Wearing torn Japanese shoes, English trousers, a red Russian cap, and a Hindustani heart, orphaned Ranbir Raj comes to Bombay to make his fortune. He pawns his gold medal, gambles with the money, loses everything, & the balance is pick-pocketed. He ends up on the beach, meets with Vidya Shastri, a teacher who runs a private school, and both fall in love. Ranbir gets a job in a laundry. When he goes to deliver some clothes to Maya, she notices that he has a way with cards, gets him to accompany her to a casino of sorts, where he wins Rs.20000/-, which unfortunately is pocketed by Maya. Then a rich industrialist, Sonanand Dharmachand, approaches Ranbir, hires him to work for him, and soon Ranbir is on his way to a wealthy life. Vidya gets a first hand look at this wealthy life, and decides to break up with him. Sonachand teaches Ranbir that in order to make money one must never discriminate between the rich and poor...
Writer:Khwaja Ahmad Abbas (story & dialogues), Khwaja Ahmad Abbas (screenplay), V.P. Sathe (screenplay)
Wearing torn Japanese shoes, English trousers, a red Russian cap, and a Hindustani heart, orphaned Ranbir Raj comes to Bombay to make his fortune. He pawns his gold medal, gambles with the ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Dominick D (fr) wrote: It's really funny and heartwarming for a documentary. It feels so nice to see the credit these people are getting for their hard work and commitment to help the human race.
Jesse O (de) wrote: First things first, why does this sequel exist? Shitty way to start a review, but it's worth asking. I mean I thought the first movie was actually fairly decent and everything, but it's not like the movie set the world on fire, at least in my opinion. The movie cost $400,000 to make and it earned slightly over $7 million at the box office. Then again this is according to Wikipedia, which isn't the most reliable of sources. I just find it difficult to believe that the first movie made that much money, at least in comparison to its budget. But let's say that the movie did make that, and it isn't taking into consideration DVD sales VOD, that's not even necessarily reason enough to commission a sequel. This movie is a perfect example of that. While the original film received a somewhat positive critical reception, it wasn't overwhelming to the point where I felt that horror geeks felt they had to watch this. This is the type of movie that someone watches just because it's there. Particularly for horror geeks, I can't tell you how many horror movies I've seen just because they're available on Netflix or Amazon. Not even because I actually want to watch them. And I do think that The Pact had some of that. I don't wanna say it was all that, because that would be ignorant, but there's just nothing about the original flick that really inspires excitement to actually sit down and watch it. Which is why I was a little surprise to see a sequel. A sequel that, sadly, isn't any good whatsoever. That's why I was wondering why there was a need for one. I may have still asked why we needed a sequel if it ended up being good, but I wouldn't harp on it as much as I'm doing now. The film does a shit job at justifying its own existence to be honest, which is that a successful sequel must do in order to get audiences to buy into whatever story they want to tell. This movie justifies its own existence by saying 'just because' and that's it. There's very little in the way of substance in this movie. There's a copycat killer going around and, obviously, copying the MO of the Judas Killer's murders. The movie is put together in such a way that you know who the murderer is without any real sort of suspense. There's only two people it COULD be and one of those is a very obvious red herring, particularly if you look at this person's behavior throughout the entire movie. Part of the appeal of these movies, those where you don't know who the killer is, is the mystery behind who it actually is. Whether you do as it was done in Saw, where the killer was seen in flashbacks, or whether you have multiple people, the point is that you're intrigued enough by the story and how its mystery is put together to keep watching. But when you have only two real suspects and one of them is so clearly a red herring, then that makes it a little difficult to get into. Another thing that makes a little difficult to get into the movie is how unlikable June, the protagonist, is. Camilla Luddington was solid enough, but her character was honestly kind of a dick. And the character had an interesting enough backstory that they could have actually used, but they didn't and instead had her be an asshole to almost everybody she meets in the movie. The story is also somewhat convoluted. I got everything, but it wasn't exactly well-written or interesting for that matter. Also, for a horror movie, this movie is lacking a lot of the horror. There's some jump scares, obviously, but I've made my feelings on jump scares known forever now. They're a cheap way to scare someone. It's not actually scary, all it does is startle you. But they're, thankfully, not as prevalent here as in others. Sadly, however, the movie doesn't add other more atmospheric moments to supplement the jump scares, so the movie just ends up feeling completely barren. It's not the worst movie I've ever seen, but this was just no good at all. It gets one-star simply because I'm being kinder than I probably should. It's a bad movie and I wouldn't recommend it whatsoever.
Mike S (jp) wrote: The first time I've watched a Justice League movie, as I'm trying to up my knowledge prior to the DC cinematic universe kicking into gear. I enjoyed this film quite a bit. It's tough for writers to come up with threats for the Justice League, as so many of them are basically Gods. But by having Batman be the source of the weakness for each of them, was a great little idea, with a great little pay off when Batman says "The Justice League is under attack" and Alfred asks "from whom?" and Batman, as he runs off to save the day, "From me!".The voice acting is not always the strongest, and I'm not a fan of how the characters interact in these films. It diminishes the characters a bit when you see them all standing around like workers at an office.I really disliked the way Superman was drawn and portrayed. He didn't come across as a leader in the Justice League. The inclusion of Cyborg was good, as was Martian Manhunter, but the absence of Aquaman was noticeable (although there was little for him to do in this story).The villains ham it up a bit, which lessens the film a bit. These DC cartoons always feel the need to use endless exposition from the characters to explain what's going on, which makes the film feel weak.But enjoyable none the less. A darker film version with Henry Cavill, Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot would be interesting.
Kidanara U (kr) wrote: horrible movie it ruined me going and seeing the next one
Jessica S (mx) wrote: Super duo de comique ! J'ai ri du dbut la fin ! :D
Bill S (ru) wrote: Incredibly well constructed and complete, this movie will introduce you to Phil Ochs, his music, his times, his passions, family and friends--many of whom you already know. For Ochs' fans, it's like visiting an old and cherished friend, one we sorely miss. It's unusual to find a movie so lovingly, thoughtfully and uncompromisingly honest. The music runs like a river throughout and it alone is worth the price of admission.
Fisted By W (gb) wrote: It is actually my least favourite/most hated film, that I have ever seen.
Ine N (br) wrote: Again, I felt sleepy while watching, but having read the manga, I'm still interested in seeing what comes next. Ooo.. I still like Kana and Ocho. :)
Pourya E (it) wrote: One would think that a humoristic film by and about an Iranian guy with sex addiction would be something I would give a 5/5 to!hehe! True, true!lol However this is really lame! Even for a low-budget independent film!
Annie G (au) wrote: Okay, granted I took cold medicine and tried watching it...however, I know I would have fallen asleep anyway due to Jessica Alba's horrible acting and how the plot line went nowhere...it was so highly predictable I could have written a better plot line on the cold medicine
Jos M (us) wrote: Ben Foster est estupendo.
Juli N (ru) wrote: Once you get your panties unbunched after discovering it dared to modernize an old classic to reach a new audience you'll realize the film was actually pretty good!
Jennifer C (ru) wrote: k holy!! did you see how fast their hands were moving!!! and katharine didn't even play the piano growing up. that's some skill!! a beautiful love story - heartbreaking too. i enjoyed it very much. katharine is exquiste as usual.
Marcie F (nl) wrote: Enjoyed this for what it was... but reminded me of other 'horse movies' Like Second Chances... and Derby Stallion.