Young Soul Rebels

Young Soul Rebels

Young Soul Rebels is a 1991 film by Isaac Julien which examines the interaction between youth cultural movements in Britain. Skinheads, Punks & Soulboys along with the political and cultural tensions between them. The film received the critics prize at the 1991 Cannes Film Festival

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:105 minutes
  • Release:1991
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:dancer,   murder,   fire,  

Set in London in 1977, the plot takes place against the background of the Silver Jubilee. This is a buddy movie between two friends Chris and Caz who run a pirate radio station from a tower... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Young Soul Rebels torrent reviews

Pavan R (de) wrote: A well made movie with no frills which is rare for an Indian movie. An interesting and simple plot with a message. Good acting and directing and especially have to say good editing.

Russ B (mx) wrote: 11/16/2016: A pretty decent family movie. Not quite as good as the first one though.

Brian C (fr) wrote: Hilarious western comedy by Seth MacFarlane. An all star cast lead this barrage of dirty jokes, zany deaths, and cowboys and Indians. There is a lot of fun to be had.Many jokes fell flat, but some were just so well played...especially the Back to the Future joke and Django Unchained jokes, and Liam Neeson as the evil Clinch!In the end, this is a love story about a man losing the women he thought he loved, and moving on. Great characters, and beautifully shot.

Jeanne H (ag) wrote: This is REALLY well done! If you like thrillers, you are in for a ride. Great dialogue, funny moments, and a twist after twist that get you. Gore + great story + huge suspense = a wonderful release from our crazy world. See it!!!!!

calvin g (mx) wrote: Very good British gangster film

Jamie C (au) wrote: I first saw this film in 1990 with Wilk the night before we went on our first lads holiday to Tenerife. I remember we loved it at the time and for me that hasn't changed. This is a great slice of sci-fi action,fast paced with a great plot and characters and some good twists along the way. As the title may suggest it's a hidden gem because I doubt if there are many people who've even heard of it so if you are a sci-fi fan hunt it down people.

Jason M (ca) wrote: excellent movie!!! great illustration of how life changes and we can not hold on to the past.

Jorge R (nl) wrote: An entertaining yet very cliched slasher, with terrible characters and a obvious Hostel twist. The long shots sequences are the highlight of the movie.

Daniel F (us) wrote: I loved this movie. i watched like 70% of it last night nd now im looking 4 it all over the internet. just loved everything about this movie

Trey C (gb) wrote: If only Sy-Fy movies aspired to this! Honestly, besides the parts using awful CGI, this was a very fun monster movie.

Randi K (es) wrote: i'm only giving it a half a star because there are actually scenes without the awful Paul Walker.

Brendan R (kr) wrote: Not really a fair rating, since I only saw this movie through the Mystery Science Theater episode so what I saw was edited. I was also predisposed to think of it as a bad movie because of the association. Even still, fairly painful.

Nicholas A (jp) wrote: Watch out Australia the Cane Toads are coming hahaha Love them or loathe them this shit is fantabulously high-larious!

Connor A (au) wrote: The epitome of B-Horror flicks of the 1980s, Nuke'Em High revels in blood, bikes and bitches. Sweeeeeeeeeet.

Nia D (it) wrote: Only getting the half star for the music. Poor story line, poor acting and just a overall poor film. have no idea why i watched it all the way through

Christopher S (ag) wrote: In terms of sheer outrageousness, it'd be hard to beat Ken Russell's cartoonish biopic which drops historical accuracy entirely in favor of wacky comic book satire. Roger Daltrey is perfectly cast in the lead, and the rest of the cast is appropriately over the top. It's not for all tastes, and may not be as deep or emotionally inspired as some of his other masterpieces, but this is a tremendously entertaining showcase for Russell's outrageous, witty imagination.

