Stream in HD   Download in HD


Mashaal

Mashaal

After being dismissed from his employment as a newspaper editor, for writing against S.K. Vardhan, a influential politician and underworld don, Vinod Kumar, re-locates to the slums of Bombay, and starts his own publication. He soon runs into problems with the local street-gangs, one of which is headed by the notorious Raja. Vinod adopts a positive approach, and this brings out the best in Raja, who even manages to take Vinod's wife, Sudha, to hospital, risking his life, during a Bombay Bandh. Raja then decides to go straight, give up his gang, and study further, encouraged by girlfriend, Geeta. He leaves the slums to upgrade. Several months later, he returns back, anxious to get working with Vinod and his publication, only to find that Vinod is now a criminal don, who has no interest whatsoever in any publication, nor in Raja.

After being dismissed from his employment as a newspaper editor, for writing against S.K. Vardhan, a influential politician and underworld don, Vinod Kumar, re-locates to the slums of ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechersSize
Download   Mashaal ( 1984 ) Hindi DvD 2CD Rip Xvid 6 channels XMR@MastitorrOther45441.41 GB
Download   Mashaal 1984 DvDrip x264 AAC ~ Drama | Family ~ [RdY]DVDRip40481.45 GB
Download   Mashaal (1984) 1/3 DvD RiP XviD AC3 5.1 [Team DUS] [DUSTorrents]DVDRip33471.47 GB

Mashaal torrent reviews

Collin R (br) wrote: starts off very funny and does have some good laughs through out it. yet loses steam as the movie goes on as it falls into the cliches of rom-coms and the B-List cast that I love! doesnt really do as good of a job as it could have and Evans does an ok job but cant carry the movie itself. it does have some cute moments worth a netflix and chill (or download and chill) on Vday

Michael W (de) wrote: Some will probably find it boring or corny. Also, for me the physical chemistry wasn't there. Not because of lacking performances by either of the leads, but rather from a curious pairing in terms of casting. Freeman looks like he is old enough to be her father's childhood friend. Nevertheless, I still thought it was a sweet and uplifting enjoyable little film.

Barton K (it) wrote: Wow. I really loved this movie. It's one of those low key little gems that you end up loving even more because you know you're one of twenty people who have seen it. A nice simple slice of life movie. Anyone who thinks Paul Rudd is hilarious should see this because he's a great dramatic actor as well. Funny, sad and truthful. I would recommend this movie to anyone. Also why isn't Ken Marino famous yet? He's always good.

Barbara J (es) wrote: a bit unsettling, but otherwise ok.

Christopher K (mx) wrote: Now this sequel was excellent. Gave the whole intro to the trilogy plot, although I was hard pressed to understand why they introduced a whole new set of characters.

Dylan W (ru) wrote: I am conflicted. This is a good good movie but it is too slick and un-Shane Meadowsy. It felt like the crew and actors made the movie. A good solid, honest comedy but it is clear that there were too many other hands involved. The sister is kind of the most amazing character in the movie. She made it for me.

Alberto C (jp) wrote: Todavia peor que la segunda parte, se metieron en terrenos medievales y ejercitos de zombies. Pesima conclusion a la trilogia.

Brandon T (nl) wrote: A solid sequel that's better than the poor excuse for a movie that followed it.

Patricia L (fr) wrote: This film is a wonderful way to teach American history to our children. The music and characterzations of the Continential Congress are just fun to watch, but gets the serious point of how America was founded across. I loved this movie. It is one of my all-time favorites.

Robert P (us) wrote: Great story but staged a bit straightforwardly. Angela Lansbury makes as likely a femme fatal as John Major an unfaithful husband and serial shagger of Edwina. This film features a pleasing flashback structure, a tight script and as said, an original story, but not much else.

Kenneth M (ru) wrote: After 20 years this is still a brilliant film.

Morgan W (it) wrote: Three hours long and Polanski still left out a few important bits, but mostly true to the book, including the drawn out landscapes :-P