Subeer Kumar (Amitabh) is well on his way to becoming India's top pop singer. He has no intention of getting married, but when he goes to visit his Durga Mausi (Mausi=mother's sister), he falls in love with religious, simple Uma, by whose voice he's enchanted. He marries her and returns to Bombay where he announces that he will never sing without Uma again. However, Subeer encourages Uma to sing alone and when her popularity is soon greater than his own, the seed of jealousy begins to grow... The major difference between Uma and Subeer is that she sings for herself, whereas he sings for the public. It is the difference between geet and sangeet. This is the root of the thing that later causes problems, and based on which the movie is named.
Subeer Kumar (Amitabh) is well on his way to becoming India's top pop singer. He has no intention of getting married, but when he goes to visit his Durga Mausi (Mausi=mother's sister), he ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
David L (gb) wrote: Another Sci-Fi, and another success from my point of view so all is good in the Leonard mind right now. When Bradley Cooper gets writers block and sees his life spiralling out of control in a matter of minutes, he takes up a long lost acquaintances offer of a new drug that will allow him access to utilise 100% of his brain - I mean what could go wrong right? At first, it appears unbelievable as within seconds he is displaying knowledge and reactions he never new he had, allowing him to not only complete his book, but advance his career to the highest level, making millions in minutes. The only catch is that this is only as good as his last drug, so when he's ran out, it's game over - Not only will he lose his incredible thought process, but there's a fair chance he'll lose his life too given the unstable side effects of this new pill. Can he ensure a lifetime supply of happiness, or will it be a case of rags to riches, and riches to RIP? Only time would tell, and the development is quite an enjoyable journey. Wasn't really what I was expecting, but what I got was much better so what a bonus. For me the ending didn't answer all the questions posed, as we're left second guessing how things would ultimately pan out, and as that's the main question on everyone's lips, that's a tad disappointing. It's moderately action packed, avoids being predictable, and is of course well acted throughout so is more than recommendable to those seeking a good old thriller. It won't blow you away, but won't leave you short either. It's also not the greatest message to be putting out there in today's society, by suggesting that some drugs can bring you the ultimate success. Therefore, if there's any youngsters reading this, SAY NO TO DRUGS kids, and don't believe what you see here!
John S (ru) wrote: oh man, what an awesomely stupid movie.
Jon W (kr) wrote: Kristen Stewart's best performance without a doubt.
Nicholas L (es) wrote: Predictable and featuring some really bad dialogues and performances, "Mindhunters" does little to retain the viewer's attention.
Ayrton Anthony C (mx) wrote: Es mas para nios, y no tiene calidad suficiente para disfrutarla.
Eric H (br) wrote: Typically enigmatic Kiarostami film (although one not without some deadpan comedy, and with all the inherent geographic and cultural fascination associated with his work for Western audiences) winds through his previous work and themes, and through the remote Iranian village in which it's set, as gracefully and surely as a river (a somewhat fearsome one, for all its calmness). It's about (apparently) a group of photographers or filmmakers - only one of whom is ever seen directly - awaiting a mysterious ceremony that will follow an ailing old woman's death (actually, I'm not entirely sure of the accuracy of even that broad a synopsis) but although the narrative may be in part a death watch, the film itself is "a subtle personal debate about the value of being alive" (a beautiful one-line summary by Deborah Young of Variety). The film strikes a mystical balance between its parched environment and the signs of the modern world: the process of getting the cell phone to work forms a recurring pattern, warily intertwining with fragments of old poems and evocations of antiquity, mystery and ritual. The ending was, to me, more satisfying than in his last film A Taste Of Cherry, but the film really requires a second viewing: after seeing it just once, you walk away slightly deflated - even indignant - at having largely failed its navigational challenge.
Julie R (au) wrote: This film is not without flaw, but it's beautifully shot and Richard Harris is fantastic (such a loss). This is definitely worth watching if you enjoyed Born Free, are interested in wildlife conservation, or are simply in search of some escapism. I missed the first 1/3 (since it was on tv) and didn't anticipate watching the rest - but I found myself engrossed and entertained.
Jordan A (ca) wrote: Liked it as a child but not so much now.
William M (br) wrote: other than the scenery, very dull
Garrett W (nl) wrote: Literally had no expectations whatsoever for this movie and it instantly made it to my top 5 animated DC films after I saw it. Action packed, full of humor, good animation and sountrack and phenomenal voice acting from some of the best voice actors in the business. Whats not to like?
Mloy X (es) wrote: Ray Tierney (Norton): Have a few nips this evening, pop? Francis Tierney Sr (Voight): I had a glass of scotch, officer. Ray Tierney (Norton): Just one, huh? Francis Tierney Sr (Voight): I used that same glass, yeah.The movie had an interesting story about corruption within the police force and it's really kind of scary to think about how the people who are supposed to be enforcing the law are able to abuse that power; but what's more scary is that this situation is not completely fictional (I've know a few corrupt cops). I was kind of surprise that Ed Norton actually played the hero while Colin Farrell played ***SPOILER ALERT*** thevillain, I had expected it to be reversed. But they both did a wonderful job and performed each of their parts nicely. Actually, the whole cast did a wonderful job, even cookie old John Voight, but mad props goes to Noah Emmerich, who played Francis Tierney Jr. His character although being completely dumb and seemed as guilty as Colin's Jimmy, was a bit more sympathetic because he was stupid enough to give the guys in his force the benefit of a doubt and really, truly believed that they respected the office as well as the badge as much he did. It's such a pity really. Overall, the movie was fast-paced and a little too excessive with the grit but I guess it goes with the territory when the storyline deals with drug-dealers; it's not gonna be rainbow and roses. Overall, it was good to watch once but I doubt if this is worthy of a second look.