The President Versus David Hicks

The President Versus David Hicks

A documentary about the "Australian Taliban", David Hicks. The film follows the struggles of David's father, Terry Hicks, as he tries to free his son from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay. Terry Hicks travels the world, locking himself in a cage on street corners in major cities as a demonstration of the harsh conditions his son is unjustly suffering under. At the same time, the movie traces David Hicks' path through Pakistan and Afghanistan, where he eventually joined the Taliban.

A documentary about the "Australian Taliban", David Hicks. The film follows the struggles of David's father, Terry Hicks, as he tries to free his son from the U.S. military prison at ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

The President Versus David Hicks torrent reviews

Tricia M (us) wrote: Great action scenes. The choreograph was fresh and new. There was definitely a more intimate nature to the action. Loved the fact that the entire premise of the film is completely preposterous. Keanu Reeves' acting was mediocer as usual but that didn't matter. The director was the star of this film.

John S (ca) wrote: I agree with Al Miller. Loved it

Diepiriye K (nl) wrote: Anthony Mackie is hot (his fuck scene with Kerry Washington in 'She Hate Me' still straightens my toes), so any flic where he stars is juicy. The poetry and images of times long past- however fierce- is romanticism beyond any plain sex scene or skewed lighting. And what character depth and dialogue! This movie is definitely food for the soul through its ups and downs and certainly as we look back in order to move forward on steadier ground.Some cast notes: Ray Ford is fabulous fag who portrays a(nother) fabulous fag fabulously. Aujanue Ellis is simply captivating in her every role, and here she seriously works Zora Neale Hurston. (and mad props for the character development of this important writer/anthropologist and issues of integrity in a way that many artists bravely face). And, Daniel Sunjata, well, I would gladly drink his bath water.There are few films that give treatise to the cultural stance of the Harlem Renaissance, and consider the weight of the world that they were forming as artists. Is it only Black gays who search to understand how folks only 2-3 generations out of slavery, and in the midst of American Apartheid, could make an entire artistic social movement? (Don't we all need those skills?) This film is a majestic and inspiring portrayal. Did I mention Anthony Mackie was fine? So is the guy who plays Langston- made me re-read all his books.

Chris C (kr) wrote: Tragically, the last time Chuck Norris and Steve James share time onscreen...who knows what trash they could've made together.

Tommy H (ca) wrote: Buck being so emotional kind of ruined it for me. I suppose there are crazy criminals like him who are child-like, but characters like that are either fascinating or annoying and Buck was kind of annoying. As far as movies with unlikable characters go this one is worth a watch, but don't expect a thought-provoking script about the concepts of good and evil.

Jermaine P (us) wrote: Thas most hilarious parts of the movie: 1.The main dude fighting multiple enemies in a icy white kangol...2. The guy with that fake hook on his hand screaming" your gonna break my arm!! Owww my armm!!! Lmbo ridiculous!! This movie is super corny, never for one second did i take it serious as a martial arts film

Aj V (ru) wrote: The popular title for this movie is Ffolkes, which confused me for years about what kind of movie it might be, but it's a thriller in which Roger Moore plays "Ffolkes" a guy who trains himself and his friends to be able to take down enemies and/or fight for good causes. Perkins plays the leader of a group of terrorists who want to blow up oil rigs in the sea. Both of them give good performances even if the story isn't that great. Overall, it's pretty good, and I kinda enjoyed it.

Gary B (it) wrote: Not as good as ALVH, but still another good alternate explanation for how Lincoln battled during the Civil War

