Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge
Raj is a rich, carefree, happy-go-lucky second generation NRI. Simran is the daughter of Chaudhary Baldev Singh, who in spite of being an NRI is very strict about adherence to Indian values. Simran has left for India to be married to her childhood fiancé. Raj leaves for India with a mission at his hands, to claim his lady love under the noses of her whole family. Thus begins a saga.
- Category:Romance, Comedy, Musical, Drama
- Stars:Shah Rukh Khan, Kajol, Amrish Puri, Farida Jalal, Anupam Kher, Satish Shah, Achala Sachdev, Himani Shivpuri, Pooja Ruparel, Damyanti Puri, Lalit Tiwari, Hemlata Deepak, Mohit Kumar, Mansoor Merchant, Govind Khatri,
- Director:Aditya Chopra,
- Writer:Aditya Chopra (dialogue), Aditya Chopra (screenplay), Aditya Chopra (story), Javed Siddiqui (dialogue)
A likeably goofy rich Indian boy named Raj and Simran, who is already arranged to marry another man, meet on a trip to Europe. After some initial misadventures, they fall in love, and struggle to win over two traditional families. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge torrent reviews
(ag) wrote: Keanu Reeves has been one of the more influential actors in the 21st century, so I was very intrigued to see if this level of talent could be focused towards the directorial position; it turns out it can be. Man of Tai Chi was a very well shot, performed, and edited film that I thoroughly enjoyed. The fight scenes were extremely well enacted and this film is a must-see for any fan of martial arts. 4/5 stars.
(au) wrote: More of the same as the third film, but this time without the notable star power. It's very goofy at times, and the story is forgettable. By now you're missing the beautiful Amazon jungles of the first two films to at least give scenery to an otherwise unmemorable monster flick.
(us) wrote: I dn't usually watch indian movies but this is pure comedy!
(kr) wrote: This was so sad, I actually cried in some parts.
(us) wrote: A very moving film about love found in later life,and where love should have been able to continue to blossom,instead a great tragedy hits and lives are never the same again.Fantastic acting and amazing emotions between husband and wife.
(ca) wrote: The writing/directing style reminded me of Hotel. In other words, a bit too artsy-fartsy for my tastes. I'd be curious to see another Dogme 95 movie though before I pass judgment on the movement.
(br) wrote: Loved this movie which - as with so many of the cast and crew apparently - transported me back to my own "thrilling days of yesteryear", hormones, ideas (and certainly fashion trends) careening off nearly everything in sight. Like this film, my feelings at the time were confusing, astonishing - at times frightening and yet, also as in the film, it all seemed to work out in the end... A most see for anyone who has ever been 17 in the 80s and tried to redefine themselves along lines which weren't quite on the straight and narrow...
(au) wrote: haha...Nick Park is so fantastic.
(gb) wrote: There were a few chuckle worthy moments to be found here, but overall the film was not very good. Danny DeVito is the best part about this film, but it is far from his best work.
(fr) wrote: 2.3/10 Sometimes, I find it possible to admire mediocre filmmakers, and at other times; I find it rather difficult to accept them for the nigh-decent people that they are; or at least that can be said when discussing how good they are at their job. Lucio Fulci, the Godfather of Gore, has disappointed me more than once; however, "Manhattan Baby" feels like some sort of test, and it's not a very entertaining or endurable one. In fact, I'll just go right ahead and call it unbearable, because that is what it is. Fulci didn't seem to understand that he IS the Godfather of Gore, but nothing more. He thought he was a surrealist; something that we all know he is not. He's never made a genuinely scary movie. I imagine some of his movies work as midnight-movies. "Manhattan Baby" works as nothing more than a tedious exercise in mistake-making for its genre. I mean what a waste of time and potential. If there is one thing in the movie that could be seen as a redeeming quality, it's the cinematography. But if I want a movie built around imagery that isn't stunning and admirable, but not-too-memorable cinematography that isn't worth writing home about, I'll watch something that I can actually, well, watch; and without having to fight to stay awake. An Egyptologist and his family return home from a trip to Egypt with a souvenir in the form of an ancient artifact. They figure that it would just be cool to have; and the daughter keeps it close by. However, when the family returns to Manhattan, the little girl notices that strange things are occurring. People are dying via broken elevators, cobras are randomly attacking people who happen to be busy investigating photos, and better yet, photographs are revealing strange images. There's not much logical explanation for all this aside from "the artifact was cursed!" But how else could we explain it? I guess that's one thing - and only one thing - that Lucio Fulci understands; that there is often only a single explanation to many things. Even if that one thing is a very stupid and absurd explanation. This film sucks. It is bad, bad, bad. I don't even want to call it a movie, because it disrespects my intelligence and my will to view cinema as I do. Maybe I should just give up on Fulci (yeah right!) right now and spare myself more boring movie-watching sessions. Or I could keep going, keep whining, and keep preventing you from making the grave mistakes I made when I watched these "films". Hopefully this is the worst Fulci can do. But oh...I have my doubts. The film has a decent visual look, and I liked what Fulci was TRYING to do - but couldn't pull off -when he staged the "dream-like sequences". The children of the film fall victim and captive to the curse of the artifact, and claim to go on "trips", or adventures, if you will. Fulci obviously tried hard to make these scenes work, but in the end...they just don't. I suppose the problem is the many distractions caused by the insanely lame dialogue, the convoluted and borderline-mental plot, and lastly, the horrid acting. Of course, I'm not going to criticize Fulci as a director when criticizing "Manhattan Baby"; he unleashes some decent creativity in the gory-kill-sequences. Those are typically well-staged. But nothing can save a movie from a lousy, boring narrative. "Manhattan Baby" is just plain bad.
(us) wrote: Not the best ninja movie around, but works as a cure for a bad day nevertheless.
(nl) wrote: I liked it, nice seeing the characters grow up.. Sort of.