• Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:0 minutes
  • Release:1969
  • Language:Urdu
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:Andaleeb 1969 full movies, Andaleeb torrents movie

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Andaleeb torrent reviews

Cristbal S (gb) wrote: A few good laughs, nothing remarkable.

Joshua K (it) wrote: I loved this movie. It was so funny,

Kerri L (au) wrote: It didn't have a real plot.

Jay K (fr) wrote: a movie that holds a very special place in my movie library...totally love it, lost count on the number of times that i have watched!!

Ry G (au) wrote: a very great intertwining tales of indivduals. Characters have deep complex flaws and humane values which entices a plot that invgorates and soothes.

Tre S (ca) wrote: For the everyday person sitting at home looking for something to watch like myslef, I definitely recommend watching this movie. Even though it is a made for TV movie it will leave you wanting to watch it again at some point in your life.

Novie D (de) wrote: I like this movie very much. There a couple scenes that are not accurate according the lds church standards but other than a great movie based on real events.

Jessica C (it) wrote: One of the best action films I've seen in a while actually. Much better than most action movies today that always have the same plot... then you feel cheated as though you are watching the same movie over and over with different actors... LOL! The action in this movie keeps you on your toes and a lot of it is hilarious. I aeriously am considering buying this movie now. Not every day that I rate something with 5 stars. The main actor(Jean-Claude Van Damme) did an amazing job and had similar qualities with Arnold the Terminator. The female actress was also very gorgeous and went well with Jean. :)

Demetri C (gb) wrote: this was filmed in Mesa Arizona & there's a part where I'm in the back ground

alex f (kr) wrote: ive never seen a film never stray from its plot/character... a huge asshole wins a gold medal... boom!

