Ajay (Siddharth) comes to Kasi, where his thoughts and ideas on life and death undergo a sea change after he meets a young boy. He relocates to Chennai and stays in a house owned by a couple S V S Murthy (Mouli) and Jayam (Geetha). They treat him as their own son. A do-gooder, Ajay with his jovial nature wins the heart of all those whom he comes across. Vidya (Nithya Menen), a photo journalist meets Ajay and falls for his good nature. Ajay with the help of Vidya even gets street children obtain sponsorship for their education. But things take a turn when Vidya expresses her love to Ajay. He quietly walks off the place and decides to leave Chennai. But a rude accident to Vidya puts the responsibility on Ajay's shoulders to get her back to health. He takes her to USA for a surgery. Meanwhile a flashback reveals that Ajay was a successful doctor in the United States and who led a happy life.

A young man Ajay (cancer victim) meets two lovely women Renu (wife) and Vidya (journalist) in his life. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


180 torrent reviews


Scott B (fr) wrote: Quirky and interesting. Definitely worth a watch.

Lovro H (jp) wrote: Dread is a horror film based on a story written by Clive Barker, which I have not read yet, and it follows three people, two of them film students, trying to make a film that shows the true nature of fear, what people fear the most. They do this by interviewing a lot of people, asking them questions about their fears, deaths in the family and whatnot. Dread is a surprisingly effective horror movie! I didn't expect it to be as disturbing as it was. The characters are, also surprisingly, well developed. None of the characters seemed cliche and they were very well portrayed by the actors. Shaun Evans and his character particularly stand out. His character, Quaid, is a very intriguing and unpredictable character, so there's always a sense of danger whenever he's around because you never know what he might do. Shaun Evans' acting was terrific and at moments he really got under my skin. Another great performance was that of Jackson Rathbone. He plays Stephen, a film student who meets Quaid and Quaid convinces to help him make this film. The visual look of the movie feels very gritty and the darkness of the sets really adds to the atmosphere. There's also a decent amount of gore in this film. Some of it was CGI, of course, but besides that one scene where it was very noticeable, I didn't have any problems with it. The ending, in particular, is very shocking. I actually had to look away for a few moments because what was happening was so disgusting that I was afraid I might feel sick. You'll know exactly which scene it is if you decide to watch the movie. The direction is really well done, especially the axe murder scene at the beginning. I read that they've done a lot of changes to the original story, but if a movie makes changes and still turns out to be good, I've no problem with it. Not everything that is written can be turned into a good, comprehensible, film. All in all, besides a few misplaced CGI gore scenes and an ending that fell a bit flat, this is a great, suspenseful and scary movie that I would recommend seeing.

Dorothy L (it) wrote: This is one of those must have dvd's. There was so much suspense and I especially loved that the killings were actually being showed while they happened. Great suspense movie.

Tony B (ru) wrote: Except for the last minute or so of the movie. I really liked this movie. Dutcher can be a little melodramatic, but i can feel the honesty. My only qualm with this movie is the baptismal interview (which is more of a technical matter, than a filmmaking matter). I hate that this is called God's Army 2 though...They are not really that connected...but i guess you "gots to get paid..."

