Wadjda

Wadjda

Wadjda is a 10-year-old girl living in a suburb of Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia. Although she lives in a conservative world, Wadjda is fun loving, entrepreneurial and always pushing the boundaries of what she can get away with. After a fight with her friend Abdullah, a neighborhood boy she shouldn't be playing with, Wadjda sees a beautiful green bicycle for sale. She wants the bicycle desperately so that she can beat Abdullah in a race. But Wadjda's mother won't allow it, fearing repercussions from a society that sees bicycles as dangerous to a girl's virtue. So Wadjda decides to try and raise the money herself...

An enterprising Saudi girl signs on for her school's Koran recitation competition as a way to raise the remaining funds she needs in order to buy the green bicycle that has captured her interest. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Wadjda torrent reviews

J C (kr) wrote: A fun slasher with an unpredictable plot. I wish the movie gave me more opportunity to actually care about any of the sorority sisters before they started indiscriminately dying. Could have been better, but could have been so much worse.

Daniel P (mx) wrote: An enjoyable, feel good, but ultimately quite predictable British film, although what is most interesting is the way in which the project has been successfully developed in collaboration with members of MySpace UK.

Private U (kr) wrote: It was a joy to experience this movie and thank you to the creators of it. It shared many messages within it and is a blessing to watch.

Rachel M (es) wrote: as expected, it was very predictable.

Galen P (kr) wrote: Ringo Lam's prison drama. Chow Yun-Fat and Tony Leung Ka-Fai both put in great performances.

Eddie D (us) wrote: Sooooo great!! Lee Marvin & Charles Bronson

Mary H (ag) wrote: Ronald Colman turns in a dashing performance as poet Francois Villon battling for his beloved Paris in 13th century France. For Basil Rathbone fans, it is an unexpected treat--an unusual departure from his typical villainous role into broader comedy. A most enjoyable movie!

Lilian L (es) wrote: Guess Deb is the only female in the movie. She acted .. so fake until she died. You will never know when and where you will meet someone who can be a true friend with you.

Harry W (fr) wrote: Being an Academy Award nominated documentary about the animal agriculture industry, Food Inc. was an essential source of education for me as a vegetarian.If you've seen many documentaries about vegetarianism, you know what to expect from a film like Food Inc. in terms of revealing where meat comes from. But Food Inc. goes beyond that because it does not simply examine where meat comes from, it goes significantly further into the production of meat by examining what happens even before it as well as significantly afterwards. We see the production of corn in massive amounts and learn how it contributes to the mass production of animals, gaining an understanding how just how much farming really goes into meat production. As well as that, we see the animals turned into meat. There is not as much confrontation of seeing animals die on screen, but we see them alive seconds before we see how they are turned into the meat that looks appealing on market shelves. The film really stays true to its title in this sense. There are a lot of facts to take in from Food Inc., and some viewers may find themselves isolated by the abundace of talking and slow pace with somwhat littl sense of emotional drama to support it, but it cannot be denied that Food Inc. is essentially a straightforward checklist of facts about where food comes from, like it or not. And I will admit that there are some strrong emotional moments in the film, even if most of it is about the legal system. Though many films have revealed just how poorly animals are treated as part of animal agriculture, Food Inc. does not hit viewers over the head with that message. It goes beyond that and shows how humans are affected by it, including through the important depiction of how contaminated meat lead to the death of two year old Kevin Kowalcyk. The heart breaking true story behind the fact that a child was killed by a hamburger and the fact that the meat industry could not give less of a crap is intergral to understanding precisely what kind of a disgusting industry it is. If the fact that it tortures animals every day is not enough to hit viewers, then perhaps the fact that it is responsible for the death of an innocent child and potentially many more is enough to make you understand just how harmful the industry is, and perhaps it is parent ho really need to see Food Inc. to be confronted by this.The dramatization in these scenes are great because director Robert Kenner affirms an interview with the mother of the child, Barbara Kowalcyk. Seeing her break down on camera and speak with such a broken heart is a lot to take in, and it is a bold and corageous move which hopefully moves viewers to really take everything from the film in.One thing I really respect about Food Inc. is the fact that it examines how the meat industry and fast food franchises are able to control the world through subsidisation of meat. The fact that it is cheaper to eat something that a Cow has been killed for than a head of Broccolli is ridiculous to think about, but it is simply a fact which is strange. Food Inc. explains the situation while conveying just how strange it is to live in a world where that is a fact of life. Food Inc. does not press that this is ridiculous simply because when you look at the facts, it truly is. We live in a world where a burger costs less than a head of broccolli. Let's all think about that for a second. If you didn't question that before seeing Food Inc., then it is excellent that the film will have you thinking it by some point in the film. Though it is not explored just as much as it could have been in comparison to many other concepts, it is present and it poses a question to viewers.Like I said, there are a lot of politics in Food Inc.. This is where it takes a bit of a downturn, because despite the amount of dedication put into bringing these scenes to the film, there are so many concepts which are touched upon only briefly. All the people affected by the corrupt legal system are given brief bats of screen time without a conveyal of just how powerlessly betrayed they would be feeling by their own country as a result. There is potential there, but it is all a bit scattered in a rush to not really go many places. The first two sections of Food Inc. were a lot more focused and detailed while the third section messes around a bit much even though it dominates a fair quantity of screen time. The balance in Food Inc. is rather thrown off by the way it raps itself up with this, meaning that the final act of the film is its weakest and the most distant from viewers due to the complicated political nature of it. However, Food Inc. does end on a high note which matches the rest of the atmosphere.While many documentaries are nihilistic about the way that humanity approaches animal agriculture even with the intention of changing the world, Food Inc. is actually one which maintains a sense of hope. Due to the thriving with energy for the entire film, Food Inc. matches this in its ending with a message which pushes viewers to really get involved in changing the world by talking about how hope still exists, making it an good-spirited documentary for one with such serious subject matter.So Food Inc. doesnt have the best third act, but the way that it examines just how complicated animal agriculture is from the process of feeding animals to suffering from eating them is really effective and educational while not neglecting a sense of entertainment.

