Justice M.K. Roy is a traditional and orthodox gentleman, who is unable to understand nor appreciate the carelessness of today's youth. He has brought up his daughter, Shobha, with these same traditions, and he hopes to get her married in a good household. To his shock and dismay, Shobha is in love with Ramesh Saxena, an unemployed youth, who has no respect for tradition. Justice Roy is opposed to any alliance with Ramesh in any way whatsoever, until and unless Ramesh gets a suitable and respectable job, and learns to respect tradition. Ramesh does get a job with a textile mill, and gets a bonus payment, which is to be presented to him in an open ceremony, presided over by Justice Roy. When the bonus payment is being handed over to Ramesh, a woman comes forward and claims that Ramesh is her husband, who had abandoned her soon after their marriage.
Justice M.K. Roy is a traditional and orthodox gentleman, who is unable to understand nor appreciate the carelessness of today's youth. He has brought up his daughter, Shobha, with these ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Dov D (br) wrote: Part two of the Restrepo documentary still packs a punch despite consisting of nothing but Restrepo outtakes.
Oliver S (de) wrote: Seemed slow. I don't think I got it.
Thomas P (it) wrote: I LOVE Fey and Carrell. I couldnt get behind this one tho. As much as I love them, I felt like a parent at the 4th grade play WILLING them to be funny.A few funny lines here and there, but it's a rather uncomfortable affair - go see Get Smart or Baby Mama for some big laughs. Fey and Carrell can't seem to get their vibe right here.I wanted them to be funny as much as they did, but its an overall misfire.They try to blend the uncomfortable comedy of The Office with the uncomfortable comedy of 30 Rock, but they look uncomfortable themselves, and it doesnt fully come together.2 out of 5
Ken P (gb) wrote: It was just all over the place with no plot and if I wasn't watching it at work I definitely would have fallen asleep.
Kurt F (kr) wrote: Awkward and amazingly heartfelt.
frank p (kr) wrote: Brilliant Jack the Ripper movie
Daniel O (fr) wrote: This movie is the epidemy of real life and reminds me of a story that could be written by Haruki Murakami. The realism and simplicity is what makes it so great. Romantic but readable. Awkward but relatable. Entertaining but slightly cringy. Full of awkward conversations and meaningless moments. Many situations where tipping or giving money is mandatory, but the lack of intention along with the obligation just makes it feel true. The awkward sexual tension that's discussed twenty times throughout the day, and is as far from perfect as possible.This film did absolutely everything right.
STCENTERPRISE (gb) wrote: Chariots Fire 1981 The film begins in London in 1978Score done completely on the key boardBeside authentic period music not part of the score. June 24, 1924This is about running athletes trying for their Chance to win championship to run in the Paris 1924 Olympics. Two athletes a Jew and Catholic go to Cambridge. Cambridge 1919Boys choir sing in front of a list of names of the dead from World War I in England at Cambridge. 1914-1918Cariots of Fire has a authentic historical period look to the film credited to the language, locations, sets, and costumes. The two factors that make you identify that the film is made in the early 1980's is the musical score and the slow motion running that immediately tell you when the film is made and know it is not a period film. What I like is the historical period locations and authentic period cloths that sell the believability of the film. I am not sure if I would watch the film all the way through again. I was not into the story because it was not that interesting. There were no challenges that were obviously stood in the way. The film it went a little too long.
