Last Ounce of Courage

Last Ounce of Courage

Bob Revere is a small town Mayor and combat decorated veteran. He faces a root of bitterness from his past filled with heartbreaking loss. His grandson comes back into his life after many years to ask the most important question, “What are we doing with our life to make a difference?” Bob had grown apathetic along with an entire town. Now with the help of children, a group of people all band together to inspire hope, take back the freedoms that are being lost and take a stand for truth. The cast includes Marshall Teague (Roadhouse), Jennifer O’Neill (Summer of ‘42), Fred Williamson (Black Ceasar) and Jenna Boyd (Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants).

The film follows Tom - a son of soldier who sacrifices for freedom. Tom & his grandfather try to connect to ease the pain of war after Tom's father falls down . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Last Ounce of Courage torrent reviews

Bilal S (kr) wrote: Not as the best as the first one but its not that bad... They just made it bigger as he moved to a big city.

Michael M (au) wrote: I wanted to love this, but it was really just sort of eh.

Kelsey W (kr) wrote: um what? seriously, don't waste your time. you'll just get really pissed off.

Avid C (br) wrote: Pretty Persuasion is an intrigue that will leave you breathless with shock. It is devious, manipulative, and well thought out.Each character has enough depth to be solidly constructed and give us meaningful dialogs. Sometimes, as we follow the main girl, it feels like a monologue, a dry one, but all of it points to a genius after what she wants.The tone is just, some elements are a bit caricatural, but never over the top, just enough to resonate with the audience, and make a point. The whole setup is simple, like the editing, the camera shots, and the story, but it all to underline the razor precision of the mind behind it all. It makes the dramatic reveal even stronger.Do not underestimate this film, it packs a moral punch.

Eric H (br) wrote: Terrific photography, a great cast (only Phoenix is his usual talentless self), and bundles of great irony to be found in the story. The Church, religion, hypocrisy, and self-righteous morals get a well-deserved drubbing. As twisted and perverted as De Sade may have been, he was an intellectual (which isn't commonly known), and any intelligent person will take his side when seeing what kind of people acted against him. His comments about God and religion are particularly nasty and to the point. Its a raunchy comedy and its done well. if that is the type of movie you're hoping to set in front of yourself, this one delivers. its melodrama, smut, violence and tongue...read more-in-cheek humor; its not a waste of your time if those are the qualities you've invested in. i would call "quills" terribly delightful.

Kenny N (it) wrote: Michael Douglas is the King of Erotic Thrillers. Having starred in the two most notorious steamy romance-from-hell movies of all time (I don't even have to tell you what they are, you already know) it's interesting to see Douglas taking on the role of a victim of sexual harassment. Unfortunately, the movie loses itself in some bizarre "Star Trek"like subplot about virtual reality that seems to have barged in from an entirely different movie. We SHOULD be focusing on Douglas as he tries to prove his innocence, not whatever the hell was going on behind those VR goggles. Unfortunately, I can't call the sexual harassment portion of the story a success either, because the harasser is Demi Moore. Gorgeous? Yes. Talented at acting? I've yet to see any evidence to support that statement. I've never seen a Demi Moore movie where she didn't recite her dialogue like she was reading it directly off of cue cards just off camera for the first time. It's especially bad here. A reunion with Glenn Close or Sharon Stone would have been more thrilling and meaningful.

Thomas K (it) wrote: It was the film of the summer of 1989, and it's still powerful in 2015.

Paul C (nl) wrote: Another great Powell and Pressburger movie - and perfect for a Sunday afternoon matinee. Great naval scenes, although admittedly it slows somewhat when the Graf Spee is harboured in Montevideo.

Brian K (jp) wrote: There's some creative use of the "new" technology of sound, but there's little else.

Al H (it) wrote: Not so funny like the first one.

