Sukumar(Aadi) who lives abroad. His family is back home in a beautiful village. Hero comes back because of property, there is a beautiful girl waiting to fall in love(Nisha Aggarwal), hero faces difficulty from few family members and what follows is how the hero manages to win hearts(and property).

. You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Sukumarudu torrent reviews

Amanda P (jp) wrote: Love this movie so much!!! Even if you don't like country music, this movie is amazing.. However if you do like country music, it's even better!

Lawrence L (de) wrote: I didn't think I was going to like it but I enjoyed this one a lot

david s (fr) wrote: Probably too complex for the mass-multiplex, a watchable multi-faceted morality tale.

Blake P (fr) wrote: I don't think I've ever truly had a movie experience like I did with "Shattered Glass". On one hand, it's handled with a cold, calculating feeling of a documentary (which in this case isn't a bad thing), and on the other, it's stylish and sleek. Even more, it's hard to tell whether or not it's a drama or a thriller. The assumption of the latter may be due to how tense most of the scenes are filmed, but nevertheless, even with all of these aspects, "Shattered Glass" is an example of a movie that works on all levels. What's more, it doesn't feel one bit fake, quite unlike the fabricated stories of Stephen Glass, who serves as the basis of the film. Glass (Hayden Christensen) is a promising young writer who works for the New Republic as well as Rolling Stone and Forbes on the side. His stories ring with delicious humor and read smoothly, which instantly grant him respect from his colleagues and his editor, Michael Kelly (Hank Azaria). After a confrontation to his boss, Kelly is fired, and Chuck Lane (Peter Sarsgaard), one of Glass' peers, is brought in as the editor. Things instantly turn sour when Glass writes an articled entitled "Hacker Heaven", in which none of the sources or quotes have any true backing. Lane instantly realizes that Glass may have possibly fabricated the story, maybe even more. Just based on the plot, I was expecting Stephen Glass to be an instantly unlikeable fake that would hurt anybody to help his career, a quality many characters have in these types of movies. However, Glass is handled as a true human who isn't malicious, but he rather has psychological problems. We can instantly tell-- through Christensen's anxious, almost cloying performance, we already can make the assumption that Glass thrives on success in the sickest of ways, so we can help but sympathize with this poor soul. And you would never guess that Christensen has a row of Razzie awards gathering dust from his involvement in the "Star Wars" series, because he truly gives a fantastic performance. It also definitely helps when every aspect of the film is excellent. Billy Ray, not to be mistaken with Miley Cyrus' dad, does a fantastic job of directing and writing here as well. He paints Glass and his peers as aspiring young people that have their problems just like the rest of us, all the while maintaining to make needed scenes simmer with bubbling intensity and strain. For such a simple movie, he makes quite a statement, putting into consideration the film is barely 90 minutes. The cast is uniformly superb as well, featuring impressive performances from independent film favorites like Chlo Sevigny and especially Sarsgaard. Yet nobody manages to impress more than Christensen himself or Ray, both of whom have never been better. "Shattered Glass" is a smart and deeply compelling drama that definitely raises eyebrows about the journalism industry. This film is most definitely a hidden gem.

Juho K (kr) wrote: Ilman Jeff Bridges' ja John Hurt'a tm olisi aika yhden tekev lnkkri.

Harald S (es) wrote: A great movie with a lot complexity and a decent dose of humour underneath the surface of what seems to be a revenge story at first glance. There is no hero in this, and neither is there black or white. With few exceptions everybody has their good as well as their bad or weak sides. Definitely a must-see for anybody interested in New Zealand's history.

Chris S (ru) wrote: I'm not sure. I just hope that Darren doesn't destroy a classic.

Yuriy T (gb) wrote: Italian zombie style at it's best. This movie recommended only for gore fans.

Maxwell S (ag) wrote: Jeanne Dielman is the magnum opus of minimalist films, regardless of it being very under-known. If you haven't found yourself in awe within the first hour, you might as well turn it off. It would prove to be one of the most influential films in upcoming film directors, such as Kieslowski. And if you think you're not going to like it, you probably won't. This film doesn't require patience, it requires the urge to expand your knowledge of the art of film, and this film certainly satisfies that. It's a film that stands alone in any category you put it in. No matter how in depth you analyze any technicality in this film, it will prove to be masterful. This film introduces new structural techniques, and bends them as far as possible without breaking the technical/artistic morals of Akerman. Never will a minimalist film be as groundbreaking as this, nor will one be as artistic, however "Taste of Cherry" would probably the closest to doing so. Chantel Akerman has made one of the few true masterpieces that should place within the 50 greatest films ever made.Edit: Apparently this film has placed #36 on the sight and sound poll's critics top 250. So, I suppose that makes my last remark more accurate.

John M (fr) wrote: What a mess. This movie is not for everybody or should I say this movie is only for people that love bad movies. Like Frankenstein's monster this movie was put together from part that never should have been chopped glued and poorly stitched together. It is impossible to follow the story (was there a story?). Scenes start and stop for no apparent reason and the badly dubbed dialogue makes no sense. IT WAS AWESOME!!!!!!

t w (gb) wrote: Its a OK movie not as good as the first. The Monkey has more camera time in this movie and the Singer chick comes back after everything that hapened in the first movie.But the end fight is pretty cool.

Paula J (ag) wrote: It is the greatest movie I've ever seen, so the ones who gave rotten tomatoes shut the fuck up and do your own sentimental and funny movie and let's see how it goes. Thnks Really really really LOVED IT ??

Russell V (nl) wrote: Seriously, one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Yes it took 7 years (or so) to film. That's the novelty of it. The acting was horrible (Oscar?!). The plot was non-existent. It was another attempt from Hollywood to portray middle-America that it knows nothing about. Problems in life? Must the alcoholic, abusive husband or the father is just not around.

wedstarfish 8 (ca) wrote: Halloween II is the second installment in the horror movie franchise that takes off right where it was left at with Micheal Myers sister being sent to the hospital and with Micheal Myers seeming to be dead from being shot multiple times, soon off a balcony. Unfortunately, Micheal Myers rises up again, and takes a trip to the hospital where his sister is staying at. There, he goes on a extremely bloody killing spree to find his sister again. Unfortunately, the director of the first Halloween film does not return, although a lot of the writing was done by him. Therefore, the film is way more bloody and gory then the first. Because of that, it distracts the film from being as good as the first. Altogether though, it's a fun sequel that's very enjoyable.