Subhash Gaekwad is a worker employed in a mill run by Lal and partners. Lal does not pay his workers well, and they decide to go on an indefinite strike. Lal does not really care, and soon ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Ameer Aadmi Gharib Aadmi
Subhash Gaekwad is a worker employed in a mill run by Lal and partners. Lal does not pay his workers well, and they decide to go on an indefinite strike. Lal does not really care, and soon ...
You may also like
Ameer Aadmi Gharib Aadmi torrent reviews
Daniel M (nl) wrote: More than any other form of documentary, sports films are often guilty of preaching to the converted. Through a combination of eccentric jargon, cliquey culture, off-putting aggression and economy with the truth, the majority of factual films about sport have no way in for the casual viewer. Fire in Babylon is an exception to this general rule, being a ramshackle but entertaining introduction to the West Indies cricket team of the 1970s and 1980s. The first success of Fire in Babylon is that it explains the appeal of cricket for West Indians, in a way which draws non-fans slowly but surely into the culture surrounding the game. Early on Michael Holding talks about cricket as the only activity which unites this small group of very different countries. He evokes scenes of young boys playing cricket on Caribbean beaches from the minute school ends until the sun goes down, painting an enticing if overly romantic picture of a sport too often associated with boring middle-aged Englishmen. But this is not a teary-eyed, rose-tinted documentary, extolling the spirit of cricket like characters from P. G. Wodehouse. Holding's comments about the beauty of cricket are immediately contrasted with the harsh political realities in the West Indies and the wider world. Holding and his counterparts were playing at a time when many Caribbean states were ruled by brutal dictators, not to mention the continued existence of apartheid in South Africa and the race-related violence in British cities. The film establishes a clear affinity between the West Indies' position as sporting underdogs and the accompanying racial struggle for independence and equality. It explores the persistence of imperialistic attitudes in culture, so that even after formal political independence, people from the Caribbean were still regarded as racially inferior. Where English players were revered as gentlemen, and Australians feared as long as they bowled quickly, West Indians were called "calypso cricketers", clowns who would entertain but always lose. They were the cricketing equivalent of The Black and White Minstrel Show, existing for the snooty pleasure of white men while bringing shame on their own culture. Nowhere does this prejudice come more to the fore than with Tony Greig's awful faux pas in the lead-up to the 1976 tour of England. Facing questions about the West Indies following their 5-1 win against Australia the year before, the England captain remarked: "If they're down, they grovel, and I intend with the help of [Brian Close] and a few others to make them grovel." The association of 'grovel' with the slave trade, the persistence of apartheid and the fact that Greig was a white South African turned a simple test series into a battle between historical masters and slaves, with the latter coming out firmly on top. Both as a political force for uniting black people and a sporting force in its own right, the West Indies challenged the imperial yoke by giving it a taste of its own medicine. The teams they faced were resoundingly beaten because the Windies were not expected to bowl so fast and so ruthlessly to what were considered the best sides in the world. As when Australia won the inaugural Ashes series in 1882, the West Indies shook cricket at its foundations, upsetting the natural order and asking big questions about the running of the game. Fire in Babylon credits the West Indies with helping to modernise the game, particularly in their involvement in World Series Cricket. This private three-way tournament, created by Aussie entrepreneur Kerry Packer, recruited cricketers from all over the world to play for big prize money with extensive sponsorship and media coverage. As well as introducing coloured kits and improved protection for batsmen, World Series turned cricket from a sport of "pot-bellied amateurs" into something which could be a full-time profession with proper training and an emphasis on fitness. The series, and the West Indies' approach within it, cut through all the old school, elitist customs that threatened to keep the game stuck in wartime, doing away with such pitiful traditions as a bowler applauding a batsman after being hit for six. From Stevan Riley's abundance of talking heads, a series of fascinating and entertaining characters emerge. Andy Roberts comes across as a man of immense passion, who is quick to defend their playing style from accusations of disrepute or unnecessary aggression. He talks about needing to not show weakness in front of the opposition, choosing to "take my aggression out on five-and-a-half ounces" rather than give in to pointless violence. Other characters within the side are equally gripping. Colin Croft comes across an ebullient, gleeful man who loved to represent his country and take revenge on big-headed batsmen. Watching Michael Holding play is beautiful and his dedication to the sport comes through in everything he says. Whenever South Africa is mentioned, it is as though a dark cloak has been drawn over proceedings, and he is quick to criticise players like Croft who signed up to lucrative rebel tours, where they were treated as "honorary whites"(!). Best of all is the enigmatic Viv Richards, who talks dolorously of staring down Dennis Lillee and treating his bat like a sword. Fire in Babylon doesn't shy away from the pain involved in cricket, containing any number of wince-inducing moments. This was an age where cricket was played without proper protection in the way of arm and thigh pads; most players, Viv Richards included, faced down some of the world's fastest bowlers without a helmet. Riley includes a number of choice morsels, including Andy Roberts breaking David Hookes' jaw, David Lloyd copping one in the knackers from Jeff Thomson, and Michael Holding's lethal bouncers against Brian Close in 1976. Sadly we don't get to enjoy his extraordinary over against Geoffrey Boycott on the same tour. This leads to on to a major problem with Fire in Babylon, namely the lack of playing footage. While sourcing archive material for documentaries can be expensive, there must be more archive footage available, and a lot of it is old enough to be in the public domain. It's all well and good having loads of still photographs of the ball in flight, with little clips potted here and there, but when you have someone as graceful and threatening as Michael Holding, you want to see him in full motion, not being constantly interrupted by newspaper cuttings. The shortcomings of this film points to the greatness of Senna, a film which was not only mopre thoroughly researched but better stitched together. Fire in Babylon is also guilty of overegging its political pudding. While it does make very good points about racial attitudes and challenging stereotypes through dignity and humour, it is said so often that it becomes didactic. Sometimes it can feel like we are being lectured, with the same points being repeated so much that the film threatens to tip over into Malcolm X territory. The presence of Bunny Wailer, of Bob Marley & The Wailers, becomes especially tiresome: we become extremely annoyed with him even as we're agreeing with everything he says. The final huge problem is that the film has too many voiceovers or narrators. Having a lot of talking heads is fine, but the director has to step in and marshal them, either to construct a direct narrative or to present them in such a way that the audience can create their own. Riley falls simultaneously into two completely different traps: it's too inconsistent and jumpy to be narratively compelling, but it's also too broad and schematic to be believable. In the end he just about gets away with it, but the shortcomings remain in plain sight. Fire in Babylon is a flawed but important document of a sporting era whose repercussions are still being felt in contemporary cricket. Stevan Riley has better-structured, more comprehensive documentaries in him, and the problems with the film become all too obvious as the action moves forward. But this is still a pretty decent first stab at an important subject matter which will bring in the casual viewer. In cricketing terms, it's a solid half-century, and while its best shots are hampered by poor footwork, all signs point to a better second innings.
