Seth Dharamdas(Trilok Kapoor) is a wealthy businessman. Dharamdas decides to sell one of his factories to Dhanraj(Prem Chopra). Dhanraj tells this to Ajit Roy(Om Shivpuri), his partner, who has plans of his own. However, circumstances make Dharamdas change his mind and he decides to cancel this deal. Dhanraj doesn't want this deal be cancelled and hence bribes Dharamdas's trusted employees into killing him. The quartet corner Dharamdas in a train and kill him after they get his sign over some crucial papers. They dispose off the dead body, making people think that Dharamdas has gone missing. But when the matter cools down, the villains start dying under mysterious circumstances. The investigation is handed over to the police. But is the killer a human, or has Dharamdas returned to exact his revenge?
Dharamdas is killed by Dhanraj and his man later one by one Dharamdas killers are killed but it puts question to everyone as whose behind all this killings? . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Andrew N (ru) wrote: Too much nudity and sex scenes with brutality!
Geoffrey C (nl) wrote: As a vampire flick, Dracula untold is "cleaner" and simpler, eschewing the over-burden of plot that comes with modern characters. The story is a fictionalization of the history of Vlad Basarab Dracul of Wallachia and his conflict with the Turks. The actual historic character of Vlad Dracul is seen as a hero of the people in Romania, and up until recently, the people there sought to distance him from the Bram Stoker character. Realizing the capital gains to be had, they have relaxed that stance. In view of that development, this movie blends a skeletal framework of events from Dracul's history with the supernatural elements of the Bram Stoker character, creating a fictitious "origin story" for the titular vampire.I found Luke Evans to be a good fit for the lead, being handsome in a warrior sort of way, who also proved he could wear the fangs pretty well. Not every actor can rock the fangs believably, so being able to do that much is very very important. The original legends have been progressively ignored in recent years, pulling vampires into a weird almost ambiguous level of I-don't-know-what-the-heck-kind-of-thing-the-hero-is-supposed-to-be Twilightness that makes no sense at all.I like my vampires like the old legends painted them: conflicted undead characters that are consumed with a lust for blood, unable to cope with their undeadness by roaming the earth and trying to hold onto their humanity while putting family members at risk by being near them. Denied the light of day and confronted by the sheer horror of what they have become and the murders they have commited. Anything less than this is too far away from the legends for me.After seeing the movie Dracula Untold, I didn't hesitate to go right out and buy my own copy of the DVD. Luke Evans' portrayal resonated, and I appreciated the added love interest of his wife and child, and the dislike I had for the exotic and interesting Turkish adversary. Even the ancient sealed vampire was cool in his own creepy way..There are those who will feel the story is too simple, but I liked how it was presented and I enjoyed it far too much to give it anything less than 5 stars. It just goes to show how much we differ on what we go to the movies to see.
Private U (gb) wrote: Does a great job of showing how stupid and closed-minded Utah conservatives are.
Ben D (br) wrote: This film is about our main character Enid trying to figure what she's going to do with her life and the film does a pretty great job of telling this kind of story. Our main character is eccentrically interesting, and the film is quirkily funny and all her silly teenage problems don't feel annoyingly forced. In fact I actually empathized her and cared about her. I don't think I've ever seen a film that made me empathize with a character with such worries and it impressed me that they were able to do it here. I really, really liked this movie and I suggest you give it a watch.
Pablo G (de) wrote: A very impressive, deep, and hardcoreish story about a man who has had enough and has pretty much gone crazy after everything goes down the gutter. Its great how this movie handles everything in such a philosophical manner as we are lead through the story through The Butchers own thoughts regarding his country, his wife, daughter, the people he meets, and his struggle. The movie never quite lets down and it is mesmerizing all the way until its very bizzarre and somewhat shocking end. With plenty of commentary, a great small cast, great writing, and great directing, it might definitely be Gaspar Noes best, at least for now.