Mindy H (br) wrote: I thought this had important life lessons!

Harry W (mx) wrote: Finding myself in the mood for a film packed with cheap action thrills, Never Back Down sounded like the ideal film to check out.I expected Never Back Down to be packed with action movie cliches, but I didn't know that it was a high school film. But when it made this clear, I knew that there was going to be more movie tropes packed into Never Back Down than I could have ever imagined. That sentiment ended up true, because Never Back Down hits viewers over the head with this notion long before the film becomes an action movie. The earliest example of this comes from when Jake Tyler is packing to move to a new city and fills a box with his football gear before labelling the box "Useless Junk" which leaves absolutely nothing to the implications. The cliche is so explicit that it is almost laughable, and considering that Never Back Down proves to repeat that level of conventional plot points every minute of the rest of the film there is a suggestion that the film could succeed as an unintentional comedy. The plot of the film is absolutely ridiculous, trying to bring the concept of a MMA fighting ring to a high school setting. It clearly wants to be a modern day version of The Karate Kid but with an updated style of violence more fit for the crowd of the MTV generation. That style is uninspired and shallow without even a hint of style to it, pinning weak filmmaking against an even weaker narrative. As a martial arts film, Never Back Down actively works against everything that martial arts is supposed to be for. The protagonist uses violence against other people to get his aggression out or whenever he wants to show himself up, even though he is told never to fight outside the gym by his trainer Jean Roqua. Roqua is the one competent character in the story, even though he is heavily an archetype in the same sense that everything else in the film is. Yet of course, all the messages he passes on to Jake Tyler prove to be wasted cliches burdened even more by the fact that they do not go to heart. You can't expect them to go to heart partially because there is no underlying messages in the film, but also because it doesn't have a heart. To make matters worse, the protagonist is such an agressive and unlikable one that I rarely found myself rooting for him. I wanted a good fight, but I didn't care who won because the story did not leave me supporting him. When an action movie has you not caring about the protagonist, you know its failing at its job. Yet Never Back Down falters even more when it comes to actively delivering the action.One thing I hate in action films is when the action is buried beneath shaky cinematography and excessively quick editing. Although there are countles worse examplesl than Never Back Down, Jeff Wadlow still directs the film to succumb to the same flimsy film style. This technique is normally added to limit the violence in the film and limit the blood and gore, yet the DVD release of the film delivered promises of more of this than the theatrical version which was not lived up to. Although the fight choreography is decent, the way that Jeff Wadlow goes about capturing it all effectively ensures that the action in Never Back Down is completely butchered and dashes past the eye of the viewer which frustrates me more than all the incompetent plot devices ever could. Never Back Down is more of an insult to fans of action cinema than it is to martial artists.And of course, the cast in the film are pathetic.Sean Faris is a frustratingly generic protagonist. Anchored in the roots of the entire generic film around him, Sean Faris is condemmned to portraying a character who is such a pathetic jock and nothing else. Nothing about the character is either