Grass: A Nation's Battle for Life

Grass: A Nation's Battle for Life

A silent documentary which follows a branch of the Bakhtiari tribe of Persia as they and their herds make their seasonal journey to better pastures.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:71 minutes
  • Release:1925
  • Language:
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:dancer,   snow,   fire,  

This documentary follows the journey of the Bakhtiari, a poor nomadic tribe in Iran, as they herd their livestock up snow-covered mountain passes--barefoot--to get to the grazing lands on ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Grass: A Nation's Battle for Life torrent reviews

Robert H (mx) wrote: The Pact didn't have much going for it but this sequel almost had me wishing I was back watching the original.The Pact 2 has a smattering of elements attaching it to the first film all of which technically work but without having seen the first film, most of this film makes no sense. The way in which this film's story is told is so disjointed that even though I had just recently watched The Pact, I still found The Pact 2 to be rather confusing as to what was actually going on. We get elements from the first film rehashed but not done nearly as well, concepts from the first film used and dismissed, characters from the first film that seem like they're only related or used in order to have some connecting to the first film, and ultimately, a story that isn't anywhere near as good as the first film and yet clearly had some potential to at least be an ok sequel and/or stand alone flick. What we get is a film with terrible cinematography where you can't tell if it's day or night, dusk or dawn. Where light sources are way out of whack and just confusing. We get a story that would make sense as a possession type film and plays like one... but isn't one? Or is it? I have no idea. There's ghosts but I'm not sure who they are. There's murders and while I kinda get the why, it still doesn't really make much sense.Motivation in this film is completely messed up and when you add the difficulty caused by cinematography, directing and editing, The Pact 2 is an absolute mess of a film that doesn't seem to know what it is trying to accomplish and never really explains things clearly enough. And it ends with one of those "there's gonna be another sequel" endings... and that's when I just tossed my hands in the air and said "I'm out!"

Callum B (kr) wrote: " The detail is realistic and it's a decent enough genre piece." -- Similar to A Prophet (2009) and Felon (2008)

Ethan T (ag) wrote: jumping the boom is cliched too much to be good

Phil P (ag) wrote: "Go! you're gonna get me killed".I wanted something brainless when I decided to watch this and I got it what I asked for I guess. Loud noises, punching, kicking and angry faces. Oh and a stupid story that is as flat as a piece of bread. Despite it delivering brainless action I expect it to be exciting, slightly over the top, ridiculous. Entertainment is name of the game this isn't a complex plot with detailed characters. Nor does it have to be.The third film in a series that is known for ridiculous thrill rides 'Transporter 3' sees 'Frank' (Jason Statham) locked in a deal with a man named 'Johnson' (Robert Knepper) to transport a package to 'Budapest' for reasons that are unclear. He's working for someone else and it has something to do with clean energy but it's never explained well enough. How does he keep ass-kicking 'Frank' under his thumb? with a explosive military bracelet of course - so if they strays too far form the car it explodes.Al that should be asked of action movies is a coherent plot and some exciting action. It tries, believe me it tries but it doesn't come close to succeeding. Everything is all so very vague and makes out the hero to be dumb as a post when it takes him 3/4 of the movie to realise what the cargo is. Equally the action sequences fizzle, the variety is admirable; cars, hand to hand combat and trains thrown in. But unless it's shot in a quick exciting manner it's useless. There are some characters that promise to be of some impact but it all boils down to two people and their importance quickly becomes non-existent.Transporter 3' may well be a film that the fans of the first two love, not me. It's nothing more than a series of passable action scenes and an incoherent plot. With stop start pacing bumbling all the information out at once. I do have to point out it's not a total disaster I got some enjoyment out of it. it just clearly overreached - massively. Dialled back a little and it could have been more.

Osvaldo C (br) wrote: Dirigida por Leonardo Favio.

