Fire Over England

Fire Over England

The film is a historical drama set during the reign of Elizabeth I (Flora Robson), focusing on the English defeat of the Spanish Armada, whence the title. In 1588, relations between Spain and England are at the breaking point. With the support of Queen Elizabeth I, British sea raiders such as Sir Francis Drake regularly capture Spanish merchantmen bringing gold from the New World.

Queen Elizabeth is running this show. The men in her court should be thinking about how to add to the glory of the Elizabethan Age and how to foil those pesky Spanish who got far too much ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Fire Over England torrent reviews

Bria M (nl) wrote: Hilarious movie!! I watched on a flight with english subtitles and I couldn't stop laughing... It was solo funny. I LOVE this movie

Giovanni M (nl) wrote: Ruby Sparks has two stellar lead performances, a smart script that is drained of any smugness and only left with charm, and a devastating third act that will either make or ruin the film for you.

Tom W (kr) wrote: When Glorious 39 came out, I vaguely remember reading a very short, rather negative review of it, turning my nose up, and brushing the film from my radar wihout a second thought. It just so happened that Glorious 39 was on the televison last night, and I kind of half-heartedly gave it a go. And was I pleased that I did, and actually quite surprised. Set on the brink of WWII, Glorious 39 tells the story of Anne Keyes (Romola Garai)the adopted daughter of an English aristocrat and politician (Bill Nighy). She has a modestly successful career as an actress, and lives a comfortable and happy life with her beloved brother & sister (Eddie Redmayne & Juno Temple). That is until she stumbles across some recordings being stored by the government on her family's property, and before she knows it she has unravelled a political plot, that sinks her further into harms way and rapidly isolates her from the people she loves. Glorious 39 is a hard film to review, because my generous score is a rather selfish one, that many of you may not agree with when you come to see it for yourselves. It was all about likability you see. This receives only a 48% fresh rating here on RT and, to an extent I understand why. The story is original, but the plot goes off on tangents and the overall narrative and atmosphere begins to clunk as we near the conclusion, which in itself is actually rather of a disappointment. By most of your standards, you would call it a rather average film. However, every so often a film comes along that, despite script or plot, performace or craft, drags you right into it's core and you become completely engrossed and compelled by the story and the characters that are unfolding and interacting in front of you. There is no guessing why this is, but the likability factor kicks in and you are suddenly enjoying yourself. That is the best way for me to describe my experience of Glorious 39. Despite it's shortcomings, it has a great sense of style, an original and IMHO compelling story, led by a relatable lead who you can't help but root for. It's has spotless slick 30's style and great performances, and has a slight feel of an early Hitchcock. It is a flawed film, that watched with low expectations and an open mind, could be a thoroughly entertaining and enjoyable ride. Summary - 8.0 - A weak ending and a few narrative shortcomings may put some off, but a riveting build up, excellent cast, and great sense of style and urgency make this an enjoyable and engaging, yet low-key thriller for those with an open mind. Not quite glorious, but a pretty fine effort.

Caleb C (jp) wrote: Another very bizzare and brilliant film. This one much more horrific and disturbing to watch. The end result is not groudbreaking stuff, but all in all it is a pretty solid horror film for anyone with an open mind and who enjoys how some old school horror films worked, but at the same time feels fresh as well.

Boa L (it) wrote: Un beau film avec un excellent Dupontel

Chelsea T (nl) wrote: funny but not worth seeing a second time

Yasemin Y (gb) wrote: Bolly Bolly :))) Dhoom Machale :)

Natalie T (fr) wrote: Mucho sexo...Exagerado!!

Sanjay B (es) wrote: Yes, it's a made for TV movie/docudrama. You just have to assume that what u r being shown is an accurate portrayal of the events that could happen if such an event did occur. So overlook the third rate acting. The special effects were pretty good.

Harrison W (gb) wrote: Could watch that guy and gal in bed for a whole trilogy. Some interesting philosophy, but it didn't say anything super new. The lucid dreaming element was certainly new, but dreams within dreams has certainly been captured on films many times, as this acknowledged. While the visuals were impressive, it's hard for me to say they were altogether beautiful.

Benjamin N (nl) wrote: Extremely strange. Disturbing. Jeremy Irons knocks it out of the park.

Zachary Y (au) wrote: Depicts brutal animal slaughter: a pet dog is killed and eaten by several men, several sheep are killed, one picked up and neck broken by a man;s bare hands.

Julia S (nl) wrote: I love this Cinderella story, winter landscape with the fairytale.

Sherwin L (gb) wrote: A short sketch of life in Czech that comes through as authentic and occasionally hillarious.

Rink S (ag) wrote: There are some aspects of this movie that really fascinated me. Especially how the war in russia is shown and how the soldiers handled this situation. Or the idea about this tree at the lake.. I think I am not really the type for slow and old movies, I am quite impatient, but still I really enjoyed this one.

Christina S (mx) wrote: I admit, I had a crush on the character Armand Tesla when I was about five or six years old when I watched this. I didn't really know it was a crush but I did know I hated watching him die.

Joshua F (kr) wrote: Not a great sequel but reminiscent of old times. Mostly just wanted to watch the original again.

Seng Wee T (ag) wrote: Not as good as the first one but I still like it.

Aaron D (mx) wrote: this movie had jokes that was too childish and not at all funny thus movie blew it self by trying to be funny when it's not