Set in the 70's in rural India, four 9th grade kids were writing their destiny. Joshi (14) is madly in love with Shirodkar (14) a beautiful Indian looking girl. Both study in the same class. The age old question "What is love anyway?"
- Stars:Kathy Burke, Elvis Costello, Graham Fletcher-Cook, Courtney Love, Sy Richardson, Dick Rude, Joe Strummer, Dilip Prabhavalkar, Santosh Juvekar, Jitendra Joshi, Devika Daftardar, Nandu Madhav, Anshuman Joshi, Ketaki Mategaonkar, Vaibhav Mangle, Ketan Pawar, Chinmay Kulkarni, Unnati Agarkar, Nidhi Chavhan, Yogesh Dalvi, Akshaya Deodhar, Sachin Dunakhe,
- Director:Sujay Dahake,
- Writer:Milind Bokil (story), Avinash Deshpande (screenplay)
Set in the 70's in rural India, four 9th grade kids were writing their destiny. Joshi (14) is madly in love with Shirodkar (14) a beautiful Indian looking girl. Both study in the same class. The age old question "What is love anyway?" . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Shala torrent reviews
(jp) wrote: not bad for a Stamos flick
(jp) wrote: I'm very sorry for those Americans reading my very brief review. No doubt you visited the cinema to watch this film, and I've even read that in some cinemas the audience broke out in applause at the end of the film.I'm not in anyway an historian, or film critque, but then in my defence the majority of you aren't either.This film disregards each and every dark moment in US history (and yes I'm aware that the UK has bad history, most countries do). It almost made me vomit to think that one person (yes I know he's an immigrant) thinks the world is in a better place because of America :/FUBAR!!
(de) wrote: humour norvegien, genial !
(mx) wrote: There come times when I am seeing a film that announces and declares itself as a piece of magnificent, magnifonic, exceptional and daring work of art that I have to reckon with the objective vs the subjective perspectives: it's one thing to recognize how brilliantly a film is made as opposed to how I felt about it, or, in the old Ebert philosophy, not what it's about but how it's about it. Because objectively speaking, I'd find it hard to argue or hear a persuasive argument to the contrary that this is the highest orchestral arrangement of cinema that is possible. By that statement I mean that you can't watch this and not be impressed on some level - this is one of a small handful of feature films (which originated with Hitchcock's Rope and became Oscar fodder in the best possible way with Birdman) that are shot in one long, unbroken take, and because it was shot in digital format and not film the director and cinematographer, Alexander Sokurov and Tilman Bttner respectively, could arrange it so there were no cuts (unlike that pussy-footin' Birdman, psshaw, having seamless edits, the nerve!) And it's not simply in the cinematographic prowess, it's much in the way that a director of live TV has balls of steel: orchestrating and conducting everyone, like a symphony, to be on just the right marks at just the right beats - and this is a cast that features hundreds, if not over a thousand, people - and it goes through different lighting set-ups and costume changes and the lead actor Sergey Dreyden (kind of a Russian Peter Cushing with his black attire and hard cheeks and nose) has to carry it in large part emotionally speaking, or at least on some intellectual level. So for arranging everything and getting it to move together seamlessly it's a real *achievement*. But is it a great movie aside from that, or even a good one? In some part it is wonderful, in large parts, but (and I have to put the 'but' in there), it's hard to sometimes be completely engaged with material that is so experimental. For me I actually discovered not too long into the film I was locked in more with the audio side than even the visual side. Not that large parts of this aren't visually arresting - it can't not be at certain times if only because of the paintings on display (it's a lot like being on a class trip, so if you don't enjoy going to a museum, frankly you may not enjoy chunks of this picture very much) - but it's how the filmmakers uses audio, and remember this IS an audio-visual medium, that gives Russian Ark its fullest impact.What is the focus of the film for example? Is this a documentary? A dream? A schizophrenic time travel trip that's like if you took Tarkovsky and mixed him with Doctor Who (all in Russia, of course)? Well, let's look at the 'voice' behind the camera, the man who seems to be following our "Stranger" in black who wanders through the hallways and the rooms full of paintings and the corridors and then... finds himself in an opera, a giant ballroom with hundreds dancing in unison and soldiers marching and then Catherine the Great pops up. And all the while this voice that accompanies this man, is it a person there, or is it a ghost? I found it difficult to parse at times if there was a figure actually there - not just the main character but others who pop up from time to time - acknowledge 'his' presence. But is he or 'it' there? Maybe it doesn't matter in the way that the ambiguity adds to the mystery of it all. The whole experience, as the director's attempt to go for the Orson Welles quote to the max - "A film is never really good unless the camera is an eye in the head of a poet" - has the feeling of a dream-documentary, if that makes sense, like we're wandering around some Hyper-Intellectual who has doused himself in the kerosene of Russian art and history (or also European history, note the mentions of German artists and composers and others) and is wandering around the halls and ballrooms and devastation and joy of centuries of work. While it's not really *all* the history (not enough Kossack blood or Bolsheviks me thinks), it's an engaging look at many of the key portions of how iconography, both in style and in artistic expression, come to the foray. Or... something like that. It could all be an extravagant d***-waving measure, like "look at what *I* can do with my digital camera and a whole army of people to command!" - but then isn't that what most cinema is all about? There are stretches that, even at 99 minutes, start to drag, but this may also be a first-timer reaction. I'd like to revisit this in a few years or so, or perhaps sooner, and see how, not unlike if I saw a series of paintings as I traipsed around a museum, my reaction would change.
