Dongala Mutha is a Telugu-language film directed by Ram Gopal Varma. The film stars Ravi Teja, Charmme Kaur, Prakash Raj, Lakshmi Manchu, Bramhanandam, Subbaraju, Supreet and Ajay. This film is the first of its kind in Indian cinema as it was shot with just 7 crew members and in a record of 5 days. Prior to filming, Varma announced that this film has no budget and that the cast and crew will not be taking remunerations until the film hits theaters. Puri Jagannadh is co-director while director S. Harish Shankar (Mirapakaya fame) is associate director. Music is by Sathyam while the Background Score has been rendered by Amar Mohile of Sarkar Raj fame. Dongala Mutha was released on March 18, 2011, which was exactly 33 days after the 5 days of shoot ended, The filmmaking process was revolutionized through Canon 5D cameras, a first of its kind
Writer:Nilesh Girkar (story and screenplay), Venu Gopal Reddy
Dongala Mutha is a Telugu-language film directed by Ram Gopal Varma. The film stars Ravi Teja, Charmme Kaur, Prakash Raj, Lakshmi Manchu, Bramhanandam, Subbaraju, Supreet and Ajay. This film is the first of its kind in Indian cinema as it was shot with just 7 crew members and in a record of 5 days. Prior to filming, Varma announced that this film has no budget and that the cast and crew will not be taking remunerations until the film hits theaters. Puri Jagannadh is co-director while director S. Harish Shankar (Mirapakaya fame) is associate director. Music is by Sathyam while the Background Score has been rendered by Amar Mohile of Sarkar Raj fame. Dongala Mutha was released on March 18, 2011, which was exactly 33 days after the 5 days of shoot ended, The filmmaking process was revolutionized through Canon 5D cameras, a first of its kind . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Rachel S (ru) wrote: clicked on the wrong one!!! clicked on wrong one
Jeffrey M (es) wrote: REVIEW: #TheABCsofDeath Saw the second before this one and enjoyed that one a lot more. There are more misses then hits in this #shortfilm compilation. Some are just too bizarre and disturbing, where as others are just silly and boring. However it's still enjoyable to see a ton of visions within 2 hours. 3/5
Sebastian M (es) wrote: The plot is interesting and the animation is great. Firebreather has a chance to become a good animated series, it has a good plot story, visual quality is great. I'm a big fan of SciFi and animated fantasy movies so I liked this movie. I don't think that its rating will be like Toy Story was but it was nice to watch it
Jesse B (de) wrote: Man this 1 sucked. What a load. Horrible script, sheer stupidity. Theres not even enough T and A to make it a good skin show. Its just all bad camera work and awkward lighting. They gave Forrest Griffin such a dumb role,and practically no lines.Middleweight UFC fighter Nate Marquardt also makes an appearance here,playing Forrest Griffins brother of all things. Now that I think about it, the two some what have a resemblance, they could pass for brothers from another mother. However, having them as brothers isnt very significant to the plot. Another fighter from the UFC,Keith Jardine plays a strange role, as a rival to the ageing main character. Jardine is just your average tough guy jerk, a fighter that gets involved and throws his weight around. He doesnt really come across as a villian or a hero, or anything other than just a big guy. Pointless!The main attraction to this type of flick would have to be the violence and macho competition yet The fights were marred with glaring light and uninteresting shots, spoiling the experience. This movie puts Rashad Evans in a much bigger role, and depends on his acting performnace for a lot of the plot points. Rashad seems to be pretty good at being completely unlikeable, suitably hes been cast as the lead villianA guy who doesnt seem that far from the real Rashad.Most of the characters seem to fit some terrible stereotype, and are so shallow and 1 dimensional you can almost see right through them. The Mob Boss, the stripper girl friend, the number 1 fan...a whole bunch of cliches and boundless bad acting.Furthermore there was an unintersting backstory, that i guess was supposed to tie it all together which it definetly did not.This whole thing was enduring to watch. Blehhhhh are they going to keep making these fly by night films, like a reoccuring crime? How much can they really be making off of rentals alone? The sad part is, I think theyre getting worse, and this is only the 3rd so far.I wanna know are fighters really this desperate to get in an acting credit, or is it just another pay day? I really enjoy MMA as an entertainment sport and appreciate the fighters, I understand they want to make a name for themselves but For Petes sake somebody come up with a better script!
Jeff B (es) wrote: Pretty interesting and daring film. Lynn Shelton gets kudos.
