Charu lives a lonely and idle life in 1870s India. Although her husband Bhupati devotes more time to his newspaper than to their marriage, he sees her loneliness and asks his brother-in-law,Umapada to keep her company. At the same time Bhupati's own brother, Amal, a would-be writer comes home finishing his college education. However, after several months, Charu and Amal's feelings for each other move beyond literary friendship.

The lonely wife of a newspaper editor falls in love with her visiting cousin-in-law, who shares her love for literature. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Charulata torrent reviews

Charlotte T (de) wrote: Camp Takota is an enjoyable but predictable film. It is fun, light, happy and it doesn't take a lot of thought to watch. As a friend of mine said, 'it's a nice wee movie.'What I enjoyed most was the acting of the lead trio, consisting of Grace Helbig, Hannah Hart and Mamrie Hart - three of my favourite YouTubers. I especially like the Harts; I found Mamrie the best actress of the three.The plot, however, is rather unoriginal. Helbig's character Elise's relationship with her evil boss is strikingly similar to The Devil Wears Prada - most sub-plots are borrowed from other movies and cliches.I find there are too many romantic sub-plots - Elise has both an ex-fianc and perfect love interest which takes up a lot of the movie. Maxine, played by Mamrie Hart, also has a sub-plot which involves handyman Chet. I think Camp Takota would be a bit better if it focused more on friendship and not so much on relationships.And I also find that Grace has too much screen time - I would love to see more of Mamrie and Hannah.On the plus side, the comedy is very good and the characters are well fleshed-out. My favourite line is "You wet your bed till you were 11 - that's embarrassing. That was a rough summer to be bottom bunk." Although, the jokes are a bit far apart.I also love the cinematography; it really is beautiful, especially in the scenes at camp. It is very enjoyable to watch. I also find the directing very good as well.It's very much a teen movie, but definitely one of the best I've seen. A lot of the humor is quite adult which makes it more mature than most other teen movies.It's a nice wee movie and I would recommend seeing it.

Matt B (mx) wrote: We've all heard of Mary Elizabeth Instead, the beautiful actress who in the past has picked a lot of dumb movies (Final Destination 3, The Thing, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter). Now she finally gets a serious role, and she NAILS it. Smashed, costarring Aaron Paul (also terrific), is a simplistic but powerful look at a loving couple addicted to alcohol. Think of it as a modern day Days of Wine and Roses.

Darrin C (br) wrote: Stallone still has it as we're treated to a 1980s style noir/action flick that is taken like a serious Beverly Hills Cop that Stallone missed out on (only the funny Black cop is an intense Italian hitman in this one).

Charlee R (gb) wrote: Surprisingly amusing film that is actually full of a bunch of people I've heard of....and you can dance to it!

Dave I (us) wrote: Dude! Written by Seth Rogen. It looks funny as shit, too.

