Preethsod Thappa

Preethsod Thappa


. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Preethsod Thappa torrent reviews

Salvador A (jp) wrote: Perseguir las dos caras de la misma moneda de la vida desde la perspectiva del artista y desde la intuicin natural de un jardinero.

dhef u (de) wrote: this movie is really really slow...and its practically a silent movie, you have to interpret everything, they barely speak.

bill s (br) wrote: Surprising chemistry between the two leads help this buddy action adventure that we've seen before throughout the 80s.

Jared Y (jp) wrote: Always be honest, especially as a baseball player.

Scott M (ag) wrote: Really entertaining movie about a guy who wagers he can drive across country in a certain amount of time. He's chased by a really old school funny cop played by Jackie Gleason. Some of the best characters in movie history. One of the best movies before Burt Reynolds' ego made him an ass.

Robben M (es) wrote: Godard does politics some more in film. Or is it does film some more in politics? It doesn't matter. Part pseudo-documentary, theater monologue, pure cinema, collage work, satire, political cartoon and allegory, Jean-luc Godard of the new wave and Jean-Pierre Gorin of the Dziga Vertov group make sparks in what is perhaps the most watchable un-watchable of Godard's 'political' films. That is, his films that are highly critical of society is general, women, men, film, and other such topics that are up for grabs and can be disputed. But in film you can't dispute it while you're watching unless you walk away. Like Jane Fonda and her husband, we are being held captive. To someone unaware of the body of work by Godard and the current events around that period, (Mai (MAY) 69 and 71.) Student strikes, leftist and communists, political upheaval, workers and the middleclass... The dates are clearly differentiated by Godard at the beginning)) the film is both a frustrating and fascinating experience. The general viewer would, however, be familiar Jane Fonda. But she's almost a footnote to the movie essay we are watching. On the surface, the film's "plot", merely the framework for the barrage of ideas and comments by the filmmakers, is about an American Journalist (fonda) and her husband, a new wave film director making commercials (Yves Montand), getting caught up in a labor strike at the SALUMI meat factory. For a day and a night they are locked up with the manager, a cariacture. Afterwards, the two argue. Then the film ends. In a nutshell, that's your narrative. Godard and Gorin fill in the cracks with dense, dense material dealing with their qualms against the middle class, injustices at labor workers and students, bureaucracies, commercialism, modernity, hypocracy, destruction, violence(and its justification in certain cases), sex, marriage, and everything else that they decide to put in the film. It is certainly free-form. Stream of consciousness is perhaps the more apt term. One moment we are watching elliptically edited shots of papres beign signed and a barrage of images that suggest that this is only a film and nothings else. Then we get a single, static shot of an actor giving an epic monologue worthy of something written for the stage. And that is the film's major flaw: it feels like a work more suited for the stage then anything else. Godard and Gorin forget an important fact in movies, that they are visual, auditory, and metaphorical enterprises. Instead they transform it into their personal soapbox. No matter how relevant the topics they discuss are, it grows tiresome and repetative. This is of course, Godard's intent as he goes out of his way to make the audience uncomfortable as possible, alienating them every step of the way. Brecht is even mentioned in the film at least once. What are of major interest are when the film becomes purely cinematic: random shots put together, collage like patterns become apparent and the voiceovers form an audio tapestry. These moments show Godard at his best and are absolutely breathtaking. Of equal note are the sets and the tracking shots which seem to go on forever and ever and it seems like the contained world of the set had become the world and you are caught between a state of wonder, perplexitiy, anger, curiousity and total enthrallment. This is no better illustrated than in the famous supermarket sequence. It is a gloriously choreographed moment where Jane Fonda goes around commenting on the obvious connection between assembly line mentality and consumerism. Her train of thought, which is narrated to us, is interrupted when the action slowly escalates into a full scale riot as what appear to be students run around, stop a hawker from advertising radicalism, shout that everything is free, and get attacked by a full army of policemen. It is truly visionary and epic. One wishes that Godard simply stuck to his stream of conscious style filmmaking. To be honest, they don't seem as 'avant-garde' as they did in '71. Alas, one has to endure several long sequences that simply do not hold up. And one is certain that there is an ambivalent attitude towards Fonda in both her character and portrayal. After all, the filmmaker's ended up making an extended film essay about Jane Fonda by examining a photograph of her in Hanoi. It is not unlike her appearance throughout Tout Va Bien. nevertheless, she is supremely daring to even collaborate with Godard and Gorin who by that time were being cooly received by the critics who they were most certainly directing this film at. As a whole, the film is strangely fulfilling (it is perhaps helped by the epic scene in the supermarket) despite the shortcomings. The film's cousin in a strange sort of way is probably The Battle of Algiers in that although the sympathies and criticisms are clear, there is nevertheless an ambiguity to the proceedings. Maybe it's time, maybe it's the film. In any case, Tout Va Bien shows that nothing is all right and that, probably, nothing will ever be...

Vitor A (nl) wrote: Razorback is an assassin pig hunting deep inside the heart of the outback. That also pretty much sums up the story of this film. So why would anybody, like me, give it 4 stars in a review? The answer is one: Russell Mulcahy's direction comes extremely near to perfection. With very little money this Australian director managed to create an ultra-tense, believable and violent piece of artwork that will make you stand at the edge of your sit, biting your finger nails, for the whole 90 minutes. I'm not kidding you.

Tony V (mx) wrote: SCARY AND YEAH!!!!! But, Dolls?!?!?