Vishal comes from an upper-class family. As he is of marriageable age, his parents want him to get married. Vishal meets with Archana and both fall in love. The respective parents of both ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Biwi No. 2 torrent reviews
Matt H (mx) wrote: I actually liked this film. I thought they could have fleshed out the relationship between the lead and the bully kid. Instead we get a voice over at the end saying we became best friends.
Joey R (ag) wrote: This movie was so, so, so good. Plus, the characters are adorable.
Athena N (br) wrote: An adventure of a horse an Indian and a cowboy is definitely great fun especially with the supra dose of typical surreal and wacky Belgian humour.
Kate B (kr) wrote: Had no idea about the world of arm wrestling but this doc 'pulled' me in and found myself cheering for the underdog. Worth a watch.
Johnny U (it) wrote: This is a chilling, frantic, mysterious and thought provoking film and while a casual aire of terror is present from the opening scene, it is driven by deeply emotional feelings. Olle Sarri plays a man on the edge of oblivion and who doesn't really know what he is doing or how he got there. His reactions to this, as the truth slowly unravels, are erratic and somewhat bizarre however, in retrospect their plausibility only compound the tension. This really is a must see film and one that could (almost) have been made without any dialogue such is the intensity of Sarri's wonderful performance.
Dylan F (ca) wrote: Please excuse the pun, but this movie is a piece of crap. In a way, that is exactly why it is entertaining. As you can see, Monsturd is a low-budget comedy/horror movie that has somewhat achieved cult status. The good thing about this movie is that it doesn't take itself seriously. I know I might sound like an idiot for saying this about a movie with a half-man/half-feces monster, but the gross-out humor was, well, annoying. It went from being gross-out humor to just being a gross-out. Monsturd is a film you cannot take seriously. Don't get me wrong-there is fun to be had with this movie. Just call up a group of good-humored friends and pop the DVD in and you have a night of entertainment.
Tyler M (mx) wrote: This is the day every mother dreams of. The day she watches her only daughter put a lock on her bedroom door, to keep her husband out. (That's okay, you don't want in anyway.) This movie is the reason I don't like chick flicks. The Story: Two divorce lawyers, one the sexually repressed firebrand that practices with strict organization, and one the charming, outgoing guy that practices law in a slightly different fashion, fall in love with each other through surprising turns of events. I know, I know, that sentence was long, and probably grammatically incorrect in many many ways, but if that bothers you, than by all means stop reading right now...Anyway, onto the review. This film has some pretty funny moments, but the characters are pretty generic, the story is predictable and poorly told, and despite it's two charming and attractive lead characters I didn't feel anything for either of them. There's much better romantic comedies out there. The Cast: Pierce Brosnan, Julianne Moore...Pierce Brosnan is Daniel Rafferty, the charming lawyer with a somewhat unorthodox way of practicing law. He's pretty generic, all his character really comes down to is the quirky guy trying to get the not so quirky woman. Not an incredible performance, I mean really, this man once plaid one of the greatest James Bonds ever, but put him in the role of a lawyer and suddenly he's not that great of an actor? What up with that? Julianne Moore is Audrey Woods, the more cute than sexy lawyer that's just too business oriented to have a decent relationship. Yet another cliche character for a great player. This woman once plaid great parts in movies like Hannibal and Far From Heaven. This film is far from her finest work. I will never understand just how these two got roped into playing these boring and uninspired parts. One to Five Scale: 2 This film proves that big names don't make great films. Weak characters, poor story structure, boring story, and little to no character development make this one, one to pass on. Go watch something else, this one isn't worth your time, even if you're a fan of Moore or Brosnan. Tyler
Chonga (ag) wrote: I never saw the original Cyborg, but I enjoyed Cyborg 2...
Leonard D (ca) wrote: It's Rodney Dangerfield as an animated dog, which seemed like an interesting idea, but, yep, what more could you expect? A kids movie, which was way too mature for its own good! What a great waste of an opportunity on Rodney's part! Wait! Five directors!? FIVE FREAKIN DIRECTORS, ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!? After renting it recently, it kept my interest, but I didn't laugh once! After watching this, I looked on IMDB, and read about this feature was originally going to be an R rated film! No wonder this had risky stuff! .......who exactly was this movie made for?
Melissa D (fr) wrote: I haven't seen it but that's my face on the cover
Sam G (nl) wrote: utter pants. utterly ridiculous. whoever suggested that it compares to The Exorcist obviously has never seen the Exorcist. Twat.
Anthony L (es) wrote: An interesting viewpoint from an early 60's perspective, interesting in retrospect but also interesting as it's not a viewpoint I would have thought popular. It's pretty ahead of it's time, the regeneration of the industrial landscape and seeing beauty in what is regarded as ugly. Recommended for architects, sociologist, film makers and day dreamers in general.
Thomas B (br) wrote: Marilyn Monroe sparkles with her insubstantial role, while Billy Wilder and Jack Lemmon let loose with their own brands of comedic brilliance. Full review later.
