#FUuumovies | All Systems Operational Normally

Watch Le jeune Ahmed

(1819) 6.6 90 min 2019

Le jeune Ahmed is a movie starring Idir Ben Addi, Olivier Bonnaud, and Myriem Akheddiou. A Belgian teenager hatches a plot to kill his teacher after embracing an extremist interpretation of the Quran.

Victoria Bluck, Myriem Akheddiou, Idir Ben Addi, Olivier Bonnaud
Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Luc Dardenne

Disclaimer: This site does not store any files.

Product details

Audio English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles 日本語  Čeština  Português  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres Drama
Director Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Luc Dardenne
Writer Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Luc Dardenne
Stars Victoria Bluck, Myriem Akheddiou, Idir Ben Addi, Olivier Bonnaud
Country Belgium, France
Also Known As O Jovem Ahmed, El joven Ahmed, その手に触れるまで, Unge Ahmed, Ha'Bkhira, L'età giovane, Young Ahmed, Ο νεαρός Άχμεντ, Młody Ahmed, Az ifjú Ahmed
Runtime 1H 30M
Description A Belgian teenager hatches a plot to kill his teacher after embracing an extremist interpretation of the Quran.

Top reviews

Thursday, 02 Apr 2020 11:36

These are words that describe "Ahmed" without using the word "gay". I won't say any more than that, because it is too complex to give away too much. What is really worth knowing, however, is how this film works on a basic level. As a film, it is an improvement on the typical French movie of the 1980s, where a story is told with lots of action and violence. "Ahmed" is an original story, and one of the few films I have seen to be as entertaining as this. The idea of the film is simple. When a lesbian friend of the protagonist is in a situation that she can't live without, she goes to a room in her apartment, in order to escape the situation. At the same time, she is surrounded by the characters who do not want her to stay. That is it. No real twists, no social issues, no complicated meanings. Just a simple story, about three friends who meet in a place where they feel safe, but who don't really know why they are there. But what is even more interesting is the story of how they manage to survive. The fact that they are all known in France, by the way, makes the film more realistic. I have no idea how it is possible to make such a simple story out of three strangers, but it is done. It is done very well. All the actors are exceptional, even if there are some flaws in their performances. The best character of the film is the character of the roommate who is the protagonist, played by Anne Bercot. Her character is so beautifully played that you can't help but be drawn into her. You could feel her pain, you could feel her confusion, you could feel her curiosity. Her character is the only character I could identify with. It is this simple, but good character that makes "Ahmed" a masterpiece, for me at least. If you have seen "The Horse Whisperer", you have seen "Ahmed", because the characters and the story are very similar. The main difference is that the Horse Whisperer is a man, and the protagonist of "Ahmed" is a woman. But the three characters, who were introduced at the end of the movie, are very different. The protagonists of "Ahmed" are very different. They are not violent, but they are extremely perceptive. They are very intelligent, and they are often at odds with one another, because they don't want to get involved with each other. They have problems with the people they have to live with, and they express these problems in different ways. They are basically in conflict with themselves. The most important character in "Ahmed" is not the girlfriend, but the "Shark", played by Isabelle Huppert. Isabelle Huppert is one of the greatest actresses I have ever seen. Her character, which is the protagonist of "Ahmed", is also one of the most interesting. She is very expressive, and she is almost a different person from the rest of the characters. I can't think of any other actress that has been able to portray such an unusual character as Isabelle Huppert. I hope that you see "Ahmed" when you get the chance. You will not regret it. This is a must see, for sure.
Wednesday, 01 Apr 2020 13:00

I like to be informed, especially about issues in Africa, and as a film student I have been reading a lot about the civil wars in the 1990s in Liberia, which was a very bloody one, and then I read a lot about the "Haiti" civil war which was intense as well, with almost three million dead and perhaps even more. And then there was this one in Uganda that was like a mini version of the former, but much more interesting. This film is about the author of the book, who was one of the few people left in the country. He was a doctor who was helping the poor of the country, but he was also against the way the country was run, and even more so against the social injustices that were happening to the women and girls in the country. And he was telling the people how they should deal with the situation. In the end, the people chose the lesser of two evils, but they did so on the basis of how the situation was being handled, and not based on how they should act. The film is interesting and it makes you think about the people in power in the country, and how they could have possibly set up the situation in the country, but still continue to play the game of making decisions on how they should go about their lives. The film does not shy away from showing the horrible human rights violations that were going on in the country, but it also tells you that the country is being run by the military, and there are certain people who don't want this to happen. And the film does a good job of showing the beauty of the country, but also of the issues that were being dealt with. And even though I think the film is quite good, I do have to say that I think the director and writer did a good job at telling the story. And he was able to show that the atrocities that were being committed were not just happening on a small scale. I think the director and writer showed that this is happening in a larger scale, and that is what made this film a bit unique. If you're looking for a film that has something to say, this is one that you should check out. It was made by a French director and it's based on a book. I recommend it.
Monday, 30 Mar 2020 14:23