(kr) wrote: I've seen the scene when he kisses the guy as an adult. After the years of seeing Chris Leavins on CWC who knew he was an awesome actor>
(ca) wrote: Surprisingly, this is my favorite out of the numbered sequels so far. I liked the story and the pacing was very well done. There were also some great practical effects.
(mx) wrote: Very atmospheric and not bad if you haven't seen the Japanese original to compare it to.
(de) wrote: For those in the know its my belief That director John Frankenheimer was the link between the old Hollywood studio system and the movie brats who followed in the 1970s.Several of Frankenheimer films made in the 60s are rightly regarded as classics of there time and even his lesser works have plenty to keep most folks interested.The story here is of course the lives and loves of several drivers competing in the F1 Grand Prix's.James Garner is the American driver with a point to prove after causing a massive shunt at the start of the film .Garner did most of his own driving and he really could of had a career as an F1 driver.Yves Montard is great as the driver who ahs seen it all and just wants to survive and Brian Bedford plays the driver with a unfaithful wife and the shadow of his dead brother playing havoc with his career.The truth is these domestic issues take away from the films best quality and that the racing consequences .Even in todays real of CGI Frankenheimer and Saul Bass really give you a terrifying insight in to how deadly F1 was in the 60sThe Monza sequence alone is pretty hair raising and its to the directors credit that all the race featured feel different despite the fact its just cars going round a track.Saul Bass works alongside the director and his montages add plenty of excitement to already heady mix of thrills and spills.So if you can bypass some iffy script problems this one is a real podium finish .
(es) wrote: This is a chunk of history I knew nothing about, so was interested to learn more. Of course, as it's from Hollywood, I don't know if it's accurate or not. The great Olivier was (I'm sure unintentionally) funny in dark face paint pretending to be a middle-eastern Muslim Messiah leader. I kept wondering if there really were NO middle eastern actors in Hollywood in the 60's? Why all the Brits in face paint? Anyway, other than that, it was a well-made and interesting movie. Battle scenes quite tame compared to what you see now, but keep in mind they could not rely on digital magic to create any effects.
(it) wrote: I saw this movie when I was 5 years old, part of a drive-in double feature with the Beatles HELP! Chasing coeds never seemed so harmless and comical! My favorite Elvis movie - it's funny, and the songs are pretty good compared to what would follow. I mean, get this lyric: "Any male in Fort Lauderdale, who is not pursuing a cute female - will automatically land in jail - that's the law in Fort Lauderdale! Pretty girls 18 to 23, if their technique ain't what it should be - get love instruction for free from me - thru the courtesy of the, Fort Lauderdale Chamber of Commerce..." HILARIOUS!
(au) wrote: Fairly entertaining...though nothing spectacular....an interesting cast...may have been a much better watch at the time of release
(de) wrote: My favorite Melville to date. I'm strict about my definition of noir, and a French movie from 1962 doesn't fit the criteria. But that doesn't mean I have anything against noir-influenced films, and Melville does American-influenced crime movies as good as anyone. Wonderfully stylish and dark, with a gripping and beautifully constructed plot. The characters are well-realized and the atmosphere is tantalizingly melancholic. One might be inclined to single out Belmondo, but I actually think this is one of his less interesting and charismatic performances. More compelling is co-lead Serge Reggiani. Also worthy of mention is the sublime score by Paul Mizraki... part smoky jazz, part Herrmann-esque themes. Excellent film all around.
(jp) wrote: Wonderfully acted and hugely atmospheric Twilight Zone-esque tale about witchcraft and its inevitable repercussions.
(fr) wrote: Theres something about this movie that I love yet its the story that I cant stand