Sri Krishnarjuna Yudham

Sri Krishnarjuna Yudham

After vanquishing the army of the Kauravas, the Pandava Brothers preside over Indraprastha, and Arjun takes a journey to worship Bhagwan Shri Shivji. It is during this journey that he will challenge Devrishi Narad that no one on Earth can instigate him to go against Bhagwan Shri Kishan. Arjun will soon have to mince his words when, on Subhadra's insistence, he will be compelled to take up arms and go to war against Kishanji in order to protect Chitrasen - who had inadvertently offended Sage Gabal - leading to Kishanji's decision to behead the former with his Sudarshan Chakra.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:127 minutes
  • Release:1963
  • Language:Telugu
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:hindu mythological,  

After vanquishing the army of the Kauravas, the Pandava Brothers preside over Indraprastha, and Arjun takes a journey to worship Lord Shiva. It is during this journey that he will challenge... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Sri Krishnarjuna Yudham torrent reviews

Rory R (jp) wrote: Restrepo captures the realities of war and what brotherhood means in a gripping, emotional and shocking fashion. The fact that the film makers managed to record footage as real and beautiful as this amongst all the chaos and uncertainty is commendable. Following these men throughout their 15 month deployment will make you reassess what it means to be a man and what courage really is. You will find probably one of the most emotional scenes within a film ever as a man within the platoon learns that his friend has died in front of him. Films like this need to be seen so that troops are truly respected and the extent of their work do not go unappreciated.

Braden L (it) wrote: Pretty bad acting, directing, and casting. The concept could have made it a better movie with better actors.

James C (fr) wrote: The tales of three men that all want to get back something they have lost are brought together in a very twisted part of hell.This is one of those movies that I recorded off the Horror Channel that had a crappy title, but description sounded marginally interesting. I wasn't expecting much, but the result was not what I bargained for at all. This is quite a twisted little movie that hides it's low budget origins well. The story is an anthology of seperate characters that are all linked, but it is told in a non-linear fashion that makes for quite interesting viewing, even though it gets a little confusing in places. The look and feel is all very modern and the use of a blistering heavy metal soundtrack helps. The visuals are where the movie really shows it's strong points. The set designs are all dark and dingy and remind me of the likes of 'Hostel' and 'Saw' but have a kind of twisted carnival sideshow feel about them. The make-up effects are topnotch, and the creatures are quite possibly the most well designed I have seen in a low budget movie in quite a while (think of a 'Hellraiser' / 'Silent Hill' mix on some industrial strength mind-altering drugs and you will get the general idea). The gore effects are all handled well and really add to the twisted feel of the movie. The torture porn elements are not sleazy and add to the storyline, unlike certain other movies that have had much more positive reviews in the past. As I mentioned earlier, the story is possibly the weakest part of the movie, as it doesn't really explain itself and gets a bit muddled and self-obsessed in places. The ending is very abrupt and open-ended and made me feel that I had only watched the opening part of a larger story. If you are looking for something a bit nasty, grimy and different, then you should consider giving 'Necromentia' a watch.

Andrew C (jp) wrote: An admirable attempt at retelling the 'jilted lover' thriller as a sort of low-key drama. While all the thriller elements are in place, Coffin Rock prefers to focus on realistic drama, and subverts expectations while also fulfilling them. A breath of fresh air.

Maxo B (fr) wrote: Joaquin Cosio is hilarious!!!

Christen Q (ag) wrote: not good really but it did make me wanna bang the guy from buffy

Edgar C (nl) wrote: Tobe Hooper is still being a moronic horror director since The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Poltergeist, but he is still brutal and gory also. The plot is boring and typical, as well as the cliches, and the acting sucks, but some of the death scenes are fun and liked the concept used in a hotel for a horror movie, although I couldn't believe that the owners could be so fuc#!ng stupid. 36/100

David A (es) wrote: [from The Watermark 06/10/95] Wigstock: the movie is a fun frolic documenting the 1994 Wigstock drag festival held every Labor Day in downtown Manhattan. The film records the event - one that wouldn't normally get much mainstream attention - and lets all the world see the rollicking, campy, (not to mention safe) fun of throwing on a wig and heels in public. Its strongest moments are when the performers are being serious in interviews, as well as when we are shown the performances intercut with dress rehearsals in which we see the artistry without the facade. Drag Diva Mistress Formika discusses the influence the media has on the American perceptions of gender in an early segment of the film; interestingly, the rest of the movie never delves this deep, and manages to shed little light on what is at the emotional or cultural core of female impersonation. Instead, the film is filled with clips showing the drag queens being bitchy to each other and walking down the street past dumbfounded on-lookers. These moments are big crowd-pleasers, but after the first hour of lip-synching and montages of booger-dragged spectators, Wigstock: the movie gets tired. Celebrity appearances by Ru-Paul and Deee-Lite thankfully make the film more interesting, but all-in-all, the celebratory qualities of the film are what carries it, though at times it seems like too much of a good thing.

Kiefer F (gb) wrote: great action as always. Not Chow Yun Fat's best but damn entertaining.

Carlos I (ru) wrote: What a disappointment. There's some decent atmosphere and music, and it's got a cool concept, but it's just a muddled, incoherent mess. Brosnans horrible French accent is also very distracting.

Russell R (gb) wrote: One of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. I don't know why I even watched it to the end?

