Abohomaan tells the story of Aniket, one of the finest filmmakers of Bengal in eastern India and the loves of his life. Devoted to his craft, Aniket met and fell in love with his wife Deepti, an actress, while they worked together on the set of a film. They were so in love that Deepti sacrificed her own career for her husband's and for their son Apratim, but lost a little of who she was in the process. The plot thickens when Aniket auditions a young actress, Shikha, who bares an uncanny resemblance to his wife when she was younger. Deepti enthusiastically begins to coach Shikha for her husband's film - so much so that Shikha becomes even more like the girl Deepti used to be and as a result the aging Aniket falls in love with Shikha, a woman as young as his son, despite the sadness and trouble it brings to his family.

Abohomaan tells the story of Aniket, one of the finest filmmakers of Bengal in eastern India and the loves of his life. Devoted to his craft, Aniket met and fell in love with his wife ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Abohomaan torrent reviews

His L (br) wrote: "My Mother was a stripper...I want to be a stripper too!" British Sleaze B-Movie! By no means a masterpiece but funny to watch. Cool jazzy, rock n roll, beatnik soundtrack too.

Chris B (nl) wrote: nothing special. a couple of good ideas not followed through. predictable and cliched the highlight is the toy dog.

Keating T (us) wrote: White man cant jump II, the NYC saga, the plot was not tht bad, some shitty acting and crappy dialog; they could have made the bball scenes much more accurate(skill wise).. they sucked.

Sean W (es) wrote: Great political thriller!

Dylan D (nl) wrote: Lost in much of the criticism of Lost in Space is that the picture is a playful little entity that doesn't set out to win awards but instead dazzle with its then-revolutionary and still-gratifying special effects while entertaining with a nice bit of Sci-Fi action framed within a story that doesn't insult the intelligence of its audience. Most movies simply don't strive to play as highbrow art, and Lost in Space is no exception. Some succeed at capturing a wink-and-a-nod playful tone, and others certainly don't. Fortunately, Lost in Space falls in with the former; Director Stephen Hopkins' picture is good old adventuresome fun. The movie's certainly not perfect, but for effects-heavy, mostly family-friendly blockbuster fare? It comes pretty close to the bullseye.

Riley H (gb) wrote: ? I kept thinking this was going in a totally different direction. I was way off, and I think I was a little disappointed by that, but I'm trying not to let that affect my opinion. Given that it didn't happen, I still think the movie was pretty good, even if I didn't really understand the protagonist sometimes.

Walter M (fr) wrote: In "M Butterfly," Rene Gallimard(Jeremy Irons) is a minor official at the French embassy in Beijing in 1964. As such, he is tired of the tedious events on the social circuit, until he watches a performance of "Madama Butterfly" for the first time and is smitten with Song Liling(John Lone), the lead performer. This infatuation leads him to seek a performance of Chinese opera along with a passionate affair between the two, unbeknowst to Rene's wife Jeanne(Barbara Sukowa). At the same time, he comes to the attention of Ambassador Toulon(Ian Richardson) and is promoted to vice consul. "M Butterfly" is an underrated, very evocative and well-acted movie that touches on David Cronenberg's recurring theme of forbidden love(So, maybe he is a big softie at heart...) while also much more political than his other movies.(David Henry Hwang adapts his own play.) Subtly, the point is we see what we want to see, applied personally to Rene who is from a cloistered background.(Hell, even I've seen a performance of "Madama Butterfly.") This is a more modest time when men and women might still have been old fashioned enough to not undress in front of each other. While open to new experiences, he is also very naive in miscomprehending them. Rene is symbolic of the French government which is a decade removed from being forcibly removed from Vietnam, just got ejected from Algeria and are still analyzing Asia through their own colonial preconceptions which leads to vast mistakes, and continues in the present day with other countries in the Middle East.