G Richard B (fr) wrote: Brilliant. Wag the Dog with British timing. No documentary of U.S/U.K politics behind a march to war better captures its sleazy rewriting of facts and history better than this fast, dark and offensive comedy.
Mark W (ca) wrote: ?It?ll be just like in the movies. Pretending to be somebody else.?A recent poll by BBC Culture surveyed the opinion of film critics, academics, and curators from 36 countries across every continent which consisted of 177 of the worlds foremost movie experts. They were tasked to compile an international list of the top 100 films released since the year 2000 to come up the best film of this century so far. It's no easy task but when all was said and done, the film that topped the list was David Lynch's hallucinatory and meditative film-noir, Mulholland Drive. It came as a surprise to some but for those familiar with the film itself, it was a fitting accolade. After a car crash leaves her with amnesia, Rita (Laura Harring) has no idea who she is or where she's come from and wanders around the streets of Los Angeles in a daze. She eventually finds refuge in an apartment where she is found by ambitious young actress Betty (Naomi Watts). Betty and Rita then work together and investigate the mystery of Rita's condition and seek the answers to her true identity.It's pretty much common knowledge now that Mulholland Drive was a failed proposal by Lynch to embark on a new television series. Originally conceived while filming Twin Peaks, it was to be a spin-off featuring the character of Audrey Horne (which was played by Sherilyn Fenn). Lynch went on to direct a 90min pilot for ABC but, in the end, the network executives rejected it. As a result, Lynch rejigged and regurgitated the material into a feature film and produced, arguably, his finest work to date. So complex is Mulholland Drive that Lynch released 10 clues to help in deciphering the plot. It's in my opinion that these 10 clues are actually useless. Lynch notoriously doesn't explain his work and the clues he provides only serve as a false pretence in which to view the film. He toys with our perceptions and preconceived ideas of how a film should be constructed. I've viewed the film many times and the clues predominantly lead to a dead end. This is a film that demands numerous viewings and yet can still come out different each time. That is the sheer genius and craftsmanship that has went into it. There's a lot about the film that simply isn't explained; narrative arcs and characters appear and then disappear. This could have been intentional or it could have been the result of the material being planned for a long running TV show where they would've been explored in more detail. Either way, it works and adds to the hallucinatory vibe that courses throughout. It could be argued that the film is just a series of scenes loosely tied together and it's up to the viewer to interpret for themselves. Like Lost Highway, what the individual viewer brings to the experience is what they will walk away with. If you invest the time and respect to Lynch's vision, you will be richly rewarded. It operates on many levels and the lines between fantasy and reality are constantly blurred. Some claim it to be a parallel universe, or repurposed elements to a person's failed past but the strongest interpretation is that it's predominantly a disconcerting dream state involving displacement and transference and where the reality and the fantasy intertwine.The significance of the The Cowboy and his cryptic messages, the importance of the blue key and the blue box, the uneasy encounter with the man behind Winkies and the moment at Club Silencio where we are reminded that what we see isn't necessarily always real. All of these tie-in with the symbolic importance of dream imagery.It can also be viewed as a cynical and scathing indictment of Hollywood culture - which could be a direct reference to the problems that Lynch has faced with studios in the past or even the issue that he faced in trying to promote this particular film as a TV show. At one point in the film, studio bigwigs try to influence a director's decision on whom he casts in his film. This was purportedly what Lynch faced by casting unknowns Watts and Harring in the lead roles here and one of the reasons that ABC rejected it (apparently they were too old). They couldn't have been more wrong, though, as Watts delivers masterful work. There are at least three different interpretations to her character and she nails every one of them. She showcases her extensive range which, considering the narrative of the film, ironically made her a Hollywood star overnight.Form over structure and the combination of sight and sound has always been a major attribute to Lynch's work and in Mulholland Drive, they are integral to the overall composition. Regular Lynch composer Angelo Badalamenti's haunting score compliments the uneasy mood and atmosphere created by Peter Deming's foreboding cinematography, lending the film a truly sinister and ethereal feel. The biggest achievement though, is how much Lynch respects his audience's intelligence without compromising or diluting the concept. This is a visual jigsaw and putting it together is a very challenging endeavour. Many, if not all, viewers will find pieces that just don't to fit. That aside, this is still an intoxicating mystery and even when it's seemingly inexplicable it's still gripping and hugely involving. Those who like their narrative spelled out for them needn't bother but those that enjoy a challenge will be enthused throughout this fascinating piece of work. We've all had those dreams where people, places and events are twisted and distorted and that's exactly what Lynch captures. There is a running, logical narrative that courses underneath it but it's very much delivered in dream logic. Any coherent interpretation lies within the importance of it's symbolism. When you consider Lynch's filmography over the years, this feels like the film that he has been building towards. All of his usual themes are on display; the psychological duality in an individual and the juxtaposition of innocence and corruption, beauty and depravity, shattered dreams and living nightmares. Put simply, it's an abstract masterpiece.Mark Walker
John R (mx) wrote: One of the worst movies I started watching. Bunch of hasbeens and I don't think Samuel L turns a role down. One of Tarantinos worst.