Pyaar Koi Khel Nahin

Pyaar Koi Khel Nahin

Romance meets crime drama, when Nisha and Sunil are wed, but face the consequences of Sunil's brother's questionable business associates.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:127 minutes
  • Release:1999
  • Language:Hindi
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:Pyaar Koi Khel Nahin 1999 full movies, Pyaar Koi Khel Nahin torrents movie

After a chance, pre-arranged meeting, Nisha and Sunil meet, fall in love, marry and move in with Sunil's wealthy family. Sunil's older brother Anand, is a shady business executive whose 'partners' want to control his business tactics. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Pyaar Koi Khel Nahin torrent reviews

Kristopher E (es) wrote: Yeah it's crap but boy if you enjoy gore, you're in for a treat.

Erin C (us) wrote: Very good. Lots of twists. Very unexpected.

David S (mx) wrote: Soderbergh captures both Gray's style and his obsessions, all while paying honor to his memory.

Ian C (us) wrote: Not one of Mann's best and the story leaves a lot to be desired, but overall it is decent, really stylish and Farrell and Fox are the balls as Sonny and Ricardo.

Sanjida R (es) wrote: surprisingly strong movie.

M Z (ru) wrote: Very nicely put, some interesting details were coming up quite unexpected. It's very interesting that Friedmans were recording so much of their life, that film -making was quite a passion for them. The thing I liked, was that people had so different understandings about what happened. At the end, I myself was kind of confused about what did actually happen.

Katie M (es) wrote: I love this movie. I find it hysterically funny. Can't stop laughing!

Christopher R (us) wrote: This movie has given me four tingles and I'm only half through it. It's too real. The tingle is what you get when you think you're sober but you see art that wakes you up.Now why did the critics in 2002 not want you to see this movie? Because 2001 had "changed the world forever" which meant, "From now on, don't ask questions." This movie asks them and answers them. To summarize, let me quote Aquinas: war is so morally problematic, only the best people should engage in it.

Jeff M (fr) wrote: A simply wonderful movie! Who could have imagined that a relatively unknown Kate Hudson would carry this film? Her "Penny Lane" is the heart of the breathless love story trying desperately - albeit unsuccessfully - to emerge from the crazy reality of a rock band on the road. Simply a great movie that pushes all of your emotional buttons.

Joe H (gb) wrote: fuck id forgotten about this. who doesn't love john candy?

John K (de) wrote: a good story, good acting. love the scene in the bus where he realizes Anita Mui is a ghost. would have preferred a more artistic direction, felt commercial

Roderick M (br) wrote: Great when your twelve and wanting to see boobs but terrible when you're forty one and have surfed the Internet

Andrew T (nl) wrote: Awesome. Plays out like a film the Coen Brothers would have made if they were maverick filmmakers in the 70s.

Steve B (de) wrote: Brando and Taylor are amazing in this twisted story of repressed sexuality and voyeurism. It was the first time I saw it with the original golden colour allover as the director wanted it. But I was surpised of how Julie Harris'husband wanted back Anacleito the Philippino after his wife death. He was his wife's man servant...

Tim S (it) wrote: Those crazy Italian filmmakers. Well that's not being fair really because there are bad filmmakers all over the world, but the Italian productions just might seem a bit more fascinating when they're bad. Colossus and the Headhunters is just such an example. Don't get me wrong though. This is not a good movie at all. It's plot is very reminiscent of a Ray Harryhausen film, but then again it reminds me of Swiss Family Robinson early on for some bizarre reason. It's one of those mostly forgettable "sword and sandal" type movies that doesn't really have much going for it. It's difficult to explain, but for those who have seen the movie, I'm sure you know what I'm referring to. Thankfully the crew at Mystery Science Theater 3000 make this movie just a bit more bearable in terms of watch-ability. Otherwise I'd just say skip it altogether.

Mark S (kr) wrote: My least favourite of all the Douglas Sirk films I've seen. I know it was based on a novel by legendary American author William Faulkner, and it has a strong cast most of whom had success with Sirk in Written on the Wind, but I just found it odd and dull. It may be a more enjoyable viewing experience if you've read Pylon, otherwise I think there are too many blanks to fill in. Plus characters who warrant little empathy or interest are given too much screen time to moan about nothing much.

Dean W (it) wrote: New Age set designs, Lugosi's stellar performance as Igor and eerie scens between the Frankenstein Monster and a child make this a classic. Some of the doctors scens are hammy though.

Pauline D (es) wrote: I honestly don't see why so many hated it. It was a heartwarming and charming introduction to the fandom.

Ben N (br) wrote: This movie kinda makes it seem like Tom Clancy writes good stories, he doesn't, though.

James G (fr) wrote: It's kind of like Transformers and Gobots. Hunger Games is Transformers and the knock of, pretty decent and sometimes cooler Divergent is Gobots. It is actually kind of fun, if brainless.