Ken B (us) wrote: I enjoyed this movie more than the half-star would make you think but that's b/c me'n a friend were mocking it as we watched. If you seriously tried to enjoy this movie alone you'd be in for a bad time. It seems promising when it starts out. A documentary about a girl w/anti-claustraphonia who overcomes it and something that's out to get her. But it falls apart as it tries to be scary. I've seen alot of good indie stuff so I suppose my palette's been spoiled. I was building the impression almost any indie film was better than something out of Hollywood. Now I've seen the bad side of indie.The faults of this movie can not be excused by a low budget. I've seen low-budget films and shit made by college students where every actor's on point, the soundtrack's good, editing and directing are good etc. Acting: Marguerite Moreau is pretty, reminds me of a couple girls I know, and can act. There's a scene in the documentary showing the budding relationship between her and the documentarian (wc?). With her smile and delivery of a single line you get the whole relationship. It wasn't him taking advantage of easy prey (as I first expected) as much as her going for the first guy to take notice/interest of/in her. Her counterparts were too bad for her to carry. Colin Hay just says his lines. His lazy eye occasionally sets in and sends his irises to the outer extremes of his eyeballs. This could be a creepy effect if it only happened when he said something possibly sinister. As it's uncontrolled, correlating to nothing, and the director was too lazy (or short on film?) to reshoot (and the editor too bad to edit these wandering eyes out) it looks really awkward and's really distracting. Joaquin Pheonix and Forest Whitaker each have a bit of lazy eye but I've never seen it damage their performance. The worst part though is that Colin's given some lines that call for emotion and he gives them deadpan. "I'll crush this baby's skull" should be an exclamation. Brittany Curran's acting is HS grade. She's making a genuine effort, emotes, and is more convincing than Colin but you're working with her trying to believe her character as opposed to forgetting she's playing a character. That's the whole cast aside from some lines from the psychologist and the lead's friend. I don't have a complaint about their bits but they're such a small point of the movie they don't count for much. Directing: Bad. It's in part the director's job to get a good performance from the actors. It's also in part his job to give the editor useful material to work with. Robert Rodriguez set up shots in El Mariachi with later editing in mind that successfully made the finished product look like it was shot with multiple cameras. To some degree, what's on the film might've been the best he had to work with but he had to find the terrible acting and editing satisfactory. There are plenty of good actors looking for work this movie could afford or kids who might just want some promotional recognition. The movie relies heavily on Marguerite Moreau's performance and has her staring at walls. I never felt the tension these scenes were meant to convey. Sound would be very important in such a set up: having the camera closely cropped in on her and hearing the creaks of a house, branches tapping a window, wind howling outside, and other noises that make you want to look at the source but instead you hear her breathing quicken, building the audible tension. It would also help to see more of her facial expressions and less of the back of her head. The worst part of the directing is it (he) is completely to blame for the bad story. I got the impression there was more to it than was being delivered to the audience and the director, with these facts glaringly obvious in his head, forgot to convey them. There's a lot of elements that don't make sense. We keep cutting to her childhood memories of playing with a boy so you think there's some traumatic experience or secret she'll get to but nothing comes of these flashbacks. Colin mentions that if he doesn't deliver the baby to the demons they (he and his wife) wi'll be in an acid bath but that's how living humans would dispose of a body and it's never explained what he meant by that. Just an inappropriately unique phrase to mean they'll be in deep shit? Colin's working with the ghosts but ends up fighting one inexplicably. The greaser waits for him outside (isn't it bound to the house?), drags the lead back in (what does it care?), and is shown writhing on the bed inexplicably before it comes and kills Colin. The lead's character has it all figured out how Colin was binding the creature or something but we never see an indication he's doing this, or how, or why they're fighting, or how the creature breaks his hold or anything. All the relevantly informative events are apparently happening off screen or were deleted scenes. Also the spirit was supposed to have the baby delivered to it but then stole it so was it trying to cut Collin out? Couldn't the ghost perform the ritual themselves? If they needed Colin and had the baby why didn't they hand it to him? If the greaser was trying to save the baby why didn't it leave it in the car? Actions aren't dramatic when they're nonsensical. For there to be tension we've to've some feel for what a situation's building towards. An unpredictable character can be very dramatic but several make a clusterfuck. The action's awful. What should be intense moments of attempting escape are very awkward. A ghoul will put his hand on the lead's head. Instead of pulling violently while she struggles we see it kind of rest there. Every few seconds it'll move around and change positions. It doesn't look like he's trying to hurt or capture her. It doesn't look like she's trying to escape. It looks like a director who doesn't want his actors to get hurt and doesn't know how to fake violence through his directing. Have an overhead shot, the ghoul pulling punches just above her hair, and her pushing her head into the grass everytime the ghoul presses her calf with his foot off-camera. Even that would be more convincing. Editing: Lordy, the worst part of the film. Every time a jump scare is set up it's dragged out until it's not scary. You know how you'll see a flash of a monster that's less than a second and it startles you? You're not sure what you've seen. This movie opted for leaving it's poorly makeuped actors onscreen for 3-5 seconds. Long enough to get fmiliar with the scarred boy in a hoodie. Not intimidating at all. He's just standing there too. A jump scare can't be subtle. Subtle building fright (like seeing someone stand and watch you) and a jump scare (like someone jumping out at you) are scary for opposite reasons. When you combine them you get no fright. It's like if there's a pH scale of fright, 7's neutral, 11's shocking and 3's dreadful than this movie's mixing acids and bases to make something tame as water. When there's music it does not mesh with what's happening on-screen. The composer's fault? Not completely. There're times when the music has its' loud, unison, accented notes and they are not synced with the most forceful movements of the monster. It's like the editor just added tracks without looking to see how they fit with the visuals. We've a scene showing Colin use FCP so we know the movie-makers can do better.

Mike S (us) wrote: If ever a film was carried purely on one actors performance, this is it. Bette Davis at her best (although I love her more in All About Eve).George Brent didn't have a lot of personality and a William Powell (or maybe even Bogart?) would have been better suited.Bogart himself seems so out of place its depressing. What's with the accent? Not only is it bad, but it disappears most of the time. Poor Bogey, stuck as a contract player.The rest are all fine, they just all get blown off the screen by Davis.

Jennifer H (au) wrote: Can't wait to see this one!

