Sirf Tum

Sirf Tum

Sirf Tum revolves around Deepak, an ordinary young man with a big heart, and Aarthi, an attractive, middle class girl.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:0 minutes
  • Release:1999
  • Language:Hindi
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:remake,  

Sirf Tum revolves around Deepak, an ordinary young man with a big heart, and Aarthi, an attractive, middle class girl. While in Dehli, Deepak finds a lost handbag belonging to Aarthi. ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Sirf Tum torrent reviews

Yash B (mx) wrote: This is a movie that speaks volumes to now and will move you tremendously. Michael B. Jordan's delivers an incredibly moving performance and the supporting work is fantastic. The story is so simple that it feels real which makes it so much more tragic. It's a movie that definitely showcases the power of movies.

Ethan H (mx) wrote: Light-hearted and fun. Worth checking out.

john m (nl) wrote: Very original plot and very enjoyable. Have seen it a couple of times. John Jarratt was a nice surprise, love his work.

Alex T (us) wrote: Well written, and well directed, but elevated by two superb lead performances by Michael Sheen and Frank Langella.

Garrison R (ru) wrote: One of the most maddeningly rage-inducing and confusingly mean-spirited movies ever made.

Chelsea S (us) wrote: A very sad but happy movie

Tatiana C (kr) wrote: A good movie that wears out its welcome halfway through.

Edith N (ca) wrote: Whose Revolution Is It Anyway? There were a lot of people who flirted with Communism because they didn't know what it was really like in the Soviet Union. When Stalin (F. Murray Abraham) dies early in this movie, it would have been easy for people who did not know to convince themselves that it was because they were now that much closer to power. It's in retrospect obviously sheer relief at surviving Stalin's regime at all, much less with your political power intact. How much emotional attachment you had to the regime was not, it must be made clear, entirely to do with what relationship you had with Stalin. His daughter died not long ago; his older son died in a concentration camp. Stalin had refused to arrange his son's release on the grounds that anyone captured in war was a coward and deserved what he got. Bearing Stalin's legacy would not be an easy one, especially if you grew up somewhere the legacy was made clear. Joan (Judy Davis) is one of those middle class Communists you get in countries like, well, Australia. Regular as clockwork, she writes long and longing letters to Stalin, letters which make the men who actually read them weep. One day, Stalin himself chances to see her picture, and he invites her to come to Moscow. The Soviet leadership wines and dines her, and she ends up spending the night with him. It is the last night he is ever to spend with anyone. Joan returns to Australia, where she finds out that she is pregnant. She marries fellow revolutionary Welch (Geoffrey Rush) to give her son a name, but she knows whose son the boy is. Despite the hopes of Nine (Sam Neill), an agent who was also in Moscow that fateful night and who loves her. She names the boy Joe (Richard Roxburgh), and she raises him in revolutionary principle. Which is why she is so shocked when he not only marries a policewoman (Rachel Griffiths) but begins to organize a union of law enforcement officers. There are a few too many coincidences for my taste. The fact that Anna, the policewoman, ended up in Australia because her family was killed by Stalin was bad enough. But the fact that Nine had something to do with it? The fact that he is able to see her in Australia before she leaves and then be with her in Moscow when she arrives there? It's a bit much. The fact that Joe is injured in a fire so that his nose is shaped like his father's and his lip is horribly scarred just is not right. Especially the lip part; one might believe that he will grow up with the nose, but the movie just felt the need to force the character into a Stalin-style moustache. And honestly, I don't think we need the idea that he comes to resemble his father physically to recognize how much he is coming to resemble his father in other ways. I think the filmmakers just thought it was funnier if they did it that way, the way they thought so much else was funny that wasn't, much. The only truly sympathetic character in the piece is Welch. He loved Joan before she went off to Moscow, asked her to marry him, in fact. And when she needed help, when she came back to Australia carrying Joseph Stalin's secret child, it was Welch who could help her. She couldn't or didn't even tell him the truth. She told him that she didn't get a chance to meet Stalin before he died, which of course he suspected was a lie as soon as she told it. But he loved her--and loved her son as his own. It's possible to have some sympathy for Anna as well, but I don't think anyone took her quite as much for granted. Welch knew he was being used; he couldn't not. He knew that his marriage to Joan was her concession to public opinion, and he tried to do his best by them both. By the sound of it, he was a good dad, too, doing as much as he could to balance out the fanatical nature of Joan. Unfortunately, there wasn't much to be done to overcome both her parenting and Joe's father's genes. This was not, I think, as good a movie as [i]Goodbye, Lenin[/i], a somewhat similar film. Part of it is that [i]Goodbye, Lenin[/i] explores the real impact the fall of the Soviet Union would have on someone of Joan's beliefs. As we see it here, Joan changes not an iota and doesn't react very much, either. It's worth noting that neither Joe nor the German film's Alex are all that ideologically devoted to Communism. Whatever Joe believes, he is at least as interested in his own potential power and influence as anything else. The movie does not mention anything about his father's ideology per se, though I have always felt that people like Joseph Stalin are not attracted to an ideology so much as they are to an opportunity to gain power. Stalin could not have acquired much under the Tzarist system, given the family of his birth. Communism offered a system where a short, pockmarked cobbler's son from Georgia could rise to power over others, and that's what drew him. Certainly not anything to do with helping the poor!

