|Download||Ragalaipuram (2013) - 1CD - DvDSCR - Tamil Movie - Download||Screener||28||40||697.35 MB|
|Download||Ragalapuram (2013) Tamil Untouched Suara - DVD 5 - Uyirvani||Other||36||34||4 GB|
|Download||Ragalapuram (2013) Tamil Suara - DVDRip - Xvid - Uyirvani||DVDRip||45||29||692.59 MB|
|Download||Ragalapuram (2013) Tamil Suara - DVDRip - x264 - Uyirvani||DVDRip||38||39||401.88 MB|
You may also like
Ragalaipuram torrent reviews
Eliabeth w (mx) wrote: loved it great movie
Forrist B (de) wrote: Only good part of this film is Carrie Fisher with a shotgun!
Cline H (nl) wrote: compltement djant. Mais je n'ai pas aim plus que a.J'ai trouv que c'tait beaucoup de bruit, de glauque, pour une histoire qui n'tait pas trs raffine, complexe.
Dimitri S (ru) wrote: It's a really good action movie.A love this movie.Great action.Great story.For me it's the second best movie with Wesley Snipes.The best movie from David Carson.
Anthony F (jp) wrote: What started the sappy-sports-made-by-Disney film genre. lol Everything about the movie was great: the acting, the plot, the music; fine, I've seen this one too many times and I'm on the verge of throwing my TV out when I see it premiere on TBS for the billionth time, but if I took this movie in small doses, I'd be sane. lol
Michael T (br) wrote: A good cast in a muddled movie.
ryan b (fr) wrote: was not that good im reviewing this movie cos no one has .I really had no expectations going into this movie,The script is unfunny,with my expectations being very, very low, it doesn't really mean that the film is anything more than average. the characters are put in unlikely situations, that are not funny if you catch this on cable i would say if you like Jamie Foxx keep it on but if your not a bigg fan its a no go Plot Summary: While they're on vacation in the Southwest, Rae finds out her man Michael spent their house money on a classic car...
Sergio E (es) wrote: this movie is great and it has some great actors and some great scenes it's a little hot but it's actually like a greek novel it has all the elements!! kinky, weird, funny, and it has love but well I'm not sure if triangles or squares!!! and we can see it has actors that are now very important you can see their quality in here!! and it has a great director because the movie is well done like good ham A mother schemes to prevent her son from marrying the daughter of the neighborhood prostitute. Jose Luis is an executive at his parents underwear factory where his girlfriend Sylvia works on the shop floor. When Sylvia falls pregnant, Jose Luis promises her that he will marry her, most likely against the wishes of his parents. Jose Luis' mother is determined to break her son's engagement to a girl from a lower-class family, and hires Raul, a potential underwear model and would-be bullfighter to seduce Sylvia.
Jesse O (kr) wrote: Here's a comparison that no asked for that I'm gonna do anyway. I don't know, I don't usually care to read forums, it's just not what I like, but I'm assuming there's some people out there (because there's always at least ONE person) that feel that Kevin James is this generation's version of John Candy. I even shudder to compare the two and I feel dirty even mentioning the two in the same sentence. While I completely disagree with this assessment, I can sort of see why some might think that. Both typically play (or played in Candy's case) a fat, jovial man who was, typically, just trying to do the right thing. So far, so good. I can see that. Where I come to disagree is the fact that, quite frankly, Kevin James is a horrible comedic actor. There's just no way around it. He gives off the appearance of being likable, but it's clearly a farce. That's not the problem though, the problem comes in the fact of Candy's comedic style versus James' style. The latter relies almost entire on 'fatty fall down' slapstick comedy or, generally, just making fun of the fact that he's fat (watch Grown Ups 2 for this). He also does not have the best timing or delivery. Candy, on the other hand, while I'm not saying the fact that he wasn't fat wasn't used to, maybe, poke fun at him a little bit, he didn't rely entirely on that. Candy had great presence, timing and delivery. He knew what to say and when to say it. And that's the difference between the two and why, really, they should never be compared to one another. John Candy would be offended at this. The closest thing we have to John Candy in this generation is Melissa McCarthy, though McCarthy isn't afraid to do raunchier stuff where she's kind of a dick to people. Damn, I miss John Candy so much. Anyway, on to this flick. This is another one of those movies that I remember seeing bits and pieces of on TV, but I never actually saw in its entirety. Well, actually, I do believe I saw it when I was younger, like maybe when was from the ages of 8-13, but it's been so long by this point (I'm 29), that it's almost like I'm watching it for the first time. I'm honestly surprised that, before this movie, John Candy's transition to film hadn't exactly translated to box office success. So, realistically speaking, while he was part of some memorable films, his 'success' as a box office draw wasn't even that long, since the 90s up until his death weren't great for the guy. