In this film Ghatak plays role of Nilkantha Bagchi, an alcoholic, disillusioned broken intellectual, in the character's own words "a humbug". His wife leaves him because of his insufferable alcoholism. After losing his wife and forced from his home, he wanders through the countryside and meets unusual folks along the way. He meets Bongobala, who is driven away from Bangladesh and does not have any shelter in Kolkata, he gives her shelter. He meets Jagannath Bhattacharjee, a village school teacher of Sanskrit. The school got closed after political killings and Jagannath came to Kolkata in search of job. He meets Naxalites whom he describes as "frame of Bengal", but misguided, successful and unsuccessful at the same time. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Reason, Debate and a Story
Four men, each peculiar in his own way, embark on a quest to reason with the estranged wife of the protagonist.
- Stars:Charles Ascot, William T. Carleton, Blanche Craig, Jack Drumier, Madge Evans, Kate Lester, Charles Sutton, Tripti Mitra, Shaonli Mitra, Sugata Burman, Bijon Bhattacharya, Ranen Ray Choudhury, Partha Pratim Chowdhury, Utpal Dutt, Satindra Bhattacharya, Pranab, Tarak Chatterjee, Nani Chatterjee, Subrata Sensharma, Gyanesh Mukherjee, Arun Roy, Ananya Ray,
You may also like
Reason, Debate and a Story torrent reviews
Ron R (gb) wrote: An entertaining, engaging trek into the cold of a Canadian winter - and the human heart. The life-and-death struggles of survival in the British Columbia mountains lie only a couple hours trek from a well-traveled highway, just as the possibility of moral compromise and personal betray lie only a handful of bad decisions away from day-to-day middle-class life.Aleks Paunovic is a standout in this strong cast: his threatening physical presence and shady back-story stand in queasy juxtaposition to an easy smile and ready spiritual bromides, with the audience (and his fellow travellers) never certain which will carry the day. A remarkable and ambitious first feature from Canadian director Jason Goode.
Manish M (br) wrote: Recommended.The movie has a strange start; the kind I don't get to watch in a lot of other movies. It's blunt, straight to-the-point to what happened, and where the story is going to take off from. I recall watching the same kind in a recent Hindi movie called 'Zinda' (that had a completely different story and theme, by the way).Also noted by another viewer, one of the aspects that make this movie different is that within the first 15 minutes of the movie, you know that the central character isn't going to discover her strengths on her own; but she needs assistance. Had they not done that, it would have become yet another 'gifted' story. Overall, I liked the movie, and had a good feeling after watching it. There are many loose ends in the story that have been left unexplored, but hey, nobody's complaining.Navi Rawat has looked great in the movie, by the way.
Travis J (gb) wrote: Not interested. Sequels to landmark films always fail. Producers should know by now, after fifty years of failures that they only work, and only rarely in the horror genre. This movie has none of the chemistry, none of the magic and quite frankly nothing even borrowed from the first. The acting is good, it just sad to see them trying so hard to live up to the original when they stand no chance. Lastly, had this been a move on it's own, without the DD title, it might have been better. But trying to sell tickets under the DD title was an epic fail. It is no were close to the original.Sorry to those that worked on the film and tried, hopefully this one will be forgotten on your career records.
Janna T (fr) wrote: the music in this film is so amazingly wonderful! the film itself is cool, to boot :)
Gav G (jp) wrote: Eeeeh Spiders! Eeek!Utter pish, but a very funny film.
Sausages M (ru) wrote: Not as bad as everyone says, and the narrative doesn't do the usual Waters thing of going into space and leaving the audience behind, confused. No one is great in it, ,but no one is bad and there are some nice satirical touches here and there. Worth watching.
