Rhymes for Young Ghouls

Rhymes for Young Ghouls

In 1976, a Mi'gMaq teenager plots revenge against the sadistic Indian agent who imprisoned her in a residential school where rape and abuse are common.

The film tells the fictional story of a teenager named Aila and her plot for revenge against the sadistic Indian agent who imprisoned her in a residential school where rape and abuse are common. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Rhymes for Young Ghouls torrent reviews

Fahad A (ag) wrote: Ali zafars in form and well the second half covered up for the drag in the first...the chemistry was amazing..overall a decent flick

David D (jp) wrote: An excellent wartime coming of age drama set in Nazi occupied Holland late in World War II. The story is powerful and well told. The acting is excellent. The settings and cinematography are outstanding. A very well directed and emotionally powerful movie.

Mikey P (br) wrote: excellent, but so sad...

Ida K (jp) wrote: There were a lot of parallels in this movie with my personal life. Like the main character, I also turned 13 in 1973. My father died of cancer that year so I identified with the turmoil of the time.

Craig S (us) wrote: Eyre is a skilled filmmaker that creates this landscape that shows the problems and tragedy on the reservation. Not at the level of Eyre's Smoke Signals, but it is a worthy film.

Fred M (nl) wrote: One of my favorite holiday flicks. Not only does it have some big names involved - Drew Barrymore, Matt Groening - but it takes its inspiration from the classic children's storybook. Much of the humor can be appreciated at two levels, as well. The musical numbers could be better, but is definitely recommend this for the children around the holiday season.

Danny S (mx) wrote: Even though the characters are plain bad, and the plot is sort of a mish-mash between Poseidon, Titanic and Alien, this movie remains whatchable because of the amazing special effects. That scene where John and Hanover walked through the bloody charnel and that hallway... Brrr!

Carlos I (br) wrote: An acquired taste, but such a blast if you're into these kinds of things. Never gets old.

Abhijeet P (au) wrote: One of the worst BigB movies to date. Terrible story, ridiculous plot and zero on entertainment. Was a hit because of the life threatening injury BigB sustained during shooting. Complete mockery of the Angry Young Man persona.

Mary H (us) wrote: Despite SFX very much of its time, this is a well-acted, atmospheric and genuinely creepy classic based on M.R. James' 'The Casting of the Runes'. It doesn't rely on the effects or even on the sudden frights that it peppers throughout so effectively (including that old favourite, a cat leaping out at our hero, though this may be no ordinary moggie). Instead, it builds on the fear of what might just be possible if we suspend our rational thought processes, leading to a a very satisfying ending. Dana Andrews as always very likeable and engaging and a small role for the actor who would become known as the softie Mr Barraclough in 'Porridge'!

Jim T (mx) wrote: Ed Wood at his "BEST?"

Art S (ca) wrote: To a vegetarian, this is essentially a snuff film. Animals die in a slaughterhouse. However, director Georges Franju treats the topic in a way that is not too far afield from David Lynch's Blue Velvet. That is, we see Paris and its tranquil daily life and then we go behind the faade to find out how meat is made available. Of course, in 1949, the killing is done by hand, by trained professionals (who nevertheless get cysts and other injuries in the course of their work). The film (only 20 minutes) is sometimes referred to as surreal and perhaps a pile of calves heads (after they are slaughtered to make veal) is an unusual image - but it is all too real, not surreal. Franju went on to make Eyes Without a Face, which is definitely surreal and horrific. In that film, a surgeon preys on young women in order to find a new face for his daughter (after a car accident). Perhaps the same moral coldness underscores both films.

Mike B (kr) wrote: Zero-point-five stars of five. ALPHA DOG. Impossibly bad. I cannot fathom how this was even made. The dialogue is laughable. There is no way to watch the whole thing, because your IQ will drop so fast you'll forget you're even human. By the end, you might not be.*You'll be laying on the ground, gibbering and shrieking in a mixed puddle of involuntarily excreted and projected bodily fluids, wondering if there is any meaning to your existence. It must be for something better than this. Please, please, for the sake of your children, do not watch this thing. P.S. -- In case it wasn't clear, I'm not a fan of this film.

Catherine K (mx) wrote: William Hurt's monotone performance ruined this movie. It made me realize Hurt always plays the same character and that works if he's properly cast. Totally miscast in this film so the director and casting deserve a kick in the pants too.

John N (it) wrote: Just when I thought Peter Jackson's trilogy couldn't get any better, Return of the King sets the stage as one of the best movies ever made. Compelling, complex, and action-packed, this is what film-making is all about.

Scott P (jp) wrote: How could such an incredible cast, combining Monty Python's and Young Frankenstein's stars and adding Cheech and Chong, be so relatively uninteresting. There are great bits here and there, but it's also a bit of a sad slog.