Chaar Din Ki Chandni

Chaar Din Ki Chandni

Chandini comes to India to attend Veer's sisters wedding. In those four days, she wins everyone's heart.

Chandini comes to India to attend Veer's sisters wedding. In those four days, she wins everyone's heart. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Chaar Din Ki Chandni torrent reviews

Mikael K (ca) wrote: A competent, stylish and thought-provoking account of the German occupation of Paris in 1942 by writer/director Rose Bosch, "La rafle" depicts the rounding up of Jews that was carried out in the city. All of the characters are based on actual people and the events are documented, but the film rises above a dramatized documentary, drawing effect from cinematography as well as an intimate connection to all the various characters from both sides of the fence."La rafle" is emotional but not sentimental, even if the direction and music go a bit overboard every now and then. It effectively portrays the final days of people who never expected their normal lives to end in genocide, within a very short period of time. It also manages to explore the restrained contempt felt by Parisians toward Jews as something recognizable and universal; a generalization-based scapegoating stemming from the human impulse to simplify that frequently assists the most horrific consequences somewhere in the world.The French government acknowledged this part of the Holocaust as late as 1995. The reached objective of Bosch and her extensive research with historian Serge Klarsfeld seems to be in making the horrible and shameful event come alive, to finally become real for every viewer.

Jim L (fr) wrote: I told Kevin Bacon, when I saw him in Hawaii, that I loved this movie. It was a great story and helped to give perspective to the war.

Bass 9 (us) wrote: awkward family moments.

David S (us) wrote: I'm still watching it... only got about 1 hour into it, and I was REALLY tired after watching Midori No Saru (Green Monkey) in "Senrigan - Clairvoyance"... Parts of Bakha Satang made me cry, even despite the muted violence relative to, say, Oldboy.

Sylvester K (es) wrote: A drag queen must deal with his fiery mother, tragic relationships and his adopted son. It's got some nice acting and a well written script but I was not sure if the casting was correct. Fierstein has a crazily husky voice though.

shai l (nl) wrote: I would have given the movie 4 stars if it's not for the anti-climactic ending. But Jeremy Davies is excellent as Manson

Kenneth B (de) wrote: This just felt like sensory overload to me. Welles' narration is so frantic, as is the editing that I felt like I needed to come up for air at various points. That said F for Fake does deliver a few solid laughs.

Dimitris S (ca) wrote: What more can you ask when you have an all-star cast of Berger,Mangano,Howard,Schneider,a cohesive prestige of "wealthy pendants" and a brilliant piece of biographical composition.A legendary figure to dedicate this probably,aha...who cares if that individual is a combination of Napoleon,T.E. Lawrence and Caligula?

Kevin R (au) wrote: Not bad for what it is and that's a late 40's Private Eye film, nothing which hadn't been done many times before and after. At just over an hour seems like it could have been an episode of any number of detective dramas from the time.

Susie E (ru) wrote: Absolutely love stories like this. Rudy, Rudy!


Robert B (es) wrote: Mother's Day (Charles Kaufman, 1980)If you follow my reviews, you know I'm a big fan of crap-horror. I am not one, normally, to look for redeeming social value in anything I watch. And therefore, when I say something has no redeeming social value, that's not the same as Jesse Helms saying it. As far as I'm concerned, the Joe Bob trifecta of things that make a good movie-blood, breasts, and beasts-are enough to stand on their own as far as redeeming social value goes, as long as you give me the thinnest, stupidest plot to hold them together and a modicum of characterization. All of which is a long-winded preface to my saying that Mother's Day, Charles Kaufman's second and by far most famous movie, has no redeeming social value whatever. It's a slasher that tries to redeem its utterly generic structure by throwing in some redneck stereotype variants. Because, you know, that had never been done before (hey Charlie, 1972 called, it wants its Deliverance back). Which would be okay, and might have actually worked, had any of the film's characters actually had enough depth to make them anything but stereotypes. But no, cute college girls vs. rednecks, and one side has weaponry. You know how this is going to go, and Kaufman does nothing in the way of varying the structure with an eye toward unpredictability; you can probably plot out exactly how this thing is going to go before you even turn it on. Given how many times this has been done, and how many times it has been done better, there is absolutely no reason to watch this. 1/2