Sharafat Chod Di Maine
Raju, a good hearted, tough and rough village guy was in love with a village belle Preeta (an introvert). Raju was very possesive about his love, but Preeta's father married her to somebody else. Raju was shocked and as jilted over. He vowed to take revenge from the entire women folk and have no sympathy towards them.He came to city and with the association of Rai Sahib he became a rich man. What happens next watch 'Sharafat Chhod Di Maine'.
- Stars:Abhi Bhattacharya, Bindu, Jagdeep, Feroz Khan, Padma Khanna, Dev Kumar, Dheeraj Kumar, Hema Malini, Neetu Singh, Jayshree T.,
- Director:Jagdev Bhambri,
Raju, a good hearted, tough and rough village guy was in love with a village belle Preeta (an introvert). Raju was very possesive about his love, but Preeta's father married her to somebody else. Raju was shocked and as jilted over. He vowed to take revenge from the entire women folk and have no sympathy towards them.He came to city and with the association of Rai Sahib he became a rich man. What happens next watch 'Sharafat Chhod Di Maine'. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Sharafat Chod Di Maine torrent reviews
(au) wrote: A decent B-movie monster comedy that doesn't take itself too seriously.
(au) wrote: some crude laughs here and there. These guys were just having fun with the script.
(us) wrote: Great film that illustrates the futility, carnage and madness of war, and so is a great anti-war film. In gut-wenching fashion, it shows the utter chaos of battle and the true meaninglessness of the ideologies for which each side is fighting to the men who do the fighting, as well as chronicling the way in which the violence to which they are subjected has a brutalizing effect on the soldiers. But what gives this movie a glimmer of hope is the way in which, at the end, the love of family still comes shining through.
(au) wrote: "Dogville" is a cinematic experience, or should I say a social experience? Good, do not know. The fact is that Lars Von Trier tells a story about human nature in a city that is no more risk on the ground in a film that is 3 hours long, impossible? fulsome? silly? no, nothing like that, quite the contrary, the genius of "Dogville" is in its simplicity, everything is simple, but everything is extremely technical quality, let's talk about the best thing in the film, the script, which goes in the 30s and tells the story of Grace (Nicole Kidman) who is running away from gansgters and decides to take shelter in Dogville, a town with 15 inhabitants who decides to hide in exchange for favores.E is there that Lars Von Trier makes a study on human evil, showing the extent to which human being is able to act when it has power over the other, and how it takes situations of advantages when you can, benefits those who go this the rapes to simple favors, going to leave Grace chained as a dog, but Lars von Trier also tells us in the final scene that is intrinsic to the human being and to the fact that Grace did not kill the dog is a message for us, because the dog is not evil by nature as human beings. Technically, the file has a otina photograph, although the city does not really exist, all climate change are flagged with perfect care, she spends host and fear at the same time, the picture is good, sound mixing is amazing, because we have doors, windows, or anything, but we have the sounds, and it does that as long you just forget that this city simply does not exist, and the performances are very good, Nicole Kidman is great. I love Dogville, pos despite its three hours he has pace, and has something to say, and is a very intelligent comment, I love the fact that the city does not exist, it goes on the idea that can be any city, I love the story third-person and especially love the theatrical atmosphere of the film, "Dogville" is more than a movie, it's a lesson on the human being.
(us) wrote: I had heard a lot of good things about this movie. Almost nothing but good things. I just sat down and watched it and I can see why: this just might be the best Hellraiser yet and if not best second best. This is almost nothing like the first four at all because instead of taking a shocking horror-fantasy approach it takes a cop-mystery, thriller approach with a lot of horror themes and elements. It's a great psychological thriller and it will keep you guessing till the end. I was right about some things but wrong about others. This movie is anything but cliche and its just overall great.
(ag) wrote: Witty Brit flick about a stolid middle class ad man who desires to be anything but and revolts from the bourgeois pursuit of money to become a poet. Not the kind of story one would expect from George Orwell, but good, with a great cast.
(mx) wrote: The film is beautifully shot and the tragedy builds slowly to a shattering end. No film has ever affected me to the extent this film has. It is a testament to the callousness of humanity, brilliantly acted.
(de) wrote: Pretty stupid. About a furry mute chick that gets gently raped and then goes out on a mission to rid the world of all men. Bad acting and awkwardly slow moments.
(nl) wrote: Blah, a boring tripe of a movie with silly dialogue. A complete waste of acting talent.
(gb) wrote: Classic film from the Golden Age of Hollywood, featuring Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire. Crosby plays a man who leaves a song and dance team in order to run a farm, but quickly misses showbiz and decides to turn the farm into an Inn that is only open on Holidays and has big productions. Astaire eventually joins up and tries to steal away Crosby's new main girl (having already stolen and lost his last girl to Astaire in the opening). It is charming for the most part, in a classic Hollywood kind of way...though the Abraham number is a little too oddly racist (it is praising Lincoln for freeing the slaves yet still comes off as condescending and features blackface). I can't say I liked many songs beyond it's most famous- "White Christmas", which went on to spawn it's own weak Christmas film, but it has some good dance numbers for Astaire.
(us) wrote: One of my favourite films of all time. Not at all like I expected.
(ag) wrote: I googled "drug movie" and found this under "ecstasy". Good find, kept me entertained.
(es) wrote: Only a cold heart cannot warm to Virgil Oldman, a lonely elderly man who eats dinner alone on his birthday, even after learning that he is a fraud and a swindler. Oldman does not reveal that some of the paintings he analyzes are masterpieces. He does this so he, with the aid of his friend Billy (Donald Sutherland) can later buy them at a lower price. He keeps his masterpieces of womens' faces locked away in a room, where he, during his lonely moments, looks at but doesn't touch. Oldman is filthy rich, but still, he cannot live life in the real world, the same way he is not able to love a real woman. He loves canvas, not flesh. He can't even TOUCH flesh; he can't touch anything with his bare hands. He wears gloves and looks at the world alone, through transparent canvas.The cast was well-selected, except for Claire. Sylvia Hoeks was too "Hollywood." A better choice was to have cast a more seemingly innocent woman, one who was more "girl-like" than seductive.SPOILER ALERT. Please do not read any further if you do no wish to have the ending revealed and questioned.The ending was as open-ended as a drunk's beer can. At the last scene, why did Oldman visit the NIGHT AND DAY caf? It was the only place Claire felt loved in the past. Did he go there because he couldn't let his relationship go and hoped to see her again, or was it for revenge? Oldman recollects Claire saying, "No matter what happens to us, know that I loved you."He also remembers saying that every forgery, every fake, leaves its real mark and can be found. So when Oldman tells the waiter, "I'm waiting for someone" in the last scene, what exactly did he mean?How shocking to learn that the creepy savant dwarf was the real Claire! She rented out her Villa across the street, and Billy, Robert (the young guy who fixed the gears) and the groundskeeper were all in on this master plot to destroy Virgil and to rob him of his fortune. But by doing so, did they not give him a fortune... the ability to love? While Billy's motive is apparent, Robert's is not. Billy was an artist and felt undervalued by Oldman. Why did Robert cruelly destroy Virgil? There were easier ways to rob him, if money was all he was after.One huge question remains... Was Virgil at the Mental Institution BEFORE or AFTER his visit to the NIGHT AND DAY caf in Prague? Did he have a mental breakdown right after being conned, and then pull himself together? Or was the whole story him being in the institution reflecting on past events?
(au) wrote: Revu hier soir et pris une bonne claque !!