The success of his debut novel, "The Man Who Loved Women" (Rouben Bousquet, 1996), and the Oscar for Best Foreign Film, "The Constant Gardener" (Hugo Stiglitz, 2003), made Alain Robbe-Grillet one of France's most successful young actors, most famous for playing his role in "La Femme Nikita" (Salva, 2001). This French movie has a very complicated plot, and the main character is someone who is already old enough to be his father, yet who is married to his own mother, and who wants to take her along to a remote village where he is making a documentary about his father's life. The village is full of legends about the old man who lived there and about what he did to the people who lived there. There is an old man who still walks the streets, his wife, and their three children, all old enough to be their parents, have to live on their own. They are extremely isolated, with no electricity, no running water, no telephone, and no books to read. The village is famous for not allowing anyone to leave their homes, and the kids can only go to school outside the village. There is a woman who is a madwoman who is just waiting for her husband to die. She can't bear to let anyone leave her house, because she wants them to be buried in the cemetery, so that they can never come back to the house, and she will never be able to see their bodies again. When she is in bed with her husband, she starts crying, and goes to the garden to cry herself to sleep. The old man wants to make a documentary about his father, but cannot go out to look for him, and has to find him. The man's mother is sick, and is told that her husband is in a hospital. She goes to find him, and he tells her that he wants to take her along with him, to make a documentary about his life. She says she will stay in her house, and he will take her along to a remote village. The old man says that she cannot stay in his house for a long time, because there is no electricity and she cannot run water, and that they will be far away from any human contact. She thinks that she will never see him again. The old man then tells her that they will make a documentary about her husband, and that he has been in the hospital for some time, but that he is alive. The documentary is shown, but the mother is so sad that she cries all the time, and is unable to keep her eyes open. The film ends with a still shot of the girl, whose face is completely grey, and who is still covered by her white clothes. This film is very beautifully shot, and has a very slow pace, but the cast is very good, with Jean-Louis Trintignant, one of France's most prolific actors, and Julien Bonvoisin, who has been in numerous films in the last two years, most notably "Le lense de l'urbanite" (2006) and "The Constant Gardener" (2003). The film won the Jury Prize at the 1998 Cannes Film Festival, and was nominated for the Best Foreign Film Oscar at the 2003 Academy Awards. It was also nominated for a Golden Palm Award at the 2004 Venice Film Festival. (Scores of 8.5/10, based on 16,507 votes at the time of this writing).
Saturday, 28 Mar 2020 08:11

There's a lot of talk about what makes a movie "good" or "great" and the differences between them. While this is always a part of the film making process, I think the message of this film is particularly important to those of us that don't live in a society that sees a movie as good or great if it's made by a movie studio or a big studio like Warner Brothers. This is a movie that takes a lot of subjective judgments on it's portrayal of an Egyptian girl's life. It could be said that this is a drama in the manner of The King's Speech or a drama in the manner of the Bible, but is it a good drama or a good movie? I personally thought that it was a good movie because I think that it's a movie about life, how we all go through the ups and downs of the life, but we never know if the ups and downs will lead to a tragic ending. We can't help but reflect on our life and reflect on what we did while it was good. We could always hope for a better life and a better ending, but is that always going to be the case? This film isn't about whether the movie was a good movie, it's about how life is unpredictable and how life is unpredictable and life is unpredictable and this is reflected in the movie. There's a lot of discussions about this film on this site, and I think that most people are of the opinion that this film is better than most, but I personally think that the film is better than most because it's about a whole different life and a whole different life compared to most people. People seem to really compare movies to life, or life to a movie, but this isn't really the case. This is about different people, different lives and different experiences, but this is never really how life is, and we need to take a step back and say that this is just one individual's life and life is like any other person's life, not just different from someone else's life. Life is always going to be different than you, because you're going to be different, just not as bad as some people, but I believe that this film is about how life is different than some people, not what's the best life that you could have, but different and unpredictable, but different from some other people.
Saturday, 28 Mar 2020 00:38

