Jalte Badan

Kiran, a wealthy, naive young man from the country goes to Bombay to continue his education. At college he becomes involved with a group of students who get him hooked on drugs.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length: 0 minutes
  • Release: 1973
  • Language: Hindi
  • IMDB link: Jalte Badan
  • Keywords:

At college he becomes involved with a group of students who get him hooked on drugs. Kiran, a wealthy, naive young man from the country goes to Bombay to continue his education

Jalte Badan is a great movie of Ramanand Sagar. This movie was introduced in 1973. You can check list actors in this movies torrent, for example Kumkum, Kiran Kumar, Neena, Manmohan, Padma Khanna, Alka, Raza Murad, V.K. Sharma, Kuljeet, Sumati Gupte, Tun Tun, Hiralal, Birbal, Sujit Kumar, Dinesh Thakur. Movie' genres are General. Many people rated for this movie, Rate is 5.1 in www.imdb.com. This is really a good movie torrents. Share with your friends and watch this movie together

Jalte Badan torrents

Jalte Badan full movie

Jalte Badan 1973 torrent

Jalte Badan torrent, Jalte Badan movie torrents, download Jalte Badan full movie, Jalte Badan 1973 torrents, download Jalte Badan 1973 torrents, watch Jalte Badan movie, Jalte Badan englishsub, free download Jalte Badan movie, movie Jalte Badan torrent

Links Name Quality Seeders Leechers Size
Download   Jalte Badan (1973) ~ Crime Drama ~ Other 35 26 1.15 GB

Users reviews


But what it isn't is something humans do. To me, within a realistic - maybe hyper-realistic - movie, Akerman stepped out of the realm of Things People Do, into a place where Dielman's murder is symbolic, or emblematic, or feministic, or nihilistic or whatever you read into it. I'm not one of them. A great many people love this movie and feel that it makes total sense. For me, it felt arbitrary, a moviemaker's choice, rather than making sense from what I have been given to understand about Jeanne. Personally, I have to construct a brand new understanding of human behavior where that makes sense. You might accept that. But then you have to accept that it makes sense that Jeanne would kill her client after he gives her an orgasm. I suspect you lose most people right there. It is up to the rigor of a moviegoer as to whether he or she can tolerate watching three hours of mundane activity. We CAN build that profile, that is, if we haven't been alienated by three hours of tedious monotony (the Warhol point) and if we accept that her killing the man was honestly motivated (the arbitrariness point). And once they unravel and an actual feeling penetrates her ambulatory corpse of a soul, the only thing she can do is kill the man who committed the unpardonable sin of making her feel something. We can build a profile of a woman of total spiritual anomie, holding herself together with her routines until they become frayed. In the end, we have three hours of tedious monotony followed by a capital crime. " They do not move. "Shall we go?" "Yes, let's go. for what? Her son to come home and find her with blood on her hands and a dead man on her bed? A neighbor? The police? She waits like Didi and Gogo. . . Distraught, achingly close to emotion, still torn between holding it together and falling apart, or maybe falling apart isn't even in her emotional vocabulary, and so she sits in the twilight and waits. Then another static shot of her sitting at her dining room table. Then she rises, grabs a pair of scissors, and stabs him to death in the chest. Her face is visibly distraught, but still restrained, trying to hold it together. Then we see Jeanne at her dresser, pulling herself together, brushing out her hair and buttoning her blouse, her client behind her on the bed quite satisfied. Possibly her first ever. At first she is just lying there motionless as the client carries on, and then she starts squirming and gasping and clutching the sheets and trying to push him off of her, and then finally gives in to the orgasm. The third hour, again, same thing, only this time, we see Jeanne on the bed from above, with her client. But maintaining that connection is a challenge, because it's all pretty boring. When everything is so uninteresting and routine, even a slight variation seems like an earthquake, if you're connected to watching her. Her hair is slightly askew. She overcooks the potatoes. She drops a spoon. All pretty much the same thing, only things fray slightly. Hour two is the next day. We watch Jeanne walk through all of her tasks. The first hour of the movie is the first of the three days. Her Jeanne would be sad if she wasn't so dead inside. Actually, Delphine Seyrig plays her quite brilliantly, maintaining her composure through the mundanity of her tasks like a tightrope walker. She does it all with a dead look in her eyes, with a constant tension to keep it all together. The point is Jeanne. The action isn't the point. All utterly perfunctory and no more dramatic than boiling the potatoes. Cut to later, it's darker in the house, she leads him out of the room, hands him his hat and coat, he pays her, he leaves, she puts the money in a little ceramic tureen. The doorbell rings, she meets him at the door, she takes his hat and coat and hangs it up, she leads him to the room. But there is still nothing interesting about it; no Whore with a Heart of Gold, this. Oh, she prostitutes herself to a rigidly scheduled roster of men, every afternoon daily. I can honestly tell you that for almost the entire movie, you could play it on your DVR at 4x speed and not miss a thing. You've seen security camera footage more dramatic. Nothing is done to enhance the drama of these mundane tasks. Every shot in this movie is static, set at a neutral angle with the frame generally symmetrically composed (It may be possible that at some point the camera moves in this movie, but I'm not rescreening the whole damn movie to find it). There is no point in cataloging her tasks, because there is nothing revealing about them. She cooks dinner, she washes up, she makes a bed. She does nothing you haven't done 1,000 times, and does not do them any more interestingly than you do. The first 180 minutes of this 201 minute movie are spent watching Jeanne do the most mind-numbingly mundane household tasks over a three day period. Third time around though, something actually does happen, and brother, it's a doozy. Chantal Akerman does Beckett one better by having nothing happen three times. Waiting for Godot was famously described as a play where nothing happens twice. If you plan on ever seeing it, know this - 1) I warned you not to, and 2) massive spoilers follow. So it's with these two thoughts in mind that I approach Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles. It's a matter of artistic responsibility to make those choices with care and reason, and even better, with skill and impact. We live in a society where artists are ostensibly free to make any choice they want. I'm not a fan of Dadaistic randomness in art; it's ultimately nihilistic and/or lazy. What I don't tolerate in art is arbitrariness, the notion that one choice is as good as any other. I also have a certain tolerance level for pretentiousness. I'm all for a film challenging its audience, even being arrogant to its audience. Then we approach randomness, and this to me is the enemy of art. The character becomes less human and more of a symbol of whatever axe the filmmaker is grinding. But once logical sense is abandoned, once a character behaves in a way that seem inconsistent with human nature, then literally anything can happen in a movie, and we're no longer watching a movie about a person in a situation, we are watching a series of unmotivated or under-motivated activities. Of course, there is no shortage of movies presenting fantastical realities - most things we see in action movies can never happen in real life - but they still attempt to maintain some kind of character consistency and nominal plausibility, no matter how aggressively our disbelief has been suspended. Once a film steps outside these boundaries, once they are presenting things that cannot or do not really happen in real life, there are no limits to what it can show. Stories attempt to present a series of events that could happen logically and reasonably, that obey the laws of physics, probability and human nature. Another issue - and I will bring these two issues around in the end, I promise - is the nature of character and logic in a film. It was good to be Andy. Didn't even justify it (Warhol was notoriously inarticulate in discussing his art), because a parade of aesthetes would immediately explain and analyze his ground-breaking innovations. Eight hours of a static shot of the top floors of the Empire State Building. Five hours of a man sleeping. Forty-five minutes of a man eating mushrooms. Somehow he got license to call anything he did "art", and so he'd just put a camera in front of somebody and let it run, and show it in public completely unedited. One of Andy Warhol's principle crimes against humanity is that he gave film directors permission to be boring

