You may also like
Maya Darpan torrent reviews
Santosh N (de) wrote: This movie tries to build upon the success of Bheja Fry by introducing lots more actors, exotic locations etc. But unfortunately a bigger budget does not guarantee success. The only saving grace is Vinay Pathak, whose portrayal of Bharat Bhushan is exemplary to the point of actually making you feel irritated with his non-stop chatter and singing!
Galvy F (it) wrote: When we are part of the news then and now. When what we did remain headline news. When not everything is new at all. When not all news is news worthy when its a matter of family. When we are used to local news to be thrown into the worldly news that makes us out of our league. When some news we care to comment, but to another news outlet. Other news we here, we don't care too much to comment. When some news is part of our history, that we care not to ignore.
Brandon R (br) wrote: Another one of those one time deals where it's a great movie and will not be repeated in terms of comedy greatness. If you are ready to have fun and laugh then you are ready to watch Superbad.
Stephanie A (ag) wrote: You can tell from the very beginning the movie was going to be sub-par, because it starts out with only two people in it, and the dialogue isn't even that great. There's the pretty standard "guy is fixing something, woman is sort of horny and seductive during" scene, and it pretty much sets the scene for the rest of the movie. No bueno.
Victoria A (ca) wrote: Who is reviewing these movies? Another horrible rating for a great movie!!
Leo L (us) wrote: A personal favorite.
Eric R (jp) wrote: The horror community was ecstatic back in 1988 when news that actor Robert Englund, Freddy Krueger himself, was going to make his directorial debut with a demonic little film entitled "976-Evil." Upon release it received only lukewarm opinions amongst fans. Looking back on the film today even I have a very lukewarm regards to this picture... not saying it's bad as there is still some fun horror elements to be had yet at the same time it's amazing how mediocre and downright routine it turned out considering the tremendous hype surrounding the picture.The title refers to a horoscope, excuse me, horrorscope, hotline in which a nerdy high school student (Stephen Geoffreys) calls to gain demonic powers in order to extract revenge on his enemies. Can his tough, rebellious cousin (Patrick O'Bryan), his teacher and a reporter save the town before he takes it straight to hell?The plot is typical "nerd gets revenge" tripe that is overdone in the horror genre. Been there hundreds of times before and much better. The writing is also haphazardly done as it seems confused on who it wants the protagonist to be throughout it's slow burning plot. First it's the tough cousin, then towards the end it flips as almost out of the blue our nerd's teacher shows up with a reporter. None of these characters are fleshed out and I could have cared less about any of the characters the film tries to pass off as it's protagonist.Robert Englund's approach to the film is very much inspired by his experiences of playing Freddy Krueger in the "Nightmare on Elm Street" series. Everything from the look, lighting and special effects laden ending looks like it lifted straight from an "Elm Street" picture. Though not all the "Elm Street" pictures were good, one has to admit they all had an interesting look about them so Englund does succeed at giving the film visual flare.In the cast the eccentric Stephen Geoffrey's stands out. Geoffreys gained some notoriety in the horror crowd with his portrayal of a character named Evil in the 1985 hit "Fright Night" and he steals the show making "976-Evi"l more enjoyable then the final results should be. Cult actor Robert Picardo however is wasted as a character named Mark Dark, the brainchild of the "Horrorscope" hot line but nothing is ever revealed about his character of his demonic intentions.I was tremendously underwhelmed by "976-Evil" , as it only striving enough to be a routine affair in the horror genre with just the right amount gore and violence to make it worth watching. Overall I felt it was an ego trip for Robert Englund, no doubt being at the height of his popularity and wanting to prove he had what it took to be a director. Well he must have gotten the "directing bug" out of his system as "976-Evil" would be his only directing gig to this day. Despite its methodical plot and final result, the film did inspire a sequel that would arrive a couple years later.
Stephen W (mx) wrote: A little ropy near the beginning, showing it's ages I guess, but some lovely scenes and acting from the leads.
Matthew D (ru) wrote: Comical black humour, Ice Cube hilarious for his part, worth spending 1.5 hrs to laugh and feel better.
