Arul

Arul

Arul (Arul), who works in a mill, is the youngest of four brothers in a family of goldsmiths. Once, Arul's brother stole a chain due to financial circumstances. As Arul had taken the blame for it, he was labelled as a "thief" and seen as a black sheep by his father. Thus, he vows never to make a gold ornament ever again. Kanmani (Gayathri), who moves into the opposite house, begins by playing tricks on him, but eventually falls for his character. Arul doesn't believe in love, and keeps his distance from her. One day, when Arul's father scolds him in the temple,

Arul (Arul), who works in a mill, is the youngest of four brothers in a family of goldsmiths. Once, Arul's brother stole a chain due to financial circumstances. As Arul had taken the blame for it, he was labelled as a "thief" and seen as a black sheep by his father. Thus, he vows never to make a gold ornament ever again. Kanmani (Gayathri), who moves into the opposite house, begins by playing tricks on him, but eventually falls for his character. Arul doesn't believe in love, and keeps his distance from her. One day, when Arul's father scolds him in the temple, . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Arul torrent reviews

Craig M (ru) wrote: this is a good movie

Shane D (ca) wrote: Had long thought this was a genre masterpiece waiting to be watched and it indeed starts off well but quickly descends into a puddle of nothingness.

Ida K (es) wrote: I work in a hospital so I love medical movies. This one is a true story about a young boy's life dealing with Marfan's Syndrome. Marfan's is a genetic condition that affects your connective tissue and usually other areas such as your eyes, heart, lungs, etc. Even though the disease limited Mo's physical life somewhat, he had many friends and was well accepted. I think this movie is very similar to Mask, only his family life was a little more ordinary.

Mattie L (ag) wrote: I'm sure the filmaker(s) & writer(s) thought this film was a real gem when they were making it. They were wrong. I gave this movie a chance after reading some pretty good reviews, but this fell well short of the "worth watching" mark, sadly. Quirky for the sake of being quirky, poorly drawn plot (what plot?) & not funny apart from the "Mack Luster" commercial. "An interesting, dystopian take on corporatism" must be a nice way of saying that this never would've seen the light of day without Galifianakis' face on the poster.

Mark D (fr) wrote: The main point about this film is that it's Punk - ATTITUDE. It's not about mentioning all the bands, or following all the trends that spin off of it, but of focusing on that ATTITUDE that was at the core of why it took off, and showing where that spark was 'before' and 'after' the main media-drawing period of punk fashion, and how that spirit, spark, attitude, whatever, is NOT just defined by those kind of boundaries, or what 'looks' punk, or 'sounds' punk, etc., etc. It couldn't possibly include all examples of that kind of spirit, either before, or since, and it certainly wasn't supposed to make sure it listed all the bands that have at any time acquired the punk 'tag', especially the very formulaic and conformist ones who are not really so in touch with the punk ATTITUDE this film is talking about. It could have gone further, and deeper, and listed more examples, and shown lots that DOES have that attitude since and in the present, and gone even further back into the past. Maybe that would have got the point through to more people. But it's shown well enough here to those paying attention, and very clear to those who got it all along and still do - it's about clearing away the bullshit layers and wrenching yourself free of the 'follow me' forces of the loud crowds and their obvious expression around you, and touching the raw core of your individual self inside and your unique context and feelings, expressing it openly and without bullshit or genteelity, and giving it a chance to connect somewhere. That's why even John Cassavetes or free jazz or Henry Miller or something was punk, or plenty else. And, yes, it could have brought in some of the rarer and freer and more interesting stuff that came later in both US and European Hardcore, and also the rare examples of such lack of rigidity in the Anarcho movement, but, well, on the whole these movements WERE too regimented and conformist, and those examples WERE relatively rare. But, yeah, could have fairly looked at some of the freer examples of that stuff, but the attitude WAS clearly focused on, getting in all examples is not the point, especially seeing as they're endless. 'Punk' can be a fashion or a conformist boredom that excludes the punk attitude, but 'punk attitude' can thrive without any of the trappings of punk fashion, sound, image, whatever, just as it always has done, somewhere or other, though rare, probably as long as there have been human beings. This film fell into all sorts of probably unavoidable traps, and certainly is limited in some ways, but all the same, punk attitude is what came over, and that's what it was about.

pete 1 (gb) wrote: brilliant,very creepy film michael keaton is excellent he's one of the most underated actors in hollywoodinteresting story pity keatons character died at the end

Andy A (gb) wrote: Haunting and even disturbing in the way it forces us to face our own mortality, Morrison splices together an extraordinary blend of music and decayed film stock from the earliest days of cinema in a mix unlike anything ive ever seen

Dennis F (ru) wrote: Sick, Bizarre shit, great stuff.

Grant H (ca) wrote: Great movie. It's suspenseful, does well as a psychological thriller as well as a horror film dealing with an urban legend, in almost the same manner as Nightmare on Elm Street, with an incredible performance from Todd, introducing him to the horror scene, and a great performance from Madsen.

Guy S (de) wrote: Must be one of the most underrated comedies of all time. The awkwardness of the plot makes for some great laughs, but only at the expense of a few tears of the obvious pain the main character feels. Powerful social commentary.

Kathy S (mx) wrote: Loved it. It's like a big "Up Yours" to the Nazis. Was probably a bit on the controversial side too for the time that the movie was made...

Isadore H (kr) wrote: Zero Dark Thirty is the story of how the US military eventually found and killed Usama Bin Laden. I really enjoyed the film, despite the massive amount of information the movie throws at you, which could risk bogging down and boring audiences. You really have to lock yourself into the first thirty minutes or so of this one or it might become too easy to become distracted, but if one can successfully do that, I believe that they will have an excellent time with this film. The camerawork is very well done, and the acting is very believable and convincing, especially from Jessica Chastain. My only issue with the film besides the potential to become boring for some is that the characters were not well realized, although well acted, but while watching it didn't matter to me that much, but it would've been nice to see what was going on in these people's lives more.

Isaac P (jp) wrote: The film is okay all up into the point where the survivors manage to get the village stoned from a 10oz bag of weed stuffed down a dead bodies throat. WTF. Really Eli Roth?!?!? I really can't say anything else. There are some scenes in films that just completely ruin it. 3.5 / 10 Gory and, yes, scary but completely dumb and ludicrous..