Action - One day Justice Sinha sees a young man kill another and escape. He assists in drawing a picture of the assailant, who turns out to be Sunil. He is found guilty and sentenced to hanging. Shortly after, Sinha realizes that the killer is somebody else. - Jeetendra, Sunil Shetty, Sujata Mehta
- Stars:Jeetendra, Sunil Shetty, Sujata Mehta, Ashwini Bhave, Johnny Lever, Ashok Saraf, Mukesh Khanna, Surendra Pal, Kiran Kumar, Upasna Singh, Archana Puran Singh, Kunika, Pinky, Vikas Anand, Deepak Saraf,
- Director:Jagdish A. Sharma,
- Writer:Ejaz (dialogues), Saroj Khan (screenplay), Anwar Sagar (lyrics), Naeem Sha (dialogues)
Judge Pratap Sinha is a renowned judge who does not pass judgement by sitting down on the judge's chair but he himself investigates and bring the criminals to their fate. This worshiped of ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Judge Mujrim torrent reviews
(kr) wrote: Stupid is as stupid films!!!
(ag) wrote: I could have done without a certain plot twist involving a lifestyle choice, but overall, this is a simple and moving film with great performances from Dench and Coogan.
(br) wrote: Larry David proves once again that his humor is still relevant and that he can still retain our attention on screen regardless of his age. After his character, Nathan Fromm, gets into a tiff with his boss and sells back his 10% share of a soon-to-be multibillion dollar company, he moves to Martha's Vineyard to start a new life under a new name, Rolly DaVore, to escape the nationwide humiliation that this ordeal turned out to be. We fast forward 10 years. No one knows of his past and a once cynical nihilist can now be loved and enamored as well as we all hope to be. Regardless of its irreverent and politically incorrect nature, Clear History carries quite a lot of depth.In life many of us have to chose between being smart and being lovable. While most of Nathan's life he has chosen the former, he now realizes that being loved feels pretty good. He's made great friends and relationships that he doesn't want to lose. He started over fresh.Then, all of a sudden, his former boss, Will (Jon Hamm), moves into town. Rolly/Nathan starts reverting to his old ways again and old attitudes start coming out. Even some of his biggest admirers begin realizing that he's really just a dick. However, we feel for Rolly. We realize that sometimes it's hard to stay sane when everyone around you is so mindlessly blissful.But is it really worth it to be truly pliable just so you can be a billionaire? If all it takes is a little smiling and nodding and just going along with everyone else who has rose colored glasses in order to be rich, would you? You'd have to chose between your own sanity and riches. Nathan chose sanity.It speaks as an ode to the arrogant. This movie makes you feel for them, while demonstrating what happens if you continue down that road. Honestly, I think the only thing I would have liked more about this movie is if it had Will give the money to Rolly regardless. I mean, it's not terribly unfathomable that he would want to blow up his former boss' house. I mean, many people kill themselves in the situation he went through. Will can just build a new house, while Rolly watched his whole life disappear. We want that redeeming value. After all, we like Rolly. Perhaps that's the point though. Or perhaps it just serves the film's irreverence.Either way, it's about as intriguing and unique of a story that you'll find. It's even better than much of the stuff you'll see in theaters. And it's sprinkled with the perfect amount of goofy to make it feel right at home with you.Twizard Rating: 92
(ag) wrote: nothing but junk science, lies and propaganda
(ca) wrote: This is one of the most underrated movies of all time. Though not at all related to the tv show, this movie shows a stunning performance of Alec Baldwin as Mr. Conductor. Although the plot is a little hard to understand for young kids, it is still a great story and movie in general, tying the Thomas universe to the real world.
(ca) wrote: Any film directed by Neil Jordan is a definite must-see in my opinion, so In Dreams hit the list when I discovered his name as director.In Dreams has a good atmosphere and a nice visual style to it, but in terms of storytelling, Neil Jordan gets lost along the way. For one thing, the subplots in the story are unnecessary and go nowhere, and the general premise itself ends up becoming overloaded with weak story elements.The general premise of the films is interesting, but it ends up chartering through too many poor quality subplots and melodramatic territory as well as the fact that it just becomes too farfetched as it progresses. Although the general idea of the story is artificial and weak, it has potential. Unfortunately, Neil Jordan ends up reducing it to a scattered tale burdened with tonal inconsistencies and a surplus of characters who really do not remain as key to the film as they should, and it ends up going in a few too many directions which do nothing to make the story any better. The first example of this is when the story touches upon the concept of Paul Cooper having an extramarital affair, although this does nothing to help the characters nor does it introduce anything new to the story. It just deviates from the main focus of the narrative briefly before it goes back to it and completely forgets about implementing that element in. It is never touched upon again, so why Neil Jordan and Bruce Robinson would actually bother with it seems really strange. The entire screenplay is the problem because it is overloaded with dynamics so much that the film is unable to pick a genre to settle on and so it ends up all over the place and unable to actually settle on somewhere to stay. Watching In Dreams is a shaky experience, and it is more startling than entertaining without being consistent.In Dreams wants to be a psychological thriller, but in the process of being one it turns into a story about a woman getting locked up in a mental hospital and then escaping it to find a serial killer she keeps seeing visions of. While the scenery of the film helps to make it powerfully convincing, the story itself starts off without belief and then spirals further and further into ridiculous territory. I mean, it loses sight of the original concept as the screenplay begins to fill it more and more until it floods and drowns viewers in a sea of senseless writing. You would expect more from the creator of the British cult classic Withnail and I, particularly when he is teamed up with the talents of Academy Award winning screenwriter Neil Jordan. Unfortunately, that is a pipe dream. In Dreams is a low point for the both of them and there really does not seem to be all that much communication going on between them because the scattered structure of the film suggests that both writers had potential but ended up trying to fit way too much into the single narrative. You