Ola G (jp) wrote: John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) awakens in a hotel bathtub, suffering from amnesia. He receives a phone call from Dr. Daniel Schreber (Kiefer Sutherland), who urges him to flee the hotel to evade a group of men who are after him. During the phone talk, Murdoch discovers the corpse of a brutalized, ritualistically murdered woman, along with a bloody knife. He flees the scene, just as the group of men (known as the Strangers) show up to investigate the room. Eventually Murdoch learns his own name, and finds he has a wife named Emma (Jennifer Connelly). He is also sought by police inspector Frank Bumstead (William Hurt) as a suspect in a series of murders committed around the city, though he cannot remember killing anybody. While being pursued by the Strangers, Murdoch discovers that he has mind powers-which the Strangers also possess, and refer to as "tuning"-and he manages to use these powers to escape from them. Murdoch explores the city, where nobody realizes that it is always nighttime. At midnight, he watches as everyone except himself falls asleep as the Strangers stop time and physically rearrange the city as well as changing people's identities and memories. Murdoch learns that he comes from a coastal town called Shell Beach, a town familiar to everyone, though nobody knows how to leave the city to travel there, and all of his attempts to do so are unsuccessful for varying reasons. Meanwhile, the Strangers inject one of their men, Mr. Hand (Richard O'Brien), with memories intended for Murdoch in an attempt to predict his movements and track him down. Murdoch is eventually caught by inspector Bumstead, who acknowledges he is innocent, and by then has his own misgivings about the nature of the city. They confront Dr. Schreber, who explains that the Strangers are endangered extraterrestrial parasites who use corpses as their hosts. Having a hive mind, the Strangers have been experimenting with humans to analyze their individuality in the hopes that some insight might be revealed that would help their race survive. Schreber reveals that Murdoch is an anomaly who inadvertently awoke during one midnight process, when Schreber was in the middle of imprinting his latest identity as a murderer. The three embark to find Shell Beach, but it exists only as a poster on a wall at the edge of the city. Frustrated, Murdoch and Bumstead break through the wall, revealing outer space on the other side. The men are confronted by the Strangers, including Mr. Hand, who holds Emma hostage. In the ensuing fight Bumstead and one of the Strangers fall through the hole, revealing the city as an enormous space habitat surrounded by a force field. Murdoch must find a way to stop the Strangers before they take control of his mind and destroy him and the city...Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus stated: "Stylishly gloomy, Dark City offers a polarizing whirl of arresting visuals and noirish action". Roger Ebert writing in the Chicago Sun-Times called it a "great visionary achievement," while also exclaiming that it was "a film so original and exciting, it stirred my imagination like Metropolis and 2001: A Space Odyssey." In the San Francisco Chronicle, Peter Stack wrote that the film was "among the most memorable cinematic ventures in recent years", and that "maybe there's nothing wrong with a movie that is simply sensational to look at." He felt the film's "twisting of reality and its daring look - layered and off-kilter grays, greens and blacks - make it click." In a mixed review, Walter Addiego of The San Francisco Examiner thought "as a story, Dark City doesn't amount to much." He believed Dark City contained a "complicated plot" while also having important themes that were "no more than window dressing". But on a positive front, he wrote, "what counts here is the show, the creation of a strange world by a filmmaker who clearly knows science fiction and fantasy, past and present, and wants to share his love for it." Left unimpressed, Marc Savlov of The Austin Chronicle wrote, "You really have to feel for Alex Proyas. This guy wears bad luck like the grimy trenchcoats of his protagonists, only his zipper's stuck and he can't seem to shake the damn thing off." In expressing his negativity, he believed "Dark City looks like a million bucks (or rather, a million bucks gone to compost), but at its dark heart it's a tedious, bewildering affair, lovely to look at but with all the substance of a dissipating dream." Left equally disappointed was John Anderson of the Los Angeles Times. Commenting on the directing, he thought "If you had to guess, you might say that Proyas came out of the world of comic art himself, rather than music videos and advertising. Dark City is constructed like panels in a Batman book, each picture striving for maximum dread." He went on to say, Proyas was "trying simultaneously to create a pure thriller and sci-fi nightmare along with his tongue-in-cheek critique of artifice. And this doesn't work out quite so well." Author TCh of Time Out, felt the development of the Murdoch character was "surprisingly engrossing" and thought production wise, the "art direction is always striking, and unlike most contemporary sci-fi, the movie does risk a cerebral approach, tapping a vein of postmodern paranoia." Writing for TIME, Richard Corliss said the film was "as cool and distant as the planet the Strangers come from. But, Lord, is Dark City a wonder to see." James Berardinelli writing for ReelViews, remarked that "Visually, this film isn't just impressive, it's