Edith N (es) wrote: Not a Long Day For Everyone Probably the most astonishing thing about this movie is how much of it was filmed over thirty years before it was made. Director Stuart Cooper made it in cooperation with the Imperial War Museum. Much of the film that doesn't actually have the movie's characters in it was in fact filmed during World War II. I didn't know that until I was watching the special features, so I was indeed watching for faces I recognized. Inasmuch as I would have recognized them at all; aside from the odd episode of [i]Red Dwarf[/i] or some such, none of the major characters have done anything I've seen. Many of them haven't even done much of anything that I've heard of. However, that combines with the period footage to make it more realistic; in [i]The Longest Day[/i], you're too busy thinking, "Hey, that's Sean Connery!" or whoever. The characters here are just ordinary people, and having them as fairly obscure actors makes that even better. Young Tom Beddoes (Brian Stirner) has been called up. It is World War II, and he is one of thousands upon thousands of young men who will be among those on landing craft on the beaches of Normandy, not that Tom knows where exactly the invasion will be. Tom is just another private. There is nothing particularly unusual about his experiences. He goes through training. He is shuttled about the country for reasons he doesn't understand. He makes a few friends. He even meets a Girl (Julie Neesam), though of course by the time he meets her, there are only days left before he will be crossing the Channel. He will not meet her on Monday after all. He turns twenty-one while waiting for the invasion, and he is certain that it is to be his last birthday. Of course, he is too young to remember World War I, but he knows about it, and the thing that it most obvious about World War I is that not all the young men who went to fight in France ever returned from there. Of course, I've also read enough to know that merely being certain you were going to die wasn't actually proof that you would. Perhaps young men certain they would not survive the war took more foolish risks than others, but perhaps not. Being certain that you're going to survive can make you do stupid things, too, after all. It is a fact of war that a certain percentage of those who go to fight will die, whether they think they're going to or not. Honestly, if I were one of the young men on those landing craft, it would be hard to believe that it was possible to survive. Plenty of people did; among other things, Cooper was influenced by the D-Day photography of Robert Capa, who survived the landing himself (and was killed by a landmine in Vietnam, but being a war photographer is a dangerous job). The Criterion release features excerpts of two diaries that also helped shape the film, and both of the diaries' authors were still alive when the movie was made--possibly even when the DVD was released. The film manages to be both stylized and realistic at the same time. We spend a fair amount of the story inside Tom's head, and the images he creates are not quite like the real world. Every girl he's met since getting called up is the same girl, for example, and I don't think his thoughts of her match what actually happened with any of them. It seems that Cooper had a vague outline of the story before he actually worked out some of the details, and he was in many ways more interested in the look and feel than the actual story he ended up telling. He didn't want to tell the same war story that everyone else had. Oddly enough, this meant he wanted to tell the story that more people experienced. No one in this movie does anything all that interesting, nothing that would be remembered in years to come. Tens of thousands of unexceptional stories went into the scope of D-Day. Though of course, every story was interesting to the person who lived it. In [i]Johnny and the Dead[/i], Terry Pratchett gives us World War I veteran Tommy Atkins, and I kept thinking about him as I watched this movie. We don't actually know as much about Tommy Atkins as we do about Tom Beddoes. He only appears in one scene, and he's dead at the time. We never get inside his head, and of course, it is many years since the war. However, we learn about him because literally every person in his brigade died in the Battle of the Somme but him. He was the one who lived, and he went home and lived an unexceptionable life. The only interesting thing he did was survive. We don't know what happens to the young men with whom Tom Beddoes grew up; this was one lesson the British military did learn. Tom Beddoes wasn't in a "Pals Brigade." I would imagine Tommy Atkins spent the rest of his life wondering what was special about him. The terrible secret of war is that it was really luck--good or bad depends on how you feel about being the survivor, I suppose.
Kevin W (fr) wrote: El Dorado (a thinly disguised Brazil), the 1960s. At Senator Vieira??s palace, journalists and armed forces congregate. The President has demanded his resignation. Paulo, an idealistic poet/journalist asks Vieira to defy these orders but Vieira wants no resistance because of the civil war and bloodshed that would follow. Paulo leaves with Sara, Vieira??s secretary and denounces Vieira??s weakness. Driving through a roadblock, Paulo is fatally shot. What follows is Paulo??s life flashing before his eyes, a series of memories and events.Several years before, Paulo was an associate of Diaz, a right-wing politician who carries the support of the religious establishment. He is Paulo??s role model and attempts to set up a political career for Paulo, but he wishes to choose his own path. Paulo visits Vieira, his populist left-wing rival, who explains his own political origins and ideology. Paulo soon realises that Vieira, despite his popular slogans, is just as part of the country??s problems as Diaz, unwilling to help the rural peasantry because he??s financed by wealthy farmers. Disillusioned, Paulo sinks into a life of bourgeois decadence. He makes a television documentary designed to undermine Diaz and supports Vieria??s presidential campaign. The right, headed by Diaz is setting in motion a coup, which returns to the film??s start of Vieira refusing to resist.Glauber Rocha (??Black God, White Devil??) is the most well known and respected director of the Cinema Novo movement, which flourished in Brazil