Sergio E (kr) wrote: This is a movie about kidnapping first and foremost, but it is also a strong commentary on the ongoing struggle between the have and the have nots. The story kicks off quickly when a rich young couple is kidnapped without warning outside of a drug store. The kidnapping scene is done very well. If there is any excuse for using DV it is the type of hand held quick shots the director gets while the couple is being taken. I've never been kidnapped but I feel like this is what it would be like. No overly clever threats just quick and decisive action. Shut up, don't look at me, and a pistol whip to the mouth the second i think you're looking. The three kidnappers all have distinct personalities that are at times contradictory to each other and with the whole act of kidnapping. This adds to the realism in a huge way. One of the assailants is particularly protective of the girl which becomes a theme throughout the film. As the movie rolls onward the use of DV becomes less noticeable and actually begins to seem appropriate because we do tend to think of video as being "real". The cinematographer should be commended on his excellent use of color. Almost every scene is alive with brilliant hues that contrast wildly. I am not sure if this was done in some way to evoke the thematic idea that the rich and the poor live so close yet are so different, or if it is simply eye candy to savor. Either way it accomplishes that goal. This is a film full of sudden plot twists and because it is a continuous story told in a 1 to 1 step with reality it seems we are literally experiencing every moment of the ordeal with the characters. Violence erupts from nowhere and you get the feeling that this is a lawless place where the kidnappers really are in control. By the end of the movie I would certainly think twice before exploring south America without a desert eagle and suitcase of cash. Overall this a gritty movie that paints a realistic portrait about kidnapping in south America. there is nothing glamorous or pretty about it and thats what works so well here particularly in concert with the grainy DV look. Maybe the only aspect of the movie I had a problem with wasn't even so much individual to the movie itself. It is more the idea that the kidnappings are justified simply because the wealthy are wealthy. This movie is so well designed as documentary on a kidnapping that it doesn't leave time for us to really see the living conditions of the kidnappers. Therefore it is very difficult for me to make the logic jump that If I was in their position I would probably become a kidnapper as well. There will always be the haves and the have nots, but I would venture to say that violence, greed, and sadism are independent of financial status. They are simply the consequence of being human and we have to live with that as best as possible. "Secuestro Express" is a neat little twisty thriller in the exaggerated style of gritty British crime dramas like "Layer Cake," with a pointed political and social overlay. Using swooping, in-your-face close-up cameras, limited narration and dossier-style on screen character and time descriptors, writer/director Jonathan Jakubowicz, in his full-length fiction debut, captures a docudrama feel to make the kidnapping of a young, lighter-skinned couple by a motley group of "nigros" (darker-skinned) thugs, with a variety of psychological and financial motives for doing this "work", a commentary on class in Latin America, specifically in Caracas, Venezuela. The individuality of all the characters, including the criminals, adds to the explosive unpredictability as stereotypes of Latin American culture are ironically skewered, including oligarchies, macho men, religion and sensuality, as each person uses political and class rhetoric to justify greed, selfishness and condescension on all sides. Drugs are caustically shown to have pervasively corrupted and enthralled all levels of the society through a harrowing picaresque exploration of "the ghetto" (as the subtitles translated the geography). The acting is excellent, particularly Ma Maestro, of TV's "Alias," who goes through an entire spectrum of emotions. Jean Paul Leroux as her boyfriend "Martin" is very good at shifting gears as our sympathies shift around him. The song selection felt very atmospheric and the soundtrack kept the tension ratcheted up. In a night pregnant with a strange mix of tension and dizzy abandon, lovers Carla and Martin prowl clubs before drunkenly wandering back to his car. While he comes across as crass nouveau riche, she appears more liberal. Their conspicuous affluence, however, makes them ideal targets for kidnappers, and the trio of Trece, Budu and Niga gets a bead on them and promptly sweeps them up at gunpoint. The kidnappers then demand $20,000 to be delivered in two hours. Carla phones her rich father Sergio to procure the money, but chaos soon ensues. A botched ATM robbery is followed by a stopover at the palatial estate of a gay drug dealer.

Greg R (jp) wrote: It's great to see these characters grow up from this point. Like just about every Harry Potter movie, Goblet of Fire is a well crafted film that has thrills, great effects, an imaginative atmosphere and great performances.

Clay B (fr) wrote: JOHNSON COUNTY WAR (2002)

Riley O (nl) wrote: Neat concept, with exciting shootouts and everything an action fan would want.

Shawn R (kr) wrote: Typical 80's comedy... the good guys win in the end yada, yada...

Steve K (br) wrote: Fairly benign exploitation fare with a hilarious, bizarre performance by the young boy in the film.

Dawson M (br) wrote: Shanghai shoot-em-up with romance and intrigue. Watched this in english subs

