Nammal is another campus movie from Kamal after Niram. What is different this time is Kamal introduces new faces Siddharth and Jishnu. Kamal provides glimpses of the new campus with adventure in his movie with these debutants. Snehalatha (Suhasini) takes charge as the Principal in a college where Shyam (Siddharth) and Sivan (Jishnu) are the heroes. Shyam and Sivan are fun filled characters as well as naughty. Aparna (Renuka Menon) is teased and ragged by the duo, who happens to be the daughter of Principal's friend. Aparna complaints and Snehalatha takes action against Shyam and Shivan. Soon to her surpurise she discovers that Shyam and Shivan are orphans, hardworking and their guardian is a priest (Balachandra Menon).

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Nammal torrent reviews

Adam D (kr) wrote: Decent Teenybopper live action Disney fare.

Samantha T (ru) wrote: This film disappoints even from a direct-to-DVD standpoint. The movie seems content to coast on its marketability (fluffy puppies) and though this attribute will likely appease a preschool demographic, anybody above that age is going to grow bored rather quickly.Let's start off with the plot. If you've ever watched a Christmas movie in your life, "Christmas Magic" probably was the main plot. This rendition of Christmas Magic does not add anything to its borrowed plot except for the fact that there are talking dogs, talking dogs who don't really add anything new to the plot. The character "Cruge" (played by Christopher Lloyd) is another borrowed story element from an extremely well-known Christmas story. The story fails entirely to draw me in emotionally.Next up: characters. Though young kids might find talking fluffy puppies funny, anybody older will soon grow tired of the cardboard cutout personalities the Buddies possess, each an irritatingly and extremely embellished stereotype of something, such as the fashionista Rosebud or the "punk" B-Dawg.Next up, the animation. I get that this is a budget movie and also a direct-to-DVD film, but the CGI is not likely to appease even the lightest young critic.Script is my last complaint. Santa Buddies magically finds a way to combine clichd lines and unrealistic dialogue evenly. Half of it is the elves and Santa Claus and company spewing out in an unemotional fashion rehashed lines about "Believing in Christmas", while the other half of it is filled with the annoying Buddy-talk.Lastly, doesn't Santa Claus look, AND talk, like he's OD'ed on something?All in all, a movie that has enough fluffy action to make your toddlers happy, but don't worry about missing anything meaningful if you doze off.

Eric M (jp) wrote: I'm marking this as 5 stars, not because it's actually a 5 star movie, but because I'm trying to raise the average rating. In reality I might give it 3 stars, which is much higher than the average.I'm not sure why pro critics won't go near this thing, but this is one of the best movies I've ever seen on Comedy Central. I know that caveat doesn't help, but it is incredibly refreshing to see a well-acted, well-paced, dialogue-dense film.I generally do not like anything with Tom Arnold either, and frankly, I've only seen pieces of it so far and haven't even finished it, but I've seen MANY films throughout my life, I have some bachelor's-level education in the arts, and I have a very critical eye (you can ask my friends, especially the ones who aren't talking to me).I can tell right away if a movie is going to be good or bad, because the quality of a movie is more-or-less homogenous all the way through.The point is, if you haven't seen this movie, give it a chance. If there is something about it that grosses you out or doesn't impress, I can't imagine it being more disgusting or disappointing than Family Guy's various vomiting characters or drawn out Conway Twitty, chicken fights and Return of the Jedi parody scenes, respectively.This film has modern camera work, razor-sharp editing, and an all-star cast. For the life of me I cannot figure out why I've never heard of it. Yes, there is better comedy out there, but come on. Is it really appropriate to drag one joke out for five minutes, or repeat a word over and over and expect to get the same reaction every time? Does SNL really have the winning formula? If so I shed a tear for our nation.What happened to good writing? Or at least writing that tried? That wasn't repetitive? That didn't make you want to stick a fork in your brain? Group Sex may not be perfect, but it clearly makes the effort. And for that, I applaud it.

Jason M (br) wrote: Doesn't really go anywhere that the book didn't. It really is a visual adaptation of the book. For those who have read the book or have an interest in reading the book, it is a better option. But for those who find the book hard to get through or dense, this is an easy, enjoyable way to learn about some of the studies that were conducted in Freakonomics.

Paul D (fr) wrote: This is one of those movies that I love for so many reasons. Giving it a perfect score might seem foolish to some people, but I have to watch this every year. Some movies you can skip for a year or two at a time, but for me, this one is a MUST for every Christmas. It is a bit on the silly side, but it does it in a way that I think is wonderful.

Michael T (nl) wrote: Bela Tarr is an acquired taste, but his films should be seen by all serious film buffs.

Trey B (br) wrote: "King Kong ain't got **** on me"

Olivier F (gb) wrote: She surely regrets or deny half of the things she said now. does she still work with that crew ?

Dylan G (ru) wrote: This movie is just extremely badass! It has great characters, well, except for Yeardley Smith's character, she was annoying! But the soundtrack kicked ass!! and i give credit to Stephen King, the master of horror!

Joe M (kr) wrote: If you've seen the D.A. Pennebaker classic Jimi Plays Monterey you're entering familiar territory. The vast majority of live performance footage is taken from that film and, while still enjoyable, is discouragingly something you may have already seen. The interviews are where this film shines, though a lot of names are introduced without context. I don't expect Eric Clapton or Pete Townshend to have "Rock Musician" under their name, but it would be nice to know who other lesser known names were in relation to Hendrix. The interviews are intercut with performance footage. This will either be welcomed by someone wanting to see Hendrix perform or seen as an annoyance that breaks up the cadence of the interviews telling a chronological account of Hendrix's life. Furthermore, the performance footage shown rarely has anything to do - other than the subject matter - with what was just discussed. It's almost as if the trio of directors/editors took the best performances from the Pennebaker film and placed them arbitrarily throughout the film. One very strong positive was that the interview participants do not simply recount famous stories in the Hendrix lore, but more valuably, recount very specific and otherwise mundane stories of Hendrix's private life that serve to shed light on his inner workings and psyche.

Frode H (us) wrote: Ahh, I just adore the Carry On series - this is one of the classic ones!