in the 1960s. A remarkably creative and fertile period for film making, it sought to reflect the realities of life in Brazil such as the poverty and disadvantage experienced by the majority as well as modernise Brazilian national cinema. Crucial to this was the turbulent political climate in Brazil, which is at the very heart of ??Entranced Earth??. In March 1964, the army organised a coup against the left-wing President Goulart, which resulted in two decades of military dictatorship. Although Rocha??s film is set in the fictional South American country of El Dorado, it??s quite obviously a reflection of events that were taking place in Brazil at the time. What??s surprising is that given this lack of subtlety, Rocha utilised state resources to make his film and avoided censorship in his home country.??Entranced Earth?? is not simply a leftist response to the right-wing coup though. Rocha isn??t even claiming that the left has the answers to solve the crisis in Brazil. Instead, his outlook is far bleaker; that Latin American politics is systematically corrupt and almost needs to be destroyed in order to start over. Within the current political system, even supposed reformers are blinded by their lust for power. Diaz is the voice of the right-wing establishment, backed by the church, army and international powers, and Paulo??s own television portrait of him is designed to undermine his political career, but his left-wing rival Vieira isn??t shown in any more of a sympathetic light. He??s considered gutless by Paulo for refusing to resist the coup and shown as all too readily betraying the rural peasants who are the backbone of his support. Vieira gives the impression of wanting to offer reform without actually backing these promises up. As Paulo suggests, at best he??s ??paternalist??.The El Dorado populace are also described by Paulo as idiots, so impressionable as to believe what they??re promised and too docile to ever take matters into their own hands. But what of the impetuous Paulo? A self-described anarchist who rejects both sides of the political spectrum (only choosing Vieira as the lesser of two evils but even then becoming disenchanted), perhaps he can be seen as the tortured soul of Brazil, let down by whichever candidate he associates with. Therefore it??s a never-ending scenario from which change is impossible.Those who??ve seen ??Black God White Devil?? will be used to Rocha??s unique cinematic style, which is 0ften complex and abstract. ??Entranced Earth?? is deliberately alienating, to the point where it has been described by some as Brechtian. The central protagonists are almost stereotypes rather than fully-fledged human beings, representing their ideologies and political class in all their shortcomings and nothing more. The deliberately jarring editing, which often shows scenes repeated (when Sara visits Paulo at his newspaper offices) or cuts rapidly from one scene to another, sometimes with conversations taking place across different scenes, means further disorientation for the viewer. There??s a high level of artificiality running throughout the film, with realism left firmly behind. Influenced by the early Soviet masters such as Dovzhenko and Eisenstein (who influenced the Cinema Novo movement just as much as Italian neo-realism or the Nouvelle Vague), ??Entranced Earth?? comes across as Soviet-style political propaganda, relying on poetry, symbolism and montages of iconic images rather than conventional narrative. The film ends precisely as ??Black God White Devil?? began, with an overhead shot of the sea and then is shortly followed by the striking image taken in long shot of Paulo holding a gun to the sky; an image that recurs as the end of the film to represent Paulo??s desperate and ultimately futile individualistic mission. The overall effect is somewhat detached and difficult to follow, though one can be assured that second viewings and an understanding of the social, economic and political climate of the time certainly helps.Rocha??s trilogy of political films about contemporary Brazil was completed with ??Antonio Das Mortes??, which won the Best Director award at Cannes, and he shortly after left Brazil under voluntary exile. His work revived Brazilian cinema, placing it on the international map and the current generation of talented Brazilian film makers (including Walter Salles) surely owe a debt to him. Whilst ??Entranced Earth?? can be a difficult cinematic experience at times, the ambition involved and the passion Rocha shows regarding the current state of his homeland makes it a fascinating, often dazzling landmark piece of cinema.
Odeath S (gb) wrote: In the real of Da Fuq did I just see - KONGA most certainly fits the bill - Dont have the rights for King Kong ? - NO PROBLEM - just slap an A at the end and its a totally different monkey. A Botanist has a serum that makes plants grow and when he injects his pet chimp the thing grows to about an adult size height - BUT as the plot proceeds we find out about a tale of infedility that its so terribly executed the movie derrails - the scoen wife of the botanist injects a shit load of the serum to Konga and the thing grows to full on King Kong size and he decides to take a leisure walk around London - he doesnt destroy a single bulding or stomps on a single person - he just walks - and he gets gunned down by the british army whose aim is incredibly questionable but back in 1961 you didnt need to aim I guess lmao - horrible horrible movie but you will never get the word KKOOONNGGGAAAA !!!!!!! out of your head for a few hours after watching this.
Kori H (ag) wrote: My favorite of their movies I have seen so far.
Tania G (de) wrote: This was a great role for Bette Davis, a charming and sad treatise against vanity and selfishness. Unfortunately the melodramatic script is frustratingly very heavy-handed. Bette Davis needed none of it to convey the full dramatic effect of a character, so the script was quite emotionally wasteful. Worth a watch for her alone...
Nick B (au) wrote: Spielberg's first theartrical movie, felt weird didnt feel like any of his movies but it was pretty impressive for a early 70s movie, was pretty enjoyable had some excitting scenes was fun in most parts. Its weird I kept forgetting it was Goldie hawn in parts and thinking it was Kate Hudson they are just so much alike.
TJ H (mx) wrote: This movie was soooo weird. Not my favorite.