Dil Daulat Duniya
Udharchand Shikarpuri is a homeless man who lives in Bombay albeit under the roof of multi-millionaire Seth Kalidas, who six months away in his palatial house in Mussoorie. For the 4th time in his life, Udharchand 'moves' into Kalidas's Mansion along with his dog, Chicko. He meets and befriends two other homeless men, Raju and Vijay, and invites them to live with him. Shortly thereafter, one night the trio find that a female thief has broken into the mansion, they confront her, find out her name is Roopa, feel sorry for her, and invite her to also live with them. Subsequently, Raju's wife, Kiran, his son, and sister, Rita also move.
- Stars:Rajesh Khanna, Sadhana, Ashok Kumar, Helen, Om Prakash, Sulochana Latkar, Jagdeep, Agha, Mehmood Jr., Shyam Kumar, Ram Avtar, Keshav Rana, Tun Tun, Indira Bansal, Polson,
- Director:Prem Narayan Arora,
- Writer:Tabish Sultanpuri (dialogue)
Udharchand Shikarpuri is a homeless man who lives in Bombay albeit under the roof of multi-millionaire Seth Kalidas, who six months away in his palatial house in Mussoorie. For the 4th time... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Dil Daulat Duniya torrent reviews
(ru) wrote: A good effort even though the climax fails to surprise and the songs are an impediment.
(au) wrote: Badly put together mutant movie, luckily set up high in the Alps, so not that many people were involved... But it does have at least one great line in it.
(us) wrote: Goodness, this movie was incredibly uneventful. Its... a coming of age story?
(us) wrote: It's not that great, but it's a chance to see Robert Englund on screen. He continues to be awesome.
(us) wrote: Off-beat caper film. Worth a look if nothing else that to see Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson together.
(gb) wrote: 100306: *** Plot Reveal ***An interesting movie that kept me quite entertained at times. Some quiet laughs. The ending seemed confusing at first and I had to go back and watch it again to make sure I saw what I thought I saw. The movie does not end well for Larry Gopnik I'm afraid. Finally giving into the bribe that was offered him seems to result in his demise. Immediately after he changes the "F" to a "C-", his Doctor calls requesting a visit and a tornado lands near his son/home.
(br) wrote: I saw this film for my Theater in Film class. While the film is undeniably well intentioned, that only goes so far for a film. It does what it sets out to do, but it doesn't do it incredibly well. Acting/Characters: In terms of characters, there is nothing here that hasn't been seen before a million times. The characters here ask the same questions about racism that films such as Crash, Do the Right Thing, and To Kill A Mockingbird do. They just don't do it as well. The characters aren't as well done as they could be. The acting overall of the film is pretty laughable. But like with most bad acting films (not all by any means) that is the fault of the screenwriter. They want to do well with their performances I know they do, they just can't. 3/10 Plot: Like I said before, there's nothing in here that isn't done better in films like Crash or Do the Right Thing. Its pretty predictable overall. Even the ending. It tries very hard to ask the right questions and for all intents and purposes it does. I don't think that they tried as hard as they could to answer them. To me, they just point out the problems. Maybe they do because there is no real solution. Racism is a pins and needles issue with no definitive answer. So, I guess I can't bash them too much for not answering the questions they ask. It's a thoroughly predictable plot that we've seen many times before. It has great intentions, but little merit beyond that. 3.5/10 Screenplay: yeah, this was the worst part of the film. I mean, the screenplay was written by the writer of the original stage play so I should have expected that it would be better than it was. My theater in film teacher said that there are differences between the script of the movie and the script of the play. Maybe the script for the play was better. If so why didn't you stick to it!? *sigh* 1.5/10 Likableness: I didn't particularly enjoy this film. It was mildly interesting and was well intentioned, but it had no real merits outside of that. This isn't a movie I would suggest to anyone. If oyu want to watch a movie like this, watch Do The Right Thing. That movie was excellent. 2.5/10 Final Score: 10.5/40 26% (S) I couldn't find any TRIVIA TIME stuff for this movie. That makes it even worse.