a tour de force." and noted that "Dark City opens by immersing the audience in the midst of a fractured, nightmarish narrative." Berardinelli also said "Dark City appears to be New York during the first half of this century, but, using a style that is part science fiction, part noir thriller, and part gothic horror, he has embellished it to create a surreal place unlike no other." Describing some pitfalls, Jeff Vice of the Deseret News said that "when critics talk about films being 'style over substance,' they're definitely talking about movies like Dark City, which looks good but leaves an unpleasant aftertaste." Vice however was quick to admit, "The special effects and set designs are dazzling", but ultimately believed "Proyas makes a crucial error in treating the subject even more seriously than The Crow, and the dialogue (co-written by Proyas and The Crow: City of Angels scriptwriter David S. Goyer) is unintentionally funny at times and often just plain dumb." Andrea Basora of Newsweek, stated that director Proyas flooded the screen with "cinematic and literary references ranging from Murnau and Lang to Kafka and Orwell, creating a unique yet utterly convincing world". Similarly, David Sterritt wrote in the Christian Science Monitor that "The story is dark and often violent, but it's told with a remarkable sense of visual energy and imagination." Additionally, Marshall Fine of USA Today, found the film to be "Fascinating, visionary filmmaking." and "With its amber-tinged palette and its distinctively dystopian view of life, it may be the most unique-looking film we've seen in ages...[but] defies logic and makes frightening and unexpected leaps." Critic Stephen Holden of The New York Times wrote that the "plot that Dark City builds on John's predicament is a confused affair" and that the film's premise is "unsettling enough to make you wonder if it could actually derail a seriously drug-addled mind." Steve Biodrowski of Cinefantastique found the production design and the cinematography overwhelming, but he considered the narrative engagement of Sewell's amnesiac character to be ultimately successful. Biodrowski writes, "As the story progresses, the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, and we gradually realize that the film is not a murky muddle of visuals propping up a weak story. All the questions lead to answers, and the answers make sense within the fantasy framework." The reviewer compared Dark City to the director's preceding film The Crow in style but found Dark City to introduce new themes and to be a "more thoroughly consistent" film. Biodrowski concluded, "Dark City may not provide profound answers, but it deals seriously with a profound idea, and does it in a way that is cathartic and even uplifting, without being contrived or condescending. As a technical achievement, it is superb, and that technique is put in the service of telling a story that would be difficult to realize any other way.""Dark City" is a unique film with a touch of science fiction, noir thriller, and gothic horror and I personally think that Alex Proyas has created something stand alone in which you still can see and feel its inspiration and foundations. The storyline throws you around and you are not sure what is right, what is wrong, what is fantasy, what is real and who is who. This surreal Kafkaesque noir original film almost creates its own genre, but yet it never goes so far that it loses track of its own identity. However, the plot isnt always fully understandable and at times the editing and scenestructure becomes slightly confusing. The ensemble with Rufus Sewell, Jennifer Connelly, William Hurt and Kiefer Sutherland are all doing a fine job, but you can almost see in their faces that they werent sure themselves what was going on during the shoot. The photography is great, the production values of a high standard and we get hypnotic stunning visuals. I do like the eye-catching, stylish future noir design of this visionary world our main characters inhabit, which does look like New York City during the time period of the 1940s. The themes about loss of identity and the destruction of individualism in order to create an ideal society is for sure intriguing. However, "Dark City" suffers from the fact that a lot of the character development and the story itself is never revealed which makes you ask way too many questions during the film. Theres something that simply doesnt hold the film together even if theres so much that points in a direction of movie greatness. "Dark City" is so promising, but in the end I can only give it a 3 out of 5 as the film is lacking something fundamental I simply cant pinpoint.

Geoff J (de) wrote: I could daydream a better film that this cliched dullarama

Amanda (ru) wrote: I didnt like it at all.

Leon B (ag) wrote: Wolf Creek is not really an enjoyable movie as it is telling more of the teenage lives. I mean I wanted to watch a good movie, but that didn't exist in this movie. Despite boring story line, I enjoyed the performance put on by John Jarratt, he owned the part. It was like he as if he was the real Mick Taylor.

Lucas M (ag) wrote: This movie is so fucking cool. Is it cheesy, Yeah, But the films strengths lie in it's Action, interesting characters, Charisma in the cast, Quotability and it's great, strange, yet very original plot. It even has Anthony Kiedis from 'Red Hot Chili Peppers' in it, You can't get more 90's than that. Don't forget the legendary Gary Busey plays Keanu Reeves FBI partner. So Awesome. It's one of my favorite movies. THE REMAKE IS A PIECE OF SHIT