Jesse O (ag) wrote: You remember that movie Buried? You know, the movie that this one ripped off for its concept. Perhaps ripping off is too harsh of a term. Maybe this film had already been in development for a while, maybe even before Buried. It could've been that Buried's critical success, not commercial success unfortunately, opened the doors up for this film to be financed. The point is that, maybe through no fault of their own, this film will inevitably be compared, unfavorably, to Buried. First things first, Stephen Dorff clearly put himself through hell for this film. I can't imagine how it must be to be trapped in an incredibly confined space for hours on end. I can't really imagine how hot it must've been, though I'm sure they must've had a ventilation system going so as to make sure their lead actor didn't pass out due to heat. For all intents and purposes, Dorff does a great job here. The issues come in when the script, and its story, don't really match up to that performance. Ryan Reynolds gave the performance of his life in Buried, and it was needed in order to believably sell that story, but on top of that you had dialogue that was covered with suspense and tension. They were fighting against the clock in that movie, and the way that movie built, it made that concept work. It really felt like a race against time in order to save this man in this horrible situation. The longer he went, the more his chances to survive diminished. This film doesn't really have that, whether it be budgetary limitations or whatever. This film just doesn't have that same kind desperation, that same kind of 'we're running out of time'...even though one of the film's main visual concepts is the big clock counting down. There's no real hurry or importance to what's going on. Dorff makes it work for the most part because of his performance, and I think he makes the film watchable at best. Of course that's not even touching the ridiculous ending, which I'm DEFINITELY gonna talk about. The film falls victim to wanting to be one step ahead of the audience and I think it comes back to bite them in the ass. The film has two twists. The first twist actually works, in a way. Ok, I'm not even sure how I'm going to talk about this without spoiling it. So fuck it, I'm gonna SPOIL it. Skip ahead if you don't want this ending ruined. Basically, the first twist amounts to everything Jeremy was a part of, was actually a training exercise to see if he would, or could, handle the pressure of the situation and not give up important information about the President's whereabouts during terrorist attacks. It works because, with the government being as secretive as they are, it wouldn't surprise me if these types of exercises already exist. Pushing agents to the limit to see if they can handle the heat. If this had been the REAL ending, it would cheapen everything Jeremy went through...but it somewhat works. The second, and real twist, is the fact that making everything look like it was a training exercise, even down to hiring 'actors' to pretend to be the truck drivers, the 911 operator, the man he sees through the hole in the trunk walking his dog, Henry, and even his own wife, was fake. It was something to throw Henry off his game to, somehow, get him to loosen up and finally reveal the location of Roulette, the bunker the president hides in during terrorist attacks, a location that changes every so often and only a few people are ever aware of its location. Let me get this straight...this group of terrorists went through the trouble of staging this very elaborate hostage situation. Hiring actors to pretend to be people that are helping Henry, the truck driver and the 911 operator, for what exactly? Why would they go to this much trouble? It's absolutely preposterous. I'm not even sure what they were counting on, because for all they know Jeremy, when having gotten out of the trunk, wouldn't have ever given up the location of Roulette. What would they have done then? It's so needlessly, and by extension stupidly, elaborate that you have to wonder what the real purpose of it was. It's not hard for me to believe that the CIA, or whatever government agency you want, would plan these secret training exercises in order to see if one of its agents is up to the incredible demands, or pressures, of the job. That's not hard to believe at all. But when you go one step further and the secret training exercise is just a red herring for the real twist, that's when problems start. The logic of these villains start to fall apart. You realize how much meticulous planning this would actually take. Hoping that, somehow, Jeremy would slip up and reveal the location after he's told it was a training exercise. How can they count on that? The film falls apart because of this. There's no logic, no reasoning behind this. Well other than the fact that the filmmakers can say that they got one "over" on the audience by staying one step ahead. That may very well be so, but to stay one step ahead they had to dumb down what was actually, until that point, a decent movie. Being one step ahead by taking two steps backward isn't really being ahead, but if that's what they want to believe then so be it. Stephen Dorff worked hard, but this film's worst enemy was itself. Watch and you'll see what I'm saying.

Craig C (au) wrote: This movie was great. Slyvester Stallone was beautiful, his attitude was hilarious & aggressive at the same time. I also loved the axe fight at the end. I own this movie & I look forward to watching this movie.

James C (fr) wrote: I'm not sure how much of this story is fact for fact but the irony that establishes the base tone of the story plays well into the idea that this is a comedy. It's just a somewhat depressing one, taking into consideration the last twenty-thirty years of Middle Eastern history.

Paula M (fr) wrote: okay they tricked me when i Saw this on the new release list but its actually the original released on DVD. this movie is from the 80's ppl so dont judge too hard they didnt have the effects they have now. think she just finished E.T. around this time... i love Drew. if u like 80's movies u gotta watch

Giedre Z (kr) wrote: Josh is the only one good in this film

Jeff B (it) wrote: Perhaps Huston's most beautiful movie and certainly his most personal. You feel like this film never really gets going until the very end when the point of it is really driven home and a flood of emotion hits you. At least that's what happened with me. It sort of reminded me (because I saw it recently) of how "Gunga Din" was also structured in this way--leading toward a beautiful recitation perfectly encapsulating the author's message. It makes you think.