Joi Baba Felunath: The Elephant God

Joi Baba Felunath: The Elephant God

This is the second film about the detective Feluda (Soumitra Chatterjee) set in the holy city of Benares, where he (along with his cousin, Topshe and friend, Lalmohan Ganguly) goes for a ...

This is the second film about the detective Feluda (Soumitra Chatterjee) set in the holy city of Benares, where he (along with his cousin, Topshe and friend, Lalmohan Ganguly) goes for a ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechersSize
Download   Bengali Movie - Joi Baba Felunath (1979) - Satyajit Ray's FilmOther4438392.79 MB
Download   The Elephant God (Joi Baba Felunath) - Satyajit Ray.aviOther32341.37 GB
Download   Jai Baba FelunathOther3543697.79 MB

Joi Baba Felunath: The Elephant God torrent reviews

Chuck D (ru) wrote: Wonderful movie. Not sure what the critics were watching, but this movie was believable and well thought out. My wife and I were anxious to see how the story unfolded, and we loved every minute!

Douglas L (de) wrote: I was pretty excited about this one. I watch just about every zombie movie that comes out from the big budget ones down to things made for a hundred bucks. What i can tell you is that along THAT continuum, this is by far above average. But does that mean its GOOD? I'm not sure - but its not BAD. As far as the technical aspects go, this film is lovely. The cinematography is excellent (i'm going to assume it was filmed on DSLR - looks like a 5D or 7D?) and everything is wonderfully framed. The acting is above par for a film of this budget. The "bad" guy is the strongest performance, with maybe the most unsteady of all coming from the male "lead" - though not to a degree that takes away from anything. I use quotation marks because there isn't really a lead or a villain, just people that NEARLY take that role. Now, i don't have a problem with not filling standard archetypes of film - its just that these characters could have been so much deeper. The pacing of this film was so fast that you didn't really get a chance to feel story. It could have been about half an hour longer, really. But the pacing was so quick that some of the scenes didn't work - such as an emotionally intense execution of an infected party member when, in fact, you've only had 5 minutes of screen time to get to know the character. It just feels a little bit rushed, which upsets you because it didn't need to be rushed.The zombie make up was alright. Not amazing but not cheap. The sets work really well and you believe pretty much everything you see. There is even a few doses of nudity that, well, aren't half bad.Overall, I would recommend this movie and really would have liked to have seen a longer, more "fleshed out" version.

Ryan Gordon F (ca) wrote: this movie was good interesting worth a watch

Reid V (fr) wrote: Greengrass is just plain and simply, the man. He has the Midas touch in which everything he touches, turns to gold. In this gripping retelling of the events in 1972, Greengrass takes memories so wrought with emotion, and presents them in a way that seems not only fresh, but also fair. While he could have easily made a film vilifying the British for their actions, he takes time to give them reason, and shows the rage that was boiling up on both sides. As soon as you spend too much time with one side, the picture fades to black and we are taken back to the other side of the battle. On top of being a stylistic choice, it also helps keep the audience objective. He by no means defends the British, but he does the best he can to make the audience understand the calamity. As for the calamity itself, it is incredibly well done and unbelievably intense. I have never felt like I was in the middle of such a violent conflict before and this film just made me plunge right in the eye of the storm. The acting here is top notch and there are some pretty stunning long takes that help to really put you right in the heart of the chaos. All in all a very fine film. A gripping and very fine film indeed.

bill s (ag) wrote: Low brow at a low point.

Sarah P (au) wrote: Completely unbelievable and silly. Just odd and with no redeeming value. Who talked Helen Mirren into this?

Keith B (au) wrote: not as good as the 1st one, but ok

gerry h (ag) wrote: keeps you interested

Mark S (ru) wrote: Fuck the movie! This is a tribute for Chuck and it knows it.And just because of that, 4 stars.I only wish for the day that they make a movie using all the Facts about Chuck that made him the Internet God he is. I mean, he was his own father.

Lawrence B (au) wrote: Despite its age, there are still some genuine shocks and surprises in Clint Eastwood's directorial debut, a proto-slasher that was more or less remade 16 years later in the form of Fatal Attraction and would which influence a spew of similar psycho-stalker thrillers to come. Inevitably, a lot of it seems cliched today but Eastwood's suspenseful grip still holds up, as does Jessica Walters' effectively edgy performance as the obsessed fan who doesn't like coming second best very much.

jwasu r (nl) wrote: I expected more, but I still enjoyed seeing the mishaps and mis-starts of Antoine.

Lovro H (es) wrote: I remember watching this as a kid and thinking this movie was scary and violent. Now, watching it again, my opinion is very different. The movie is about a salvage crew that gets a job to repair a ship that's been lost for 40 years, but as soon as they get onboard of it, crazy, unexplainable, stuff starts to happen! We soon find out that the ship is actually haunted by the ghosts of the people who died on the boat. I will not spoil what happened to the people, even though you can see half of it in the first 5 minutes of the movie, it's not really explained until the end, so no spoilers. I will say that it was awesome, but seriously ridiculous for a horror movie. The characters are okay, they're all mostly just throwaway characters and it's obvious which one/s are going to survive. The acting was good. I can't really complain about that matter. I will complain about the fact that the movie just isn't scary! The atmosphere is great and the ship looks amazing from the inside. The overall story is very intriguing, but the movie just has nothing particularly scary. At times you might feel like you're watching an action movie due to all the action happening, it's really weird. The soundtrack is great. There are some really cool original soundtrack pieces, but Mudvayne stands out. All in all, not as bad as people make it out to be. Sure, it's quite ridiculous and one half of the movie is nothing like the other half, but it's very watchable, has some really cool gore scenes and the atmosphere of the movie is really great. I wouldn't really recommend it if you want to get scared, though.

Mike B (de) wrote: Horrible film. The plot and characters as thin as paper. Completely devoid of humor, and predictable as the physical force of gravity. You'll know that sinking feeling as this super-dud makes your stomach and your hopes plummet as surely as a car hurtling off a bridge. The portrayal of women sets them back to the stone age. Some of the clunky dialogue, brazenly anti-conservative garbage. Embarrassingly bad. Rather than watch this, go do something you can actually enjoy, like having a root canal. Unclear on my review, you ponder and think a moment: "Did you enjoy it?", you ask. My immediate response: "Not as much as a colonoscopy."

Ahmed M (us) wrote: CLICK, is a disappointing movie, with barely any laugh worthy scenes and the idea of the movie itself, isn't that great.

Andres G (ru) wrote: Psima pelcula de esta maltratada saga.

Joetaeb D (mx) wrote: Borrowing heavily from an innumerable amount of fantasy and sci-fi franchises that it just seems like a collage of elements. The Mortal instruments is an unexpectedly dull and forced YA movie that feels like it has nothing more on it's mind than to try to steal fans of Harry Potter and Twilight over to it's side. But we more than know how it goes on this path.

Ani A (ag) wrote: Love this funny old movie.

Tags and Keywords