Blake P (kr) wrote: "Singin' in the Rain" isn't just the best musical ever made; it is also a transcendence of the genre, being so infectiously euphoric and utterly delightful that I cannot imagine a viewer conceivably turned off by its astonishing joy. This is what we talk about when we talk about the popcorn movie, the movie we never wanted to end, the movie we wanted to live in, the movie that made us laugh and maybe even cry. It is an exemplification of the power of cinema and the profound sense of escapism a film can uncover so long as it's made with care, with heart. Unpretentious and deliriously fun, its appeal is timeless; while a cultural artifact, it retains a crisp veneer to be enjoyed by all audiences, regardless of their neuroses. Directed by Stanley Donen (1924-) and Gene Kelly (1912-1996), the Hollywood Golden Age's most widely acclaimed virtuosos of the musical genre, it's odd to think that there was a time in which "Singin' in the Rain" was deemed as something minor, an entertaining but otherwise forgettable piece of work from talented people. Only 28 upon release, Donen, who later went on to make such classics as "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" and "Charade," had only directed two other films, 1949's "On the Town" (also a joint effort with Kelly) and 1951's Fred Astaire showcasing "Royal Wedding." Kelly was already established as the musical's alternative to the aforementioned singer/dancer, his iconhood coming only a year previously with "An American in Paris." So perhaps "Singin' in the Rain" was an accidental masterpiece, with a soundtrack consisting mostly of established songs, and that it, for the time, contained no major stars besides Kelly. But time is a telling tale, and the immortal charisma of the film only heightens with each passing year. Is it its story, which, though period, is ageless in its comedy, romance, and theatrics? The art direction (slightly, and colorfully, Broadway), the music (classic), the dance sequences (wondrous), the imperial tint of the Technicolor photography? The film has an ensemble to cement the impressive goods. Set in 1927, it stars Kelly as Don Lockwood, a silent movie star whose fame very much depends on Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen), the Garbo to his Gilbert in terms of onscreen partnership. We first meet them at the premiere of their latest movie, "The Royal Rascal," where it's clear that Don is tiring of being anchored to the woman, whose diva behavior and selfish wiles leave him craving something more fulfilling in his career. So maybe it's fate when it's later announced that audiences are going gaga for "The Jazz Singer," a "talking picture" that very well might change the film industry as a whole. Studio heads are eager to make the switch, and Don, along with his musical sidekick, Cosmo Brown (Donald O'Connor), are ecstatic to showcase their singing and dancing talents that have gone unnoticed in an age where silence has literally silenced their many abilities. There's a catch, though. Despite her immense fame, Lina has a voice more whiney, more grating, than anything Fran Drescher could ever dream of. It's unlikely that she'll make the transition into the talking era, and executives worry that her downfall could also result in Don's. An ingenious plan is soon devised - what if Lina's voice were dubbed by someone with a more fetching, seductive voice? They find the perfect candidate in Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds), an aspiring starlet who has everything Lina doesn't: a comely voice, enviable dancing skills, and girl-next-door charm. If only Don didn't fall in love with her, and if only Kathy didn't have star quality. Then things would be much, much, simpler. For incorporating a storyline that easily could be deemed autobiographical for many onscreen duos of the 1920s (the inclusion of sound in film really did end quite a few careers), "Singin' in the Rain," though witty in ways only musical-comedy dream team Adolph Green and Betty Comden could write, is not a cruel satire. It is, rather, a dreamy excursion into Hollywood lite that cares more about the spotlight put onto the rousing array of its song-and-dance numbers, romance and comedy fitting like a silken glove around its kinetic parts. The film is aberrant in that in never overstimulates and is never lacking in what it has to offer - it all comes together so accordingly that comparing it to other musicals doesn't feel right. It is a musical experience, not willing to conform to genre normalities. Its spectacle, for starters, is far more ambitious than other offerings of the decade. In a film comprised of some of the best dance sequences ever, we'd like to call everything a highlight, but playing favorites is, understandably, not an impossibility. Standing out is Donald O'Connor's masterful "Make 'Em Laugh," a deft combination of physical comedy, acrobatics, and dance, the O'Connor/Kelly tap-dancing duet "Moses Supposes," the light-hearted but bewitching "Good Morning," the ten-minute "Broadway Melody Ballet" (featuring the always underrated Cyd Charisse), and, inevitably, Kelly's rain-drenched rendition of the titular tune (performed with a 102 degree fever, no less). These performances are all brilliantly choreographed and executed, but the way they stay forever tucked away in our minds is due to its actors, whose playfulness is as authentic as playfulness can come in the artificial setting of film. Kelly's energy and congeniality is boundless, O'Connor's comedic timing and musical skill outrageous, Reynolds's ingenuity convincing and savory. Charisse's appearance is my favorite cameo of all-time, a classic case of the Who Is She? phenomenon, and Hagen is a riot as the movie musical's greatest quasi-villain. Endless praise is what "Singin' in the Rain" deserves, but to watch it again might do me better. It never loses its freshness, and it never tires - never does our fondness for its musical aspects, as well as its comic ones, wither away. I recall watching it for the first time some five-and-a-half years ago, only thirteen and feeling very alone in the grips of puberty and school-based misery. Little did I know how much it would end up meaning to me, and little did I know that I would watch it a second time almost immediately after that initial viewing. You don't want its delicious escapism to conclude. What a joy life would be if it were more like "Singin' in the Rain."