Keechak Vadha

Keechak Vadha


  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:0 minutes
  • Release:1959
  • Language:Marathi
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:Keechak Vadha 1959 full movies, Keechak Vadha torrents movie

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Keechak Vadha torrent reviews

Jonathan P (jp) wrote: A surprisingly good film Spencer Lofranco does a fine job portraying the real life story of James a gangster sent to prison only to come under the tutelage of Ving Rhames. The film is well acted and holds no punches. A surprise find and worth a watch if you like a good story of redemption.

william m (us) wrote: Gervais and Bana are both very likable in their own way, and it shows here. The film doesn't seem funny enough to be a comedy, and seems too far-fetched to be a drama.

Kenneth E (gb) wrote: Wow, for once a B-Horror movie that isn't just for a rainy day! I would watch this on any day. The CGI effects are terrible! But that doesn't make it a bad movie. I was truly amazed that this movie was any good at all. I watched it for fun, because I was bored. But man, if you are looking though B-Horror movies, and you can't figure out which are crap and which are winners, grab this, because it's a sure winner!

Teresa R (gb) wrote: quiero verla otra vez, solo no me gusto el final :(

Riley H (de) wrote: Too episodic for its own good. Another thing, if you're going to use the same actresses to let the audience know who each character is, you don't need to identify them through the already sparse script. Do one or the other.

Robert R (ag) wrote: *tries to climb through a window and escape so I don't have to do this review.* Ugh. It's hard giving a movie a bad review. Especially when said movie contains a gallery of individuals that you unconditionally respect. Stephen Frears, Steven Knight, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Audrey Tautou - all are filmmakers, artists, and performers that I have incredible admiration for. But, the simple fact remains; I just couldn't get into "Dirty Pretty Things." It might've been the disjointed pacing, the generally ugly atmosphere and tone, the occasional stilted performance (Sorry, Audrey), or maybe a combination of all three. But it still just felt like there was some critical, interesting element missing from this film. Maybe it's just because I'm not British.

Hannah M (au) wrote: Wonderfully inventive format for a documentary. It had the potential to turn into some sort of a sappy biopic, but the director doesn't force it and neither do the people involved. It's just the story it is. I don't really have any words for this right now... but I liked it.

Carl E (nl) wrote: Martial artist extraordinaire Mark Dacascos stars in what has to be America's finest attempt to replicate a Hong Kong action flick. The plot is thin but the action is great, as the genre dictates. Unceremoniously dumped to video upon it's release and cut by 20 minutes, this one deserves to be seen by anyone digs kung fu flicks.

Carlos G (mx) wrote: First movie that ever made me cry. Taking a look into the lives of teens in south central seems and real & raw. Touching personal top 10 all time.

Rukia K (jp) wrote: Ok movie, nothing remarkable

Zoran S (jp) wrote: It's not the best Mizoguchi film but it's quite good nonetheless. It has excellent acting and cinematography but does come off as melodramatic at times.

Art S (us) wrote: Set in a New Mexican nowhereland, Robert Montgomery's weird noir casts himself in the lead as an alienated GI hunting down a war profiteer (with strange hearing aid) who killed his friend. He is assisted by Thomas Gomez as Pancho, Wanda Hendrix as Pila, and Art Smith as Retz, who take a liking to him for no apparent reason, because he is not a nice guy (and does not have nice motives). Perhaps you could say he is rehabilitated through his stay in the small town and his contact with these kind souls and this reaffirmation of community is what is needed for the post-war period when people felt jaded and burnt.

Marcus W (us) wrote: Kim Ki-Duk films are never a bundle of rainbows, but this depressing even by his standards

Adam R (mx) wrote: A moving war drama let down by sloppy execution and inelegant non-linear storytelling.Noel Coward wrote, co-directed, produced, and starred in "In Which We Serve," a valentine to the British Navy which doubles as a "Best Years of Our Lives" account of the men who wage war by following orders and saluting the flag. Though Coward, Bernard Miles, and John Mills - as the core trio of sailors in the story - all do fine jobs, it's the actresses playing their wives who do the best work. Celia Johnson does almost as good a job as she did in the subsequent Coward/David Lean venture "Brief Encounter," with Kathleen Harrison and Joyce Carey lending excellent support.

Tiberio S (fr) wrote: Swashbuckling, duh! I think Robin Hood invented that term. I still don't know where exactly the story came from, or who wrote it, but whenever I'm reintroduced to this classic tale, that giddy adventuresome boy inside is awakened, and I find myself getting up from my seat yelling the name of Locksley in epic-movie English. This is a pretty fun version, despite it's many shortcomings, and occasional failure to hold my attention. This is one of those films I'd like to see without the music, to see what becomes of it. Michael Kamen's score is about 80% of the work, filling in a tremendous amount of space on and offscreen. Without it, the film doesn't work. Another 15% goes to the cinematography, and all other departments, including performances and direction, fill in the remaining 5%.Kevin Costner is an awkward Robin Hood at best. I always considered him a low energy actor unfit for leading men in big screen spectacles; this is the last role I'd cast him in. I'd also think Alan Rickman would make a perfect Sheriff of Nottingham, but his thespian overconfidence lends to some ridiculous over-the-top moments that are less entertaining than one might imagine.One thing I'm not clear on is how the economy of Robin Hood works. How is the money that Robin steals good too anyone? Is not it void upon being lost to the poor? The poor aren't poor because of lacking material gain, they are poor because the ruling class keeps them that way. In a society run solely on ruling powers, how can anyone call anything their own? And where and what goods could they possibly be spending that money on?