Chori Mera Kaam

Chori Mera Kaam

Bhola Nath is a young petty criminal/robber/pickpocket whom works with a female acomplice and his former lover, Sharmii. Bhola unknowlingly is the illigetimate son of a police officer, named Kumar, whom has been tracking a shadowy gangster, named Amanarchard Rathore, whom Kumar imprisoned 20 years before and has now been paroled and resumed his life of crime. Bhola was abducted by Amanarchard's henchmen as a little boy, but escaped and was raised by a veteran thief named 'Mr. John,' while his Lt. Kumar and his wife and other son have long belived that their other son was dead. Bhola and Sharmii stumble upon a manuscript for a book titled 'Chori Mera Kaam' during one of their robbery excursions belonging to Mr. John's former partner in crime which they sell to a shady publisher, named Parvin Bhai, which becomes a nationwide best seller. But it attracts unwanted attention from the police, the local mob, and the original writer himself.

Bhola Nath is a young petty criminal/robber/pickpocket whom works with a female acomplice and his former lover, Sharmii. Bhola unknowlingly is the illigetimate son of a police officer, ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Chori Mera Kaam torrent reviews

Randahl T (ag) wrote: meh..... ive watched worse westerns

TTT C (mx) wrote: (***): Thumbs Up Extremely over-the-top bloody fun!

Luke H (es) wrote: more mystery then a horror. confusing & boring at times. A let down as horror but an " O-K" ghost story mystery.

Steve D (fr) wrote: A poor cast can not do anything with a premise we have seen many times

ChillinDylan G (us) wrote: To me, this is the 2nd best love story ever to hit the screen (behind Casablanca). Perhaps my love of Shakespeare has something to do with it; but, this is an incredibly emotion and heartfelt film. I was always lukewarm on Gwyenth Paltrow until I saw this movie - and she quickly became one of my favorite actresses because of it. Her chemistry with Joseph Fiennes is powerful, and the last 20 minutes are as strong as any romantic movie I have seen. Great work from Geoffrey Rush and Ben Affleck as important side characters, but it is Paltrow and Fiennes who steal the show. This is a quintessential movie about Shakespeare that isn't actually one of his plays (though it is heavily influenced by Romeo & Juliet).Grade = 9/10

Chandrachud B (ag) wrote: filed under francaise bizzare. obssessive makes for almost compulsive viewing, but by the end, it is all l'ennui.

E L (au) wrote: Part of my adolescent years, which seemed so very sophisticated and mature at the time.

Jayakrishnan R (nl) wrote: 81%Saw this on 22/1/15Ron Howard's Willow is a visually stylish film with fine cinematography and acting. It's like a Hobbit or Narnia films of the 80s and for a fantasy film, it has a few good twists and an ensemble cast is what makes it much more entertaining. Well it's not that slow paced, but here and there, the story feels like it lacks a punch.