Cameron J (us) wrote: Not only generic, this film's very prequel-esque title is a little broad when we're talking about a film dealing with an ancient demon, because I'm kind of expecting this film to outline everything from Pazuzu's origins during, I don't know, the beginning of demons or something, to the events leading to "The Exorcist", way far forward into the '70s. I can think of some people who would beg for me to not even joke about that, because they feel that this film is torturous enough at just under 120 minutes, let alone something that would make the director's cut to 1973's "The Exorcist" look like a short film. Even William Peter Blatty himself described watching this film as his "most humiliating professional experience", but I for one could go a little harsher on this film, and yet, in all fairness, I could have gone a little harsher on "The Heretic", so what do I know? I will at least say that I was hoping this film would be more hardcore, because, come on, it's an "Exorcist" film directed by a Finn and starring a Swede and, shoot, for good measure, a Polish chick who was pretty much raised in Sweden, but alas, this film is far from metal. Shoot, I wasn't even all that crazy about Sweden's The Flower Kings' "Adam & Eve", and they're supposed to be one of the last hopes for quality music these days, so I reckon 2004 was a disappointing year in Scandinavian, religion-themed entertainment, or at least that was the case for the Swedes, seeing as how this film is pretty much mostly Swedish... at heart. It's more American in "brain", but either way, it's about as remembered as The Flower Kings, or at least that's how box office folk make the financial situation of this film sound, for although the $80 million final product underperformed, it still got a good deal of people to check it out out of, I don't know, morbid curiosity. No, again, this film isn't that bad, or at least not to me, though that's not at all to say that I can't see where some, if not many of the complaints are coming from. Plenty of people are going so far as to deem the film downright ridiculous, and really, I don't think that it's that goofy, but it does get to be cheesy, with trite occasions in dialogue and questionable mythology spots, which are iffy enough on paper, without some glaring subtlety issues. Gratuitous overemphasis on gore and disturbing imagery, - made all that more problematic by spotty effects - some lame jump scares and even some histrionics mark particular lowlights in subtlety, but the film is never as sharply told as 1973's "The Exorcist", and the cheesy writing doesn't make Renny Harlin's job as director any easier. The film has moments that are, in fact, dumb, and make no mistake, there is too much fat around the edges to handle with all that much realization, because even though the film doesn't meander quite as much as they say, possibly because it manages to avoid the dry spells that plagued its predecessors, including the otherwise compelling "The Exorcist", a 114-minute runtime is not achieved very easily, as material gets to be draggy and repetitious, with too much exposition, which is still somehow a touch too limited. Well, I suppose characterization is well-rounded on paper, it's just that storytelling issues distance you a bit from the characters, who stand to be more disengaging, yet would have been more effective were it not for silliness, nor genericism for that matter. The film hardly does anything all that unique, and it slips deeper and deeper into clichs as it progresses, until you end up with a final product that is nothing short of predictable, even by its own right, with its being a prequel being taken out of consideration. Needless to say, conventionalism reflects a certain laziness in this film that never fully abates, because even though the final product is by no means the disaster that many are claiming it to be, questionable writing and storytelling bring it to the brink of mediocrity. Still, make no mistake, the film is still not as messy as they say, or at least it isn't to me, being seriously flawed and all, but with commendable elements, at least from an aesthetic standpoint. There are some flat spots to Vittorio Storaro's cinematography, but definition is relatively crisp, and that's eye catching enough without sharp spots in sparse lighting plays that prove to be not only lovely, but compliment this thriller's tone, as well as Eugenio Ulissi's and Andy Nicholson's decent-looking, maybe somewhat immersive art direction. Outside of the aforementioned faulty visual effects, the film is technically and stylistically fair, offering some eye candy, even if it can't really step up its game when it comes to substance, which, even then, isn't as misguided as it could have been, and is to many of my fellow critics. Perhaps substance shortcomings are most found in the story concept's execution through Alexi Hawley's often messy script and Renny Harlin's more inspired, but still flawed direction, because this subject matter itself, while generic in plenty of areas, is pretty intriguing, juggling adventure mystery elements with religious thriller elements in a fashion that offers anything from fun ties to the "Exorcist" mythology that we recognize so well, to potential by its own right. Screenwriter Alexi Hawley, as I said a minute ago, doesn't do potential all that much justice, but his efforts are passable, while director Renny Harlin, in spite of his own considerable deal of flaws, does about as much as anyone in saving the decency of this messy final product which actually wouldn't be so messy without Harlin's faults, meeting plenty of subtlety issues with genuinely effective storytelling moments that play up disturbing, if a touch over-the-top imagery in order to establish some intensity, and offering atmospheric pacing that is actually kind of brisk. Really, if nothing else, it's sheer entertainment value that gets the film by, because even though film isn't as messy as they say, it's still seriously flawed, and such missteps go settled down a bit by a bit of a fun factor, backed by some storytelling highlights, anchored by decent performances. Acting material is seriously lacking in this part, but most everyone plays his or her part well, and that especially goes for Stellan Skarsgrd, because even though Max von Sydow was seriously underused in "The Exorcist", he brought something to the Father Lankester Merrin character that Skarsgrd does nothing but justice to, with charisma, as well as the occasional dramatic layer that offers more insight into a classic character who would have been more iconic were it not for ambiguities that Skarsgrd fills a fair bit of. Even the performances stand to be stronger, but they're decent, enough so to help in getting the film by, and no matter how much the film challenges your investment, at least for me, it did enough right to entertain, in spite of misguided moments. When the beginning has come to an end, you're left with an improvable prequel that, by its own right, is all but brought to the brink of mediocrity on the back of some cheesiness, plenty of subtlety issues, repetitious dragging, lapses in character engagement value, and conventionalism, but handsome cinematography, decent art direction, intriguing subject matter, sometimes effective and frequently entertaining direction, and decent acting - particularly by leading man Stellan Skarsgrd - endear enough for "Exorcist: The Beginning" to entertain as a decent, if messy precursor to a classic thriller saga. 2.5/5 - Fair

Griffin H (fr) wrote: Badly animated cliche souldn't have even been made.