Former naxalite who has deserted the movement lives in fear of running into old colleagues. In the meanwhile he pushes his wife for material gain into modelling and later seamier projects ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
You may also like
Andhi Gali torrent reviews
Richard N (au) wrote: I want to see this really badly
Justin B (mx) wrote: Marginally better than part 2 for returning to the trashy T&A but still a chore to watch.
Alex r (es) wrote: Steel Trap is a terrible, poorly constructed film using previous ideas from other films. The plot is clich, the characters are poorly developed and the directing is terrible. Steel Trap could have been a good horror film, but the fact is, is that it reminded me too much of Saw with a bad cast. Steel Trap is a clichd ridden film that doesn't do anything new or original to entertain the viewer. I felt that the film missed the mark, and didn't offer anything good or entertaining. Steel Trap was a pointless film and by the time the credits role, you realize how much you wasted your time on this stupid, pointless film. Steel Trap is a badly conceived film that ultimately doesn't go anywhere. The films plot is mediocre, and to make that worse, the cast is terrible and it really sinks this film further. Steel Trap might've been a good film, but it's a dud, a total failure of a horror film. This is a film that scraps the bottom of the barrel. Director Luis Camara cannot craft a competent film. Steel Trap is a poor film with a mediocre story. I thought that Steel Trap was not worth watching, and that the cast was awful, and that Steel Trap was simply an uninspired horror film trying to cash in on the torture porn genre that Saw pioneered. It doesn't work, and Steel Trap is a bad film that is actually one of the worst horror films of the last few years. Stick with Saw; at least you'll a better crafted horror film with a decent cast and good gore effects, which is what Steel Trap lacks.
Alan L (nl) wrote: You can predict the plot but can you predict the Action too?Can you?Explosive action package,just a little need on tidy the editing.Hoped Mr.Jaa will able to meet some good action film director like Isaac Florentine and on the ring with some great fighters/actors Scott Adkins or Wu Jing,someday.And,don't let Mr.Jaa spots you steal the elephant or else..
Ben C (gb) wrote: Slow-moving, awkward and not very funny, I was pretty disappointed with it. Though there are a few solid laughs in it, it's not enough for me to recommend it.
Kevin L (au) wrote: Tarantino writing is on point with this meta mix of genres.
Stuart K (jp) wrote: Directed by Barry Levinson, who followed up the Oscar success of Rain Man (1988) with his very personal passion project Avalon (1990), he had another little passion project in mind, but when he was offered this crime drama written by James Toback (The Gambler (1974) and Two Girls and a Guy (1998)), Levinson saw instant potential, and it makes for an epic gangster drama, quite beautifully made. It tells the life and times of Jewish gangster Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel (Warren Beatty), who worked for the New York mob before he headed out to Hollywood, where he fell in love with aspiring starlet Virginia Hill (Annette Bening), even though Bugsy was already married to Esta (Wendy Phillips) and had 2 daughters. While out in Los Angeles, Bugsy works as representative for his associates Meyer Lansky (Ben Kingsley) and Charlie Luciano (Bill Graham), doing jobs with notorious mobster Mickey Cohen (Harvey Keitel), mostly robbing betting joints. But Bugsy has a vision of a betting joint all of his own, over in Las Vegas, where it's legal. It's a morality tale about the absolute corruption of absolute power and how greed, love and money makes monsters of us all. Beatty gives a likable turn as the notorious Bugsy, who had a great vision, but never lived to see it snowball into a behemoth. As for Levinson, he was about to unleash a behemoth of his own. Toys (1992).
Brett B (jp) wrote: Although it treads ground better left to the imaginations of the audience (namely the sordid backstory of Norman Bates), Anthony Perkins still delivers the goods, and Henry Thomas is surprisingly effective as a younger version of the character. Nothing to really write home about, but it doesn't disgrace the franchise.
Eric T (au) wrote: maybe it was the subject matter...but too boring to be a good movie...3/5 stars is probably as good as it gets for this drama...
Lone W (br) wrote: what can i say this movie was pretty freaky and messed up, the whole story line was pretty wrong her imagining that the character played by gary oldman is her son but yet theres the sexual atmosphere in some scenes which i thought was wrong not the best movie ive ever seen
Steve D (au) wrote: Predictable yet watchable follow up. Not as good but a solid sequel
Ken S (br) wrote: Early Spielberg TV Movie about a family that moves into a house that is possessed by demons or something...and they begin to take hold of the mother and freak them all out. It isn't particularly good, and feels sort of like a test run for "Poltergeist" made a decade later and produced (and arguably directed) by Spielberg. Unlike "Poltergeist" it lacks the same level of budget, scares, style, and ideas. Only for those interested in the early works of Spielberg, but "Duel" is a far better example of Spielberg's early TV movie days.
Nikolas G (ag) wrote: Francois Truffaut . i think that i have seen all his movies . and my Goddess Caitrin Denev
Cresswell S (gb) wrote: Jim Brown fucks Raquel Welsh
Anthony V (us) wrote: Campy 50s horror fun.
Ashley H (ru) wrote: Waterloo Bridge is a beautiful film. It is about a British officer who visits Waterloo Bridge on the eve of World War II and recalls the young man he was during World War I and the ballerina he had met. The settings and costumes are excellent. Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor give remarkable performances. The screenplay is well written and touching. Mervyn LeRoy did an amazing job directing this movie. I enjoyed this motion picture because of the romance. Waterloo Bridge is a must see.
Harry W (kr) wrote: What We Do in the Shadows is so compellingly weird that it was hard to look away at all, even during the times that I wasn't sure if I was enjoying it or not. I really do need to watch this again. The film is such a great idea and the characters are so fantastic that its a great film just for those reasons alone, however I found there was a slight lack of substance in some places. I don't really like comedies that much anyway though... Performances are great and dedicated, the actors seem to really invest in their characters and there seems to be an almost improvisational element to certain scenes where the actors give such good performances that they disappear into their characters. Good film but not my sort of thing, really.