Timothy S (fr) wrote: "First Monday in October" had all of the makings of a controversial film until the events depicted in the picture happened for real shortly before the film's release. Sandra Day O'Connor's nomination to the Supreme Court really took the wind out of this film's sails at an inopportune time. But even taken as a piece of fiction, which it is, it's a very entertaining film that is a lot less serious and dull than you might expect. This is definitely not a dry political film. The screenplay is light and lively, and the talented performers bring it to life in a fresh and funny way. Jill Clayburgh is perfectly suited for her role, smart and beautiful, and she owns the role from the first moment she appears on the screen. Even better is her veteran co-star Walter Matthau as a seasoned judge and Clayburgh's intellectual equal. His performance here shows why Matthau was widely considered to be one of the best actors of his generation. It's a pleasure watching him work, and every single relationship he has in the picture is a fascinating one. I'm not sure how accurately the film portrays the behind the scenes workings of the Court (I suspect it's not very accurate at all), but it's a very entertaining movie with a lot of sharp dialogue and witty banter. The story of Clayburgh's scandal-in-the-making involving her dead husband is somewhat muddles, but it doesn't detract from the enjoyment of watching the two leads square off. It's more than enough to carry this film through its rough spots. "First Monday in October" doesn't work very well as a history lesson, but it is very entertaining nonetheless. Sometimes that's all you can really ask a movie to be, and on that level it works.

Nikhil N (jp) wrote: 21 Grams. The weight of a stack of nickels. The weight of a bar of chocolate. The weight of a hummingbird. Or perhaps, the weight of our soul. Yes, you heard it right. In 1907, Dr Duncan MacDougall published a paper in the Journal Of The American Society Of Physical Research, which claims that a human body loses exactly 21 grams at the precise moment of its death, deducing that human beings have a soul. The paper has since been discredited, but the myth lived on.And it is based on this myth that 21 grams, a 2003 American drama was conceived. Starring Sean Penn and Naomi Watts, the story is told in a hyperlink non-linear format, where the past, present and future of three seemingly unrelated characters, converge and coalesce towards each other as the movie progresses. Helmed by acclaimed Academy Award winning director Alejandro Gonzlez Irritu, 21 Grams interweaves several plot lines, around the consequences of a tragic automobile accident. Penn plays a critically ill mathematician, Watts plays a grief-stricken mother, and Del Toro plays a born-again Christian ex-convict whose faith is sorely tested in the aftermath of the accident.In the initial couple of minutes I was mesmerized by the quality of film-making I was experiencing, but could not help wondering what it was all about. The non-linear narrative confuses you initially and you even wonder if it was necessary, but once you give it time, the movie will floor you. Based on the universal themes of death, pain and salvation, the movie portrays the journey of Christina Peck, a recovering drug addict and family woman, whose life is torn apart by the death of her husband Michael and two children in a fatal accident, by a Christian reformed ex-convict Jack Jordan. She is followed by Paul Rivers, a terminally ill mathematics professor, who was given a new lease of life after a transplantation of Michael's heart.Irritu, has a fetish for the unorthodox, which is apparent in the cinematography of Birdman. Here too, he attempts a unique style. But, eventually, style doesn't matter. Whta matters is that the film has a heart and turns into a emotional rollercoaster ride for the viewers. Love, loss, grief, misery, guilt and redemption are emotions so humane that you connect with the story and its characters. You want to cry with them, console them and give them a hand. Irritu successfully manages to bring out these emotions with great maturity and candor.The screenplay by Guillermo Arriaga is gripping, the editing is crisp and the cinematography is haunting. The music and backgroung score is also incredible. The gives us a sense of the utter despair of their characters, leaving the viewer emotionally wounded. And need I say about Irritu. He is the force that binds the movie together. He is confident and brave in his film-making and is one to take risks, without, of course, undermining the quality of his story or its characters.The performances are incredible. As the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes put it, the movie is full of "fine performances". Everyone puts in the best they have to offer. Benicio Del Toro is outstanding as the ex-con Jack Jordan. His character is one full of layers and dimensions and brings them alive on screen with great impunity. Sean Penn too did an excellent job. One of the greatest actors of this era, he takes up a character in considerable physical and emotional pain and pulls it off effortlessly.But the clear star of this movie is Naomi Watts. Playing a grief-stricken widow under drug abuse, she gets into the skin of the character, before pulling of one of her best performances. She is beautiful, but the pain in her eyes is unbearable. A particular scene, where she is informed of the death of her family, is heart wrenching and move you to tears. she shares a unique chemistry with Penn and the two share some beautiful moments of passion. If not for anything else, the movie is a must watch for her incredibly moving performance.Alejandro Gonzlez Irritu is a filmmaker with panache. And with 21 grams, he tells a tale that "grips us, moves us, and astonishes us". Add to it some incredible performances, the movie is a must watch.

Deej K (ru) wrote: Thought provoking. Fun watch for intellectuals.

Carl N (gb) wrote: This is a thoroughly enjoyable sci-fi movie from Hammer. I can't help but feel that this film must have been the inspiration for "The Blob" (released a couple of years after) radioactive mud is causing havoc in the Scottish Highlands and near an atomic laboratory. Luckily Dr. Royston works there and is in the middle of carrying out some groundbreaking nuclear experiments. So Royston, with the help of Inspector McGill and the military race against time to find a way to kill the unknown. While most 50's monster movies can be somewhat camp and silly. This comes across as relatively intelligent. There is a very Quatermass feel to the proceedings. Time is taken to clarify the science aspects but done in a way that doesn't become boring. Well acted, well paced and really suspenseful. The ending is little bit of a letdown and quite abrupt. But any fans of Hammer films will be used to that.