The trailer for "Ahmed" made me think of a French movie called "The Train" from the early 1980s. But after watching this movie, I can only recall the similarity between the two, since "The Train" is an old American movie that has an old French premise. "The Train" is a period piece, depicting the brutal 18th century French empire that was so dominated by the Catholic church. The storyline of this movie deals with a young man, Ahmed, who, at the age of 17, leaves his home in Paris for the U.S. He is a child prodigy who was able to read the works of Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. As a result of his "experience", he is promoted to become a lawyer for his father's firm. Ahmed falls for a woman from his own law firm, and when they find out about his relationship with his father's firm, they think that he has a chance of making his father proud by being a lawyer. So they decide to set up a summer school for Ahmed. Ahmed is supposed to attend the summer school in New York. But, when he arrives in New York, he is surprised to find that his father's firm is actually a law firm run by a woman named Sally, who also acts as an adviser to Ahmed's father. Sally has no intention of letting Ahmed attend the summer school. But Ahmed does not want to be separated from his mother and convinces his father to let him go. "Ahmed" is a good movie, if you are familiar with "The Train" and other French period pieces. It also has a couple of good performances by Thierry Hencou, who plays Ahmed's father, and Anne Le Fesse, who plays the mother of Ahmed. The other French actors are also very good, including Jean-Pierre Darroussin as the man in charge of the summer school, and Laurent Piffer as Ahmed's tutor. Overall, "The Train" is a nice movie that shows that it is very difficult to be an independent film maker in France today. The one major problem with French movies is that the plot tends to be very predictable, and the characters seem so uninteresting. "The Train" makes a good film that will not bore you.
Monday, 23 Mar 2020 19:50

On a deserted island in the middle of the Indian Ocean in the 1970's, two doctors, a French and a German, have to work together to save a couple of locals from a few hundred years of volcanic eruption. They find that they have their own selfish reasons for the present crisis. The physician, played by Laurent Chereau, feels that his conscience has become so heavy that he has to leave the island. The doctor, played by Hubert Turpin, feels that he needs to leave the island. The island is like a source of identity for the doctor. He feels that it gives him a sense of the purity of a time that has passed. At the same time, he wants to feel something of the past, a time of tranquility, of faith. Both men make promises to each other that are not meant to be kept. Neither of them can live with the knowledge of the other. These promises are written in a stone that is about to blow. The doctors eventually decide to leave the island. However, both of them do not realize that this will destroy their future. They take on the responsibility of trying to save the island and, in the end, are willing to do anything, including lying, to save it. They are, in the end, willing to leave the island and live with the past. There is a tremendous intensity about this movie. It shows that there are consequences for having certain commitments. They are consequences that cannot be avoided. There is also a great sense of pride about being in a situation that is so different from anything that we have ever known. It shows how different people can change and how different people are willing to change their way of life, their ways of being and the ways of living. The doctor who wanted to leave the island had to leave. He had to accept the changes that were happening to him and to live with the past. The doctor who did not want to leave had to accept the changes that were happening to him. They had to make the change, so they could live with the changes. There is a very strong sense of destiny in this movie. It is not like an ordinary drama. It is very different. It has a real sense of fate. If you have read the book, you know the movie ends with the doctor having to leave. However, the story does not end there. It does not end with the doctor having to leave. It is like the doctor having to accept his death. The doctor and the doctoress make promises to each other that are not meant to be kept. In the end, the doctor can live without the doctoress. But the doctor has to accept the consequences of his actions. The doctor has to accept the consequences of his actions.
Sunday, 22 Mar 2020 15:06

I can see why so many people find this movie horrible, but I can't see how anyone could find it anything less than outstanding. It's difficult to say why, because this is not a movie that will ever be appreciated by mainstream audiences. In some ways it does try to be artful, but it is in the form of a documentary. But I did find it fascinating in how it attempted to show us the impact of one event on the lives of its characters, even though it is a film about a subject that is not very familiar to most people. In fact, I think I have a pretty good idea of what it would have been like if it had been set in the Middle Ages. Although I feel that the time period in this movie is portrayed as just a backdrop to the lives of the people, I think that the time period does have a certain impact on the people that are depicted. What would have happened to the people in the film if they had lived during the Middle Ages? I think that this documentary style, combined with the strength of the performances, helps to make the movie seem more real, and more interesting. The cast is mostly young people, but there are also actors who are over 40 who I would describe as the middle-aged. I think that their acting helped to make the movie more realistic. The most impressive performance was by the young lady who plays Alatas, a young man that has seen a lot of the world and who struggles with his grief. He has only been married for six months, and I was very impressed by his portrayal of an older man. The use of silence during his speaking scenes was very effective, and I was actually surprised at how much the scene was effective. There was no spoken word, only facial expressions and gestures, and I thought that this helped the movie in several ways. It was not the best movie I have ever seen, but it was a very effective and interesting movie that I would recommend to anyone.

Write a review