Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se

Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se

A young man must deal with a broken engagement ceremony, while his to-be fiancée waits to be treated for blood cancer.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:0 minutes
  • Release:1978
  • Language:Hindi
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se 1978 full movies, Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se torrents movie

A young man must deal with a broken engagement ceremony, while his to-be fiancée waits to be treated for blood cancer. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se torrent reviews

Teresa S (mx) wrote: Great Great movie!!!

Robert C (kr) wrote: A character from Mr. Show spun off into a feature length. What can I say you either love or hate this movie but what I can tell you is if you don't like Mr. show you are in fact, an idiot.

Scott C (ca) wrote: Some okay fight scenes, but the story was lame.

Tatiana M (ca) wrote: muy buena pelicua, realmente me asombro la manera de limtar la libertad de expresin, da pena que este basada en un hecho real y relamente refleja la realidad de los paises latinoamericanos bajo la dictadura...

Cameron J (us) wrote: "What do you do when you're Brandoed, and you know you're a man?" This western was Brandoed hard, because it was supposed to be the great Stanley Kubrick's only western, and it ended up being the first film directed by Marlon Brando, as well as the last, as well it probably should be. Hey, I like this film quite a bit, but it was a financial disappointment that is still getting mixed reviews, and considering that it's old, its mixed reception is the equivalent of a hardcore bashing. There's got to be some spite for this film in the filmmakers, because they all-out destroyed the extra footage in Brando's ambitious director's cut. Well, in all fairness, this film is long enough at two-and-a-half hours, let alone a just plain ridiculous five hours, although the lost director's cut might be better, if it is like the other last-minute changes the filmmakers made. Again, Stan Kubrick was set to direct this, and Sam Peckinpah, a groundbreaker in edgy western filmmaking, was going to do the script for this complex, heavy western, being ultimately replaced by the guy who wrote "Jailhouse Rock". Guy Trosper went on almost mess up "Birdman of Alcatraz", although, for reasons extending beyond the script, that movie was still good, and as for this film, well, it's a little less compelling, and even though that's for reasons beyond the script, the script doesn't exactly help.There may be no getting around how awkward a lack of immediate development is, but ambiguity is instrumental in the expository value of westerns such as this one, and it would be so much easier to embrace if these characters weren't glaring types, well-portrayed, but thinly drawn tropes who still do not mark the end of the clichs. This film could have been a fairly unique revisionist western that stresses its spaghetti western roots, yet it ends up succumbing to almost all conventions of both western styles, with some potent hints of Hollywood western superficialities, complete with histrionics. While the romantic angles of this layered are the most contrived, there a number of hopelessly melodramatic aspects in this film which limit the believability and bite of the usual revisionist western, backed by a sentimentality in Marlon Brando's direction that ranges to cloying from simply unsubtle. There's a superficiality in this film's storytelling that really doesn't compute with the complexity of this subject matter, whose layering in morality and character turns feels uneven, due to the lack of attention directed towards nuance within the subtlety, and within the exposition altogether. There are a number of aspects in the focus of this film that are juggled sloppily and incoherently, and more than anything, it's because the film is simply too blasted long, dragging along with an uneven atmospheric pace from Brando that slowly, but surely, defuses a lack of urgency in this conceptually tense drama. The conflicts are distinct, and the consequentiality of this story is sold enough for the final product to come to the brink of rewarding, but it's a threshold that cannot truly be passed, not with characterization this thin, familiarity this film, histrionics this cloying, and structure and pacing this uneven. The final product is rather underwhelming, although it could have so much less flare, being adequate on a dramatic level, and solid on a stylistic level.Something about Charles Lang's cinematography is lacking in cleanliness, and its glow, on top of being nothing especially unique in spaghetti-style revisionist westerns of this time, gets a little cloying, even if it is a little under-realized, but when it is realized, it's striking, almost lyrical in his exuberant emphasis on the harsh nature of western settings, brought to life by Joseph McMillan Johnson's and Hal Pereira's art direction. Sure, the art direction is a little simple in this desert-centered western, yet it is immersive, as well as aesthetically tasteful enough to supplement the beauty of this film, which has nothing if not style on its side, that is, in the rendering of the film. In concept, while this story is familiar and histrionic, no amount of betrayal from issues in superficiality, exposition, dramatics and pacing can obscure the weight of this complex, character-driven western drama, which juggles, albeit a little jarringly, intriguing themes regarding morality, closure in life, and vengeance, all of which are nevertheless still betrayed by problematic storytelling. Marlon Brando's only directorial performance may be superior to Guy Trosper's borderline butchery of Sam Peckinpah's scripting touches, being unevenly paced and sentimental, but still ambitious, with a certain charm that endears in between the heights of Brando's staging, which include solid gunfights, and some genuinely effective dramatic touches. The story is strong, and the first few phases of this drama hook, so with a lot more tightness, Brando's direction could have carried this film to a rewarding state, but that it carries the final product to the brink of such a point, through all of the flimsy scripting and other storytelling missteps, is commendable, even if it doesn't have the consistency of, say, the acting. Brando was ahead of his time as an actor, so, sure enough, even though his cast doesn't have much material to work with, Brando gets good performances - complete with solid dramatic highlights - out of most everyone, and gives a particularly strong performance himself, being handed a flatly enigmatic character and a couple cornball lines ("Get up, you big tub of guts", or, "Get up, you scum-suckin' pig", or, simply, "You gob o' spit"), and bringing some life to him through those subtle little touches in presence which sell the character of Rio as a romantic criminal, with both charisma and intensity. Most of the primary cast members, particularly the strong Karl Malden, hit hard, and Brando, with his more subtle power, cuts deep, but either way, the performers bring some humanity to this trite and simultaneously superficial and overblown opus, further compelling you to the film as reasonably effective, if improvable.In closing, the characters feel less enigmatic and more like undercooked types, heights in a conventionalism that plagues this revisionist western drama throughout its histrionic, dramatically and focally superficial, and unevenly paced course, until the final product fails to maintain a reward value that is almost achieved, through the striking visuals, intriguing subject matter, ambitious and sometimes effective direction, and strong performances that make Marlon Brando's "One-Eyed Jacks" a sufficiently engaging, if flimsy dramatic western.2.75/5 - Decent

Clay B (fr) wrote: MEMPHIS BELLE (1944)

Michal Z (mx) wrote: Holy rusted metal Batman!......Something in me makes me like this movie more and more as I get older, but then I am only almost 18. Being a big fan of Burton's and Nolan's adaptation of Batman this movie directed by Joel Shumacher has a special place in my heart. I love Batman comic-books and this movie brings a comic book into a real life world that has the mixture of both light and dark atmosphere. Now some people will not like, some people very much will like me. The negative of this movie grew only because it was connected Batman & Robin which is unfair because when the movie came out , it may not have got the positive reception like both of the Tim Burton's movies did, but it still did fine and became a box office hit. According to some source the movie has been praised by some critics back in the day, that is until that very interesting follow up up happened with Bat-nipples. This review might not make sense but what I am trying to say is I really enjoy this movie. 5/5.

Philip V (nl) wrote: Weird movie but very different and a creative story once again kind of odd seeing van damme beat himself. LoL

Richard D (jp) wrote: The best Star Trek movie ever. Gets into some hard core Scifi that very few movies even try to do. It's slow paced, but that's what makes it incredible. Sure it does take inspiration from 2001, but see no problem with that.

Adhitama R (fr) wrote: Tits, ass and more tits