An irate groom-to-be abducts a recently married bickering couple and asks them to take him to his wedding: Tere Mere Phere is a story about a newly married couple, Pooja and Rahul, who have a perfect love affair and a perfect marriage and set out on a perfect dream honeymoon in a motor home, driving through the breath taking Himalayas … but then can life ever be perfect?! If “distance makes the heart grow fonder” then too much proximity should have the reverse effect! And it does ... As Pooja and Rahul get too close for comfort, the gilt of romance begins to rub off, a series of absurd fights follow and soon they get embroiled with a local Himachali small town guy ( Vinay Pathak) and his girl Muskaan, the “Pahadi Mirch” (Riya Sen).
Isabel M (de) wrote: It was fine would not watch it again
Rameshwar N (ag) wrote: If possible, the writing crew of this movie should be banned to ever work again for their utter disrespect for the art or the audience. How they get a chance in the first place needs to be investigated as there seem to be a pure lack of talent. I am not intending to describe any of the plot, as it is total bullshit. Naga Chaitanya has improved a bit than his previous ventures where I couldn't stand him. Kajal looks as glamorous as always and it ends there. Cinematography is OK and the guy behind the camera tried to showcase a lot in this uninspired mess. There is a healthy supply of bad guys and cartoonish comedy guys who keeps popping up randomly in this worst ever written screenplay and the songs considered to be part entertainment and part relaxation which works as neither and feels rather exhausting. I don't understand how these people who have been in the industry for so long couldn't recognize a disaster when the script was anywhere near a mile around them. It's been a while since I have seen any Telugu movie in a theater and it turned out to be rather disappointing. With this attitude for scripts, Telugu film industry is going nowhere.
Stuart M (gb) wrote: I'm not sure why this film has the bad reputation it does. Sure, it's not the best film ever made, but it's far from being the worst. It's actually pretty good as far as post-apocalyptic films go. I never really buy that kind of film. The world is always so dark and violent, which at least makes sense, but they always go too far and turn it into complete anarchy. The idea that society is just a thin thread which can easily be lost is a compelling one, but not very believable. People want order in their lives and they want to form communities. Just look at the aftermath of the World Wars. Yes there was a lot of violence and chaos, but people reassembled some semblance of ordinary lives in the ruins of their old ones. And that's the attitude this film recreates (more-or-less) rather than the medievalish world of others.The story is fairly basic: a lone wolf-type survivor gets drafted into a warlord's army. He then frees himself from it, comes across an old sack of mail, and decides to con his way into some free food by pretending to be a mailman from the reformed government. As time goes on he comes to take his imaginary duties more seriously and blah blah blah he acquires followers and learns to be the hero he was only pretending to be. That aspect is probably the least interesting bit of the film. It's been done before and it is a plot device that can be needlessly tedious since you're always waiting for the big reveal when people discover his lie and then he has to prove himself anyway. It's a frankly cheap way of introducing tension, and that tension never feels exciting merely a slow and inevitable march towards some forced climax. The film handles it better than most, but the fact that the last two hours of the film are nothing but this gets a bit grating. I imagine that's the aspect that most critics latched on to when attacking this film, and it's the main reason my rating doesn't go higher. If only Costner had trimmed it by at least 30-40 minutes there would have been nothing to complain about. Not all great films need a three-hour running length.But in all post-apocalyptic films the details matter. And the details here are very good, from the regular small-town life that the villagers have developed to the military forces of the villain the film just feels more real than most, which seem based on an obscure form of wish-fulfillment fantasy about a strongman surviving in postapocalyptica. I also appreciated the fact that this film appreciates that it's the little things that bind society together. Yes, this can sometimes be cheesy but it doesn't feel undeserved. It's cheesy to us because we take all this for granted. To people who have done without a government for years these ideas would seem revolutionary.One of the truly great things about this film though is the villain. I've seen soooo many variations of the evil military warlord that I thought there was no room for a new one. But they found a way to make him interesting and sometimes strangely relatable. Bethlehem is a used-car salesman who thinks he's the next Patton or Napoleon. So far, so typical. But what makes him so interesting is how seriously he takes the concept. He reads up on these guys, idolizes them, and tries so hard to become a warrior-poet. He's always talking about the archetype and is attempting to be the best example of it that he can be without really posessing the basic elements of humanity so essential to being truly revered. He even takes up painting, not because he likes it but because every great commander should have a creative hobby. He's so obsessed with the outside form he never grasps the what the role actually means. He's quite mad in most respects as it feels like he's just playing a role he doesn't fully understand and seems to have nothing inside him but the performance. He's a great character and it's really a shame that they end him on such a lame note. They introduce the method of his destruction within about ten minutes of meeting him, and it's soooo obvious and stereotypical that you just can't believe they'd actually go there.