Mel V (de) wrote: More a primer for the uninitiated than a thorough examination of the claims used to justify the invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration, [I]Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War[/I] deconstructs the Bush administration?s decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 through a collection of ?talking head? interviews, including former U.S intelligence and defense officials, foreign service professionals, and U.N. weapons inspectors, interspersed with news clips and sound bites of Bush administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, National Security Advisor Condeleeza Rice, Vice-President Richard Cheney, and President Bush himself. According to the director, Robert Greenwald ([I]Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch?s War on Journalism[/I]), the impetus for this documentary grew from the dawning recognition in the summer of 2003 that the central justification for the invasion, Iraq?s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (i.e., chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons), had not only been proven false in the aftermath of the invasion, but that the administration had subtly reframed the terms of this justification from ?weapons of mass destruction? to ?programs for weapons of mass destruction,? a rationale with a far less compelling standard of proof. Given the mainstream media's unwillingness to challenge the current administration's shifting claims for invading Iraq, Greenwald felt compelled to memorialize the misinformation, distortions, and, in some cases, the outright lies presented by Bush administration officials as they made their case to the U.S. Congress, the mainstream media, the American public, and the international community. Greenwald counters and compliments the video footage of Bush administration officials with an impressive lineup of experts, including Milt Bearden, a former CIA officer; Rand Beers, former Special Assistant to the President and National Security Council Senior Director to Combat Terrorism; Graham Fuller, former Vice-Chairman, National Intelligence Council, CIA; Peter Zimmerman, Chief Scientist, Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Henry Waxman, U.S. Congressman, California; David Corn, Washington Editor, The Nation; Clare Short, former UK Cabinet Minister; John Dean, former White House Counsel, Nixon Administration; Robert Baer, former CIA operative, Iraq and Lebanon; Joseph Wilson, a career foreign service officer and ambassador; In 1990, as charg d'affaires in Baghdad, he was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein before the first Gulf War; Scott Ritter, former Marine Captain and UN Weapons Inspector, 1991-98 (the UN inspectors left Iraq amid accusations that CIA operatives had been planted on the inspection teams to spy on Iraq, contrary to their UN mandate). Greenwald?s experts debunk the two principal justifications for the invasion of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, and the Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda connection offered by the Bush administration, and the assertions that were used to support those justifications, from claims that Hussein was engaging in a nuclear weapons program that would bear short-term fruition, to mobile chemical and biological weapons labs, to unaccounted for weapons stockpiles, to the unfounded, if vaguely articulated claim, that Hussein?s regime could launch an attack on U.S. shores via a missile attack (the upper range of Hussein?s missiles was, in fact, 300 miles). First, the Bush administration's central claim that Iraq was engaging in a nuclear weapons program was based on superficially plausible, if controvertible, assertions: that Hussein?s regime had acquired aluminum tubes necessary for uranium enrichment programs (doubtful, in the opinions of many intelligence experts), that Iraq had attempted to obtain ?yellowcake? uranium (an enriched form of uranium), and Iraq had begun reconstruction at former nuclear testing facilities. In each case, the evidence was either incomplete or riddled with inconsistencies, but Bush administration officials continued to rely on the nuclear weapons assertion up to and through the invasion of Iraq. For example, both Condeleeza Rice and Dick Cheney used the emotion-charged image of an atomic mushroom cloud to parry anti-war critics. Second, the Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda connection: as both the recent 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Select Intelligence Commission Report have recently confirmed, the connection was tenuous at best, with no corroborative evidence to support an ongoing, ?operational? relationship between Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda. As several experts suggest, the Bush administration?s claim that Hussein was either actively supporting al-Qaeda or offering them weapons of mass destruction ran counter to conventional wisdom within the U.S. intelligence community. Autocratic dictatorships are defined by their unwillingness to turn over control of their own weapons to third parties. In this case, given the secular nature of Hussein?s regime, and al-Qaeda?s nature as an extremist, fundamentalist Islamic group, the probability of an alliance was low, but more importantly, the possibility of transferring weapons of mass destruction between Hussein and al-Qaeda was remote at best. Oddly, the probability of such a transfer [i]increased[/i] as the likelihood of invading Iraq grew stronger. Most intelligence analysts didn't believe Saddam Hussein would use weapons of mass destruction outside of a battlefield, unless he himself believed a U.S. attack was imminent. As the world learned after March 2003, Hussein didn't use weapons of mass destruction before, during, or after the "end of major combat operations" in Iraq nor did Hussein's regime transfer unconventional or conventional weapons to al-Qaeda or one of its surrogates. Last, even giving the benefit of the doubt on the weapons of mass destruction claim, Greenwald reminds us that the Bush administration?s impatience (and hubris) led to the invasion, not Hussein?s failure to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. UN weapons inspectors, led by Hans Blix, were given a broad mandate to search for, catalogue, and if found, destroy, Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction. They found none over the course of their three-and-one-half month investigation, an investigation curtailed by the Bush administration?s decision to invade Iraq, regardless of the results found (or not found) by the UN weapons inspection team. As Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector (1991-98) reiterates in [i]Uncovered[/i], the inspections had, in fact, worked, and a new set of inspections also would have worked, given sufficient time. Greenwald?s experts also look at post-invasion issues. For example, the mounting costs of the invasion and the occupation (estimated at $150 billion dollars by year?s end), and Bush administration claims that the war and the subsequent reconstruction would be paid through Iraqi oil revenues. Greenwald?s experts also criticize the Bush administration for using the War on Terrorism rhetoric to support the Iraqi invasion when the opposite was likely true: Hussein had no connection to 9/11, and no ?operational? relationship with al-Qaeda, and any invasion of Iraq was likely to lead to an extended occupation which, in turn, would limit the U.S. military?s flexibility to respond to actual terrorism threats around the world. Iraq was (and is) a costly diversion (both in terms of manpower and economic costs) from the War on Terrorism. Where Greenwald?s documentary falters, as did Michael Moore?s [I]Fahrenheit: 9/11[/I], is in its limited scope, in the decision to focus purely on the Bush administration?s distortions, exaggerations, and lies, without also focusing on the actual tactics and strategies used to sell the war to the American public (and to a lesser extent, the international community, which through the UN Security Council, refused to authorize an international response to Iraq beyond additional inspections). Those tactics and strategies were chiefly aimed at manipulating the mainstream media (and through them, the American public) into supporting the administration?s claims about Iraq. The mainstream media, however, abdicated any responsibility for questioning and critiquing the central justifications made by the Bush administration for the invasion. By March 2003, every major newspaper chain, every national newspaper, and every cable channel had accepted the Bush administration?s claims as incontrovertible fact, and either explicitly or tacitly supported the war. A documentary on the media?s complicity and/or negligence, however, has yet to be made.

Sean P (jp) wrote: A Good starter movie for the those who want the zombie, but not the fright. This is a goofy film, and it will keep you interested. However, The drug and sex content in this film will make it difficult to recommend to the younger someone who may be interested in this genre.

First L (kr) wrote: Wow. Just don't bother. If this is on, skip it. It's in my top ten worst of all time. I can't think of one reason to expose yourself to this crap. I feel like that part in Billy Madison, "anyone who just hear this is stupider for having heard it".

Rabeea (mx) wrote: papa dost...nana dost... like WTF?!

Eric J (us) wrote: An interesting if campy look at the phenomenon that is Star Trek

Robert M (es) wrote: An okay parter to the primary shrunken kids film. Some of the scenes were just bizarre and not all that realistic or interesting. It basically flip flops from the kids being shrunk to the parents being shrunk and it delivers a new and fun adventure taking place all around the Szalinsky house. As a child I though it was interesting to have plots about being shrunk and being blown up. From memory, I'd say this film is better than Honey I Blew Up the Kid. Nothing tons special about this film, but it was okay.

Callie K (gb) wrote: A funny cute little comedy that i enjoyed :-)

Alexander C (es) wrote: Could be worth watching. Will find and devour with my eyes!

Frances H (gb) wrote: Some good action scenes, but otherwise rather average.