-up to Naomi Watts face... she's so beautiful... I could watch her 24/7...

Arturo D (de) wrote: Convoluted, sometimes slightly confusion, overly pretentious story of sheriff investigating OD. Not that bad really, but not that good.

Louise W (gb) wrote: one of those movies with no story to follow just short scenes focussing on different characters living in the city of belgrade (i had to look this up to discover it was in serbia!!) none of the characters are nice people and it's quite violent which i guess is an effect from all the wars; nobody really knows who to trust and everyone lashes out. the train scene freaked me out, but it was quite funny at times with the boxing, and the river scenes.

rafael t (ru) wrote: This was the belgium submission to the academy awards in 1995, tough it was a co-production between Italy/belgium/france. It is a subject that inmediately called my attention as a musician: The story of Carlo Broschi best known as "Farinelli" or "Il castrato" a famous lyrical singer from the XVIII century, who was castrated as a child, so he can maintain the vocal range of soprano for the rest of his life. Talking a bout love for the arts... Farinally was indeed legendary in music, it is said that his range was as extensive as 3 and a half octaves. It is also said that farinelli was a bit of a diva, a situation that probably caused many of the misconceptions that are portrayed in the film. Albeit is a "biographical" film, there is a great deal of dramatic license, and many characters are taken in over or under consideration, and some as Haendel even are turned to villains... Still is a enjoyable ride, with of course a vivid score that transports you to the baroque era, it is also well acted tough a little melodrama is overused, and has a good makeup and costume.

Ben L (de) wrote: Moviemakers seem to be obsessed with the idea of "unfinished business" left over after people die. It must come from mankind's need to find closure or something. Well, one of the most unusual takes on this whole issue comes in Heart & Souls. People who die with unfinished business are latched onto a newborn and are asked to use that child to complete their business. The concept is especially strange because a newborn won't be mentally capable of handling any tasks for a number of years. You'd think God would be smarter than that. But, hey, it's just a movie after all so there's no need to argue the logic of it all.The movie does a few things right. First of all is casting. Robert Downey, Jr. is brilliant as usual, and does a great job of playing basically 5 different roles in the film. The ghosts are all cast well also, and they have great comedic timing with one another. The concept of this movie is indeed ridiculous, but they utilize it well for laughs. I particularly enjoy those moments when the ghosts take over Thomas' body. But the hallmark of this movie are the emotional moments. They yank the tears out of the audience whether you like it or not. There's something so emotional about these poor souls finding closure after 30+ years of waiting. If you make it to the end with dry eyes then you have amazing emotional control.Now the odd part of this movie is the idea of reincarnation that is implied. The spirits are rushed to complete their business because "new lives are being born and they need a soul." It just seems strange because they put that side-by-side with the idea of a God who has a plan in all their lives and who operates with angels. It's a minor quibble, because debating the logic of it all is futile, but it does bug me for some reason. The other downside is simply that the tears are almost literally jerked out of you. I don't have a problem with tearjerker movies, but you should be warned that they really lay it on thick in this movie. Heart & Souls is a movie that I enjoyed when it first came out and can still enjoy, but only occasionally (too frequently and my emotions can't handle it.)

