Shahjada Ijjat Beg comes to India with his caravan and settles in a town in Gujrat. Here he falls in love with Sohani, who keeps a shop in metal pots. Ijjat Beg buys pot from her with ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Shahjada Ijjat Beg comes to India with his caravan and settles in a town in Gujrat. Here he falls in love with Sohani, who keeps a shop in metal pots. Ijjat Beg buys pot from her with ...
You may also like
Sohni Mahiwal torrent reviews
Anna B (br) wrote: What the fuck, Indonesia?
stefano l (ru) wrote: Primo film della "serie" Manuale d'Amore. E' il primo e quindi si pu dire che gli altri due abbiano ripreso dal primo, ma l'ultimo che ho visto in ordine temporale. Tutti attori importanti per il cinema italiano attuale, quelli che hanno partecipato a questo film, ma purtroppo non imprimono niente di particolare a alla storia, svolgendo le parti che da sempre gli sono pi consone e non variando di un cm da esse. La struttura quella ormai super abusata dei film a vasi comunicanti, che sembra essere l'unica possibile in Italia per le commedie da 5 anni a questa parte. Lo stesso vale per i due capitoli successivi ovviamente.
Mitch l (br) wrote: Could have been a good movie, poor execution and writing. Cheesy in nature.
WK J (de) wrote: No matter how awful the movie, MJF always gives his best.
Keenan S (mx) wrote: Though Waxwork is flawed, it does have a very interesting premise going for it. While some parts drag and can be a tad confusing, the film remains consistently entertaining because of its unique premise of having each wax set piece be door to another dimension to kill the characters. There's plenty of violence, interesting set ups, cheesy acting and dialogue, and more. Waxwork is indeed an underrated horror film.
Paul D (es) wrote: While much of this movie would be illegal in real life, it is still hard not to laugh while watching it. It's not one of the great comedies, but it has its moments.
Orlok W (fr) wrote: How to live a perfect life in a corrupted world?--A man of God!!
Jamie C (ru) wrote: Good funny film but goes a little flat near the end, Some great special effects and action and some nice comedy bits thrown in.
Sean L (br) wrote: It's a little amazing, really, how quickly the original Superman franchise eroded into bad comedy. This being the ground floor of that descent, it bears little similarity to the original film beyond several key casting choices and a spit curl. Christopher Reeve returns as the title character, of course, with Margot Kidder suffering an expanded role and Gene Hackman back from a one-film exile to ham it up once again as a clueless, underwhelming Lex Luthor. Filling the Richard Pryor "why?!" role from the previous film is Jon Cryer, better known as Duckie in Pretty in Pink, who plays some sort of pointless, meandering male twist on the Valley Girl stereotype that was rolling through culture at the time. I'm still not entirely sure why he was elbowed into the plot. This isn't aggressively bad like Superman III, it's just hopelessly inept. In fact, the core of the story has a lot of potential: Superman, inspired by a letter from a young boy, destroys the world's nuclear armaments and discovers that some problems can't be solved quite so easily. It sputters and fails right on the launchpad, though, and soon falls back on a muscle-flexing brawl with some generic evil menace to solve the problem. Its grasp on physics, and reality as a whole, is so loose it's almost adorable. I'd pat my four-year-old son on the head and smile if he suggested we move the moon around to keep the sun out of his eyes, but for this film that's a legitimate solution. To say its answers make any sense would be an insult to sense itself. The whole thing plays like an easy answer to a complex problem, from the story to the editing to the acting to the effects work. These older superhero movies don't hold up to the rigors of time as a whole, but Superman IV looks particularly bad in a modern setting. Even the hero's indistinguishable costume seems cut-rate and fake, like they'd forgotten to commission a wardrobe department until the night before production. Head-shakingly pointless and dull, this film only seems to exist to kill time. Which, thankfully, it doesn't demand in great quantities. While the original cut came in at over two hours, some greedy last-minute cuts trimmed it down to a slim ninety minutes. Why the late edits? To ensure a few more showings each day at theaters nationwide. Of course.
Matthew B (au) wrote: Time Bandits is my least favorite movie from Terry Gilliam, but keep in mind it's not a terrible movie as I can see Gilliam heart was in the right place at the right time.
Paula R (it) wrote: Excellent acting and very interesting story of the absurdity of blacklisted hollywood. Bryan Cranston was wonderful.