Gowrii G (kr) wrote: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a 1975 American comedy-drama, directed by Milos Forman, and is based on a novel written by Ken Kesey in 1962. It focuses on models of oppression and tyranny being a threat to freedom and the importance of the individual. The film is very conscious of what it is trying to achieve and Forman uses many interesting cinematic techniques to portray the themes, primarily the use of camera angles. It brilliantly portrays the 'other', hidden side of human nature and allows the audience to either emphasise with the struggles of the characters or to gain a better understanding of what patients in mental health facilities face. It's main goal was to reflect on current society's role in systematic oppression of the mentally ill in institutions and society in general. The story revolves around Randle McMurphy, an anti-authoritarian criminal who had been sent to a prison for statutory rape, but instead gets himself moved to a psychiatric institution for evaluation by pretending to be insane as he believes he can avoid hard labour this way. He meets other patients, ranging from the stuttering Billy Bibbit, to an apparently deaf and mute Native American, 'Chief' Bromden and quickly establishes himself as the leader. He immediately clashes with Nurse Ratched, the inflexible nurse who is unpleasantly emasculating and domineering and runs the ward in a totalitarian manner and uses unpleasant methods to keep control of her domain. McMurphy undermines her power, whilst at the same time, encouraging the patients that they are 'not nuts', to the point where they too recognise Ratched's authoritarian rule and begin to resist. By the end, McMurphy's hijinks cause him to be taken in for a lobotomy - meaning he is effectively dead. Bromden smothers McMurphy with a pillow and carries out the original escape plan, and in doing so, keeps McMurphy's spirit alive. One reason this movie is so intriguing is because it emphasises the depressing reality of environments such as mental institutions. It is easy for cinema nowadays to have a brave hero that fights the system and emerges victorious, whilst encouraging other people along the way, but it is far harder to witness the way that real people behave in such environments. However, this film is more about the forced conformity of individuals in an oppressive system. This is shown primarily in the contrasting characters of Nurse Ratched and McMurphy. Ratched is the embodiment of an obstacle to personal freedom; she threatens the patients' physical and mental freedom to facilitate authoritativeness. Her use in the film is to define the borders of power, so McMurphy can be the reflection. The institutions categorise patients to be able to treat them, but it quickly becomes clear that the system is used for control and punishment, especially the group meetings. Ratched uses the group meetings to constantly force the patients to confront their problems and pits the men against each other. The regular enforced schedule means that Ratched has complete control over everyone and this means their individuality has been removed. Ratched's stiff, immobile facial expressions are the total opposite of McMurphy, who from the very beginning breathes life into the dreariness of the institute. He honours the sacredness of individuals, such as by talking to Chief even though he is supposedly deaf and mute. Although he is portrayed as morally ambiguous, he is willing to do all to give the confined men a chance at freedom. By encouraging Billy to have his first sexual encounter, he knowingly sacrifices his own freedom and ultimately pays the price for that. The film is shot in such a way that the faces of the characters, and therefore their emotions, are highly accentuated, this creates a realistic effect for the audience as they can clearly visualise the consequence of the events. It also creates tension in the scenes as the camera focuses on eyes and mouths; this accentuates the humanity of the characters. Forman uses a real mental facility and natural lighting to show to the audience that the characters are not that different from themselves. He continuously juxtaposes this with shots of signifiers of containments, such as bars and locked doors, which both stresses the captive nature of the inhabitants and doesn't let the audience forget the truth of what is being shown. The choppy, moving style of the camera allows for multiple views of each scene, and doesn't bias the viewer to a particular character. The camera angles also create a claustrophobic feel with the images of monotonous, pristine white walls and tiled floors, where the patients almost blend into their surroundings is very drab and symbolises the mental state of the patients and the compassionless system they are held in. In the group therapy scenes, Formen increases the tension as the camera moves from face to face, and shows different perspectives to Ratched's painfully pointed questions. Contrastingly, when the camera lingers on a character's face, like when McMurphy sits by an open window after he sends Billy to Candy, highlights important moments. In that scene, McMurphy has realised that in allowing Billy to experience freedom, he is sacrificing his own freedom. The open window being a direct symbol of his almost freedom, and the camera remains on his face as he closes his eyes as a sign of his acceptance. The film has a rather basic approach to the portrayal of mental illness, presenting it as a choice that can easily be 'fixed' by sheer willpower. One of the problematic scenes in the film is when McMurphy takes the other patients on a fishing trip on a stolen boat. He then, in a twist of irony, introduces them as doctors when questioned. But at this point, the camera zooming into each face shows their true confusion, their blind trust in McMurphy has forced them into an unknown situation - which McMurphy clearly did not consider. They clearly don't understand fully what is happening to them and they don't belong there - but their expressions can easily be misinterpreted with the context given by McMurphy. This is also indicative of our own society which parades the mentally ill around and uses them for their own gain, while ignoring their needs. It is also unfair to the audience because the characters have come to be understood in the context of the hospital ward, so to break the careful characterisation for an idealised, fantastical action scene, is a real injustice to the movie and to message that it is trying to represent. The audience realises that although Ratched does not believe that McMurphy is insane, she must act like it to be able to exert control over him .The irrationality of the system is compounded when the audience realises that only a sane man can, and would, question the authenticity of such a broken system, but the very act of questioning causes his own sanity to called into question. This seems to defeat the purpose of a system that is meant to be curing people, to the point where it seems insane in itself. The humanising nature of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest brings attention to the failings of our own institutes and the very real problem of forced conformity. This audience awareness allows for a possibility of change in the future to better our clearly broken establishments so that we may too avoid this extent of systemic oppression.

