Jaya lives in a village called Chandangaon in India along with her widower dad, Gokul, who works for a living as a compounder, but calls himself a Homeopathic doctor and dispenses Arnica ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Ek Gaon Ki Kahani
Jaya lives in a village called Chandangaon in India along with her widower dad, Gokul, who works for a living as a compounder, but calls himself a Homeopathic doctor and dispenses Arnica ...
You may also like
Ek Gaon Ki Kahani torrent reviews
rick r (us) wrote: "Fright Night 2: New Blood" is a sequel that isn't really a sequel at all. The film is directed by Eduardo Rodriguez and brings to life the characters first brought to life in 1985 by Tom Holland. The story as some hinted acknowledgement of the 1988 sequel in the "Fright Night" franchise but truly is an independent film not anchored to the mythos of Charley Brewester and the evil he must battle in vampire Jerry, or in 2013 "New Blood", Gerri Dandrige. In "New Blood" Charley Brewester and his friends travel to Eastern Europe on a senior class trip to study for a semester in Romania. "Fright Night 2: New Blood" stars Will Payne, Jaime Murray, Sean Power, Sacha Parkinson and Chris Waller. The story of "Fright Night 2: New Blood" has some good points and some bad points. On the good, this film creates the elaborate melodramatic nightmare that manages to capture the Gothic romance vampires in horror held in the 80's, very much like the original "Fright Night" and "Fright Night 2" managed to create. For the bad point to this "sequel", "New Blood" totally ignores everything about the "Fright Night" franchise except the characters names and that they are vampires. It really creates a weird frustration about watching the film. I found myself having to fight back the need to be p.o.'d that "Fright Night 2: New Blood" had characters that where killed off in 2011's "Fright Night" and yet called itself "Fright Night 2". That is a big fail when tapping into an established franchise's mythos. Yet I found this story more entertaining and far more viable than 2011's "Fright Night" starring Colin Farrell. As a vampire film "New Blood" really does work and actually brings in a new vampire aspect that offers vampire and Gothic- styled horror fan's some thrills. It really is a much better film than it should have been and would have really topped my list had it just been "Fright Night: New Blood" instead of the "Fright Night 2" moniker. The 2 forces a set unwritten rule that the film should have respected and if they would have left it off then I would have had nothing but positive remarks for the film.As for the effects and sound of "New Blood", it is all really standard stuff expected in this genre and even gives a bit of a creative edge much like "30 Days Of Night" pulled off in the world of vampires. There is no real hokey, or lame effects in this movie, save the dreaded use of CGI that one just has to tolerate in cinema these days. However the practical effects and visual aspects used in "New Blood" allow the film to flow smoothly enough to entertain. The sound effects and over all quality of suspense and "chills" work on a mediocre but acceptable level that doesn't really disappoint but isn't overly impressive either. For the most part "Fright Night 2: New Blood" is just a really good spin on a classic tale that manages to both sh*t on a franchise while simultaneously paying tribute to it as well. For a good Gothic vampire horror "New Blood" rocks, but it does walk all over the established story of Charley Brewester and Jerry Dandrige so be ready for it.
travis w (jp) wrote: only thing i give credit for in this movie is bill engvall, he's a pure baller but the rest of the cast are god awful actors and the movie was retarded as well.. i didnt think it was possible but billy ray has even less talent than miley at acting and she has no talent at all, that family sucks..
Al M (ag) wrote: First off, don't watch Gutterballs unless you are a fan of truly depraved cinema. Offensive on every possible level, in a manner reminiscent of Troma, Gutterballs mixes borderline pornography into its insane slasher chemistry which not only features an extremely long and brutal rape scene but also includes a killer with a bowling bag on his head, misogynistic/homophobic douchebags, and unforgettable kill scenes. Underground horror cinema at its weirdest, Gutterballs simply can't be explained in words: funny, brutal, and absolutely insane from beginning to end.
Kenneth B (br) wrote: This seems to want to be the High Fidelity of cereal shop films, as ludicrous as that sounds, but it's as bland as a bowl of corn flakes.
Jodie J (jp) wrote: the best movie ive ever seen
John B (de) wrote: I loved this movie!Awesome action scenes, beautiful scenery. The Dragons are better than Game of thrones, and the acting is excellent.
Ryan W (de) wrote: The cast on this film looked like they were having great fun with this but for me this was a letdown the running time seems to drag it on for a long time also are all the gags and jokes that are present aren't exactly that funny and finally I don't think Richard Donner should have been chosen to direct this film he should just stick to Lethal Weapon and other films
Daniel E (ru) wrote: A really good cowboy movie
Melanie D (gb) wrote: It's all a bit far-fetched but there were some genuinely disturbing moments and overall it wasn't a bad film.
Callie M (gb) wrote: I thought this movie was absolutely both adorable and hilariously cute! Bill Cosby never lets me down.
Alex G (jp) wrote: The graffiti, dancing and rapping was great. The plot wasn't too interesting though. I would still recommend it to any graffiti/break dance/hip hop enthusiast.
Scott R (ca) wrote: Painfully human in its tragedy and simplicity. Especially well written, poignant and powerfully depressing. One of bergmans best performances and Ingmar is doing what he does best in reducing relationships to their rawest.
Annalee H (gb) wrote: awesome makeup and clothes.weird story line though.
Richard D (au) wrote: The word "handsome" seems appropriately applied to this production. It's a large scale adaptation of a bit of serious literature, and everything that 1950s Hollywood has to offer is thrown at it. It's a well-made film, and I don't think it a whole lot. My biggest issue with it is that even at 3 1/2 hours it feels oddly abbreviated. Instead of watching a story with a strong narrative thread, it feels like a series of slightly disconnected events with the same characters throughout. The film is probably best known these days for being James Dean's last film. It should be. A lot of the cast do fine work here (I was particularly fond of Chill Wills), but Dean is on a different plane here. It's a remarkably eccentric performance that builds up to an incredible scene where he bares the soul of his character in a manner that seems about a decade ahead of his peers. It's worth sitting through the entire epic just to see it.
Elise F (ru) wrote: This incredible cast of actors bring lightness, beauty and humor to a cinema verit style of story telling. I will see Juliette Binoche in anything she does and was delighted with performances by Kristen Stewart and Chloe Grace Moretz as well. They truly held their own with Ms Binoche which is no small feat.
Ruben A (it) wrote: i saw this when it first aired on scifi. that was just when i was into horror films so i didnt care much for it. i dont remember it being funny, just creepy and gross. have to give it a second viewing
Phillie E (us) wrote: I'm a far bigger fan of the first two.