Rejoice and Shout

Rejoice and Shout

A documentary on Gospel music's 200-year history.

A documentary on Gospel music's 200-year history. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


You may also like

Rejoice and Shout torrent reviews

Yannick D (gb) wrote: An interesting case. While the film as a whole doesn't come together in the evocative way the filmmakers likely intended, the West Texas stuff is riveting with amazing performances (Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon and holy sh*t: Aaron Taylor-Johnson).

Wiebke K (de) wrote: Movie with greater potential - the acting was not great, and way too much light for London during the Blitzkrieg, but still fun to watch.

Grant S (br) wrote: Very weak, unoriginal and implausible sequel. The original Wolf Creek (2005) was quite good, especially for a slasher-horror movie. The tension got built gradually, the bad guy took a while to reveal himself and the conclusion was never obvious.Eight years on and writer-director Greg McLean decided to make a sequel. Not that the original needed a sequel - it was fairly complete. A sequel would only live off the first one, rather than add to it.And so it is.Wolf Creek 2 adds nothing to the original. It is really your common-or-garden slasher-horror: unoriginal, weak, one-dimensional, cliched plot, filled with your usual horror plot devices. Seems to borrow extensively from Texas Chainsaw Massacre plus a bit from Saw and even Duel. Just about every scene feels like you've seen it somewhere before.Only original thing is the setting - the Australian outback (northern Western Australia to be exact). John Jarratt is back as Mick Taylor, and this time his whole redneck ocker shtick wears very thin, very quickly. Last time he appeared late in the film and didn't have as much dialogue. This time he is in just about every scene, and has heaps of dialogue (of sorts). The psycho-hick one-liners quite quickly make one embarrassed to be Australian...Avoid, even if you liked the first movie.

Akshay R (jp) wrote: This Indian version of BANDITS really thrills us from start to finish.

Stuart B (ca) wrote: what the hell was all that about?

helcio h (ca) wrote: Um filme de terror muito violento e engraado. Michael J Fox (Back to the Future) e Dee Wallace (ET) esto fantsticos.

Kurt B (de) wrote: As one of the few films depicting the Boer War, it does a fantastic job of not only disecting the immorality of modern warfare, but the entire foundation upon which the British Empire was built. Woodward, as well as the entire cast, put in top performances.

Thomas M (mx) wrote: Stylishly visualized film of the German expressionist movemment of the early 1920's that spawned such other horror classics as "Nosferatu" (1922), "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" (1919) and "Metropolis" (1926). Is slightly hampered, maybe its just me, by the overly stagey attitude of the direction and acting. Specifically the acting. Everyone is mugging with eyes bulging and shaking their hands ups in the air for any slight shock. And the makeup on the monster is pretty primitive. But hey its the roaring twenties. Not 2010. This Jewish fairy tale, centuries old, was the inspiration for Mary Shelley's universally known novel "Frankenstein". Great story. Great metaphor about not using violence to beget violence. Neat visuals. Just hampered by the tastes of time. The director was one of the few people to get away with refusing to join the nazi party and not leave the country or get arrested. He has made several films but most were destroyed. This film, while lost for decades, was rediscovered in the 1970's. I remember first seeing this film on SciFi networks "Moonlight Matinee" show that aired around 3 a.m. on saturdays around March of 1998.

Curtis W (jp) wrote: Truly ahead of its times. This Political Satire of a film is absurdly (sometimes disturbingly) funny with its use of classic movie clips in an allegorical sense to describe its situations. And with a cast thats pitch perfect for their roles (Mae West, Raquel Welch, Rex Reed), this film is certainly not as bad as everyone says it is!

Michael A (nl) wrote: This is a reviled piece of shit. Poorly portrays the original classic, and is absolutely ruined by Hollywood.