#

Rakhwala

N/A

Rakhwala is a funny movie of Inder Raj Anand (dialogue), Prem Kapoor (dialogue director), R.M. Veerappan (story). This movie was introduced in 1971. You can check list actors in this movie torrents, for example Dharmendra, Leena Chandavarkar, Vinod Khanna, Madan Puri, Jagdeep, Rakesh Pandey, Rajan Haksar, Keshav Rana, Randhir, Anand, Shyam Kumar, Prem Kumar, Raj Kishore, Pandharibai, Sanjana. Movie' genres are Thriller. This movie was rated by 5.1 in www.imdb.com. This is really a good movie to watch. Enjoy this movies torrent and share to your friends

Rakhwala torrents

Rakhwala full movie

Rakhwala 1971 torrent

Rakhwala torrent, Rakhwala movie torrents, download Rakhwala full movie, Rakhwala 1971 torrents, download Rakhwala 1971 torrents, watch Rakhwala movie, Rakhwala englishsub, free download Rakhwala movie, movie Rakhwala torrent

Links Name Quality Seeders Leechers Size
Download   Rakhwala 1971 ~ Dharmendra Vinod Khanna Musical ~ Phantom Other 44 41 743.06 MB

Users reviews


Arum Padma O (au)

And there are a lot of close up shots of Ryuhei's hands I LOVE THIS FILM. I also like how it's not about "nerd make over" story, Majime's social skill improved, but he still somehow socially inept (isn't Ryuhei Matsuda really cute). I think that's the real heart of this story, dedication of Majime; how someone who has hard time expressing himself finds peace in world of words and life purpose in it. But a nerdy guy who makes dictionary? how many times you watch films about dictionary making. A nerdy guy who has no communication skill then falls in love, sounds really cliche, doesn't it


Brett B (de)

If you like Vince Vaughn you'll love it


Caitlin L (ca)

I wasn't impressed even with James McAvoy


Chris F (es)

Not really a "Must" - but, if you're bored enough to watch it - go for it! Not the usual romantic comedy though. More eye candy though. Liz comes off as a gold digger in this one, and really not so funny either. Kind of like his "Friends" character, Chandler. dry sometimes. . . And, Matthew was a little. I thought Cedric was gonna be a little funnier in the movie than he was. Most of the movie is pretty predictable. And, of course, Matthew falls for Liz's character. blah blah blah. . . While in the midst of that, Sara comes up with a proposition for Matthew - to serve her husband first, so she can get money. He gets contracted to serve Sara with divorce papers, from her husband, a rich Texas guy. He's also an aspiring Wine maker, who wants to get out of the process business, and start up a wine company in the Vineyard. Matthew Perry plays a process server, who serves people with court papers and all that. wasn't a "GREAT" movie, but - it was definitely good! Matthew Perry's easy to love in this one, and honestly, what do i have to say about Liz? lol


Dead A (ru)

Loved their acting. This was really funny


Dee J (gb)

really didn't get it - thought it was rubbish


Evan J (br)

I can't believe it took me so long to see this. This film oozes happiness and fun. One of the most joyful films I've ever experienced. Singin' in the Rain very well might be my new favorite movie of all-time


Grant G (nl)

ravo!. The only sad thing is that the Americans will likely come along and do their own version of it, although they did alright with "Let the Right One In" and "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo", so we'll see. Well-developed story and characters gave the film the depth I need to get lost in it. This film had some novel and well-planned shots, and I really liked their zombies - more 28 Days later than Walking Dead type. Just heart-wrenching stuff, but then you have all of this excitement and action around it. Many of them seem to out-Shakespeare Shakespeare , with the level of tragedy they accomplish. I'm not sure what it is, but I've seen so many fantastic films come out of Korea, so I really shouldn't have been too surprised. Wow - what a wonderful surprise! Just when you think zombie films are dead, the Koreans give their take on it and make a helluva film