RC K (us) wrote: Aha! A literal translation of title for the final film in what is widely called Amando de Ossorio's "Blind Dead series." Often it is also called the best of the series, or at least the best of the sequels.Well, let's not beat around the bush: I'm inclined to agree. We have some stumbling blocks in this film, admittedly, but fewer than usual.There's a much stronger story this time, with less background to be established for the knights (they're actually a tad bit more mysterious this time, no longer stated to be excommunicated knights who worshipped blah blah etc) by dialogue, we instead see a much clearer flashback. It's familiar, as we inevitably expect at this point, with a topless woman being sacrificed by a group of stern, stoic, silent knights, her heart pulled forcibly from her chest--but this time placed in the stone mouth of an ugly, squat toad-like statue (ooh! shades of Lovecraft!). We also even have a bit of story with the woman sacrificed--she and her husband are moving into a new home and find themselves lost in the fog and far from where they should be when the knights decide to take her for their sacrifice. There is then a scene which involves crabs--this one is set very near the sea--which I was most definitely not expecting and took me a bit by surprise (as much as anything can anymore, anyway).Now we're dealing with Dr. Henry Stein (Victor Petit) and his wife Joan (Mara Kosty), who are moving into a small fishing village for Stein to take up practice there. They are largely ignored when they first arrive, asking repeatedly for directions to the doctor's house and recieving no response whatsoever. Finally physically impressing himself on someone, Stein is given an answer and they find the old doctor (Javier de Rivera) moving out, telling them quietly not to stay, to move on as soon as possible. Henry walks the doctor to his destination, and Joan finds someone looking in her window--the village idiot, basically (remember Murdo in El ataque de los muertos sin ojos? like that) named Teddy (Jos Antonio Calvo) who wants shelter from the abusive villagers. He's overacted (as these characters always are) but at least with enough consistency and honesty to overlook it if you aren't a total snob. He seems overly frightened so Joan takes him in, and she and Henry begin their first night when Joan begins to hear singing and chanting, then the sound of seagulls as they try to sleep. "Seagulls? At night?" Henry wonders aloud.We start to get the idea after this, when Joan goes to buy groceries from a local shop, that the villagers are hiding something and do not want outsiders to disturb them, plainly telling Joan she and her husband should leave. A local girl named Lucy (Sandra Mozarowsky) takes pity on Joan and asks for a job as an assistant with her, which Joan agrees to, but almost finds her offer rejected when she asks Lucy about the strange singing custom she and her husband decided was a tradition to bring good fishing hauls. This next night, a girl comes begging for help, but the villagers drag her from the doctor's door, her disappearance pushing the Steins to try to figure out what's going on, and debate whether to simply move out.Atmosphere and acting in this one were a good notch above usual, and the overall composition and editing were stronger than usual, forming a more cohesive, professional whole than the other films. The knights were more fully visible this time, with strong makeup/masks under their hoods, and some effects and such that are new to this mythos (though I maintain there IS no central mythos, especially in light of some endings...). We have stronger, more sympathetic characters (yay! no rape!) with actual good intentions and motivations--before we usually had people looking for friends or self-interested, and often abrasive. Not grating, annoying or UNsympathetic, but more sort of, "Well, it's a human and not a terrible one, I would PREFER if they lived..." Not so, this time. A doctor and his wife who are trying to help a village through his profession and only become angry at their treatment when pressed or when they feel someone is being denied treatment that needs it. Teddy is a little over-the-top, but clearly a child-like intellect and interest in the well-being of others. Lucy works to try and bridge the gap of view and opinion between the village she has grown up in and the strangers who don't understand it.So, a strong little film, and a good way to end the series, though I preferred the endings of La noche del terror ciego and El buque maldito--but this one works very well in its own context.

Cody C (ru) wrote: One of his very best. Totally genius. And homaged in Zack and Miri (twice) and Big Lebowski (a few times) and possibly Reservoir Dogs (there's a dog in a scene at a reservoir).

Loren R (ag) wrote: Der zweite Weltkrieg in der Stadt Stalingrad. Dieses Mal wird es aus der Sicht der russischen Front erzhlt. Ein junger Bauernsohn erweist sich als guter Scharfschtze und wird bald als Held gefeiert. Doch die Deutschen lassen es sich nicht auf sich sitzen und schicken auch einen Scharfschtzen an die Front, um den russischen Helden zu jagen.Die Geschichte geht eigentlich um den Helden Jude Law, der vom Nachrichtendienst Chef Joseph Fiennes angeheuert wird, die Deutschen zu dezimieren und dem russischen Volk wieder zu animieren, an den Sieg zu glauben. Der Krieg um Stalingrad ist eigentlich eine Nebensache. Ed Harris verkrpert den Gegenpart vom Helden und spielt khl und eisern.Regisseur Annaud zeigt den Krieg auf einer Sichtweise, die ein bisschen anders ist. Er zeigt nicht viel vom Krieg. Eher zeigt er eine Romanze und einen Verrat unter Freunden. Auch die Motivation fr das russische Volk, kommt dann eher als Propaganda rber.Der Film ist gut und auch sehr gut besetzt. Nur muss man unterscheiden knnen, ob der Film ein Kriegsfilm, Drama oder ein romantischer Film ist. Ich kann es mir nicht vorstellen, zwischen Gewehrsalven, Granaten, Bomben und Toten, romantische Gefhle zu haben. Ich htte auch gar keine Lust dazu.Fazit: Weniger ist mehr. Die Geschichte ist gut. Wirkt aber auf weite Strecken ber, eher unrealistisch!

Sam M (kr) wrote: Mediocre acting, good dialogue, but a very unoriginal plot.