Mark W (mx) wrote: "Who's gonna read me my bedtime stories?"The 1970's has always been a decade of film that I've never withheld my appreciation for. I'd go as far to say that's it's been the best in terms of American cinema. It was the decade where we were introduced to some of the finest screen actors in DeNiro, Nicholson & Pacino. We had films of such high calibre as The Godfather's, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, The Deer Hunter, Dog Day Afternoon. I could go on and on here but I mention this because Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep where another two of these marvellous performers and Kramer vs Kramer one of the films that's so often forgotten about.Career man Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) is so caught up with work that his wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) feels exhausted and unappreciated. She makes the decision to leave him but also decided to leave him with their six-year old son Billy (Justin Henry). Ted has to learn quickly how to be a hands-on father and by the time he gets used to it Joanna reappears claiming custody of Billy.As well as the 70's being a strong decade, much admiration has also went to films in terms of Oscar sweeps. Only three films in the history of the Academy Awards have won all top five awards (Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress & Screenplay). If you consider Kramer Vs Kramer for a moment, most wouldn't normally think that this film came close to that achievement. But it did. The only award that it didn't win was Best Actress but had Meryl Streep been considered in the leading actress category it might well have done. She won Best Supporting Actress instead which makes this film very close to achieving the full sweep. Resisting the temptation to be melodramatic, it's a fairly straightforward family drama. Films of these types tend to fall into courtroom drama's (of which this touches upon) but never falls prey to that sub-genre. The beauty in Kramer vs Kramer is not to rely on high tension or confrontation but on the human aspect of relationships and family life. It emotionally resonates by showing us the everyday; heated discussions, playtimes, bedtime stories and frustrating meal times. It might not sound like much but there's a real heartfelt authenticity in capturing these moments. Director Robert Benton, wisely, knows when to focus on his actors and has a marvellous ability to capture realism. As a result, he's aided with some stunningly delivered performances; both Hoffman and Streep are at the very top of their game and young Justin Henry is no less their equal as their young afflicted son caught in the middle.A beautifully realised dramatic piece that benefits from the whole cast and crew delivering honest work. It fully manages to capture and depict both the beauty and the difficulty of parenting and with a thoughtful intelligence, portrays the motivations and decisions from it's characters without ever passing judgment. Another one of the decade's true highlights.Mark Walker
Ken S (ru) wrote: Peter Bogdanovich makes his feature film debut with this decent thriller about two seemingly unconnected stories (a young man goes on a killing spree and an aging horror film actor decides to retire) that eventually converge at a drive-in theater. It's a short simple little movie that has a terrifying premise (mostly because it is something that practically happens often these days), and a great performance from Boris Karloff near the end of his life. The character was obviously based in part on Karloff himself, but he gives it his all, and brings it to life (probably because Karloff was so into the script he worked 3 extra days for free). Nice debut for a young filmmaker and a great performance from an aging screen icon.
Andrew G (br) wrote: I am a huge fan of P&Ps' wartime films and 49th Parallel is one of my favorites. The story of Nazis on north american soil brought the war to the doorstep of the American public and it remains to this day a thrilling tale of Nazi-Invaders and their destruction by the Canadian landscape and culture.
Bradley W (br) wrote: Part slackers, stoner humor, part social commentary, part buddy flick, all hilarious.
Alexa E (ru) wrote: WORST DREAMWORKS ANIMATED EVER!! SO BORING! AND NO PLOT!!
Tyler S (ca) wrote: This good action movie shows that Brosnan still has the goods with an absolute commanding performance. I am not sure what other critics have said, but I thought he was fantastic. The plot was somewhat disappointing and took some unnecessary turns to get to the point, but Brosnan carried the movie. You can definitely see the Bourne influences and even appreciate that movie more than I ever have .There were different plots going on here and the movie didn't effectively send a clear direction. Despite all that the action sequences were pretty good and watching Brosnan at his age do what he did was really fun to watch. It seemed he was dialed in as a former CIA agent who on the run trying to protect a female who the Russians and CIA are after.She has a dark secret that Brosnan himself is trying to figure out during the whole movie.The movie explores revenge, family, and doing what you have to do in order to survive.While the plot is somewhat weak and full of cliches (especially the ending) I felt this was one of Brosnans best performances that overall make this film worth a watch.
Sammie L (mx) wrote: how do i watch this bullshit?
AJ G (fr) wrote: Best Charlie Brown movie ever seen.