can pick out the elements that present the film with constant tonal shifts and an inconsistent pace within the script, but you are likely to be so busy doing so that you end up forgetting to be entertained by the film. I know that was the problem with me, and so it is hard for me to recommend this film to fans of Neil Jordan.Neil Jordan's direction does have some perks. Although his handling of the story is not that great and the dialogue feels cheap, the visual style that he gives the film is great. The atmosphere of In Dreams is enhanced by the way that Neil Jordan is able to channel viewers into it. By using thematic cinematography techniques and a light touch of visual effects, In Dreams ends up being an intense feature at times. It is certainly a stylish film, and it is both filmed and edited well against the backdrop of a decent soundtrack.The cast also manage to contribute a decent effort to the story.Annette Bening's leading performance is terrific. Her character evokes memories of Ellen Burstyn's amazing performance as Sara Goldfarb in the film Requiem for a Dream, and yet she maintains the charm of Susan Sarandon at the same time. She creates a figure which is like a fusion of some of the two actresses natural talents, and turns it into her own interpretation of the character Claire Cooper. Annette Bening's leading performance in In Dreams proves to be the best element of the film, and she channels herself into the tense atmosphere of the film very well. Annette Bening's leading performance is a striking one thanks to the firm dramatic power of her line delivery and the physical emotions she integrates into the role. Her chemistry with the surrounding actors is very powerful as well, and she manages to keep the insanity of the film alive and mostly believable even as it charters into territory that is not that believable. Annette Bening is the real reason to watch In Dreams, and any of her fans should be pleased at the quality of her intense leading performance in In Dreams.Robert Downey Jr. was interesting to see in the role of a sick and twisted psychopath as well because it is a very against-type figure for him. Usually he is the hero, but this time he is the enemy. He is a little over the top at times, but as a whole he manages to get the psychotic nature of the character pretty well and projects it with a lot of tension. The physicality of his character is a lot more important to his role this time around than the line delivery, but he manages to get them both right in a small but entertaining performance.Stephen Rea's brief role was also a nice touch.Yet despite the talents of its cast and Neil Jordan's innovative visual style, In Dreams ends up being too scattered and senseless in its storytelling to really soar or more importantly, entertain.
(de) wrote: [b][font=Verdana][size=2]UTU (1983)[/b][u]THE GOOD:[/u]--"Utu" is one of the many films that prove New Zealand was a worthy place for filmmaking long before the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The scenery is wonderful in the film; there are a number of striking shots and beautiful backdrops. The production design is also very impressive; I loved the colonial and authentic atmosphere behind the movie. I also loved how the director Geoff Murphy managed to get all this atmosphere into the film and still managed to have some great typical Kiwi moments. One such moment is when a woman is about to shoot a man, and she looks in the mirror, seeing his naked figure. "I can see your bum" she exclaims.--Though it isn't as effective as it could've been, the differentiation between the Maori and Pakeha in the film is still quite well portrayed. Things are never black-and-white, we are never really given a true villain behind the happenings in the film and any evil deeds usually have some kind of thought-provoking motif behind them.--After the frankly boring middle section of the film, "Utu" does redeem itself somewhat with a great ending. The final sequence in particular was barnstorming. It had all this emotion pulling through, some surprises (Te Wheke's brother, Te Wheke killing that girl) and a very intense, moody feeling. A lot of this comes through in one big long shot, examining utu (revenge), death and culture. Now answer me this - why did it take so damn long to get to this level of greatness? [u]THE BAD:[/u]--While reading about the film I discovered it was 118 minutes. This came as quite a shock to me, because honestly?it felt A LOT longer. The movie just seemed to keep going and going, it dragged in various spots and aside from interesting character choices (Te Wheke shooting one of his friends because he was slowing down the tribe to name one) there isn't really a hell of a lot going on. This shows through how many goddamn gun scenes there are, and they're all mostly repetitive and look exactly the same in most instances. Long movies are acceptable, if they have enough story. "Utu" did not satisfy me at all in this area.--The differences between Maori and Pakeha were well-done, but almost everyone in the film was labelled by this and not many of these people came through as characters, though they did come through as either one of the races. Te Wheke especially failed as a leading character. I found it hard to relate to him until the very last scene, and the 'you-killed-my-family' routine is fairly dull. Show me some more scenes of him having real emotion instead of just acting like one crazy tattoo-covered guy out for revenge. Also, the farmer whose wife was killed by Te Wheke was also a very dull and annoying character. One of the only characters to come through was the young man from the British side who was having an intriguing, well-written romance with a woman from the side of the Maori. [u]RATING:[/u]6/10 - Some terrific sequences and amazing cinematography do make the film look better on first glance, but underneath the surface is a film where really there's not all that much to watch.[u]IF YOU LIKED THIS MOVIE I RECOMMEND:[/u]Enemy at the Gates (9/10)Heavenly Creatures (9/10)The Last Samurai (10/10)Once Were Warriors (9/10)What Becomes of the Broken Hearted (7/10)[/size][/font]
(es) wrote: Sometimes bad is bad.
(fr) wrote: Nicely made Kazan drama about various forms of stubbornness--the main example being the grandmother unwilling to leave the land that will flood when the TVA's dam is complete. But this theme is also explored by the relationship between Clift and Remick, as well as the townspeople's refusal to reconsider their racist attitudes. The film would have been better, I think, if the connection would have been a little more overt about the further connection to the power of the river (and it taking a dam to stop what it, by its nature, is prone to do).
(ru) wrote: The reviewers may not have liked it, but the audience were laughing out loud throughout. Clich (C)d, and a little predictable and yet a good black comedy, with great performances.