King Uncle

King Uncle

Ashok Bansal has a traumatic childhood which teaches him that money matters most to people, even more than their kids. Ashok starts hating poor people & starts working hard to get out of poverty, at the expense of his own family. However, Ashok’s life changes forever when Munna enters his life.

Stern, strict and prestigious Ashok Bansal is an industrialist and the eldest in the Bansal family. He is a very strict man especially when it comes to his family, his younger brother, Anil... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


King Uncle torrent reviews

Sabena A (nl) wrote: I was definitely expecting a lot from this movie as the lead pair has ability to provide entertainment but unfortunately screen play lets the whole thing down, acting was ok and songs were nothing special, you can easily miss this one.

Sandy F (gb) wrote: See my review in CINEASTE Fall 2011

scott g (jp) wrote: 4 twenty sometings form a band and want to be noticed, learning there material and fighting in the band, along with personal friendships re opened up, a honest film with a brisk running time help this along grately, a low budget efort, filmed on dv, knows what it wants to say, the acting is naturally brought across, and the film never bores, a film dealing well with hardship of wanting to make it in the business in london

Gimly M (au) wrote: After getting 47 embarrassingly shaky establishing shots within the first five minutes, I was ready to give up. Buffy alum Marc Blucas stars in this horror which ironically seems to take inspiration from Buffy spin-off Angel. Unfortunately, the inspiration it takes is the terrible editing, rather than the story. In fact, Animals is really a race to see how many things it can rip off in one movie, and do them all worse.

Michael S (it) wrote: Dreamgirls dreamgirls

Emily T (br) wrote: Goofy, fun movie to watch when you want to reminisce about the year 2000...chunky platform shoes and all.

Sterling H (kr) wrote: Very Entertaining Movie. I Think Michael Keaton is Outstanding

Joe S (au) wrote: The only thing 'good' about this movie is the townfolk's reaction to the kids asing about the creature. It was not enough to keep me in my seat. I left halfway thru...

Jessica M (nl) wrote: What can I say: it was full of bad acting and one-liners that will make you laugh... cry... and laugh. And if you have a problem with that, well, you're nothin' but a goddamn stud!

Paul Z (ru) wrote: Why do I always care about thieves in heist films, no matter how bad they are? As is common in Jean-Pierre Melville's later films, this meticulously crafted crime film opens with a title card that epigrammatically sets out a foreboding epigram that molds ostensible meaning into the action: "A man is given but one right at birth: to choose his own death. But if he chooses because he's weary of his own life, then his entire existence has been without meaning." It's invariably inhibiting to totally apply these fatalistic, existential aphorisms to the films that thus proceed, but they tend to cast a distinct outlook across the film. I'm not so sure that this slow, deliberate caper, or any of Melville's others for that matter, seeks all of the indications of this quote, but its pretext of fate, mortality and grim, solipsistic judgment corresponds with the essential themes of the film.Like Le Cercle Rouge, Le Deuxime Souffl is a nominal saga, an antithetical and composite film in which the life seems as if to impose and simultaneously exhale. Ventura's performance is both innate and disciplined by his claustrophobic settings. There are several instances set within moving cars, less to expand the atmosphere than to show the inhibition of the space they employ.What frustrates and somewhat detaches me however is that Melville never seems to give his characters any involved cognitive measure. They're characterized and assessed by the black and white of their behavior. Gu is a ruthless, intractable and curtailed presence who gains recognition, even from Inspector Blot, another wonderfully named character, played by Paul Meurisse, who respects his deadly actions because he eventually complies with and doesn't veer from his dang "code."Much of this 1966 cops-and-robbers film can be explained just in terms of its distilled preoccupation with the reference to the conventions regarding the treatment of Chandler, McBain, W.R. Burnett, Jim Thompson, stylish Hollywood crime dramas, and classic American gangster pictures. Melville's films in this mode have the element of photogenics, conformity to modern ideas and models nourished by a shadowy nonchalance and the characters' affectedly memorialized mannerisms. For instance when a dutiful thug prepares to meet the other gang members, casing the place first, but also anticipating the blanket preconditions of the scene. This dogmatic behavior underscores the salutary definitions of these characters, their movements having a textbook role. You can also see Melville's influence on Tarantino's Jackie Brown when the thug is dramatically pre-performing the differing poses of the impending standoff. Also, it's not until Gu changes into clothing more mindfully echoing that of a gangster that he is allowed to free himself from being so secretive and concealed.The sullen, inflamed and exceedingly conventionalized quality of this typified film conveys Melville's immersion in the downbeat deliberation of the play of loyalty and destined disloyalty. With this transcendent crime film, as per Melville's usual, complete with another great title, Second Wind, Melville pushes the tonal qualities and gray scale of the image to new levels. The movie's preoccupation with issues of fellowship, abnormally all-consuming professionalism, silence, and duplicity reverberates with Melville's own distinction as an egocentric, tight-lipped, fringe-dwelling figure in French cinema, who despite his success never truly declared participation or involvement in any founded generation or evolution of filmmakers.

John M (es) wrote: The best tailor in paris falls for a hoity-toity princess? Leave it out! Right? Wrong! If that's your view, then you are patently a few sandwiches short of a picnic. In fact, this is about as good a musical as you'll ever see!Everything is top-drawer. The acting is very fine indeed, it's technically superb, the dialogue is funny and well-paced and the songs are well thought out too; they move the plot along nicely and develop the characters.If you haven't seen it, do. It's a stonker!

F B (mx) wrote: Total garbage. Not one I would ever want to have to sit through again.

Michael W (ca) wrote: Group of cruise ship travellers end up shipwrecked on Warriors Island where a group of cannibalistic monks summon buried martial artists as protection. Strangely, this island was on the original cruise schedule and promoted by the tourist agency as an attraction. Earns marks for its truly outlandish premise and Cameron Mitchell--who leads another no-name cast. I wonder if there was ever a role that failed to meet Mitchell's standards. Not surprisingly, this was made in the Philippines.