Pooja Ke Phool

Pooja Ke Phool

Balraj (Dharmendra), affectionately called Raj, by his elder brother (Nana Palsikar) and sister Vija (Madhumati), is a student in college in the arts semester. As the family is not very rich, Raj decides to move from the hostel to the residence of a family. He finds one such family in Gandhinagar, which consists of Choudhury Hukumat Rai (Ashok Kumar), a lawyer by profession, his wife (Nimmi), and only daughter Shanti (Mala Sinha). Hukumat takes an instant liking to Raj, and tells him that his wife will only allow him to take up residence if he tells her that he is already married. Raj reluctantly does so, and thus acquires residence with the Rai family. Eventually Mrs. Rai takes a liking to Raj, so does Shanti. Shanti finds out Raj and her dad had lied to the family about Raj's marital status, she confronts Raj, and he readily admits that he lied.

Balraj (Dharmendra), affectionately called Raj, by his elder brother (Nana Palsikar) and sister Vija (Madhumati), is a student in college in the arts semester. As the family is not very ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Pooja Ke Phool torrent reviews

Jane G (mx) wrote: saw this in French - Omar M'A Tuer is a mistake n French (should be Tue wih acute accent) and the film turns partly on this. It is a true story, of an illiterate Moroccan gardener working for a French woman in France, the woman is murdered and the film title is written in blood beside her body. Omar is convicted, sentenced to 18 years then released after five years by presidential decree without being pardoned. He has not been able to obtain a pardon. The film is clear that he did not kill the woman, and also about who did. Omar is alive, depressed and unemployed. A luminous, affecting performance from Omar, and a coruscating indictment of the inequality of justice. An illiterate gardener who can barely speak French has no chance.

Geoff J (fr) wrote: Why did it take 60 mins to get some bloody action in my Martial Arts film? Jeez....

Nicholas L (ca) wrote: The ex president of America was a Vampire slayer? What an imagination. Who knows in the near future, we may see Mother Teresa portrayed as a ninja. After all, they have already made sweet Snow White a swordswoman. The audience can embrace all this fantasy easily provided that the movie is presented in a humorous way or as a parody. But the director decides to play things straight. It is hard to fault this movie technically. It is just difficult to take it seriously.

The N (de) wrote: A little confusing as it sits just before the ending of number two but still a good film

Michael O (mx) wrote: A very entertaining film (even if the protagonist is remarkably stupid), it is a fitting tribute to Hitchcock. One of the better Argento films that I've seen.

C P (jp) wrote: Good sci-fi premis. Bad acting. Fun events (oh hell yes those orgies would happen if that technology were available!). Worth seeing just for kicks. This one revamped with a big budget (better FX, sexy cast) would rock.

Jeff G (nl) wrote: I remembered this movie from when I was young. I guess I was too young to figure out that this is the WORST movie ever made. 4 of the biggest idiots on earth. The only way I would tell you to watch this movie, is to see if you can make it to the end.

Sean C (gb) wrote: I just happened to see this movie on the Sundance Channel, which described it as a macabre tale set in 1950s Idaho. I thought I'd take a look at it and I'm really glad I did. It's very strange and dark. Full of fanatical christians and other crazy people. The description above doesn't really do it justice. It's not light, but very somber and dark. I really liked it.

James V (au) wrote: Unless you are a bit strange in the head I would suggest avoiding this giant waste of time.

Jc E (gb) wrote: Short of perfection, no director can pull it off with 3 hour long film and expect the enraptured attention of the audience. Yet again, Kubrick has astounded us with this breathtakingly beautiful classic period film set in Ireland, Germany and France in the 1700s. Elegant colourful costumes, Versailles like landscape and buildings and appropriate music score gave the audience unforgettable images. The story was simple to follow. The moral story was none other than reapingwhat one sows. Few punishment can be more severe than the death of ones first born. Tough for King David and so it was tough for Barry. A very young and good looking Ryan ONeal had the honour to play the coveted role of Barry Lyndon.

Kenneth B (kr) wrote: As with a number of horror sequels the simplicity of the original is lost and it feels the need to convey a 'message'. It ends up being a bit of a mess but ultimately still quite an enopyable one.

Jamie C (br) wrote: Brilliant film, Loved the mix of comedy and sci-fi action, Very entertaining,Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones on screen chemistry is great and makes the film what it is.

Thomas G (nl) wrote: In a futuristic Europe in which natural resources have run out, an underground subway system is linked to all cities in Europe. A office-worker named Roger begins to hear voices in his head. It is revealed that it is linked to a much bigger plot involving Corporate excecutives, a shampoo company, and the female model for the company. I feel that the film is incredibly well put together. There is an extremely sense of suspense and interest thorughout the film, and you are interested in the goal of Roger. His major goal is to pretty much find out why the voice is in his head, and to somewhat expose the mind-numbing feeling of what Europe has become. The film has a very strange animation style that is very mind-bending at the same time. It is almost as if they took real-life heads of people, animated them to make their mouths move, and pasted them over animated bodies. The settings and backgrounds of the film are detailed, and artfully directed. Not only do these aspects work, but there is somewhat of a political message that really works well with everything else. So, if you love animation, this is a must-see.

Kelly P (nl) wrote: why not it has something somewhat historical

Phil H (gb) wrote: I can't understand why this never did well upon release as I think its a marvellous spoof/comedy that is perfectly cast with Caine and Kinglsey as 'Holmes' and 'Watson'. This could easily of come from the mind of Mel Brooks really its that kind of light hearted romp with silly jokes and silly prat falls, not too childish just about right.The plot for the film is also quite genius, simply the roles are reversed, Watson (Kingsley) is the brilliant detective and Holmes (Caine) is actually a bumbling drunk who is employed by Watson to pretend to be the real Holmes for the sake of his novels and his own job. Caine's character is actually called 'Reg Kinclaid' who simply inherits the name of Holmes for the big cover up that the real Watson has orchestrated. What is also quite impressive is the look of the film, sets, costumes and location work are all really well done and look quite realistic, add to this a very impressive cast of classic stars (mainly English) and this really is a top class adventure very much like Gene Wilder's film 'The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother' only much better looking.

David W (de) wrote: Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, and Henry Cavill make the film good. The supporting cast was good plus the action, but I didn't like Jesse Eisenberg at all. Overall, this was meh..... Seriously, someone tell Zach Snyder he sucks at telling a good story