#FUuumovies | All Systems Operational Normally

Watch Among the Believers

(753) 7.6 84 min 2015

Among the Believers is a movie starring Abdul Aziz and Pervez Hoodbhoy. An unsettling and eye opening exploration into the spread of the radical Islamic school Red Mosque in Pakistan, which trains legions of children to devote their...

Pervez Hoodbhoy, Abdul Aziz
Documentary, War, News, Biography
Mohammed Naqvi, Hemal Trivedi

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 Documentary, War, News, Biography
Director Mohammed Naqvi, Hemal Trivedi
Writer Jonathan Goodman Levitt
Stars Pervez Hoodbhoy, Abdul Aziz
Country USA, Pakistan
Also Known As Miedzy wyznawcami, Jihadistskolan, Jihadistien koulu
Runtime 1H 24M
Description An unsettling and eye opening exploration into the spread of the radical Islamic school Red Mosque in Pakistan, which trains legions of children to devote their lives to jihad, or holy war, from a very young age.

Top reviews

Tuesday, 07 Apr 2020 11:41

In a rare public appearance, President Lyndon B. Johnson, President from 1965 to 1969, gives a riveting and persuasive account of his efforts to end the Vietnam War in the early 1960s. This is a landmark interview, because it is not a history lecture or political statement, but rather a look at a time when the country was at a crossroads. LBJ, who at the time was in his mid-40s, explains his initial reluctance to support the war and how he came to support it, leading to a reevaluation of his own values and his foreign policy. Johnson has not always been a great listener, but in this interview he is clear and effective. He does not shy away from issues, but is not shy about the political stakes. Johnson tells the story of his family, his youth, and his years as a college professor. He also recounts his youth as a Cub Scout leader, his success as a politician, and his determination to end the war. Johnson also looks back at his presidency and is candid in his assessment of the results. The most fascinating parts of the interview are when Johnson is asked about the racial attitudes of his time. His answer is illuminating and refreshing. While he talks about the relationship between race and class, he never equivocates, saying that he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. He knows that the civil rights movement had a profound effect on the nation, and he reflects on his own race relations during his first term. He gives the interviewer the impression that he never wanted the Civil Rights Act to pass. He believes that it was his responsibility as president to get it passed, and that he was responsible for its passage because he saw that the majority of Americans wanted it. The interviewer also asks Johnson about his relationships with Martin Luther King, Jr., when he was at the University of Chicago, and the struggles of the civil rights movement, and he says that they were never really close, though they were friends. He tells the interviewer that he was not a very good friend of King. He also tells the interviewer that King's contribution to the civil rights movement was one that he wanted to do more, but did not want to become too involved. He was also unimpressed by the Black Panther Party, saying that it was the sort of organization that he would not have supported. He tells the interviewer that he wanted to focus on the problems facing the country. He has said that he is not as much interested in issues of race as he is in the economic condition of the country. He is also a fan of the Beatles and says that he wanted to hear the music in the White House, which he never got to do. Johnson, who speaks with an impressive command of the English language, also offers the interviewer some commentary on the civil rights movement. In a sense, he is doing the interview himself. His directness is sometimes overwhelming. He does not have time to take a long break and talk to a lawyer. He also does not want to get bogged down in the details of the Civil Rights Act, and he makes sure that the interview is interesting. In the end, this is a very moving and important interview, one that should be listened to. While it is not a complete history, it is a fascinating look at a time when the country was changing, and it does not preach at you. I enjoyed this interview, and would recommend it to anyone interested in the era.
Sunday, 29 Mar 2020 12:23

