After the passing away of her father, a local physician, Aarti takes it upon herself to dispense medicine, as well as sew clothes, and looks after a child named Kundan who has lost his legs to paralysis. She has a admirer in Arun, who secretly loves her, would like to marry her, but knows that he is poor and will be unable to afford a family, as he is a mere painter. Then an elderly man enters Aarti's life, he is ill, she offers to look after him until he gets better and leaves, but he does not leave, as he has nowhere to go, and she allows him to stay. Then good luck smiles on them as Arun sells one of his paintings, and he is able to get artificial legs for the child. What Arun and Aarti do not know is that the elderly male is really a very wealthy man named Ambarprasad, who had run away from his home when he was accused of having sex with his protégé, a young woman, who he had brought up. The question is what is Ambarprasad up to now?
After the passing away of her father, a local physician, Aarti takes it upon herself to dispense medicine, as well as sew clothes, and looks after a child named Kundan who has lost his legs... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Austin H (ag) wrote: Very odd, but fun and worth the watch.
Nick A (ca) wrote: Decent movie, the plot worked well and the fact that they changed Luthor voice to the Justice League Grodd voice was the part that was the oddest of the changes, suprisingly.
Hiu C (de) wrote: david lynch + jean-luc godard in a kitano's version and a very depressing story... kitano, he is such a geunius
Oscar G (fr) wrote: I want to see this...
Luis G (fr) wrote: It's inconsistent in tone. The lead is uninteresting. Seems a bit unfocused at times. Not a total mess, but one that could have benefited from a bit more fine-tuning.
Jude P (fr) wrote: Norton at it's best and much better than the squeals.
Shelley B (au) wrote: It just brought attention to the lowly, forgotten, and sometimes despised.
Brenda S (nl) wrote: We just saw this recently and it was a very nice movie with a moral to the story. Good family movie.
Allan C (fr) wrote: Good movie. Not great, but good. Very well acted. Started a bit slow, while it showed off the characters and their relationships, then ended with a bang (though a predictable one). Still, worth a watch.
Janey S (fr) wrote: Absolutely horrendous, first off, the science in this movie was so far from accurate, it was offensive. Apparently nukes are the answer to everything in movies. The acting was shallow and dry, the characters were very difficult to connect to. It felt like it had potential of being an OK story, but they botched it in just about every way imaginable. The special effects looked like they were done by some kid working on his mom's outdated dell. Save yourself some time for a good movie, and bypass this one.
Rob W (br) wrote: My conception of Mason was way off.
rick r (es) wrote: Not wanting to be stereotypically me and go for Christmas and Halloween horror, which I tend to migrate toward, I have decided to review "My Bloody Valentine" 1981. One of those classic slasher flicks that I have seen many a time. The story follows the folklore around a mining accident in Valentine Bluffs. It happens on one of the holiday's that quite frankly since becoming an adult I do not seem to get into. (Neither does my BF so I am good on all counts with that!). "My Bloody Valentine" was directed by George Mihalka. Actually until the remake came out I thought most people just threw this film to the side or just forgot about it. It is a true classic horror story with the principle set ups, story line, and back story. A man left behind in an mine collapse goes insane, kills out of revenge, he becomes legend, and the legend comes to life. There are some truly gory moments in this 80's flick. From one victim crammed in a dryer and another being speared on a shower spout this film really makes an effort to get as gory as it's "Friday the 13th counterparts. This film began a long line of horror flicks around holidays most of which were cut and dry. Kids do something or go some where they are told not to, have a good time then get slaughtered. For me "My Bloody Valentine" got most of the stuff you want in a horror movie right. The story was classic and dark from the legend of Harry Warden to the defiant Valentine party at the mine. The acting is par for the coarse in early 80's horror films. The sound effects are minimal but eerie with only one real song worth mentioning "The Ballad Of Harry Warden".There is a lot of build up in this film with suspense and point-of-view angles as the killer spies on the town and sneaks up on the victims. There is plenty of blood and gore in the film that at times seems as graphic as you can get. Other times it seems cheap and plasticated. However there is nothing about any of the special effects in this film that did not work. Even the large human heart in the candy box looked gory enough to have an impact. This film has some things that make it annoying. It is a digitally remastered film but it seems to come from a bad master because the sound effects and over all quality is stressed and at times screechy. Much like the original "Friday The 13th" is. IT was a period in horror when high pitched tones (much like nails on a chalkboard) were standard in horror films. It isn't a film with a great soundtrack like Amityville Horror or Nightmare On Elm Street but then again this was before Horror was so embraced. It was just getting it's first big wind when these films came out. That aside "My Bloody Valentine" remains one of my favorite simply because the death scenes are gory and good, I like a cheesy story with minimal acting and it is from my favorite decade of horror films. Not my favorite holiday but this is one of my all time favorite films.
Ashleigh S (ag) wrote: Funny, but not Peter Sellers.
Alverto A (ru) wrote: Una verdadera obra de arte. El personaje deja un gran mensaje, su profundidad es tan perfecta que incluso sientes por l, o por lo menos te hace algn sentimiento o pensamiento. Visualmente es perfecta, con un conjunto de imgenes bien trabajados. Historia impecable. El manejo del tiempo es nico. Esta pelcula es uno de los productos artsticos y perfectos de la cinematografa, que quedarn en la memoria e historia de la humanidad
Marcus W (br) wrote: Ken Loach and socialism go together like hot crumpets and butter, nonetheless it's a very okay film.
Samantha B (it) wrote: One of the most original war movies I've ever seen.
Stann S (jp) wrote: This is a funny movie. Not the funniest, but funny. Anna Kendrick's deadpan delivery works great with Craig Robertson's pimp/mogul/Anti-Christ. Having her and her boyfriend (John Francis Daley) deal with the end of the world with the same observations that a later-teen couple would deal with regular life problems (like explaining to God why they shot Jesus with a giant lazer the same way they would if they rear-ended his car) just works. This is a lampoon of the silly, modern rapture mythology that treats it as seriously as the subject deserves. Many of those who think this subject should be treated more "deeply" would also say "The Leftovers" is too serious. I laughed. Watch it.
David W (jp) wrote: A action thrill that isn't better than Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies is pretty by-the-numbers