Isadore H (gb) wrote: A fascinating character study with a legendary performance De Niro. A bit slow in the middle, but unquestionably a masterfully made film with lush cinema photography and impeccable direction by Scrosese
Josh E (ca) wrote: (I submitted this as an English essay)Gregory Doran(TM)s adaptation of Shakespeare(TM)s Hamlet was very well done. I enjoyed both Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation and Gregory Doran(TM)s adaptation equally. However, I felt like this adaptation did the better job of staying true to the play. While it does put a big modern spin on the play, it maintained the story(TM)s original dark and grim atmosphere.This movie was much better casted than the other adaptation. Having a younger actor (David Tennant) play Hamlet seemed to better fit the character(TM)s childish mannerisms. He acted with a great range of emotions. While Kenneth Branagh acted the part psychotically most of the time, David Tennant(TM)s acting ranged from psychotic to tranquil, from joyful to depressed, from hateful to loving. This great range of emotions portrayed in a very off-putting way helped show the character(TM)s emotionally-contradictive personality, which is what Shakespeare likely intended.The minor characters were also very well casted. Gertrude was portrayed as emotionally troubled as opposed to old and bitter, which I felt added more dynamic to the film. Claudius seemed more intimidating and antagonistic in his polite manners, in a devil in disguise? sort of way. The Ghost of Hamlet was acted antagonistically as well. While reading the play, most often the reader(TM)s first impression of the ghost wouldn(TM)t be that of an antagonist. But the way the part was acted was very tour de force, and aggressive in a kind of Raging Bull? demeanor. The portrayal of the Ghost reflects Hamlet(TM)s fluctuating emotions, but also foils his lack of anger and confidence. Also, it was very smart to portray King Hamlet as more directly antagonistic than King Claudius, because it helps the audience focus more on Hamlet(TM)s inner conflict and less on his family affairs. I also thought it was very clever to make Patrick Stewart play both Claudius and the Ghost of Hamlet, because they were physically the same person, but almost polar opposites in their demeanor.This movie had less production value than Kenneth Branagh(TM)s version. However, I liked the lesser production value of this version. It creates a whole different atmosphere. Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation had Victorian, well lit settings that seemed almost too lively and grand. The setting of this version is much colder?. The rooms are smaller and the halls are narrower, giving the movie more tension. It also makes less use of lighting, for a dark and gloomy feel. It also gives the movie more ambiguity and suspense, while only focusing on what(TM)s important (example: the ghost? scenes at night sometimes kept the actors in the dark while lighting the ghost when it makes its appearance, then uses lighting to capture the actor(TM)s reactions). All of this helps to capture the play(TM)s true heart of darkness, which I really appreciated.There was a difference in this version(TM)s sequence of the play(TM)s scenes. Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation was very paint-by-numbers?, in that it reflected the original text in its entirety. But this adaptation(TM)s removal and rearrangement of scenes made it seem more movie-like?, so that the plot is more easily comprehensible and entertaining.What I appreciated the most of this movie is its well thought out use of different types of shots, which all had different purposes. The type of shot that I considered most cleverly executed was the found-footage shot. In this movie, it is in the form of security camera footage. I felt that the use of this type of shot helped to increase feelings of paranoia. My favorite example of this is during Hamlet(TM)s to be or not to be? monologue, where Polonius and Claudius watch him via the security cameras. This scene also made a good use of long shots (shots that last longer than a minute without cuts) and close-ups, which help the audience appreciate the acting more as well as create more intensity. A lot of long shots were used during monologues. The long close-ups in the to be or not to be? scene, matched with the found footage shots, created a really intense and paranoid tone that I really enjoyed and did not expect.Another type of shot that the director implemented that I really enjoyed was jump-edited shots. This is when two sequential shots don(TM)t differ in camera angle, and the subject remains on camera but in a slightly different position. Jump-edited shots were cleverly used during Hamlet(TM)s soliloquies to show sudden shifts of emotions. In one shot he(TM)d be maniacal in his expressions, and it will cut immediately to a shot of him in a sad and melancholy trance. This makes it seem like these two emotionally-polar sides of him coexist, and the intention of this was likely to mess with the viewer psychologically, which I really enjoyed.I also really enjoyed the varied use of static shots and moving shots. In Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation, most shots were moving, making the movie seem much livelier. However, this adaptation consisted of mostly static shots to create a better gloomy atmosphere. The moving shots are only used when something is going wrong. This helps guides the viewer(TM)s emotions. Overall, I really enjoyed this film. The varied acting, the gloomier production atmosphere, the clever execution of different shots, and the more coherent plot sequence all helped to create a wonderful adaptation that is unique in that it stays true to the play not literally, but through artistic elements. This is a wonderful adaptation that deserves more recognition than Kenneth Branagh(TM)s, so that moviegoers can be exposed to the play(TM)s true raw heart of darkness, rather than given blockbuster eye-candy that only captures Hamlet(TM)s words and not its spirit.
Brandon C (fr) wrote: Benicio Del Toro is amazing in this movie, and it's very emotionally moving, but something in the direction seemed a little off to me