Sushma believes that she is too young to get married, but her father, Lalla Banarsilal insists, and she runs away. Her adventures take her to a lonely wealthy widower with a cute daughter named Guddi; a drunken lout in a brothel; Dr. Kruparam, a psychiatrist, who admits her in his mental hospital; a dreaded bandit who has killed his tormentor, cut him into pieces and fed them to birds, and who still on a killing spree; Pandit Gorakhnath who lives a double life - as a priest and as a smuggler; a leper Dhanraj, who once was a very wealthy man, but is now shunned by everyone; a transvestite stage actor; and a hunter who saves Sushma's life by shooting dead a man-eating lion. As things spiral out of control for Sushma, there is yet one more male she has to meet, and it is this meeting that will change her life even more.
Sushma believes that she is too young to get married, but her father, Lalla Banarsilal insists, and she runs away. Her adventures take her to a lonely wealthy widower with a cute daughter ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Erin M (br) wrote: Another sequel to this... Ugh. This was just OK for me. I am guessing the makers of this have expensive mortgages to pay so they all agreed to beat this series of films to death
Blake P (jp) wrote: 2001's "CQ" is two movies for the price of one, but only one of them is actually worth the ticket. It's split between two camps, one an homage to 1960s mod movies, the other faithful to certifiable quarter life crisis theatrics. Since I'm sure that I, along with most casual viewers, prefer movies with a tongue in the their cheek over projects that take themselves much too seriously, "CQ" is better when it's on the side of swinging rclame. When it's not, it's a bore. Set in 1969, it is mostly dedicated to detailing the fictional production of "Codename: Dragonfly," a low-budget, science fiction adventure caper with much in common with "Barbarella" and "Danger: Diabolik." Everything about it looks beautiful: its leading lady, American newcomer Valentine (Angela Lindvall), is a honey and an ace at mastering the characterizational tone of her debut, and the set design is '60s chic with a touch of winning gaudiness. But ignore its handsomeness and you'll notice that most of the set is plagued by trouble. In a short period of time, the film loses grasp of two separate directors (Grard Depardieu, Jason Schwartzman). Production is taking slightly longer than expected. The script isn't even finished -- those involved are still deciding what the best climactic payoff would be for a film so kooky. So when burgeoning filmmaker Paul (Jeremy Davies), who's participated in the editing process throughout filming, is thrust into the director's chair just as everything appears to be headed in a direction of doom, his potential for success is just as decent as the potential for his current relationship to make way for destruction. Since he's falling in love with his heroine and because he's so involved with finding the perfection within this bad little movie, a new chapter might be unfolding, though it might be one that begins with a notable sense of loss.I've perhaps made "CQ" sound more serious than it is -- really, it is much more proud of its sending up of the aforementioned "Barbarella" and "Danger: Diabolik," using an apparently substantial plot as a way to give its flourishes of self-pleasingness some sort of weight. But because its ways of tribute are distinctly more dulcet than its central plotline (which is too weirdly angsty for my taste), we come to resent "CQ" when it attempts to mean something. This is a movie that's meant to work as an exercise in chintzy nostalgia, not observational, real-life woes. Its moments of commendation are fantastic -- Lindvall is a hoot -- so it's a shame about the faux deep domestic struggles Paul faces. We'd rather not think about everyday mundanities when a sizzling superspy lusts after adventure right in front of us. Written and directed by Roman Coppola, the brother of Sofia and the son of Francis Ford, "CQ" obviously has a swagger that can only be associated with the celluloid savvy family. It's a forgettable bender, sure, but I'm more than willing to spend eighty-seven minutes in the presence of laudable style. Good thing I happen to love "Danger: Diabolik" and love to hate "Barbarella.
Josh G (kr) wrote: Well, once you accept what you're in for, it's kind of fun. However, the sexual puns and double-entendres are a little too much to bear. But at least they fixed Pierce's puffy hair from the previous films.
Justin K (kr) wrote: One pf the greatest!!!!
Lanning (mx) wrote: The kind of role I wish Grant had tried more often. Not "Cary Grantish," if you know what I mean. A wonderful cast all around, with special praise for Barry Fitzgerald and Jane Wyatt. If only Grant had done more like this, he might have made my all-time favorite actor list. Still, this one is so much more "real" than most of his characters, I might have to rethink putting him on the list. NB: Although this might appear to be coming from a kind of a place of gritty realism, it is very much a fairy tale with an appropriate fairly tale ending. I think there might actually be a paper topic in the way Clifford Odets, the writer-director, plays with the conventional elements of realism and tragedy -- perhaps even of naturalism -- on the journey to a classically (not ha-ha funny) comic ending. Just a beautifully done movie.
Ryan W (nl) wrote: Way too violent it is predictable and as is the case with every horror remake it focuses on blood and gore and does not pay attention to the story
Isadore H (jp) wrote: I was pretty let down with this only because everyone talked it up like crazy. On espically stupid moment was when that one kid says "we can't climb the walls because the vines don't grow high enough" when RIGHT FUCKING BEHIND HIM are vines reaching the top of the wall. I also feel like I've seen it a hundred times, but other than that it's okay.
Jaime R (gb) wrote: Keep playing that fiddle and don't stop.