M. Kumaran S/O Mahalakshmi

M. Kumaran S/O Mahalakshmi

M. Kumaran Son Of Mahalakshmi is the remake version of Telugu movie Amma Nanna O Tamila Ammayi. Kumaran (Ravi) who life is all about his mother Mahalakshmi (Nadhiya) who is separated from her husband Eshwar (Prakash Raj). Kumaran is passionate about kickboxing and he shares a very special relationship with his mother. In between, Kumaran falls in love with Malabar (Asin). But his life is destroyed after his mother's death. On the deathbed she tells her son to meet his father, a kick boxing champion, who lives in Malaysia. Kumaran goes to Malaysia to meet him and he comes...

M. Kumaran Son Of Mahalakshmi is the remake version of Telugu movie Amma Nanna O Tamila Ammayi. Kumaran (Ravi) who life is all about his mother Mahalakshmi (Nadhiya) who is separated from her husband Eshwar (Prakash Raj). Kumaran is passionate about kickboxing and he shares a very special relationship with his mother. In between, Kumaran falls in love with Malabar (Asin). But his life is destroyed after his mother's death. On the deathbed she tells her son to meet his father, a kick boxing champion, who lives in Malaysia. Kumaran goes to Malaysia to meet him and he comes... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

M. Kumaran S/O Mahalakshmi torrent reviews

Amy H (ru) wrote: Syfy movie, actually not so bad, quite entertaining!

Jennie R (it) wrote: Why am I not surprised that there are no reviews for this film? :) B-movie, of course. Special Ed Students are turned into Zombies by evil Dr. Stern. This wasn't too bad. It had some funny parts to it. The make up was cheesy but acceptable for the budget of the film. Zombie Fans - a must see. Why? BC its ZOMBIES of course. They are vicious and hungry. Lots of guts and blood splatter. Yum!!!

James C (fr) wrote: A disturbed young woman suffers with with reoccurring nightmares where she is a different person who is being stalked by a demon. As the nightmares get worse the lines between reality and dream begin to blur.This movie has some good ideas and is almost quite arty in places, but falls into the familar trap of having a soryline that runs out of steam before the movie ends. The idea of the dual lives is quite well handled and the lead-up to the finale begins to quite interesting as realities start to merge, but the movie's last couple of minutes are a complete let down and left me feeling quite unrewarded as no firm explanation is given to the reason behind things. The direction, production and acting are all sound, and it is a shame that the writing is not as strong.

Leigh R (ca) wrote: Can't figure out why people didn't like this movie. I thought it was funny. If you go in not taking it too seriously then you are bound to enjoy the quirky characters and the crazy antics. I say it's funny.

Michael C (ca) wrote: For Fans Of: Miscasts, Drunk Dads, Sad bastards Date Night: No Art Factor: None Fun Factor: Low Emotional Factor: Low Intelligence Required: None Essential Viewing: No I did not have high expectations going into this one. That is a good thing. Schwimmer, of Ross Gellar fame, plays a down on his luck drunken dad. Now, just picture pretty much every cliche you can that should be in this film and apply. The ending, was the only part not a filmed cliche and for that this film earned back a bit of respect from me. David Schwimmer is not a terrible actor, he just isn't a great one and this role really need a better than good one. Judah Friedlander has a small role that is pretty unmemorable as is a pre Office fame John Krasinski. The latter plays an athletic Jersey type guy. Miscast much? Janeane Garofalo does however give one of the better performances of here pretty much non existant career. Direction wise it looks like a well shot hallmark. Nothing flashy, but nothing wrong. That right there knd of sums up the score on this one. Nothing flashy, nothing wrong. Very middling.

Greg W (gb) wrote: last costume period bio-pic

Josie A (it) wrote: I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!!!

Buggy B (nl) wrote: This was pretty good. How could it not be with the calibre of actors involved. Its foremost a character study and then a comedy, although I didn't find it particularly funny it is a 'fun' story (?) Michael Douglas plays a burnt out professor trying to finish his next "great" novel. He's also having an affair and over one weekend his world implodes. Tobey Maguire is incredible as the ever elusive James, one of his students and I also liked R Downey here. This was made back before he got so full of himself (Ironman) and he's excellent as an editor with questionable taste in (tall) women. The blind dog storyline was shocking and not so nice, I enjoyed the Marilyn Monroe jacket idea. Kate Holmes was completely forgettable. 05.03.14

bill s (au) wrote: Well done war flick that just powers through some real rough moments.

Orlok W (nl) wrote: What actually happened isn't nearly as important as how we remember it--A wonderful piece of nostalgia!!

Robert N (de) wrote: Entertaining. This film won't ever set the world on fire, but it is fun.

Evan J (gb) wrote: This movie is a cesspool of curdled milk. Absolute trash! It's just like Gummo, but with adults instead of children.

Reid V (de) wrote: William "Rocky" Sullivan is just a no good kid. Starting off as your average juvenile delinquent, he blossoms into a career criminal. His draw is quick and his name has adorned many a penitentiary charts. His childhood cohort Jerry on the other hand, grows out of his old ways and turns to a life of piety. After his most recent stint in the big house, Rocky has come back to his old haunt. Father Jerry and Rocky share a rich history, but their future appears to be heading in different directions. Rocky is still interested in making some dough, while Jerry is focused on turning around a new generation of delinquents. With this story, director Michael Curtiz touches on some serious issues. In a way, Rocky & Father Jerry represent patriarchs of two divergent paths. Both sure know the one that yields more material gain. But as lucrative as it may be, Father Jerry doesn't want the world building their fortunes on rotten foundations. Maybe I am assigning to much meaning to an old gangster picture, but I really feel like there is a good nature vs. nurture argument here. Is there an honorable James Sullivan deep inside? Or was he always destined to be Rocky? Do these kids have it in them to be stand up citizens? Or is it in their blood to be social pariahs?After all, this would have been a hot topic in America during this period in history. Juvenile delinquency was on the rise during the 1930's, disrupting a relatively stable American youth culture. This being the depression years, upward mobility wasn't always within reach. But with a life of crime, many felt that the sky was the limit. Criminals were often glorified for taking their piece of the American dream when it was scarcely available. Curtiz deconstructs these criminals in a very fascinating way. If these aren't good enough reasons to capture your interests, the bold & somewhat ambiguous ending will surely keep you thinking long after the credits roll.

Brendan M (ag) wrote: Cinematically impressive for the time, although used for the worst ends possible and pretty boring

The Critic (mx) wrote: In a remake of their short 'We Faw Down' (1928), Laurel and Hardy prove why they are undeniably the greatest comedy acts ever immortalised on screen. 'Sons of the Desert' is quite simply one of the rarest of rare cinematic gems in which, incredibly, not a single frame is wasted. Every gag - both slapstick and dialogue - is well constructed to the last detail and the performances are nothing short of flawless. Absolute perfection.

Hobie P (us) wrote: Creative kills aside,its just plain old boring

Cheryl L (es) wrote: Quite silly, but at the same time some funny parts. A bit slow overall though.

Bruno V (es) wrote: Liked the story and the acting of Russell and hot woman Olga Kurylenko ! More like this ....