Coltin L (kr) wrote: This movie is heart warming and heartbreaking simultaneously. This movie strikes perhaps the most difficult societal issue down with an axe and never misses. The social commentary found in this film is as relevant as it was seven years ago and will likely continue to be for some time to come as gang culture proliferates. Eastwood plays the role of a xenophobic korean war vet absolutely perfectly. His character is so clearly broken, making his redemption deep and impactful.Though the film is not without its flaws, the central message, the motifs of forgiveness, acceptance, and perhaps most importantly, human kinship, carry this film from start to finish. This is an eye-opening film, beautifully directed, and acted by Eastwood and the actual Hmong cast. The story is simply unforgettable. Please watch Gran Torino. It deserves to be seen not only by movie lovers. But humankind as a whole.
Mel A (ca) wrote: Super cute. Abigail is so young.
David Z (nl) wrote: Creating a weapon to defeat Godzilla unleashes a new threat, and it is up to Godzilla to clean it up the mess. Over all an okay Godzilla film which suffers from pacing and some effects that don't quite work.
Devin R (jp) wrote: it was an interesting drama but the problem was since its a Bahli-wood production they break out into song and dance which really kills the flow and mood
Cade H (kr) wrote: This sequel did not live up to the original at all, not even close. I thought it had some potential with a good leading actor but everything else was a total failure. The first film was fun and unique and different but all this one did was take the vampire premise and set it around a bank robbery job in Mexico. The supporting cast was pretty boring and all the blood and gore added up to nothing. I thought it may get good toward the end but a much to long battle with the cops with bad special effects and weak fights just showed that this movie definitely deservers to be skipped over.
aaron a (de) wrote: First and foremost, before i go too deep into analyzing this thing, who the hell saw a screening of Ice-T acting and decided; "Yep, that guy can act?". Even more dumbfounding is that before his absolutely awful performance here Ice-T had acted in no less than 10 movies, and they STILL let him in front of a camera. Man must have had some serious power and influence from his rapping career. So there you have it, if you can't find some sort of sick enjoyment out of watching a man make an amateur of himself onscreen for an hour and a half then theres not much else here to enjoy. Well, apart from some notably excellent actors cheese it up with one another onscreen for the same amount of time. If you took the original Predator film and took out the alien creature, the film's stylish direction, the palpable male bravado and just about everything else thats good about the Predator movie you'd probably have something close to resembling Surviving The Game. From the opening shots it's relatively easy to know what the movie's subject matter pertains to; even if you hadn't known anything about the film beforehand. An incredibly bad performance from a poor actor and the wonderfully cheesy performances from good actors are the only things keeping this one from infamy and the only thing keeping you awake.
Brady S (it) wrote: I remember liking this film when it came out. Watching it again now I realize why I liked it so much. One of Julia Roberts first movies. Annabeth Gish is so adorable and pure and Lili Taylor is the finishing touch on 3 great young women's acting roles. Some may call it a cheesy 80's chick flick but I absolutely adore this film!
Harry D (nl) wrote: Gets an extra half a star 'cause the blonde girl in a pink dress has a great bush.
Brian M (it) wrote: This 1970 classic is sandwiched between Rififi (1955) and Miller's Crossing (1990).
David K (jp) wrote: Pleased to meet you Mr. Ozu.
Paul D (nl) wrote: Not so much horror, more like a palpable Dickensian reworking, one that proves good throughout as Boris Karloff becomes a drug addicted doctor.