Harry W (de) wrote: I didn't really have grand expectations for Rugrats Go Wild because while as a kid I liked both Rugrats and The Wild Thornberries, I found that as the years went on I found the humour to be too juvenile for my tastes.And my expectations were fairly dead on when it came to Rugrats Go Wild because while it had its moments and would have appeal for the younger crowds, I have outgrown it.The best film in the Rugrats movie series was Rugrats in Paris: The Movie because the story was touching for its characters, and the new setting was hilariously ridiculous. With Rugrats Go Wild, the setting has potential and the fact that the story crosses the characters with The Wild Thornberries gives it a high concept. Unfortunately, it doesn't take advantage of that and ends up falling into a repetitive pattern of the same tired gags that viewers are likely to have seen plenty of times before, except the humour goes from crass to crude. It doesn't really capture the best elements of either The Rugrats or The Wild Thornberries because it ons any kind of cutsie funny and doesn't have a story that really matters to the development of any of the characters, and it all in all just seems like an overly commercialised film which reaches square into the pockets of its young fans and takes every dollar they've got. And as a sequel to both Rugrats in Paris: The Movie and The Wild Thornberries Movie, it simply is not of the same calibre in terms of entertainment. Although the animation is great because as well as maintaining the same iconic look of the characters from both television series, Rugrats Go Wild manages to increase in quality of animation by adding a three dimensional effect it the film which is very well detailed. Considering the budget of the film is only $25 million, its animation is fairly great.And the voice acting is as effective as ever, while the effort of newcomer Bruce Willis makes a perfect addition the cast as the voice of Spike considering his talent for voice articulation and his history of voicing a baby in the Look Whose Talking trilogy of comedy films. So he makes a hilarious addition to the cast. But one other problem is that at random points in Rugrats Go Wild, the characters break into song and dance. I'm not the biggest fan of this, but I could tolerate it more if the musical numbers were not so poorly written. The lyrics are generic and the tunes are poor, and there is nothing really memorable about it. So even the plot structure in Rugrats Go Wild is weak.Really, Rugrats Go Wild fails to take advantage of its high concept. Combining characters from two popular Nickelodeon TV shows and forsakes clever writing for great animation without applying enough awesome situations to overshadow it. The visual experience doesn't really reach the heights it wants to, and so it is easier to see the thin plotting and lack of originality in the writing which reveals that the story goes nowhere. And frankly, there is a reason that you've never heard of Norton Virgien and John Eng having made another film. So despite a lot of colourful visual elements thanks to the quality of its animation and a strong voice cast with the addition of newcomer Bruce Willis, Rugrats Go Wild is too dimwitted, crude and generic to satisfy.
Bailey N (de) wrote: Just O.K. Guess one could find a lesson of letting loose while learning to accept the ones you love for how they are. Flat ending.
Larry Y (fr) wrote: another supermarket DVD 2.99 DVD combo pack purchase
Kathy J (ca) wrote: Lots of fun. Conclusion: people with pools are a bit crazy. ALS victim's depiction very real (my mom had the Lou Gerig's disease, too) and I enjoyed all the various themes ahd characters. It would have been nice to have the option of "subtitles for the hearing impared" since Downey is sometimes difficult to understand!
Chip M (jp) wrote: More of a psychological thriller than a crime-drama, watch Larry Dimmick (A.K.A. Mr. White) dig himself a deeper and deeper hole due to his intense gambling, drug, and sex addictions. Just this character study alone is enough to keep you entertained and help you get through the more graphic and disturbing scenes in the film.Seriously though, Harvey acts the exact same way as he does in Resevoir Dogs.
Paul C (nl) wrote: Filmed from '72 to '77 and forgotten. Finally released in 2003. A low-budget horror flick with a decidedly off-beat premise. Very much of its era. Fun if you are in the right mood.
Luke A (br) wrote: A over the top Italic interpretation of 14th century England. Still pretty funny though and delightfully abstract.
Jeremiah Z (gb) wrote: Suite de Bride of the Monsters, malheuresement, Ed Wood commence a s'epuiser et Bela Lugosi n'est plus la pour assurer le role du Dr. Acula qui avait ete ecrit pour lui
Bo E (it) wrote: Audie Murphy is a bad casting for this movie. Great story.
Larry Y (it) wrote: added based on Joe Bob Briggs' recommendation
Essi T (au) wrote: Toinen kauhuleffa nyt mink kattoin perjlkeen, joka kuvattiin kokonaan hahmojen kameralla, se on plussaa. Musiikkia ei kytetty ollenkaan, toimi hyvin. Olihan se vhn jnnhk, vaikka kyll lopun pystyi arvaamaan.
Yuri B (us) wrote: It was a great movie to rent back in the day.