You could be the "King of Bollywood", "The richest man of India", or a "Leader of the Techno world". But if your heart is not in the right place with your relationships, do you think you can feel the 'complete Khushiyaan'?

You could be the "King of Bollywood", "The richest man of India", or a "Leader of the Techno world". But if your heart is not in the right place with your relationships, do you think you can feel the 'complete Khushiyaan'? . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Khushiyaan torrent reviews

Joel H (nl) wrote: Knight and Day confuses me. This film feels like it should be quirky, fun and entertaining, but something is just off. It's like the humor is slightly out of sync or something. Tom Cruise is charismatic as always. Plus, there's plenty of action. Cameron Diaz is a pretty useless character, though. Frankly, I can't decide if I liked this movie or not.

Rachel M (ag) wrote: i'm looking forward to see the captain america's 2nd avenger. =]

Deb S (jp) wrote: This part true, part ghost story is a weak drama that tried to be a thriller but didn't make it out of the gate.Although the Legend of Lucy Keyes is an interesting tale, it's probably better told around a camp fire instead of on film. ;)

Agustn S (gb) wrote: Decently acted, visually splendid but ultimately lacking in the entertainment, screenplay(and unbearable lenght) department, Troy is a so-so epic film thay will put your patience and time to the test.

Ashlee P (mx) wrote: This is a very odd movie...

Evan H (ru) wrote: Great performances keep this movie afloat. It's pretty slow at times but the acting and direction are the real highlights of this movie.

Mixa C (ag) wrote: I really don't care what's in the original this is my first experience with rollerball. I say this movie is a speed racer of sport type movie. I don't agree with the world on this movie.

Karl S (it) wrote: Perhaps most interesting for refusing to grant Brando--who stands in for the West at its most capable and self-reflexive--any redemption or understanding, and for 'Jose Dolores'' refusal in his final imprisonment to talk to any white man, even while he builds the next generation of revolutionaries. In so doing, Pontecorvo prevents us from daydreamy identification with the revolutionaries; that (and also the *complete* elimination of women) is among the chief differences from Battle for Algiers.I understand Burn was re-released in 2004 in the original Italian (w/ a dubbed Brando) and with 20 more minutes of stuff. I'm very curious to know what happens in those bits.

Louis D (au) wrote: A surprisingly good viking revenge film from horror maestro, Mario Bava. So good, in fact, that I'd rank it as one of his best. This change in genre allows for new topics (specifically the balance between revenge and atonement) not normally explored by Bava. Well worth a watch.

