Krishna Aur Kans

Krishna Aur Kans

Hailed as India's first stereoscopic animated film, 'Krishna Aur Kans' is an exciting narrative full of action and drama. The movie chronicles Krishna's early years -- from his birth as the nemesis of his tyrannical uncle Kans.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:117 minutes
  • Release:2012
  • Language:Hindi,English,Tamil,Telugu
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:mythological,  

Hailed as India's first stereoscopic animated film, 'Krishna Aur Kans' is an exciting narrative full of action and drama. The movie chronicles Krishna's early years -- from his birth as the nemesis of his tyrannical uncle Kans. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Krishna Aur Kans torrent reviews

Nadia C (fr) wrote: I still love high school movies. Even if it's always the same story...

Josh B (au) wrote: I love the structure, but, the film peters out a little. Still, if you're looking for something different, you could do much worse.

Michael J (fr) wrote: Very cool plot! Didn't realize quite how repetitive it was going to be, but it managed to keep me interested throughout the whole film.

Gerard D (br) wrote: A film so bad and unbearable that it first hurt my eyes before I fell asleep.

Carolina G (de) wrote: Es tan confusa que entretiene (aunque me estaba durmiendo al final). Definitivamente muy Takeshi! No la recomiendo al que no conozca otros trabajos de Kitano.

Peter P (fr) wrote: To sir, with Love, in the military, with DeVito, meh.

Callie M (ca) wrote: I absolutely love this movie!! It's so adorable, sweet and sad but it's only of the best romance movies (in my opinion) I've really ever seen!

Lawrence A (ru) wrote: To call this quirky, brooding film a western is a failure of imagination since it is nothing less than a classical tragedy, a sort of Hamlet set in the American west circa 1875. ^Silent Tongue^ is a Sam Sheppard film with a stout cast and ambitious themes. It is helped toward that end by the venerable talents of Alan Bates as a drunken Irish thespian and snake oil salesman (what a great archetype) along with Richard Harris as the desperate father of a young man lost in madness from grieving the death of his Indian wife. It does not hurt that the screenplay^s characters sometimes speak with the cadence and tone of formal 17th Century English mixed with a touch of cowboy colloquy. It helps even more that there are murderous ghosts and allusions to suicide. After about 30 minutes of trying to get a peg to hang my movie genre hat on, I was left with a question. "What the frakk is going on here?" That is why eventually I gave up and accepted it for what it was--a Shakespearian western. Aside from that, its a slow stroll with lots of dramatic flourishes and an unexpected touch of Grand Guignol. Dermott Mulroney and River Phoenix are evident in support. Native American actress Sheila Tousey is absolutely terrific. Watch it but in the right mood.

Danny R (de) wrote: Comedy classic about a teen who working one day at a prestigious golf club, gets schooled on how things operate. He has an ulterior motive; he wants to caddy for Ted Knight who plays an important club member, because the club gives out a college scholarship every year. Along the way he caddy's for several interesting characters. The casting is perfect. Dangerfield's usual one liner jokes hit every time. Chase plays his usual smartass self and Murray impresses the most as a groundskeeper intent on catching a pesky groundhog terrorizing the golf course. This comedy works because of the cast.

louis s (jp) wrote: Some good scenes, performances, and characters. But it wasn't as scary as I thought it was going to be. The film has a hard time deciding what it wants to be. I wish they would have blurred the line between whether Fats and Corky are the same person a little more than they did. If they could have built up the idea Fats was his own person without it being like Chucky it would have been a lot scarier. Which, coming into the movie, is what I thought they were going to do. This movie was probably a lot more scary when it came out 36 years ago.

David S (br) wrote: Serviceable acting across the board, with the exception of Karl Malden. The rest is an overlong, navel-gazing revenge Western.

Jeff N (ru) wrote: I say it every time I see a Clint Eastwood movie. I swear I will never go to a theater and see another one. Such an iconic actor for so many decades, I'd think he would have figured out how to direct a film. He's just awful and has to stop being given a camera. Bradley Cooper's performance transcends the weak dialogue, as does Sienna Miller's. However, the fact that any of this movie is nominated for an Oscar is testament to the fact that Clint Eastwood plays the politics of Hollywood well. While the movie isn't awful, the direction, the editing, the pacing and the flow of the movie are an absolute mess. Add the dramatic license taken throughout the film, and it's hard to look at this film in a very positive light.