Phil H (br) wrote: Fifth times a charm? well actually this film does get back on track somewhat after the terrible fourth. The first Academy film without Guttenberg as the wet ass Mahoney, so we get another Mahoney-esque character in Nick Lassard...cos they need that all round good looking good guy who pesters/stalks the sexy women in these films.The plot is quite straight forward as usual, Cmdt Lassard is up for retirement (after Harris brought it to everyone's attention) and is being given a heroes send off in Miami. So off he goes with his regular band of loyal officers. Everything gets spoilt though when an accidental bag switch with some criminals equals Lassard having some stolen jewels and the criminals getting his pet goldfish.While this still continues the trend of a PG film there is still a reasonable amount of fun to be had with the highjinx. The plot being set in Miami of course equals lots of obligatory tanned ladies in bikini's and cliched poolside slapstick. While its not dirty or seedy its relatively easy going and watchable which is surprisingly really. I think this film is much closer to a Pink Panther type film with the trio of incompetent criminals trying to nab Lassard's bag, that combined with the standard predictable pranks on Harris.Once again though we have the repetitive training aspect of these films...yes again. Because the guys are at a convention for Lassard's award there is yet more police procedural demonstrations which once again gives all the characters the chance to demonstrate their quirky skills. Tackleberry and his guns, voice commands with Hooks....do I really need to go through this again? The only new addition to the team this time is Thacker as Conklin from the previous film, as you may have already guessed his huge weight comes into effect for some visual gags.This time around its actually the bad guys that save the day in my opinion. Usually its Harris and Proctor who are still good fun here but the trio of crooks are admittedly amusing. There is a really nice air of quality slapstick with these guys, especially the boss played by Rene Auberjonois whose obsession with his hair and nasal voice make for a perfect greasy bad guy. His two sidekicks are both kinda dumb and your standard heavy handed mobster types but there is a credible Three Stooges act going on there.This doesn't excuse a lot of childish crap though, you know they are starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel when they actually use a fart in the elevator joke. Then there's the old drugged unconscious gag with Harris, setting his straw hat on fire, writing 'dork' on his chest with sunblock and a really nasty 'Jaws' send up.The finale is yet again another chase sequence on water (clearly run out of ideas) with all the predictable stuff that you'd expect to see on water. Again it does look good as a visual spectacle as do most of the PA chase sequences, but its so very hollow and comes across more like a stunt man's show. Everything is tied up in a neat little bow with Lassard being allowed to carry on for another hundred years or so despite the fact he's useless and all is good with the world again.Its very very bland and very very hokey, most of it is performed and filmed like an instructional video on how to make (attempt) slapstick, but from the third film onwards we know that don't we. Despite all that its a fairly enjoyable romp and is certainly better than the fourth film, at least we get a breath of fresh air with the location. I do like how they do the films titles each time though, quite like this one in particular.

Jeff L (it) wrote: One of my all time favorite movies. Cher was outstanding in her Oscar winning performance in this movie. All the actors were excellent and the direction was outstanding. I really wish it had won best picture that year.

Greg H (us) wrote: As a fan of Merchant Ivory's other two Forster adaptations, I thought I should finally get around to watching this one. Now I think it's the best of the three. How amazing that Forster wrote such a story in his lifetime, about issues that were so controversial and daring for that period's readership. The book was not published until after his death and that seems both a blessing and a shame. This film really captures the idiocy of society's own sexual repressions and condemnations, which is a theme throughout Forster's works. Still it seems the most poignant here, as it shows how a character's whole emotional life can be ruined by such pressure and prejudice. It really made me reflect upon the notion of social change and acceptance, and especially the idea of how well I would have handled such pressures had I lived in those times. I am sure I would not have fared as well as the protagonist, and it seems that Forster didn't either. The story is remarkably simple but enough to make us understand the difficulties of being different and having to hide who you are to nearly everyone. The film itself is excellently subtle and romantic, still remaining sensitive to the source material. I'm not actually a big Hugh Grant fan but he does well in a necessary and unlikeable role. James Wilby is nothing short of amazing as the title character and should be more famous than he is. He plays it all restrained and wide-eyed, yet honest and truthful. Rupert Graves's Alec Scudder is the one to fall in love with however. Handsome and passionate, loving and brave. The look in his face when together with Maurice is very convincing. Comendable really that none of the three leads are homosexual, just very good actors. From what I've heard the director let the actors do what they thought best, which gives the end of the film a lovely genuine emotion. Bearing in mind this film was made the year I was born, it seems modern for then, and the story even more modern for its times. It just shows how art can be at the forefront of changes in social opinion.

