Life Express

Life Express

It's a story about an urbanized couple Tanvi and Nikhil whose life's pace revolves around their respective careers so much so, that they have no time to spend with each other or start a family. The film deals with motherhood, love, aspirations and priorities individuals make in their lives, touching upon major societal issues, solutions and trading of human emotions for personal benefits.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:125 minutes
  • Release:2010
  • Language:Hindi
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:surrogate mother,  

A career-minded woman aborts her first child, then decides to have a baby through a surrogate. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Life Express torrent reviews

James M (ru) wrote: Holy shit was this a bad movie. Ridiculous dialogue, and HORRIBLE acting. Tyler Perry needs to stick to exploiting black people and stay behind the camera. Just as bad as Perry though is, as always, Edward Burns. Another one that needs to be hind the camera. TERRIBLE film.

Catherine R (de) wrote: Egan and seyfried. Cute couple.

Private U (gb) wrote: I'm giving this 1/2 star since I cannot give it 0 stars. Do NOT waste your time with this movie!

Ryan S (es) wrote: 3/5. It's fine if you like the first two films but it doesn't really add anything new to the series.

Ranson L (de) wrote: Edmond Pang...Why and how you can make a movie like that?? what is wrong with your brain?? Such a Classic!!

Kalysto d (fr) wrote: Vraiment trop dur la vie des riches... et vraiment trop dur d'aller au bout du film aussi

Luis B (au) wrote: una buena comedia de western bien filmada por donner, simpatica y entretenida que por mas del paso del tiempo, siempre te saca una sonrisa. Un clasico.

Jonathan M (br) wrote: It was alright, confusing plot that did not make sense but I found watchable.

Sarah E (au) wrote: ....................

Gavin P (es) wrote: The original, before Chuck & Larry ripped it off. Good Aussie comedy, two great icons. Not too bad.

Richard D (us) wrote: Yankel, a Jewish immigrant from Russia living in late 19th century New York, brings his wife (Carol Kane) and child over from Russia. Yankel has assimilated (he calls himself "Jake") and his family's old world appearance and demeanor embarrass him. He's much more interested in the owner of a dance studio who's much more American than his wife. Joan Micklin Silver's feature film debut is a nice little film. Shot in black and white and on an obviously low budget, it may not completely convincingly capture it's period setting, but it does an admirable job, and the human drama is mildly compelling.

William F (us) wrote: Not as hilarious as the first two....

Armchair O (ca) wrote: Let's face it, the world wasn't exactly missing a biopic about Linda Lovelace, the former actress who made her immortality in 1972 by becoming the star of "Deep Throat" the most profitable adult film in the history of the medium. Digging around in the trash of a celebrity has a certain level of titillation, but it's no more necessary than digging around in the sex life of Liberace (at least his story has music to fall back on). But how far have we come? Once, long ago, Hollywood made biopics about monarchs and presidents, people who accomplished things and changed the world. Now, rather than pages out of history books, we get pages out of the tabloids. You've gone the wrong way, baby!That's exactly how "Lovelace" feels. This is not the portrait of a life, but a dreary soap opera about an abused woman with a scummy husband who forced her (at gunpoint, we're told) into a life of pornography and prostitution. The problem is that this movie is all tragedy and no substance, giving us a story that might have been better suited for a documentary, which is curious because the movie comes from directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman who have made great documentaries like "The Times of Harvey Milk" and "The Celluloid Closet." Why didn't they just make a documentary? This is drama played at the level of a bad Lifetime Original Movie.Lovelace - henceforth referred to by her given name, Linda Boreman - is played in a stiff performance by Amanda Seyfriend, an actress of breathtaking beauty who has yet to find a role that proves that she is more than just photogenic. She plays Boreman as a wounded saint, a Little Girl Lost who is pushed and bullied and manipulated by her husband so much and so often that we never feel that there was another note to her personality. Her performance is made up of wide-eyed petrified looks wrapped up in period clothes.The movie hits the bulletpoints of Boreman's life without examining any of them. She was born Linda Boreman in Brooklyn, New York in 1949 under domineering parents, and then uprooted to Florida where she had a baby by age 19. In the aftermath of giving up her child, she met Chuck Traynor (Peter Sarsgaard), who initially seemed like a nice guy, but turned out to be a slimeball who (she said) got her involved in the porn world against her will. He even sold her into prostitution to get himself out of debt. Sarsgaard is a good actor whose range here moves from creepy nice guy to desperate pervert with an unnerving slow burn.Most of the movie follows Boreman's volatile relationship with Traynor. The film's first half of the shows a loving relationship that builds between him and Boreman. Then, the second half rewinds the clock and tells her side of the story in flashback, this time containing the more realistic bits of his control over her every move. You can't help but feel pity for Boreman, but knowing the rest of her story, when she renounced the industry, divorce, remarried and had a child, you can't help but feel that there was more to her story than just sex and being slapped around. Her life away from Traynor, and her famous interview with Phil Donahue, are handled in a few brief scenes, but you get the feeling that this is where the film's second act should have begun. The film wants us to understand the circumstances that took Boreman from porn star to anti-porn feminist but it wallows in the glow of her early profession with lots of soft light and nudity. Epstein and Friedman wallow in the decadence of a lifestyle they are trying to renounce.The problem with telling the story of Linda Lovelace is that there really isn't much to tell. If "Deep Throat" has been a flop, no one would care or even remember her. The only way to tell this story would be to portray the 70s porn chic world that surrounded that movie as Paul Thomas Anderson did with "Boogie Nights," which showed the glamour and the superficial hedonism of an era in which the morals of America were slipping so fast that porn was threatening to become mainstream. The story of the film's impact was also told much better in the 2005 documentary "Inside Deep Throat," which wasn't a great movie but offers more insight into that world than is portrayed here. What we get in "Lovelace" is an exploitative portrait of misery and despair that ends with Linda becoming a feminist. Yet, that transformation comes as a momentary revelation. Screenwriter Andy Bellin misses the journey that got here there.

Alexander C (kr) wrote: Looks interesting will try to find and watch!

Paul D (kr) wrote: A decent depiction of the investigation surrounding one of Alaska's most notorious murderers.