Harry W (ru) wrote: With a cool science fiction aesthetic and Jim Caviezel in the lead role, Outlander sounded like it might be an entertaining adventure or at least a guilty pleasure.Establishing the context of Outlander is a problem because the viewer is left to simply make a lot of assumptions about the setting of the film as well as its time. The issue is that the script is short on dialogue, and what dialogue there is really gives little background to the film. This is a shame because I had to read up on the film online to be absolutely certain of the story, and its premise was actually an interesting one. It sounded like an interesting combination of medieval war and science fiction elements. The issue is that while the opening scene of the film depicts the role that science fiction plays in the film, it is not expanded upon from there and essentially forgotten about with the rest of the film playing out with practically no relevance to it. If anyone walked into Outlander after missing the first five minutes, there is nothing really to suggest that they could pick up on the science fiction relevance to the film. In short, Outlander has a high concept plot which does not get taken advantage of and instead director Howard McCain reduces it to being essentially a generic medieval war film without much of a large scale, any exhilaration or characters that are easy to sympathise for. There is a reason that you've never heard of him before, because Outlander is burdened with lacklustre direction and weak writing which are the two roles that he takes on the film. This establishes where to point the finger when it comes to the disappointing quality of the film. Outlander could have been an entertaining cult classic of its own genre, but Howard McCain reduces it to a long, slow and boring medieval tale which lacks originality or depth and does nothing but go in circles and fail to even have enough quality action to really justify itself. Outlander had the potential to be a science fiction retelling of Beowulf, but it did not have the entertainment value that the film really could have Visually, Outlander reveals a lot of potential. Unfortunately, the execution does not match up to the precise quality that it could have reached.One of the scenes in Outlander depicts its Vikings battling a bear, and the scene is so poorly executed because it is filmed in a shady setting and with poor cinematography which shakes a bit as well. This proves to foreshadow a lot of the action in the film because while it could have been a lot worse, much of the action in the film suffers from shaky and quick moving cinematography along with rather quick paced editing. While the scenes look as if they were choreographed well, they are not captured with precision by the camerawork. The action is one of the most key things I had hoped to enjoy about Outlander, and despite its large budget, it did not prove to have that many entertaining merits to it which is pretty disappointing. Honestly, it had some moments and I could see that the action could have been really exciting and entertaining, but it just does not seem that the filmmakers were up to the challenge. The good visual merits of the film come from the fact that its scenery and costume assist in ensuring that the realistic nature of the story has a certain level of realism in it, as well as the fact that the visual effects are pretty good. They are detailed and strong even with a few slight moments of weakness, and while the film is unable to capitalise on them, there are some visually impressive moments which reveal that the film could have been a lot of the director was more focused in what he was doing with the film. Outlander has very limited entertainment value, and so it is not a film to really get one's hopes up aboutThe musical score ends up being the best technical aspect of the film. It gives the tale a large scale war feel which pays off because of what it contributes to the atmosphere, and it helps the intense mood of things develop naturally off the ground as well as enhancing some of the smaller scale situations. The music in Outlander is good for its development and does manage to make the experience a little bit better. But the other audio qualities are poor since the dialogue is so quiet but the sound effects are so loud which means that the ratio for them is completely off.But even the cast in Outlander cannot save the film from collapsing under the weight of its own mediocrity.Outlander does not really present Jim Caviezel with much of a character and so what he can do with it is limited. What he does contribute to the role is a sense of physical heroism in the part, even if when it comes to character development he comes up short. Jim Caviezel is not challenged in Outlander but he proves to be able to make himself a strong leading action hero. Outlander does reveal that Jim Caviezel has a talent for handling a sword, and he does manage to have audiences caring about him simply because of who he is and his heroic antics. But it is not one that you should expect any surprises from.The presence of John Hurt is good because he brings a certain level of wisdom to the film and manages to have the audience put all their eyes on him when he is on screen. He fits the profile because he looks and speaks with a sense of domineering knowledge which empowers the effect of the film. Ron Perlman's presence achieves a similar effect particularly because he is a cultural icon and his presence in essentially any film is a welcome one, so Outlander is no different.But despite the presence of a talented cast, some nice scenery and a plot which could have been a fun science fiction action film, Outlander ends up resorting to a slow pace, extensive length, a lack of action which is already insufficient in quality and a weak script coupled with poor direction from Howard McCain.

jeremy w (kr) wrote: Perhaps the best skinhead movie ever made(yes even better than AHX). The score and the ending are haunting, the performances very real and convincing, and the pacing is superb. The final scene is 10 minutes of tour-de-force film-making.