Cameron J (kr) wrote: MGM is back to the old song and dance routine in Paris, and this time, they actually got French people, so that they would have the accents handy and not make it too much easier to compare this film with "An American in Paris II". Seriously though, the marketers really knew how to sell this film when they boasted that it was "The first Lerner-Lowe musical since 'My Fair Lady'"... not the best, just the first. This film came out during a time where posters sang overwrought praises for the movies they were promoting, but MGM just left it at that, just in case it didn't work out, you know, for MGM, which took home its, I don't know, twelfth Best Picture Oscar in a row with this film. Well, actually, the accuracy of this poster is still seriously questionable, because this film after came out about six years before "My Fair Lady"... right? This film also came out during a time where people cared enough about musical theatre for marketers to use it to sell a movie, without the musical play being adapted into a movie in the first place. Well, the popularity must have been dying down by this time, because even Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe took their property to the screen sooner than the stage, although, in all fairness, as this film's poster is telling us, they hadn't had a musical since "My Fair Lady"... the play, so they had to conform to the new wave of entertainment if they wanted to get the big bucks. I'd imagine taking home a few Oscars is a good way to earn big bucks, especially when you can understand the hype, for this is a seriously fun film, although it might not entirely be a good thing that it's not much more than that. The storytelling is that of a decidedly rewarding film, but the story concept itself is actually all but rich with natural shortcomings, being short on conflict, consequence and depth, and more reliant on color that can't even keep consistent, at least in the storytelling I will come to, if you will, "sing" praises for. Vincente Minnelli's realized directorial pacing is never dull, but it has bland spells within occasions of quietness which are hard to ignore, due to their punctuating so much liveliness to momentum that would be sleeker if the storytellers weren't faced with a bloated structure that relies an awful lot on filler to achieve a runtime to two hours. Still, Alan Jay Lerner's script still doesn't take too much time to flesh out the characters, who are memorable and well-portrayed, and were never to be especially rich, but still feel like superficial types in the script whose superficiality does not end with the characterization. I don't know if I would go so far as to criticize the film as melodramatic, as it doesn't really have much dramatic meat to superficialize to begin with, but it still offers plenty of elements which are pretty hard to buy into, even in the context of this fluffy flick which finds times to get a touch too cheesy with its writing. This comedy of relatively considerable inspiration has a tendency to conform to corny sensibilities of films of its time and type, among other things, being unique in its being so well-done, but ultimately rather formulaic. The film at least falls into convention enough to make it harder to disregard the natural shortcomings of this familiar story, which the final product manages to transcend, almost by some miracle, though not to where limitations can be completely ignore. This film is what it is, and yet, if you take it for what it is, you ought to be, not simply thoroughly entertained, but rewarded, thanks largely to a generally strong script. Alan Jay Lerner's script hits cheesy and superficial occasions to characterization and melodramatics, while also getting to be overlong and, well, formulaic at times, but where it could have really lazed out and conformed to the natural shortcomings of this fluffy story concept, it has an unexpected edge to it which challenges predictability and reflects an inspiration that fully draws upon the color of this narrative through razor-sharp dialogue, an often hilarious sense of humor, lively set pieces, and even memorable, if undercooked characters who are most brought to life by their portrayals. Considering the film's era, I questioned the Rotten Tomatoes consensus' boast that this effort is "flawlessly acted" before going in, but really, even though the standard for acting is limited by lighthearted material, just about everyone delivers, from the show-stealingly delightful Maurice Chevalier and the convincingly over-proper Hermione Gingold, to the dashing and relatable Louis Jourdan and the fun and incredibly beautiful Leslie Caron (Sorry, Chevalier, but forget little girls, because looking at Caron's eyes, I thank Heaven for MetroColor), all of whom also deliver on chemistry that further sells this film. More direct of a compliment to the selling of the film's world is art directors E. Preston Ames' and William A. Horning's plays with glamorous production and costume designs by Cecil Beaton, which are vibrant with a color that Joseph Ruttenberg's cinematography stresses beautifully through lush definition. About as beautiful of an aesthetic attribute of this film is Frederick Loewe's score, which is formulaic, but grand in its complimenting liveliness, especially in the context of near-outstanding musical sequences, which boast thoroughly infection compositions behind tight and snappy lyrics by Lerner which are either hardly all that cheesy, or fun in their fluffiness, and join effectively spirited singing in helping in defining dynamic, yet the consistently lively tone of the film. This is a tremendous success of a musical which never gets too caught up in a musicality that is never less than memorably inspired, reflecting in an inspiration that colors things up every chance it gets, but cannot truly secure the reward value of a film so conceptually superficial on its own. That's where Vincente Minnelli's direction comes in, as inspired as anything in a film rich with inspiration, to scripting, acting and style which Minnelli milks for all its worth through a generally tight sense of pacing, and almost sophisticatedly sharp color that establishes a fun factor so realized and recurrent that it carries the final product perhaps further than it should have gone. There isn't much to the idea behind this film, which is simply fluffy and lacking in a potential to reward, and yet, there is still some potential reward value to salvage, as the storytellers make clear through realization so sound that the final product transcends both natural and consequential shortcomings enough to be both exceptionally fun and, of all things, rewarding. When the number is concluded, natural shortcomings to an inconsequential story concept threaten the final product's reward value, with the help of a few pacing issues, characterization superficialities, cheesy spots, and conventions, but through a solid script, cast, production value, soundtrack and directorial performance of highly realized liveliness, Vincente Minnelli's, or rather, Lerner-Loewe's "Gigi" overcomes its limitations so much that it proves to be truly rewarding as a fiercely fun affair. 3/5 - Good

Daniel K (de) wrote: 1.5: Hmm. I was prompted to watch these by an article in The New Yorker that I read a year or two ago. I wasn't expecting them to be outstanding, but I was expecting something better than this. I have now seen essentially every Charlie Chan film, or at least all that were made between 1931 and 1947 (29 films). What struck me most is that these really have more in common with a television show than a feature film. Each film is essentially the same except for the "location." I guess it makes sense as they serve essentially the same purpose. One can essentially watch every film on auto-pilot comfortable in the knowledge that one knows exactly which characters will pop up and that everything will be satisfactorily resolved in the end. They are "C" picture at best. Sidney Toler is pretty good; Warner Toland is somewhat acceptable; and the other two one picture no-names are either inconsequential or awful. It is rather ludicrous that they didn't allow an actual Asian actor to play the role, but the portrayal of African-American's is much more heinous. They certainly pale in comparison to just about every other detective picture/TV series I've ever seen. None of the films rate an individual review so this will have to suffice for all 29.

Kenneth L (fr) wrote: Action peels away so fast it keeps me guessing how much terrorism is for its own sick sake & how much just for the money.

John W (mx) wrote: Stylishly low budget, a great (albeit by the numbers) minimalist indie thriller. A fun ride to the end of line with an able cast (and what may be one of the most beautiful women ever in Kara Tointon)

Lesa G (ca) wrote: It was okay i guess...

Matthew R (fr) wrote: This movie disturbed me in the best way ??

Darrin C (it) wrote: Straight-forward WWII movie that I was surprised to see done so well. Enacts little known factual history that I've researched on but not enough. This film was quite enjoyable.