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. What did I think of the movie? Much like Big, a film I reviewed a couple of days ago, I enjoyed this movie. I think I actually enjoyed it more than Big. Problem with Big, as much as I did enjoy it, was that I felt it wasn't as consistent with its comedy and that held it back, a bit, to me. This movie, while certainly not perfect, is more consistent as it relates to comedy. The story set-up is fairly simple and straightforward, you've certainly seen a variation of this movie before and since. The basic gist of it is that Uncle Buck comes over to his brother's and sister-in-law's house to take of their children while they go back home as the sister-in-law's father has had a heart attack. Uncle Buck is irresponsible and has no job, so the sister-in-law is worried that having take care of the children could end up disastrously. Buck has no time winning over the youngest children of the house, Miles and Maizy, he has a harder time with Tia, the typical 80s angsty teen. Tia, for one reason or another, hates her mother. Tia's anger is as a result of the fact that they moved from Indianapolis to Chicago (at least I believe they do), but there's no real reason outside of that. I get it, teens are dicks sometimes (and I've been watching 13 Reasons Why too, so I've gotten my fill of asshole teens), but there's no depth to Tia. She's just a dick because she is. This is a John Hughes comedy, so I can't fault him for being one-dimensional about his characters, but Tia is really kind of a detestable character that you legitimately don't like. And I don't mean that in the 'this is fake and I'm suspending my disbelief' kind of way, I mean in the 'I just wish she would go away' kind of way. But, you know the reason the character is like that. It's done so Uncle Buck's kindness and wise words can turn Tia into a loving daughter once again. Again, this is something you've seen before and will see again, but I didn't mind it because this movie was quite good. I thought it was a funny movie, the most memorable scene being between Macaulay Culkin asking a lot of consecutive questions and Buck just answering them in quick succession. It sounds silly writing it out, but it is a funny scene. There's some a very sexually suggestive scene here with Buck and Chanice (his girlfriend) discussing Buck's nicknames for several of Chanice's private parts. The scene ends with Buck saying Felix is what we called your...and then it cuts away as we hear a cat yowling outside the house. I was certainly surprised by this joke. Don't get me wrong, it was a pretty fucking great joke in how clever it was, but I'm surprised that they got this through in a PG movie. By this time, PG-13 had already been put into place, so it's not like there wasn't a rating for them to go with. Nowadays you get an instant PG-13 rating if you look at someone with intent to kill. Your movie might not even have any cursing or any other "questionable" material by the MPAA, but they'll give you a PG-13 for a fart and an R-rating for one instance of someone using the word fuck. The fact that they got a subtle PUSSY joke (that only the adults and some teens) would get past the MPAA was pretty great. There was another instance of this, with the washing machine scene where Marcie, Buck's family's neighbor) comes in and thinks Buck is talking dirty to a woman as they're having sex. The pussy joke is more memorable though, but they do mention putting loads in, so there you go. A tip of the hat to who ever convinced the MPAA to give this a PG rating with those two jokes in. You, sir or madam, are the real MVP. But I digress, I really liked this movie. It's a lot of fun to watch. The casting is great, though the characterization of Tia left a lot to be desired in some parts, and the film is lighthearted and funny enough for me to give this 3.5 stars instead of 3. It's not perfect, but it's one of those movies that will, most likely, keep being good no matter how many times you watch it. Or if you watch it 1000 years from now. Like I said, that doesn't mean it's perfect, but it's got a timeless quality about it. I'd certainly recommend this if you haven't yet seen it.
Scott J (au) wrote: just straight up delightful
Luigi D (br) wrote: An intimate movie that trascends to epic proportions due to its remarkable camerawork, the originality of its script, and its universal approach to the "human condition" tested under the most horrible circumstances.Thespians Ida Kaminska and Josef Kroner elevate this unique and incredibly gorgeous film to the stars. One of my favorite movies ever... perfect cinema from any standpoint!
Logan M (mx) wrote: Kevin Smith's deepest film by far.
WS W (us) wrote: Errrrr. Awfully terrible! Even Minnie Driver couldn't save this boring, tedious one so-called film. The director was just like letting an out-of-control vehicle rushing downhill without giving a damn.