Arne F (mx) wrote: Herlig 50-tals western :-)
Zoran S (jp) wrote: Despite the technicolor and the presence of Maureen O'Hara this is generic stuff. Still, there is enough visual style and narrative momentum to make it a pleasant diversion.
Andy F (kr) wrote: They literally don't make them like this anymore. Dripping with atmosphere, this tense melodrama is full of impeccable star performances.
Phil H (es) wrote: First and foremost I am still shocked this is an 80's movie, I genuinely thought this was a trashy 70's flick at first. OK in all honesty I kinda thought it was a blaxploitation movie because Fred Williamson was in it and the whole thing looks so grungy and cheap. Just look at the movie poster...it looks like an old videogame advert. Kinda like a third rate advertisement for a Double Dragon clone or any other scrolling beat em up involving punks on the streets when the sun goes down.This is your standard revenge thriller, the type of movie that most probably influenced the likes of Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez and led to the various slick revenge action thrillers today ('The Equalizer' and 'John Wick'). Eddie Marino (Forster) is a happily married man with a young son in New York. In a brief encounter with a violent gang, Marino's wife slaps a Che Guevara looking gang member across the face. Later that day the gang turns up at her door, breaks in, trashes the place, kills the young boy and stabs her badly. Unfortunately for Marino the law is corrupt, the system doesn't work and the gang member gets off, you know what happens next.This movie could only have been made in this era really, New York in the late 70's and early 80's was a dirty crime ridden place. You only have to look at the cities suburbs/locations whilst watching the film to see how different it was. Its quite interesting actually, seeing all these beat up cars running around, street trash, dilapidated buildings and stores on every corner, movies like 'Taxi Driver' and 'Serpico' back this up, its not movie magic. Noo Yawk was a hard dangerous place and the law enforcement was known to be...dodgy, this movie uses all of that to good effect.Yeah sure it seems a bit tame in places these days, the street gang looks ridiculous in their punk attire. God knows what some of them are wearing, the main bad guy seems to have some kind of native American thing going on with a headband and feathers...I think it was. All the other guys are decked out in typical biker duds and covered in shiny studs, badges and spikes. Most of them are black dudes and Latinos (Mexicans?) with big thick sideburns or tashes (naturally), and they have one blonde female in their ranks, basically your stereotypical street gang from the 80's.The violence is actually quite shocking and graphic, some stuff you see and some is implied yet still pretty horrific. The only sequence where you do see a lot of blood was the street gang shooting up a police car in a hail of silenced gunfire. The scene where Nick (Williamson) shoots an armed (baddie) female inside one gang members abode is pretty shocking to be honest, I knew he was gonna do it but the way she is flung back into the bath tub was quite unexpected to say the least. The most shocking scene by far is of course the murder of Marino's young son, you don't see it but you know exactly what happens. Again this did surprise me greatly as I did not expect it at tall, didn't think the punk would be so evil! The rest of the fisticuffs is pretty tame and quite amusing at times, especially seeing Forster naked in prison trying to fight off two other horny inmates.Yep that's right, Forster's character winds up in jail for thirty days because he tried to assault the judge after the gang member got let off the charges. The police, judges and lawyers are all dirty in this movie. If it wasn't for action man Woody Strode then Forster's character would have been the meat in an inmate sandwich. Actually most of the prison scenes are slightly amusing really, its all so cliched as I'm sure you can guess and seeing old man Strode beat up this gigantic inmate is both awesome and hilarious.The one thing I don't get is these vigilantes that clean the streets of scum and eventually end up killing off some people including a corrupt member of the mayor's office, don't get caught. How on earth they manage to get away with killing these people is beyond me, I realise the theme of the movie is corruption with everyone looking out for themselves but it seems unrealistic. On the other hand we never actually find out what happens to every character so who knows. We don't even see what happens to the whole gang as only the two leaders are dealt with so...Nothing overly special these days but obviously back in the day this was pretty hardcore stuff. Its still entertaining, clearly a tad similar to a certain Bronson movie and its fun to see Williamson swing into action with his kung-fu. This most definitely still packs a punch.