Anthony T (ru)

Not what I thought it would be

Dena S (au)

A nice laid back one time watch

Eliabeth M (es)

simple and beautiful. artfully done. a beautiful film about family, choices, and heartache

Gonalo M (es)

Cuando se pierde la razon de pelear

James M (ca)

A hidden gem. The acting is all rather average, the script is cheesy and the special effects and makeup are quite atrocious, but this was still a decent and entertaining movie. It's all quite goofy & definitely owes a debt to Romero's zombie movies, but it's also a fun homage to the B-movies of the 1950's with clever references throughout. Two people unaffected by the comets armageddon powers are two sisters from the LA suburbs who find a male survivor hiding out at a local radio station and put out a message to find others & receive a message from scientists in a bunker who may have a darker motive for finding Earth's survivors. End of the world movies meet Dawn Of The Dead as a comet which hasn't passed by Earth in 65 million years turns the majority of the population into red dust and others into flesh eating zombies. A cheesy 80's horror/sci-fi B-movie which is actually much better than it sounds

Jax R (br)

Good luck James. Loved Bob. Brilliant

Jessica J (au)


Mikko L (ca)

You can very well watch it if not too long time has elapsed since the last time you watched Smoke. Can't quite figure this out, but I'll award it with four and a half stars. I give up. BTW, I do wonder if Jarmusch really puffed his last Lucky in the movie set, or has he returned to his habits? Awright. Jim Jarmusch and Lou Reed make the two most interesting guests in this flick, but their parts taste a bit like mere interviews, and but borderline dry ones. While Auster has his spoon in this soup, as in Smoke, the kool stories are not there. Only this time they march in a number of celebrities, take Madonna for one example (or take Roseanne Barr for two examples), to play for cameos or small roles. The setting is the same; you're in a corner shop which sells tobacco in Brooklyn. They're both released the very same same year. Is it a kool flick, or are they just riding in the wake of Ultra Kool flick Smoke? It's a sequel. Blue in the Face is a hard flick to review

Ric A (ru)

The linearity of A Most Violent Year is innate but actually helps it to translate the story to the audience on a much better level. A good, off-beat film that takes you a bit on the darker side of daily living during those times