Manch F (nl) wrote: Proof that being faithful to the video games still doesn't mean its good. This movie was kind of lame and too tame with its PG-13 rating. There are better video game movies than this that are more entertaining to watch. It doesn't hold up too well.

Charles P (gb) wrote: Wow, talk about method acting. Gene Tierney was undergoing shock therapy for depression and it certainly comes out in her performance here. Cuck-coo! People talk about DeNiro and Bale doing all that crazy crap with their weight but do you think those boys would put electrodes to their head for their art? I think not. Gene Tierney, you was one crazy broad.

MarcAndr B (us) wrote: Et bien .... que pourrais-je bien dire sur se film? Trs long, je ne l'ai pas tout cout, car c'tait trop long et sans but jusqu' se moment. Aprs 1heure de visionnement, nous avons comprit sa situation familiale, sont enfance, mais rien de l'histoire n'est encore enclench. Autre que faire du sexe gauche et droite dans son adolescence et jeune vie d'adulte, de couch avec son professeur de maitrise et d'avoir tout pleins de flashback (dont plusieurs trs inutile, exemple lors qu'elle va chercher son chien chez sa grand-mre. Un 3 minutes pour rien dire et nous mlang d'avantage) IL N'Y A RIEN DANS SE FILM AUTRE QUE DU SEXE !!!Avec tout ces flashback et une histoire inexistante qu'on n'essaie tous de trouver, je crois que se film se rsume comme cela : "Elle fait juste fourrer et pour nous faire comprendre ce sentiment, ils nous fourre en sortant un film comme celui l !"P.S.: a ne vaut mme pas une location, faite juste regarder la boite sur la tablette du club vido et vous avez toute ce que vous pouvez tirer de ce film.

Colin S (ca) wrote: Stylistically great, but the Netflix TV series is definitely the superior entity to this, and direct comparisons between them make it easy to understand why. While the movie's principal actors put in individually good performances, the text ties things together in a haphazard fashion that serves to alienate rather than sympathise with the characters. Murdock seems well off despite not being able to win cases against a corrupt system, and his plight doesn't seem as desperate as it could be. Garner is wasted in the role as she's dispensed with before she can be effective. Farrell plays Bullseye's insanity well but it seems out of balance with the rest of the text. All in all, fairly messy.

Thomas B (ag) wrote: ***Need for Speed is ultimately a good movie. If you can try to stop asking yourself 'why are they doing this', then you'll enjoy it a lot more. And the car chases are expertly filmed and technically it's pretty impressive.