A child left on the steps of a temple is adopted by a rich man. The child grows up to be rich and successful and generates hatred and envy by others.
You may also like
Gair torrent reviews
Erin C (nl) wrote: Creepy. Not a big fan of Ron Artest, but he was surprisingly decent in his role.
Senthilkumar S (de) wrote: Please go & watch this movie without any expectation, then it will be 'Ok" movie...This Story is a mixture of "Dasavatharam" & "E" ( inbtwn zombies comedy scenes vera ;) Storywise its good but screenplay wasn't up to the mark.. and i hav to tell abt music.. "Mudiyalada saami" :P !!! One more example tht "Too much of hype will end up as a mess" !
Craig B (br) wrote: tyhis movie wasnt too bad
Guillest S (mx) wrote: 5,6. Regular To Favorable
Pete G (gb) wrote: Very good hugh grant and bullock film, really funny and great storyline, typical romcom but needs to be watched
Curtis R (ca) wrote: Star Trek the slow motion picture. it's basically a mix of the TOS episode the Immunity Syndrome and 2001 a space odyssey. Interesting fan theory, we are witnessing the birth of the Borg, the merging of man and machine, the realization of perfection and finding the higher purpose that V'ger sought.
Michael Y (br) wrote: Director, Otto Preminger, known for tackling controlversial movies in his day tries to take on George Bernard Shaw's play, Saint Joan. Too bad the play is utter shit. This story of Joan is quite different than other movie adaptations. For starters, the writing, the historical accuracy, and the characters are all wrong. In her movie debute, Jean Seberg plays Joan in a far more feminine, seductive and annoying way. But that's not as bad as Richard Widmark's Charles VII, or Charlie as Joan calls him, being more of a weak, childish and pathetic portrayal. The rest of the movie's characters are not at all interesting, comedically played and very disrespectful to the real story, even if tidbits of history are in this movie. But it really is the writing's fault. This movie is based on a play, which is why this movie is so cheep as to not even have a battle at Orleans. All possible action is replaced with a comedic and modern interpretation of Joan which doesn't fit at all. If there's anything to like about this movie, it's the way it looks. Though lacking battle scenes, the set design of the castles are pretty cool to see, and the lighting and cinematography is well done. But as for directing, what ties the pacing and the actions on the screen all together, Preminger just tried too make something different than something accurate and interesting. There's a right way and a wrong way in making a movie about Joan of Arc. A movie about a historical figure should have a historical feeling to it. But immediately you can from the movie's awkward beginning that this movie isn't going to follow history like it should. This movie and the play it was inspired by tries too hard to be it's own story that it becomes devoid of interest, historical accuracy, respect for the people it's portraying and respect from the viewer. What's the point of watching a Joan of Arc movie if it's trying to be silly and controversial?
Michael R (ca) wrote: Great Horror Film...
Carlos J (it) wrote: La primera mitad esta muy buena pero se torna lenta, pesada y cursi en su tercer acto. Robert Deniro y Cuba Gooding Jr. actuan muy bien pero la pelicula no sale de ser palomera y un fallido intento de adaptar una biografia.
Sofia H (br) wrote: If you read the book and watch it thinking "it's not Percy Jackson but a completely different series", you might as well like it. Otherwise, your going to burn in anger.
Poul F (ag) wrote: A failed attempt at making a fun homage to 80's slasher horror.
Tyler S (kr) wrote: I found this to be an effective thriller due to the underrated performance of Judd. She is so good here in my opinion. And of course Freeman so smooth and determined to catch the criminal as always. A surprise ending completes what is an effective thriller. Not perfect but good performances and a twist.