Farah R (ru) wrote: Hardly memorable. McAvoy is a mediocre detective and the plot is so dull. Expected way better.
Bryan C (mx) wrote: Horrible movie, not even remotely true to the Bible, horrible plot, acting, non existent character development, was hoping for a nice faith based film based in the truth of the Bible and I got some weird pseudo humanistic/religious viewpoints that I'm still trying to decipher in my mind as to what was really happening. I hope this movie falls into oblivion and is never seen by any eyes again.
Nishit K (ca) wrote: A good story line but you would still feel that the movie had the potential to be even better. A film were how Bollywood functions and various emotional journey shown from the eye of a starlet and a struggling actor turned star is shown, you would still feel that something was still missing and there one would feel that the movie had the potential to be even better. Songs are good and good performance by Farhan Akhtar. Konkana is effortless and others fit in well. watch out for Rishi Kapoor who is fantastic as a producer.
Gleb O (ag) wrote: Balanced intelligent film. Recommend to watch it. Great music which complements the film as well.
Rohit P (ru) wrote: Unlike Silence of the Lambs or Se7en Anamorph lacks urgency but delivers a movie that is more of an art piece, literally. In that sense it's more like Christopher Nolan's Prestige. The film also manages to take the widely accepted cliches of the detective thriller genera and turn them around.
Arabinda M (ag) wrote: This movie is a disgrace to the real bikers who take a pride in their names. Despite a flashy name and stunts, there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except Meagan Good.
Tim S (it) wrote: Ok, so what if I have a guilty pleasure for or two tucked away on my DVD shelf. Gimme a break. If people can have DVD's at home like Disaster Movie or Meet The Browns, then by God I can have Masters of the Universe on mine, so leave me alone. For me, this movie is all about nostalgia because I was a Pepsi Generation kid (or a Generation X kid, whichever you prefer) and there were some cool toys and cool cartoons that came out of that era, M.O.T.U. being one of them in both categories. In 1987, they released the live-action movie based on the toy line (not the cartoon, which many people misconstrue). Upon its release, the movie performed terribly at the box office, and so like many movies of its kind, it crashed and burned and never saw its full potential, but let's take a look at the film's positive aspects, shall we? To begin with, the cast is a pretty good one, mostly due to the casting of Frank Langella as Skeletor, who steals the show and gives an electrifying performance. Dolph Lundgren holds his end up pretty well, as does the rest of the remaining cast, including a young Courtney Cox, Frank Tolkan, Billy Barty, Meg Foster, and Christina Pickles. The look of the movie itself is not half bad, though at times it can look a little flat, due to the way the film was rushed to the finish line and not given time to find its look, which they had to do while shooting. The Eternia scenes look decent, but it's the nighttime scenes on Earth that are the most effective in giving the characters (heroes and villains alike) a classic good vs. evil contrast. The score is pretty bombastic and over-the-top with a lot of brass and driving melodies, giving the film an urgency that I think it needs. At times it does tend to get in the way rather than drive the action, but it's not a huge obstacle because the film is always moving visually. Ok, here comes the tough part, assessing the movie's flaws without prejudice or favoritism. I guess I would have to say that some of the performances in the film, particularly Dolph Lundgren's, are pretty weak, even though he does look and act the part of the heroic He-Man reasonably well. The ending of the film, or rather the climactic battle between He-Man and Skeletor, is a bit cheap and unimaginative, being cast mostly in shadow to hide its flaws, but its flaws come through anyway. The director wished to have a grand sword fight, but due to Cannon pulling the movie on him at the last minute, he was lucky to shoot what little he could, so I give him credit for making something at least visually interesting, even though it isn't really that exciting of a battle. The film also has a lot of logical flaws, but I won't get into those because in a story about aliens from another world and time travel, I don't think logic stands much of a chance anyway. I have to say that I really love this movie, and I do think a lot of it has to do with nostalgia rather than film fanaticism. Having said that, this is NOT as terrible a movie as some might have led you to believe. The story is solid, the visuals are solid, the special effects, the sets, the costume design, the direction... all of it, solid. I think director Gary Goddard made a nice-looking film and one that I will continue to thoroughly enjoy, even if it is just a guilty pleasure.
Colin K (us) wrote: The only Rambo flik in my book. Brian Dennehy - ha ha ha. Hard to take Richard Crenna after seeing him reprise this role in Hot Shots: Part Deux!
michael b (it) wrote: the aura of creepiness
Miguel R (mx) wrote: While it features great visuals, Mission to Mars is a badly crafted sci-fi picture with a cheap script and bad acting
Cody L (au) wrote: Solid thriller with a great twist ending.