Harry W (ag) wrote: Completely unimpressed by the lack of originality and overrated reviews of the awful musical film Grease, I figured Grease 2 couldn't be any worse, and it did feature a young role for 3 time Academy Award nominee Michelle Pfeiffer so for some reason I just went ahead and watched it.From the mere intro of Grease 2, it is instantly apparent that the film is going to be bad. It breaks out into a senseless dance sequence with a song that isn't catchy and a bunch of teenagers prancing around. But then again, this is the exact same crap that Grease presented to viewers in 1978.Grease 2 is a bad idea from the start because a sequel to a musical film is never a good idea. That is why the relatively unknown sequel to The Rocky Horror Picture Show entitled Shock Treatment was so unsuccessful, and so a sequel to Grease is not a better idea. I hated Grease anyway, so I pretty much just went in with hopes that I could tolerate this one more than the its predecessor which had its hype drilled into my head by all the Australian morning news shows boasting about how we should be proud of Olivia Newton-John's success when it was from a 36 year old film which is dated and crappy. But it was my opinion that with Michelle Pfeiffer cast in the lead role it couldn't be worse than Grease.The story in Grease 2 is slightly better than its predecessor because the love story is slightly less repetitive, generic and overused, although it still is of rather poor calibre. Grease 2 is a thinly written film with a dull script and another cheap plot which it milks for all it can yet pretty much comes up dry the whole time. And all the colourful costumes and scenery as well as the fine cinematography is not enough to mask the fact that underneath, Grease 2 is too formulaic and dim-witted to satisfy anyone but the most die hard fans of Grease, but the paper thin writing and weakly sketched characters as well as a distinct lack of originality was not enough for me.I didn't like the songs in Grease because I found that they were generic and repetitive, so of course I found that to be the case in Grease 2, only that they were even worse this time around because the songs were retreading old material without a hint of originality or creativity in them. I didn't like any of the music in Grease 2 except the song "Cool Rider" which was rather catchy and sung very well by Michelle Pfeiffer despite not being so well written. The music in Grease 2 is unforgettable and generic, but at least it wasn't as irritating as the music in the first Grease.In the end, the only really appealing aspect of Grease 2 is its cast, and while it doesn't save the film from collapsing under its own mediocrity it at least makes the screen a bit brighter when its stuck under stiff and dark direction from Patricia Birch who in her one effort as a film director turns weak material into misguided cinema.Michelle Pfeiffer's character is a superior character to Olivia Newton-John's in Grease because her character is an independent woman who doesn't rely on a boyfriend for social standards or happiness, while Olivia Newton-John's character was one that suggested to women everywhere that you should sacrifice who you are and everything you believe in for some man you think you love during your teenage years. Michelle Pfeiffer's performance is better than Olivia Newton-John's for a lot of reasons, with a lot of them being that her singing voice is excellent and sung way better than the screechy high pitched lyrics that Olivia Newton-John stuck into the ears of viewers in the first Grease. Michelle Pfeiffer's youthful charisma and dedication to the part manages to lighten up the screen in Grease 2, and it proves early on the talented actress she would later go on to become.Maxwell Caulfield's rising career was ruined by Grease 2 which was a shame because he is a strong cast member. He doesn't have the same charm that John Travolta had, but his character isn't as stuck up or arrogant as John Travolta's was so it was easier for me to tolerate him. I found that I was able to sympathise for him and that his intentions as a man of romance were less generic and more meaningful, if a little melodramatic at times. Also, his singing voice has a certain quaint sophistication to him. So Maxwell Caulfield is a good choice for the lead in Grease 2.Christopher McDonald is an underrated actor in my opinion, so it's good to see him taking on a role in Grease 2 in his youth because his natural acting charisma and his ability to act stuck up well manages to benefit his characterisation of Goose McKenzie well. He is a notable addition to the cast.And it's good to see Maureen Teefy taking on another role after her great performance in the musical classic Fame. It gives her a chance to show off her charismatic skills as a young actress as well as her beautiful singing voice once again even though she is working with weak material and low quality song writing. She is a charming face in Grease 2 and makes the experience more entertaining.But while Grease 2 boasts the strength of a dedicated cast and a charming performance from a young Michelle Pfeiffer before her international breakthrough as an actress, Grease 2 has the same essential problems of its crappy predecessor without the kinetic energy that made it iconic. And as a person who avidly hated the first Grease, I can say that at best, Grease 2 is only slightly better than Grease because the music wasn't ear piercing, the story wasn't as painfully generic and the leads are a lot more likeable this time around.

Michael R (mx) wrote: Interesting Story....!