I have always been a strong supporter of the anti-war movement, and that makes me a bit biased in this movie. But the overall message of the movie is, in my opinion, a very important one. I have seen many war documentaries, and none of them have conveyed a message like this one. War is just another destructive force in human life. To be totally honest, I found the movie to be rather simplistic. It does not give much information about the motivations of the people, the political views of the people, or what motivates them. In fact, it seems that this is all a little too general. This is not a very well thought out film. And it is hard to tell if this is a deliberate strategy on the part of the director or if it is just a by-product of the director's inexperience. I think it is the latter. The director does not seem to be very knowledgeable about the history of the Middle East and it is not clear why the director was so adamant that the American involvement in Iraq was justified. This movie is very pro-American and does not fully tell its audience why the US is there in the first place. If it did, then it would have told more of a reason why the US is there, and it would have given a little more insight into why the US has intervened in the Middle East in the first place. If the director had been more knowledgeable about the reasons for the American involvement in Iraq, then the movie would have given a more complete picture of why it is a necessary evil to intervene in the Middle East. However, the director just gave a pretty general statement and did not provide enough detail. This is a minor issue, and the movie is still very good. The other main issue is that this is a movie made for a very small audience. I personally thought that the director was very close to the right audience. And that is because the director has never had an opportunity to educate himself about the history of the Middle East. It would be very difficult for him to get the facts correct. He probably would not be able to get the context correct either. Therefore, he is likely to get the general feeling of what the viewer feels. That is a pretty poor technique. There are many inaccuracies in this movie, but I will not comment on them. I will comment on the message it tries to send. It sends that message because the director is trying to convince the viewer that the US involvement in Iraq is not justifiable, but it is wrong. I do not think that it is true that this is a universal message. The director obviously knows that the viewer is not going to be able to get all of the facts. He is trying to get the viewer to feel as if the US involvement in Iraq is wrong, so he is going to try to convince the viewer that it is wrong. However, he fails. And that is not the case of many movies. I would give this movie a 7/10, but I would like to make it a 9/10. If the director had not given the message that the US intervention in Iraq is wrong, then the movie would have been a much better movie. This movie is not good, but it is still a good movie. I think the director did a good job in giving the message, but it was not good enough to convince me that the US intervention in Iraq is not justifiable. I think it would have been more effective if the director had given a more complete and well thought out message. I think the message was not very clear, and it is not clear to me that the message was well received. But it is not clear to me that the message was completely misunderstood. I think that the director is very close to the right audience, and the message was given the best way that he could. I think that this movie will be very popular, and that the director will probably make another movie with the same theme. I do not think that the director was good at the job, but I do think that the director is probably going to do better movies in the future. I hope he does. 7/10
Thursday, 26 Mar 2020 21:15

As one of the world's largest producers and sellers of wood and wood products, it's a curious fact that the United States, like Europe, is not a good place for independent movie-makers and filmmakers. The producers and producers' committees of the Hollywood studios have an interest in keeping the movies as faithful as possible to the plot and to the story, without any deviation whatsoever. They may even go as far as to make sure that the scenes in which American soldiers are killed are really, for the most part, real. They are then rewarded with Oscar nominations and further lucrative careers in the business. When this film "As One" was released in the United States, it was quickly attacked by the 'think-tank' and 'think-tank' journalists, and the media outlets that they like to call 'independent'. In response, I became a member of the movie-making fraternity, and I attended the screening in New York City. In this film, I am pleased to say that it is much more the case that the producers and the movie-makers are independent filmmakers. The producers were mainly 'independent', but that is not to say that they were in any way 'unindependents' from any other group of filmmakers, or producers. They were only in the business of making movies, and they do not hesitate to talk about the hardships they went through in order to do this. In fact, I found that they were as courageous as any of the other independent filmmakers I have known. To be able to make a movie is one of the most difficult things any one can do. You have to take risks and make mistakes. I think this film was very well done, and I am very happy that it was shown in New York City, where the main audience would be. I have no doubt that the film will find its way to the theaters in other countries. But I do believe that in America, this film will not be the usual kind of commercial product that Hollywood has given us. It will be a 'good' film, and I am sure that it will not be accepted by the 'think-tank' and 'think-tank' media that are so in thrall to Hollywood. If that is the case, I hope that the film will be shown in more places than just New York City. 7/10

Write a review