Matthew M (de) wrote: While I admire the story, animation, and characters, I wish the jokes were stronger.

Brian B (us) wrote: If you want to watch a film about racism, I do not recommend this one. While it may do a few things right, it suffers from numerous flaws. I didn't really care for this film that much, and it could have been a lot better.A young woman named Skeeter who is trying to become an author during the civil rights movement of the 60's decides to write a book detailing the lives of African-American maids and how they're treated. As the word about her book gets out, many more African-American maids come to her to help her write her book by telling her how they are treated.The first issue I have with this film is that it's overly emotionally manipulative. At some points in the movie, it feels like director Tate Taylor is grasping for straws to find anything which might draw an emotion out of the audience. This can be distracting at some points in the film because it's used a lot. In this case, however, I found most of its attempts to be ineffective at giving me a connection with the characters. The only one which was effective for me was the one used at the very end of the film. However, none of the other sad scenes in the film worked. I find this flaw a lot with feel good movies, and I wish that directors would try to avoid this as this is one of the main things which can bring me out of a movie.Another flaw is that most of the characters are overly clich and are caricatures. The characters seem to be everything you would expect to find in a film about racism. They make almost every white character to be a racist. Also, they make it so one progressive white character is able to see through the conflict and want to help the African-Americans maids in the film. Also, some of the black characters are very stereotypical and somewhat racist. The film makes it so that almost every black character loves fried chicken. In fact, they show this several points in the film. I really wished that they didn't do it because I found that to be kind of jarring. Since about all of the main characters felt reductive, it sort of took me out of the film.Another area the film misses in is that it doesn't show the absolute lows of racism. It doesn't need to be hyper-violent, but it should at least have enough violence to make it hit hard enough with the viewer. Since it doesn't show enough violence to give it an accurate portrayal of how life really was like for African-Americans in the 60's, I felt like the movie was too safe. A movie about racism being too safe is never a good thing. There are some movie plots and settings that I feel require for their movies to focus on the absolute lows of their setting. Racism is definitely one of them.Also, the main character, Skeeter, feels very anachronistic. It feels like Kathryn Stocket (the author of the book this film is based on) projected her own modern-day fulfillment to have such a progressive minded, white female. If someone like Skeeter wanted to write a book about interviews from African Americans from the 60's, those kinds of people usually came from the North and even then, they would be treated with violence. However, to have that character come from the South and write a book like that - it's simply wish fulfillment on Stocket's part. No book like "The Help" would have ever existed and it would've never been published during the 60's. Because of this, the atmospheric feeling of institutional racism does not feel very realistic in the film.Another flaw is the movie's overall length. I feel like the movie could've been a lot shorter. I'll even argue that it could've been cut down to just under 2 hours. Since it was relatively slow-paced, there were several times when the film didn't have my full attention and other times when I wanted it to end or get going with its main story. One of the plot points which could have been cut from the film was Skeeter's relationship with Stuart. I didn't buy for a second that Skeeter would've been attracted to him and would've gone out with him for quite some time. Wouldn't she have concluded from the beginning that he was a racist and not want to have anything to do with him?With that being said, that's not to say that I liked nothing about this film. To me, its biggest strength lies in the acting. Many actresses give amazing performances. Emma Stone, Viola Davis, and Octavia Spencer both give amazing performances and they helped to carry the movie very well. However, some performances weren't that good. Bryce Dallas Howard gave an overall good performance, but there were some times when she sounded over-the-top. Also, Jessica Chastain wasn't able to act convincingly as a drunk without sounding annoying and cringeworthy. It had weak performances, but most of them were overall solid.Also, the film does a good job at reminding us that the African-Americans who wrote the book had to face not only threats of violence from the hateful backlash of angry whites in their hometown, but also a multiplicity of indignities in their hometowns, including being forced to sit at the back of buses and having to use separate restrooms.In conclusion, while this film does a few things right, it is weighed down by being overly emotionally manipulative, using several clich caricatures, not hitting the lows of racism well enough, an anachronistic plot, and the slow-pacing. Of course, the majority of its acting and how it displays hardships that African-Americans faced are good, but that's really all I can say for this film. It could've been great, but it didn't do that much for me.

F B (gb) wrote: Quite an enjoyable film and good story but felt a bit slow and predictable