Rag Tag

Rag Tag

Raymond and Tagbo met when they were eight. Although from radically different worlds - Raymond/Rag is from a single parent West Indian home, while Tagbo/Tag is the only son of middle class Nigerian parents - they remain inseparable until the cusp of their teens, Social Services take Rag from London. Ten years later, Rag returns to find Tag. They still want to be together. But now twenty-three, their need has shifted into something more urgent and consuming.

Raymond and Tagbo met when they were eight. Although from radically different worlds - Raymond/Rag is from a single parent West Indian home, while Tagbo/Tag is the only son of middle class ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Rag Tag torrent reviews

Nikhil S (nl) wrote: @Aarakshan - The worst was imposing (or say stealing) Dr BR Ambedkar's image of educationist and champion of untouchables and educationist into Gandhi using Amitabh.Aarakshan mercilessly exploits prejudices against SC/ST/OBC (depressed classes) for commercial benefits. The film crew maintained false notion that it is about reservation & misguided society into a debate which is not there & created panic. Rather it deals with conflict among privileged caste Khatriya, Viashya & Brhamin. Such exploitation is irresponsible from the part of filmmaker, producer & film's unit.I have never seen such a movie where 600 million depressed class has been made fun of. And trying to reviving only Aryan civilization. What was the purpose of personifying Seila Dixit as CM Shakuntala Dixit in the end as philanthropic. Are we poor then her? Everyone knows that she is a Brhamin and involved in Commonwealth scam. Why there are so many Brhamin teachers in the class? Is this movie from 1930 or tries to create 1930? Film's director Prakash Jha and Amitabh continued saying that SC/ST/OBC should not shy away from debate on reservation or caste problem. But seeing the film, it is as if they are the one who used poor people's emotion to earn money. The movie sidelines SC/ST/OBC and enters in the Mhabharathaa (epic war) of Aryans (privileged caste Hindus with three castes Brhamin, Kshatriya and Vaishya). So there is no debate in the film on caste issue but inter-clan debate of Aryans, between Brhamins versus Vishyas of Gandhi versus Hindu Parishad (Hindu Organization). And thereby dilutes the presence of depressed classes in movie too as there in reality. Indian government should ban this in the favor of the nation.Anyway... we remained untouchable in the film. Thank you Prakash Jha for telling whole India about caestist mind of Bollywood. Hum ko chhoro hume to hazaron saalon se aise rehne ki addat padi hai. At least he could thought of our nation and its reputation. Aaaj duniyaa thook rahi hai hum par in paison ke laalchiyon ki wajah se.

Dan D (fr) wrote: How the hell was this worse than V/H/S?! I thought that was impossible! Ugh, the amount of flaws in this shit fest could fill an entire sewer, which is where this movie belongs.

Dodd A (br) wrote: (Untitled) takes a sharp jab at the pretentious art world, but does so tactfully. Anyone from a high brow art connoisseur to someone who is frustrated with what passes for art will surely appreciate the humor here.

Timo M (ru) wrote: Hektinen elokuvatrippi mainosmaailmasta. Pysyy kuin pysyykin kasassa ja katsottavana.

Helen F (fr) wrote: If a documentary can make you interested in something that is not really your cup of tea, I reckon it's doing a great job. Highly life-affirming!

Kevin L (nl) wrote: This film was a real treat to see as it compiles the various ways films of the past century have represented and misrepresented Los Angeles. Unfortunately, I find its argument flawed at best. Nonetheless, highly amusing.

Julie R (nl) wrote: At a glance, Stephen Fry's adaptation of Evelyn Waugh's "Vile Bodies" is a fun and frivolous film stocked with fun and frivolous characters -- a picture that cheerfully recounts the daily life of Britain's pleasure-seeking smart set in the 1930s. Bright Young Things is a frenetic and glittering and witty and sly picture, with a cast so illustrious that it can satisfy even the most desperate need for a Brit fix, and this is what most reviewers will choose to focus on. And yet, it would be a dreadful mistake to judge this picture on its appearances, and the appearances of the bright young people on whom it centres. True, the main characters are one-note in their constant pursuit of new thrills and sensations. But theirs is a life caught up in the desperate pursuit for pleasure that defined Europe's inter-war generation -- a life that was envied from afar but should have been pitied up close -- and it is in portraying the compulsive nature of this decadence that Bright Young Things truly shines. Fry's film is not a cheap pastiche of famous British actors, thrown together for the sake of indulging in the aesthetic pleasures of the 1930s and lusting after the care-free rambunctiousness of high society. It is a sympathetic portrayal of the quiet anxiety that plagued the era and, most especially, those youth so newly acquainted with the realities of life that they could only think to outrun their dire situation as long as possible. The picture's most powerful moment is when all of its facades start to fall (also a quiet affair, and one easily missed). I will never forget the quiet desperation that was written on each and every one of those once-bright young faces. A+ to all involved; I would and have re-watched this film many times.

Matthew W (br) wrote: A truly interesting and affecting film. However, It's possible that some may feel that it becomes somewhat monotonous after a while. In my opinion, I believe that it's a film that should be viewed by anyone who considers themself a true fan of art cinema.

bill s (us) wrote: Phillippe has to carry the weight in this movie and his chops just are not up to it plus a really out there script.

Eric A (fr) wrote: A genuinely captivating performance from the always-brilliant Ben Foster makes this hollow, poorly-paced and -edited biopic watchable, but his efforts are ultimately hindered by an inexcusably poor directorial effort from Stephen Frears. Foster's sociopathic, chilling turn as Lance Armstrong ranks as one of the strongest performances in biopic history, but an over-reliance on flash and style?sacrificing any attempt at delving into the depth of Armstrong's character?dooms the film to mediocrity.

Alexander Z (de) wrote: Coneheads holds up remarkably well as an offbeat comedy, despite the hit or miss nature of SNL full-length films. Much of this is due to Aykroyd and McKean, who can make the stalest of material hilarious with nothing more than a look. Somehow, the running joke of nobody noticing the ridiculousness of the aliens' physiology never becomes old, and while this makes for uncomplicated humor (fish out of water in wacky situations!), I couldn't help but smile at the predicaments the Coneheads kept getting into.

Tsukahara T (mx) wrote: While the acting in the movie is certainly poor by any real standard...and the plot very predictable, no one in the 30-40 year age bracket can deny the sheer, unending fun of watching a group of hired swords beat the crap out of bandits with the aid of an elf who shoots four arrows a second, a one-armed man with a magazine-fed, fully automatic crossbow, and a mix of disco-style, fantasy music with swords and sorcery to boot. Undeniably classic.

Tim B (br) wrote: Great chemistry between Hope, Rogers and of course Russel. Best Roy Rogers movie, but doesn't sing nearly enough.

Indira D (br) wrote: This movie was wonderful! I was engaged the whole time. Nothing felt to rushed or slow. The acting was wonderfully. It was just perfect. Would love to watch everyday for the rest of my life.

John Y (us) wrote: This is one of the funniest, cult classic films of all time.