Payanam revolves around the hijack of Indian Airlines plane IC 814. What would be the mental status of the passengers at the hijack would be a thrilling experience for the audience. This is an action-packed thriller. Nagarjuna play the role of a commando.
- Stars:Nagarjuna Akkineni, Prakash Raj, Sana Khan, Poonam Kaur, Rishi Raj, Ravi Prakash, Brahmanandam, Bharath Reddy, Prithvi, Manobala, Thalaivasal Vijay, M.S. Bhaskar, Melkote, Srilakshmi, Kumaravel,
- Director:Radha Mohan,
- Writer:T.J. Gnanavel, Radha Mohan (story & screenplay)
The movie deals with the stance of the government officials on such a serious issue and how a belated decision will make a situation worse, in an already edgy circumstance. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Payanam torrent reviews
(ru) wrote: Really cute friend movie. Would have loved more Kate McKinnon, but who wouldn't. It was a fun movie though. The trials of growing up, but never forgetting those you love in the end.
(es) wrote: Very disappointing...weak screenplay...stupid story...bad dialogues!John did well n ftr all much appreciable when u knw u dnt gonna get paid..
(de) wrote: nice, heartwarming, little slow. but overall, its an ok movie
(fr) wrote: Not only does the story fail to make the overused look original, the music doesn't fit the creepy Jim Henson aura that any movie from that studio carries, whether it's Fraggle Rock or not.
(ca) wrote: Im not interested in the storyline.
(fr) wrote: Simply awful. Imagine Jean Claude Van Damme re-making "Rebel without a Cause" or Steven Seagal as Hamlet. Either would be preferable to this turd.
(fr) wrote: CHUG CHUG CHUG CHUG CHUG *rest in the middle of an empty field, then she gains enough momentum to breathe and then...* CHUG CHUG CHUG CHUG CHUG
(kr) wrote: A indepth look about Madonna and her entourage. Vanity expressed on film.
(ru) wrote: A good introduction to Jason as the franchise's primary villain.
(es) wrote: Not at all what I expected it to be. It was more like 300 mixed with Brokeback Mountain, but in a good way.
(it) wrote: Carl Th. Dreyer is a director whom I have oft admired greatly in the past. His "Ordet" ranks amongst my favorite films. That work was a brilliant examination of man's faith and family; it moved with careful intent, and possessed one of the most engaging, and yet challenging, endings to any film. "Gertrud" on the other hand, his follow-up film about ten years later, is a miserable piece. It presents the audience with Gertrud, a character I grew to hate more and more with each scene, and then tries to make us pity her and emotionally connect to her pathetic state. Dreyer's direction and choice of pace here seems more lazy than inspired or purposeful. Even the only good part of the film, the lighting, seems interesting just for the sake of being though, rather than for a reason. The long shots are stiff, rigid and lacking in any kind of vigor or energy. The actors could be replaced with stiff wooden boards and I would not notice any change. Nearly every scene takes place with two characters sitting on a coach. Then someone gets up and walks around for no reason. Then they go and sit at the piano. Or at the desk with chairs. Back to the couch. Then they sit on the couch in a ten minute unbroken shot, moving not an inch as Gertrud bitches and moans about her 'love' and whatever bland character lacking man is sitting there at the time fawns over her like she is a goddess. The film begins, lays there like a roadkill for two hours and then ends. It is one of the most utterly pathetic and aggravating experiences I've ever had watching a movie.I hated the Gertrud character so much, that every moment became painful. Why would Dreyer, a generally fabulous and talented director, choose such a wretched character as his subject?I have loved several of Dreyer's films, and even a piece like "Vampyr", which I found generally lacking, had redeeming qualities and moments of inspiration. "Gertrud" just lays there and doesn't even attempt to stir emotion, explore the true nature of love or even treat its subjects with respect. I am a huge advocate of the long shot in film. Most people find the movies I love to be slow and boring. I have long felt that shots need to be longer, or scenes paced with more careful timing, to really explore the subjects and environments shown. But if this is what would be done with lone takes, please count me out. This film is a damn travesty.
(fr) wrote: good bio-pic of sorts
(ag) wrote: Loved this movie, departure from the previous 2 but yes all the way
(it) wrote: Rocky II may occasionally feel like a rehash of its predecessor but Sylvester Stallone once again shines in the role of the title character, the final act is exciting as you're left wanting Rocky to win and the movie sends out a powerful, moving message. To cut a long story short, the film may not live up to the first film but Stallone's performance and direction make Rocky II a winner in its own right.