Roope L (ca) wrote: Story by Dolph Lundgren, Directed by Dolph Lundgren, Starring Dolph Lundgren. What the fuck more do you want;)

kylie j (us) wrote: In the early 1990's a loose-knit group of like-minded outsiders found common ground at a little NYC storefront gallery. Rooted in the DIY (do-it-yourself) subcultures of skateboarding, surf, punk, hip-hop, and graffiti, they made art that reflected the lifestyles they led. Developing their craft with almost no influence from the "establishment" art world, this group, and the subcultures they sprang from, created a movement that transformed pop culture.

Arty S (gb) wrote: Why does Stephen Glass lie soooooo much? The movie never quite explains that, but describes it. Other than a popular turned desperate performance by Christensen, we get a some look-ins through narration in how the newspaper business works. I would have liked to have some stronger characters, moral and explenation on why Glass does what he does.

Private U (nl) wrote: probably the best spy movies from France. but its also more than that

Kimmy x (gb) wrote: good, just one of movies that you watched when you were young and curious!

stefn birgir s (it) wrote: Vincent Price, Boris Karloff, Peter Lorre and Basil Rathbone star in this horror, at times slap-stick, comedy. Not a great film, but the the actors make up for it tenfolds.

Gregory W (gb) wrote: ok drama about 2 aussies neither of which r aussies, 1 american 1 british but they do a job filling out their roles.

Christopher E (mx) wrote: I can't decide which Fantastic Four adaptation I hate more, as this version will do nothing but make your four year old giggle. "Fantastic Four" is the story of a genius young scientist who jump starts a space program. With the help of his muscle bound best friend, he'll join forces with a former colleague and a hothead to form the Fantastic Four. It becomes obvious as to who their threat is, when an evil villain rises up on scene. Honestly, I can't decide which "Fantastic Four" adaptation I like/hate more. There are some major differences in how each film was approached (2005 vs. 2015), and neither leave a positive impression for the franchise. I recommend staying away from both films, but in order to back up my critique, let's continue.What I liked about this film (term used lightly) is the relaxed, cartoon vibe that works about half the time. I feel like this is the kind of movie you can plop your two year old in front of, and he/she will have plenty of fun with the film. Take that as a good or bad thing, but that's how it is. I won't lie, I giggled a few times, but at a point, it was just so cheesy and illogical that it made it a negative aspect for the movie.Oh my, the actors in this movie. The talent in this movie wasn't the strongest, and it definitely showed on more than one occasion. None of the actors are downright awful by any means, but no one really showed why they belonged here. Ioan Gruffudd was alright as the lead, but didn't really do much as the star of the film. Jessica Alba was actually laughable and cringe worthy at times, while Chris Evans came off as a jackass who didn't learn anything in the end. Michael Chiklis didn't have to be good, as he was in an ugly costume for 80% of the film, and Julian McMahon was wasted as a villain. Big names don't lead to big results, but rather, can lead to big flops. The chemistry was alright, but nothing noticeable. The practical effects in this movie actually worked pretty decently, but the CGI looked pretty bad. I understand the time period in which this movie was made, but it relies on CGI at times, which can ultimately be a negative. It's cool to see actual cars explode or real sparks flying everywhere, but it looks very off when Reed Richards is stretching around like a maniac. The story is nearly absent, the pacing is a joke, and the dialogue is bland. All three of these are poorly executed, and it makes it feel like less effort was put into writing this movie than Josh Trank's version (at least you saw the effort in that one). The story moved at a pace so fast that you barely knew what was happening and it was all over the place. I had no emotional gravity to the situation, which means I could care less as to what happened. The dialogue was boring and was a pointless way to advance the story. In the end, this was a pretty disappointing film. I only watched it because of its Netflix instant watch release, but I highly recommend avoiding even that.

Ryan G (br) wrote: You can call it boring, you can call it messy, but if you have a pulse, you really can't help but be moved by it.

Matthew U (ca) wrote: don't waste your time it doesn't really make any sense a waste of an hour and a half it has potential but it just really was not that good