Thambikku Indha Ooru

Thambikku Indha Ooru

Thambikku Indha Ooru film revolves around a youngster who goes in search of his lover. Sana Khan plays a tennis player in this film.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:0 minutes
  • Release:2010
  • Language:Tamil
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:Thambikku Indha Ooru 2010 full movies, Thambikku Indha Ooru torrents movie

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Thambikku Indha Ooru torrent reviews

Billy B (es) wrote: An unblinking look at how the living part with the dying, and what that final parting reveals about the relationships between them. The action moves at the slow pace of the infirm, yet generates a captivating g-force which pins you to your seat. Bleak to watch, but utterly compelling in its honesty. Roth's character is trapped in many ways. Trapped in a job where death is the only outcome. Trapped between the strained familial relationships with the patients and his own ability to bring real comfort. An ability gained from his own familial tragedy, which has trapped him emotionally. It is also an ability that can have serious consequences, since he pushes his real and sincere connection with his patients because it speaks to his own inner deadness. Roth communicates all these tensions with great subtly and a masterful understated performance, accentuated by a director who is just as steady handed in teasing out the nuance of a great and disciplined script. It reminds a bit of Sam Beckett's "They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more." For all the darkness pointed to by reviews, it is in fact an enriching and essential film, a film about love. About how awful the absence of love is when it really counts, how unfortunately often that happens, and how love is the only thing that will matter to you at the end.

TheJimbobs123 (de) wrote: I thought was pretty decent film and gripping plot. Worth a watch.

Robert H (jp) wrote: Not laugh out loud funny, except for a few scenes. There really isn't much to enjoy about the film either. Oh well. Maybe it should just be redone as a comedy rather than a mockumentary.

Martin Y (nl) wrote: Brutal og hrd jenvidneskildring af invasionen af Irak i marts 2003

Holdeen C (jp) wrote: Just happy it didn't follow a typical Hollywood theme. Script could've been better handled. Again I liked how it state the obvious to the audience, so to some there might have seemed to be continuity issues but does everything have to spelt out to the punters?

john m (it) wrote: Instead of title "Stay", should really state "Stay away". A movie with group of A-stars (Ewan Macgregor, Naomi Watts, Ryan Gosling, Bob Hoskins, etc.) end up to such a poorly-written and imagined screenplay. This film might make sense if you were, say, on drugs. I was suckered in by mysterious trailers that made this film seem to be something intriguing and mysterious, and it is that, but people want answers. The whole thing plays out like an ultra-cheesy episode of The Twilight Zone. The movie is so steeped in visual tricks, symbolism, but it became tedious, with each scene trying to be more clever than the last one. The healing hands giving sight to the blind, what was that? Christian symbolism? The act of redemption? Why is the lead actor's pants so short? How distracting is that?! What is the meaning of dejavu moments? A lot of plot holes and story sometimes is all over the place. Got a feeling that director throws puzzle pieces in your face for you to put them together which in many cases of good thrillers works perfectly, but in this one puzzle is not even defined properly. There is few scenes of female twins showing up in background (at the university;s art lecture class and leaving the taxi at piano scene). Is there a meaning of this or director ran out of cast members? Also, meaning of scene with Hoping always, that in the end the film would redeem itself, I continued to watch, but it never did. It never went to the big screens for a reason. Really i hope this director never makes another movie. Overall, movie with great potential of story and idea but very poor delivery and even worse ending, leaving you with: WTF?!

Paige S (ru) wrote: Don't need bummed Bardem.

Rafael C (us) wrote: This is a bit of an odd review...but sometimes that's helpful: I really enjoyed this movie when it came out. I thought it would be a classic. On a second viewing, I have completely changed my mind. I still enjoyed the scenery, and some of the action is very well done...some even ground-breaking in the way you "feel" the action. However, having said all that, the dialogue is plain and simple winded...tiring and utterly filled with over-the-top explanations; making the movie boring and certainly not worth watching a third time for me. It is not a terrible film; it just hasn't aged well.

William O (us) wrote: "What's a matter wit chu?"- Charlie/Johnny Boy

Darine S (fr) wrote: almost as good as the first <3

aaron w (ca) wrote: It's not that good but people are way too hard on it