(kr) wrote: "The Man From London" starts off with a rail-worker (Maloin) witnessing a murder, and the mystery of that particular situation becomes a chilling slow-burning thriller about, essentially, moral responsibility. It's Tarr's unique perspective of situations and the "everyday man" integrated with a great understanding of less-is-more/real time photography that raises this film on a higher pedestal than other (far more) conventional thrillers. Like Tarr's other films, there's always so much happening within his long, precise, ballet-like camera moves, that the length in which scenes are are nearly invisible. Do you notice in the first 35 minutes that there are only 4 shots? No, because the "action" is so well choreographed and intriguing that you're taken over by the story and you forget about the frame. That's a hard comment to make, because he clearly spends a lot of time working on his photography. The photography is haunting (for the lack of a possibly more sophisticated description). Is this as good as "Satantango" or "Werckmeister Harmonies" or even "Damnation"? That's a tough call, because one can argue that all his films, while made in different years, could take place in the same realm, at the same time; as if Bela Tarr was at once merely the observer and the architect of the lives of these people. Of course, there are slightly different social classes, but his films are, at least to my personal feelings, one large on-going story of different personal conflicts.What did make "The Man From London" feel different than his other films was the technology in some cases, where at times this film felt too clean and too perfect and too planned out. On the negative side of things it was hard watching Tilda Swinton, but that has everything to do with my incredible dislike for her as an actress. Maybe she did a fabulous job and maybe she really worked, but her scenes removed me from the story. That and there was a Police Inspector that sounded a bit like a drunk Sean Connery. The scenes were very dramatic and full of information, but all I wanted to do was chuckle. Whenever I finish a Tarr film, I rarely feel perky or alive. It's always a quiet process afterwards, as you feel the weight of everything you just watched. Maybe you learn something about life while watching his films, maybe you learn something about human behavior. Whatever it is you feel, I'm hoping that to Tarr himself that it's the right feeling. (Unless of course you were just bored watching the film, then, well...)
(br) wrote: Gosh I hate Alyssa Milano but this is a really fun sex film. She used to have such pretty breasts.
(br) wrote: Just seen it again,very good !
(us) wrote: One of the first cop movies to mix the whole concept of action and adventure with comedy, it more or less help shape and define how cop movies would be remembered and portrayed for years, possibly even to this day. The original owes its success to the strong presence and acting of its two main leads, Mel Gibson and Danny Glover. Without these men I doubt the franchise would have gotten very far, at least not three sequels and a TV show reboot far. And while it is not the strongest of the series, that would be the second one, it still feels like a must watch for people wanting to get into the business of making action movies.
(kr) wrote: Hollywood goes to Africa! John Ford's visual treat is most intriguing when it shows the African jungle much as a travelogue. But Gable, Gardner and Kelly give fantastic performances too in this lightweight romantic drama.
(gb) wrote: Enjoyable 50's noir-flavoured thriller/romance--Rita makes a hot spy!!
(jp) wrote: Released in the same year as the classic It's a Wonderful Life, this is a great little after-life tale in the same vein. Paul Muni, one of the forefathers of method acting was about a decade past his best works, but makes a strong turn here as the gangster sent to hell by one of his own men. He makes a deal with the devil, played with vigor by the unmatchable Claude Rains, and returns to Earth in the body of a judge that Old Scratch wants to do away with. Of course, Mephistopholes didn't count on Anne Baxter, who gives the thug a new chance, and could send the evil one's plans back where they came from. I'm not sure there's been a better devil than Rains. His face is always in the shadows, following the lead around with a puzzled look in moments of levity and a quick suggestion in any moment of doubt. His performance alone is worth the price of admission, but there's more to be said for the cast. Muni gives a classic turn, reminiscent of the best gangsters of early cinema, and Baxter - a few years before hitting it big with All About Eve - is a charming counterbalance. Add in a great score by Dimitri Tiomkin, some good cinematography and lighting, and an ending that's not what you'd expect, while maintaining sharpness, and you've got a classic of any genre.
(us) wrote: A great adventure classic. The opening scene in a fort full of corpses sticks in the memory forever, and Brian Donlevy's role as a sadistic sergeant makes a striking impression as well.
(de) wrote: The best I've seen from De Niro in a long while and Dano always delivers.[6/10]
(ag) wrote: This movie is just awesome and sad. I love everything about the movie but it isn't story fulled enough to be a 5 star
(nl) wrote: It's a bad sign, where only a half hour into the movie I am wishing that most of the lead characters die a horrible death and are then eaten by dogs.