Cameron J (kr) wrote: Richard Fleischer is back to war already, probably to apologize for 1969's "Che!" with this, the more successful of the two installments in the "Exclamation Mark War Movie Title Trilogy"...! Yeah, just in case the Melvins EP wasn't hardcore enough for you, here's the inspiration, with exclamation points, so you know that it's going grungy something fierce, y'all! Speaking of nonsense that angry and pretentious '90s kids thought was good rock music, this film's title really does sound like some kind of a frat chant or something. If you think that's offensive to the memory of those who were tragically killed in the Pearl Harbor attacks, just go watch Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbor"... boasts the jerk who actually liked Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbor"... more than...well, you can guess. Sorry, people, but then again, I might have just been brainwashed into liking that film because even though I like a good, long movie, I particularly subscribe to the idea that a film better be good if it's going to run three hours... or simply be two-and-a-half hours of mostly combat. Oh, hey, I guess that would make this an honorary Michael Bay film, but, no, people, although this film is better than some Bay watches, it isn't quite as lively, even in its cast. These films like "The Longest Day", "Battle of the Bulge", "A Bridge Too Far", and so and so forth, are exhausting enough when they have more than just one big-name star (This film could have at least featured Joseph Cotten more), thanks to pacing issues that are unsurprisingly prominent here. It pulls its fair share of formula twists, but on the whole, this is one of those classic war films which focus on military exposition, followed by extensive action, falling into enough tropes for films of those to hit the tendency to desperately bloat itself into something of an epic, which ends up being packed with near-aimless, or at least near-monotonous filler that helps the film achieve its runtime of almost two-and-half hours, ironically at the expense of extensive execution. The film wastes hardly any time before leaping into a sprawling narrative, expending immediate development that is barely, if at all compensated for during a body that shifts focus just enough for you to not feel satisfied by the amount of flesh-out to storytelling, and for the dragging, in spite of limited exposition, to bloat each layer so greatly that the eventual shifts jar. This film has quite an ambition, in that it heavily focuses on both the American and Japanese perspectives on the Pearl Harbor attacks of 1941, and such an ambition fumbles enough in the long run to inspire a high sense of unevenness in focus, and already has to worry about perhaps glorifying the Japanese for their misdeeds, or at least jarring with tonal shifts, in addition to the focal shifts. I must admit that the filmmakers did find a pretty effective method to avoiding underplaying a sense of protagonism on one side of the spectrum, while overplaying a sense of anatagonism on the other: simply dehumanizing everyone in this story, which is well-handled in enough areas to compensate for limitations in dramatic weight, but is still lacking a human touch that you would figure would be instrumental in a film interpreting subject matter of this nature, resulting in natural thinness to a story concept that could have been pretty meaty. Through these active downplays of dramatic themes, in addition to the underdevelopment and unevenness in character focus, the film comes off as surprisingly cold with its humanity, and I honestly could get over that if the film didn't also apply such coldness to Richard Fleischer's, Toshio Masuda's and Kinji Fukasaku's directorial momentum, which often resorts to quiet thoughtfulness that has no subtle material to draw upon, which, of course, leads to dry spells that range from simply bland to down-right boring. When the film doesn't fire up the action, it's kind of limp, and when the action does come into play, it's missing resonance, offering plenty of visceral value which is rarely completely lost in the film, - even when things slow down - but not enough for the final product to transcend some considerable underwhelmingness, let alone reward like 2001's "Pearl Harbor"-I mean, I mean, like it should have (Sorry about that). Still, as far as entertainment value, this film serves its duties well enough to get you by with some serious technical proficiency. At the very least, this $25 million, mostly visceral opus has technical value on its side, in the form of anything from immersively subtle production designs by Richard Day, Taiz Kawashima and Yoshir Muraki, to almost equally immersive cinematography by Charles F. Wheeler, Shinsaku Himeda, Masamichi Satoh and Osamu Furuya that, while not especially flashy, is unique enough in quality and framing at the time and, to a certain extent, to this day for you to get a tight grip on the settings of this film. Of course, technical value most thrives on Oscar-winning special effects which are indeed nothing short of outstanding, with all of its convincing layers of crafts and explosives which go into making some dynamite action set pieces that take their sweet, sweet time coming into play, but are well worth waiting for, thanks to a wealth of spectacle and entertainment value, regardless of a lack of resonance. There's an almost criminal lack of emotion to this reenactment of a great military travesty, not just to the action, but throughout the somehow simultaneously overblown and thin epic, and yet, at least when battles are taking place, visceral intrigue all but makes up for a lack of depth, and doesn't exactly require prominent spectacle to stand. The interpretation of this subject matter is so superficial that even the story concept feels thin, even though it could have easily donned a great deal of dramatic potential, but what the final product lacks in humanity, it almost matches with a certain intrigue as an ambitiously extensive take on most every angle - be it political or military - of the precursor to and actual event of the Pearl Harbor attacks. This idea establishes a certain immediate degree of intrigue, and its execution challenges such intrigue, but only to an extent, because when the writing efforts of Larry Forrester, Hideo Oguni, Ryuzo Kikushima, and even the uncredited, legendary filmmaker Akira Kurosawa admittedly hit their highlights, excess is broken by a tightness to genuinely interesting political mumbo-jumbo, and thinness is broken by a moderate dramatic meat. The writing highlights are at least just bright enough to provide material to do justice within highlights in Richard Fleischer's direction, which is a mess, same as most every form of storytelling, but far from a total misfire with its often dull and empty meanderings, as the thoughtfulness establishes a certain sense of sophistication to hold your interest when entertainment value isn't juicy enough to, and subtly, yet surely charge the color when it is laid out. I am pretty disappointed with the film as it is so often so bland and uneven, and is consistently lacking in something that it very much should have: heart, and yet, where final product more-or-less fails as drama, it succeeds enough as spectacle to entertain adequately, regardless of all of its sloppiness. When the mission is complete, repetitious dragging, expository thinness, uneven focus and glaring slow spells chill down momentum collectively about as much as a surprising absence of a sense of humanity does single-handedly, thus, the final product collapses as decidedly underwhelming, but where mediocrity could have set in, technical proficiency, outstanding action, and intriguing subject matter and highlights in writing and direction prove to be enough to save Richard Fleischer's "Tora! Tora! Tora!" (Yeah, frat party!) as a viscerally fair, if still often lacking interpretation of the Pearl Harbor attacks. 2.5/5 - Fair

Jacob P (nl) wrote: Did you know this movie was based on Camp Tesomas which is a boyscout camp in winsconson.

Art P (de) wrote: The book this movie was based on was deep, thought-provoking, and real. The movie was but a mere reflection of that. Horrible representation. I'm not even going to waste words trying to craft a review of it.

Michael K (ca) wrote: Nothing against Full Metal Jacket or Apocalypse Now (they're great Nam' movies) but THIS is THE definitive Vietnam film experience, really makes you feel like you're there, which is fitting as this is the first in Stone's 'Vietnam' Trilogy.

Oliver M (br) wrote: Loved the movie, if you dont want to think and just laugh out loud after a hard day at work, this is it. If you had a long long long work day this is truly it. It will garantee you a lot of laughs. You will laugh =)