Mangalashtak Once More
Is setting a loved one free the proof of your love or is controlling and caring about their every action love? Or is a loved one simply a habit who you take for granted? Mangalashtak Once More delves into this aspect with fun, emotion and sensitivity
. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Mangalashtak Once More torrent reviews
(au) wrote: This film has so much energy, helped in part by a towering central performance. Unmissable.
(jp) wrote: the best battle 4 metru nui
(au) wrote: OMG THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST MOVIES I HAVE EVER SEEN
(jp) wrote: I am yet again disappointed by bad critic and low percentage that rotten tomatoes gave to some movie. First of all this is spectacle, really epic movie and historically correct one. I dont know what is wrong with the people rating this when they gave it 39%. So, the background to the story is Balian and his life, I mean, this movie covers a time lapse of 10 years or so which means that any critic that movie lacks depth is just pure stupidity. I would like to see anyone else doing what Ridley Scott did with such epic event and how would anybody else squeeze 10 years of very significant events in to one movie. The other thing, far more important is that Scott sticks to history, he doesnt add to movie something that hadnt happened (which could make it probably more acceptable to dumb people unaware that this is history interpretation) but rather tells a story of siege of Jerusalem. So, plot was excellent, and so was casting. The only thing that perhaps lacks is fighting for the city itself, I mean, it has it all, the epic speeches before battle, heroes who you will adore and enemies who you will respect. The fight was a little bit odd sometimes, but good overall.I suggest to anyone who is criticing this movie badly to read and learn history for this event really did happened and it was massive. Also search for Crusades at least on the internet before watching this. The director obviosly made the movie for someone with education, not morons. So learn about some characters beacuse it is expected of you to know it.
(mx) wrote: This movie was good. This movie taught me that the past can affect your future in a major way if you let it. It also taught me that people should fight for the ones that they love no matter the cost.
(ca) wrote: Awesome road trip by Fatih Ak?n; his last film before he changed his genre (in which he was at least equally successful).
(nl) wrote: lei el libro hace anos y me parece mejor que la pelicula. pero abril, bardem y gomez fueron estupendos. la historia es muy interesante.
(mx) wrote: ooooo Patrick Dempsey! lol
(ca) wrote: The cast is great (great-looking), that is! We're talking Ines Sastre, Kim Rossi-Stuart, Sophie Marceau, Irene Jacob... but the plot is simply too loosely strung together. A real disappointment - the stellar crew could have made it better - if given better script and less "hazy" directors.
(au) wrote: If you believed that Charlize Theron made an uncharacteristically epic transformation in her portrayal of real-life prostitute turned killer Aileen Wuornos in 'Monster', then prepare to be perplexed even further. Not only do the two look almost identical (give or take a few years) but its startling to realise that the real life Wuornos is even more irreverent in prison than Theron would have you believe that she was out in society. All through this documentary, Wuornos displays no sign of remorse, hindsight or reservation of her actions, a representation which almost irradicates the air of sympathy we feel for her character in 'Monster'. Perhaps it was the perogative of Joan Churchill and Nick Broomfield to create a contrast between the two; since 'Monster' attempts to provide motives for Wuornos' madness, Churchill and Broomfield seek to make these motives irrelevent. Either way, it is unlikelythat audiences will never know the complete truth and since Aileen Wuornos no longer among the living, its unlikely we ever will.
(au) wrote: I THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT MOVIE
(ca) wrote: THE PRESENCE OF BARBARA STANWYCK MAKES THIS FILM TOLERABLE. OTHERWISE IT IS NOT PARTICULARLY SPECIAL. JUST WHAT YOU EXPECT FROM THE DIRECTOR.
(us) wrote: How dare they change the ending to this story!!!! Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" has one of the most epically awesome endings in history. It is one that makes you scratch your head at the story's impossible conclusion, only to be saved by Christie's genius addition of a Postscript by the killer. I am so offended that this ending has been changed, even though the change was made by Christie herself. I understand that some details had to be changed due to the strict censorship of this time period, but the altering of the ending destroys the integrity of the story. It would figure that my favorite novel would not have a good cinematic interpretation. That being said, this film is a much better interpretation of the story than the 1965 snowstorm version. Each actor's performance is average or better, the island creates the perfect atmosphere, and each murder is treated in a way that is surprising while remaining family friendly. Even though the ending is ruined, Christie's amazing character-driven story still plays out perfectly over the first 85 minutes of the film and it is worth watching. While this is an enjoyable film, it only acts as a supplement to the book instead of a substitution. I would never recommend watching this film before reading the book because the story deserves to be told the right way.
(nl) wrote: What did you want to do with yourself, movie? What? WHAT!?
(es) wrote: Amusing. Benchley is funny and the information is presented cleverly. The two cartoons are also charming.
(de) wrote: You'll find more believable characters and situations in a "Saturday Night Live" sketch, and the filmmaking is pretty bargain basement, but it's not without its charms.