Michael M (de)

because she literally was given no strength, no satisfactory obstacles and resulting realizations about her struggle, and the story was capped off with an ending that was as truly unfortunate as the death of Heather O'Rourke. . . So, if it was a written and/or directorial decision to make it about Nancy Allen, about a female lead, about matriarchy and family, this film failed. In this version, Nancy Allen's character would be fighting every step of the way to get him to understand that Carol Ann is now a part of his family, and his daughter (UGH, which he completely abandons in a scene to lead the charge on finding Carol Ann) is forced to come to the conclusion that all individuals in his life are important, fulfilling the theme that Zelda Rubenstien's character has been saying throughout the three films. Divorce in the 80's was still a new and misunderstood familial event. It would have been more thematically on target with the franchise if it was Tom Skerritt's character that was distant to Carol Ann and had to learn how to accept a new child into a blended relationship. During the previous 88 minutes she only makes mention of how much her niece is a burden, that she rejects her familial bonds, and only really gives a shit about her new husband's love. She just makes a statement around the final ten minutes of the film that she loves Carol Ann and her family. right? Nope. . . She should slowly be learning this lesson over the course of the film. You don't have to birth children to learn how to protect, care, and fight for them. So my guess was they are setting her up for a journey to discover that motherhood and family are achieved and realized through struggle, understanding, and the fight against evil. I thought perhaps this third installment of the franchise was trying to explore the theme of motherhood, as Nancy Allen's character does not have kids. I guess in the hopes of showing his new bride the faith and strength it takes to protect a family at all costs? The aunt of Carol Ann is absolutely denying a reason to fight for family up until the end. . . He knows what family is and he is going to fight. So he is invested in going the distance on this. Later during the film, I made a decision to believe that the story is saying he understands what it is like to be a father, as he has a daughter from a previous relationship (played by Laura Flynn Boyle) and has an instinct to fight for his family. SPOILER ALERT: I questioned why Tom Skerritt's character was so enamored and loving of Carol Ann even though he just married Carol Ann's mother's sister about a year ago. While they attempt to set up the familial love that will be challenged, they do not adequately set up why the dynamic between the characters are what they are. But the third is a mess. Of course Poltergeist 2 does not satisfy with the ending, but the theme is solid and makes good on what the first film is saying about family and parenting. You always have to be upping your game against the external forces that are attempting to cause change to the familial set up you have tried to create. Much like as parents, you get to know how to deal with an infant, which is different from a child, which requires a much different parenting skill set when those once beautiful babies go into junior high and high school. It is expanded upon well enough in the second installment, pushing the parents to take the next steps in their parenting as the external forces become stronger and the tools they need to fight for their children need to be amped up. The writing drives this theme so wonderfully up to the end when the motel TV is wheeled out, and subtlety kicked, and credits role. Nelson and Jo Beth Williams play this perfectly. Craig T. After watching the first two, what made the first film amazing was theme of external forces attempting to break up the love of family. Then I said screw it and dedicated the night to watching 2 and 3. When I came home from work Poltergeist was on cable and I watched it. But the main problem I have with it is with theme. The scares were fine, and the mirror work was pretty interesting for the time. A typically horrible late 80's sequel


Patrick D (br)

Added to this, the film is only 72mins long, and really won't take up too much of your time, so include it in a double feature with a classic, I suggest Max Kalmanowicz's "The Children", an exploitation classic. Yet the protagonist's mom looks hardly 5 years older than her, meh chalk it up to it being a modern exploitation or something. I would suggest to just try to deal with bad actors and you with enjoy it alot more, I mean they are not too bad. Were I to make the decisions I would probably make this sucker go all out with it's subject matter, but they director really doesn't do a bad job by any stretch of the imagination. When taken into perspective this film is sort of like a collection of grindhouse film plots made into one and done in a wannabe Hollywood style. This film also leaves you with an incredibly disturbed feeling. This doesn't always work, as the actors aren't great, but it pays off at the end, an end you really don't see coming and could never expect, even right before it happens. Now this has some good indie appeal to it, mostly in that the budget shows, with gives it a bit of a down to earth passion filled first time director feel, but unlike most first films, this sucker, despite what it takes away from the film, plays everything straight faced with only a few comic moments. It's well in get past that first 3rd that it gets strange and different from Hollywood. This is not to say the start is boring, but kinda typical. The appeal of being independant is that you can have content that no studio would ever but in their own films, so it's starts off nothing much. I really didn't know what to expect and I felt for the first 3rd of the film -budget retrictions aside (including camera, sets, actors, etc)- it was really no different from any other non independant film I've seen. You can't really say too much about this film or you give it away. And moves on from there. It's starts off with random people in a town getting all herky jerky and attacking people. But it IS a zombie film, just not a traditional one. The title is a little misleading