original or compelling, and that includes the performance of Sean Faris. There is mild enjoyment to be had out of seeing his fighting abilities, but since they are buried beneath shoddy filmmaking it is all the more easy to see his acting as the main factor. He has no charisma and none of the inspiration that the film pretends to have, ending up an ultimately forgettable actor and nothing more.Though Academy Award nominee Djimon Hounsou shows up in Never Back Down and his physical capabilities are admirable, he is stuck with an exceedingly weak and uninspired character. Though he is supposed to be the one to inspire the protagonist, Jean Roqua is a character without an interesting subplot. He is not a strong coach, and even though he clearly has the ability to pack a punch with his fighting skills, the same cannot be said about his performance. I don't blame him because I know he is talented, I just know that the weight of poor direction and a generic script is too much for him to hold up by himself.Evan Peters is just stupid. Though Evan Peters is supposed to provide the comic relief to the story in Never Back Down, he is just plain annoying from the first second on screen and every one after that. There is no subtlety in the character as he just refuses to shut up, even though his gimmick is frustating from the first second. When he gets beaten up as part of the narrative drive I couldn't have cared less, and the idiodic nature of the character just left me thinking that he was stupid enough to drag himself into a trap and deserved the consequences. Evan Peters is the least compelling of all in Never Back Down.Lastly, Cam Gigandet offers nothing as the film's primary antagonist. Although he looks mildly like Paul Walker and shows off some decent fight moves, he has little in the way of gimmicks. Cam Gigandet plays the antagonist of Never Back Down with no involvement in the character and a truly lifeless nature. He can get away with claiming that the persona he puts on is merely a facade for an underlying antagonistic nature, but I would just call it a lazy performance more than anything. Cam Gigandet plays such a blank and spiritless antagonist into Never Back Down, but at least he doesn't come off as being pretentiously melodramatic like everyone else.So Never Back Down buries its potential appeal for competent viewers beneath every single action movie cliche and high school movie trope in the book before pushing away action movie fans with poorly crafted fight scenes and uninspired characters.

Russ B (ru) wrote: 8/1/2016: A pretty decent cop drama with a great cast. Lots of action with an intriguing story.

Pseudonym P (de) wrote: According to Wikipedia and History, In 1961 Michael Rockefeller went missing in the jungles of New Guinea. According to this film, New Guinea is the second most dangerous place on the planet, outside of Iraq. I don?t know if that?s true or not. You know Cannibals live in the jungle? Amongst Horror fans, every film from ?The Blair Witch Project? to ?Cloverfield? to the recent ?Paranormal Activity?, all get compared to ?Cannibal Holocaust.? Which is why this film, is the only one that matters. ?Welcome to the Jungle? is like a tamed version of ?Cannibal Holocaust.? So, DO NOT watch ?Cannibal Holocaust? if you can?t take this. Dimension Extreme?s line of Horror films has put out a few duds, but this is a gem. Two very different vacationing-couples, get a tip on the location of a man who might be Michael Rockefeller. Well you know we got to go search for him. Shot with a Canon XL2 (The same camera ?28 Days Later? was shot with), Director Jonathan Hensleigh takes the whole ?shaky-cam,? ?this film is being shot by the characters style,? to a whole new level.

David P (ru) wrote: One of the best giallos I have ever seen.