Brundaavana

Brundaavana

N/A

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Brundaavana torrent reviews

Harpreet S (de) wrote: A fine movie, for the most part, it was well made. It's a mix of New York and Fanaa, It's better than New York, but below Fanaa.(I think, not sure, because I don't remember Fanaa that much, been a while.) It's nothing special though, watch it if you want once. I enjoyed watching it throughout. Khan, Kapoor, and Puri, had Oberoi had decent performances.

J L (jp) wrote: I dont get how ppl luv this movie. I mean its not bad at all but it really isnt that good or special either. 2 me it just felt like a kinda interesting waste of time. I love Zooey doh.

Marion R (ag) wrote: I thought this was a vampire film, nevertheless I watched the whole thing. I thought it was pretty good for what it was a historical / horror film.

Jessica D (us) wrote: Wow! Rent this movie, don't care if you are bi, straight, gay, male, female or neither, rent this movie! Vanessa Redgrave is, simply, superb as the survivor of a lifelong lesbian relationship after her partner dies. What a moving performance, what a well-written piece. Watch it for this vignette alone, although the other two are both excellent too, but not even in the same class as the first.Of the other two, I preferred the second, if nothing else than for Amy's line, when bullied into wearing a woman's blouse and being asked whether it wouldn't be easier to dress as a woman, she responds that it wouldn't be easier at all. A sentiment with which I can definitely identify. It is well acted, and equally thought provoking "You're terrified of meeting someone who isn't just like you."The final vignette is touching and funny, and the chemistry between De Generes and Stone is endearing.However, neither of these two vignettes are the real reason for renting this movie: the first one, with Redgrave, is. Rent it!

Private U (ru) wrote: This movie was pretty good... it reminded me of an Irish Romeo & Juliet...

Nathan M (gb) wrote: It's not biting enough of a satire to be hilarious, it's not tame enough to win over the Christian groups, and so it just meets in this middle ground of mediocrity. Not terrible, not hilarious, and not insightful enough.

Grant S (ru) wrote: Great capture of rock's darkest day.A documentary on the Rolling Stones' 1969 US tour and the tragic events that concluded it. We see footage of their concerts and of them making the Sticky Fingers album in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. However, the main focus of the film is on one concert - Altamont Speedway, outside San Francisco, 6 December 1969. A free concert, it is the Stones' idea and it was meant to be the Woodstock of the West (Woodstock having occurred four months earlier). Other bands performing included Jefferson Airplane, The Flying Burrito Brothers, Ike and Tina Turner, Crosby Stills Nash and Young and Santana. However, it is far from being the peace and love of Woodstock. Part of the problem is that the Stones hired the Hells Angels as security. The other problem was that a large portion of the crowd were high on drugs. Friction ensues. During the Stones' set, Meredith Hunter, high on methamphetamine and armed with a gun, makes a lunge for the stage and is stabbed to death by the Hells Angels. The peace and love era of the 60s was over.A very well made documentary, especially considering the limited material the producers had to work with. We don't just see the concert footage but also the Stones and the film makers sitting in the studio going through the footage. We see their thoughts and reactions to what occurred. Some of this feels contrived or staged but for the most part it provides a narrative to what happened. Otherwise we would just have concert footage with no explanation of what to expect or what was going on.The fact that the Meredith Hunter incident is mentioned early on in the film helps the tension in the movie. You know something is going to happen, but you don't know when. You see the friction preceding the incident and there's now an inevitability to it all. It plays out like a thriller, ultimately.The camera work at the concert contributes too. The roughness of the shots adds an edginess and feeling of anarchy to the proceedings. The footage preceding the Altamont concert is quite interesting too. We see some Stones concert footage from other concerts, and get complete songs from these concerts. These are probably the only enjoyable live music moments from the movie, as the Altamont songs are too soaked in tension and the threat of violence to fully enjoy. The Sticky Fingers footage is great too, seeing a classic album being formed. In the movie it only lasts a few minutes but it deserves a documentary of its own. The highlight was seeing Jagger and Richards listening to an early take of Brown Sugar. Quite illuminating to see artists' views of their own work.Overall, one of music's most infamous incidents, quite accurately captured.

The A (us) wrote: This is an imperfect film whose good outweighs its bad. I think that its main problem is that many unnecessary moments contradict the Christian belief that you need to have faith in what you believe. A lot of the time the movie tries to pass off proof of the existence of heaven, which is essentially what the miracle story is trying to convey, but a better way to do that, I believe, would be to have less of a central bias and more of a questionable essence as to what you chose to believe. I haven't read the book it's based off of, but from what I've heard about it, I'm not convinced that this film does it justice. That being said, a lot of the movie's focus is put on the mystery behind life, heaven, and hell. Whatever problems I spotted in the film can't necessarily be forgotten, but they can't completely weigh it down when the drama of morality and the bigger picture enters the scene. The struggle may not be all too relatable, but I find it believable enough to push its substance to a passable level. I probably like this film more than it's worth liking, but I can't go without giving it a passing rating, and I'm sure it could've been a lot worse.

Kory P (jp) wrote: One of the most unrealistic and ridiculous movies I've ever seen. I'm ashamed of myself for having watched the entire movie.

David S (ag) wrote: I am absolutely baffled so many people don't like this film. I'm not sure what it is, but I enjoyed it quite a bit. Chris Hemsworth is pretty darn good besides from his accent changing from time to time. What I really liked was Brendon Gleeson and Tom Holland. I don't think there is a movie Gleeson is in I don't enjoy. Holland has some serious acting chops as well for such a young actor. Its also a beautiful movie even with the amount of cgi. Its not a masterpiece but is a solid Ron Howard film. I disagree with the critics!