Tum Milo Toh Sahi

Tum Milo Toh Sahi

Tum Milo Toh Sahi is not just a romantic comedy... it is three unique romantic stories in one.

A retired law clerk defends an encroaching restaurant owner against a multinational company. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Tum Milo Toh Sahi torrent reviews

Leong C (ag) wrote: Nice coming of age drama, impactful, with talented young cast...

Samantha M (ag) wrote: I turned it off a half hour into it. Basically a fanboy documentary. Bunch of bull.

Matthew R (kr) wrote: From beginning to end with nearly no let-up, "Sleep Tight" is squirm-inducing. The entire cast is terrific in their roles however, Luis Tosar plays his repulsive, disgusting, character to perfection. I seriously wanted to take a shower after spending an hour and a half following him around. Some minor issues include the "ridiculous" police-work and the attempt to provoke us to care for the main character. While there are some scenes that produce tension with our protagonist; I absolutely was "not" rooting for him to escape detection. This character as well as being very creepy, is literally one of the biggest assholes ever; the ending, while somewhat predictable, was the icing on the cake.

Kerie C (kr) wrote: Thoroughly charming and utterly wonderful film with a fairy tale flavor. A must-see for anyone that appreciates foreign film.

Dane P (ag) wrote: Garbage! READ THE BOOK INSTEAD!! As they switch roles of every character. Cut out every good scene out of the book and replace it with different alterations. No character building and even a crappy ending make this movie abysmal. Bad Bad

Ben L (kr) wrote: this is one of those rare movies that gripped me at my soul. it can best be described as a modern day greek tragedy. Michael shannon gives a great performence, but when has he not, the guy is simply the best actor not named daniel day lewis. this is a revenge tale that unfolds with perfection. the dialogue is spot on and as the movie unfolds you cant help but get wrapped up in it. this is a movie about humans and human emotions, there are no hero's here just people doing what they believe is in the best interest of their families, which makes it even more distressing. just a gripping film with great performences and marks the introduction of jeff nichols as a force in in film. 5/5

CJ C (es) wrote: Relationships, sex, loneliness, isolation.... nothing new. Some great shots of Soviet-era Estonia tho.

Ian B (es) wrote: Strong and challenging film which draws parallels between the 'pieces' disposed by the Nazis using gas vans and the scale back of 'resources' by major corporates. In both, sophisticated selection processes are devised and the language used deliberately dehumanises people.

Neeti M (kr) wrote: really sweet. god knows how he made a turnip like bbay to bangkok.

Pamela D (kr) wrote: A few errors in geography here. We are supposed to believe the cascades are the Appalachians in New England, and an obligatory happy resolution, and a few plot stretches, but a novel idea and some good suspense, sort of creative stuff in the middle.

Kristen P (ca) wrote: Fantastic family comedy with great music.

David W (fr) wrote: I actually use to like this movie as a kid.....nope!

Reece L (ca) wrote: There's not a whole lot to say about Open Range, a severely dry western undermined by an exceptionally sentimental score and some hokey dialogue. Costner's direction is solid, if unimpressive, and the performances range from robotic to passable (Duvall does good work while Costner seems relatively lifeless in the lead role. The less said about Bening's uncharacteristically awful performance, the better). It's not without moments of inspiration; there's an admirable focus on the minutia of every-day life in the time period and the final shoot-out works, but the film that contains these individual moments never really comes alive in any meaningful way, instead looking and feeling like a limp reenactment instead of an effective piece of filmmaking.

Anthony M (de) wrote: From a film critic's point-of-view, it's an unbalanced goof-fest cashing in on a property. To me personally, it's a nostalgia soaked romp that makes me cry from laughter. I could never rate this movie fairly, I love it.

Fong K (br) wrote: A very life affirming coming-of-age story about an elderly woman who learns to stop taking care of others and start living her life.

Juampa G (br) wrote: Bertolucci further explores his new spiritual interest. Buddhism meets capitalism meets 1990's Seattle.

Ali E (jp) wrote: Could barely sit through it, story goes nowhere and people flip out for no reason. wut

Reimundo S (kr) wrote: *SPOILERS ENSUE* *SPOILERS ENSUE* *SPOILERS ENSUE* *SPOILERS ENSUE* *SPOILERS ENSUE* *SPOILERS ENSUE* *SPOILERS ENSUE* *SPOILERS ENSUE*Slaughterhouse-Five:Comparison Between the Book and the MovieWatching a movie adapted from a well-written book can make to be a very interesting experience. Being born in a world where excellently written books are adapted into mediocre films that cannot compare to the original material, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the movie stays faithful book in its plot and its conveying of the message. However, since movies tend to be 2 hours or shorter, they are usually compressed to meet this standard. As such, the book and the movie are different in some regards, even if it does stay true to the original. Faithfully following the book, the book and the movie are similar in plot and the message they are both trying to convey. They both focus on the story of Billy Pilgrim, and his occasional jumps through time. Billy Pilgrim is captured by German forces during the Battle of the Bulge in Luxembourg in 1944. He is then transported to Dresden as a Prisoner of War (POW) to perform labor for the Germans. Both the movie and the book switch back and forth between Dresden and his post-war life, from his marriage, back to Tralfamadore, his death, Dresden, and back to his life after the war, leaving a jumbled mess of a story, as "there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre" (Vonnegut 10). The book and the film also touch up on the Tralfamadorian concept of the Illusion of Free Will. It is shown in both that the Tralfamadorians believe that time is happening all at once, at the same time. For example, I am writing this essay in this instance of time, and in a different instance in time, I am getting a High School Diploma. This is happening at the same time, and time is structured that I will always do those things at that time, "trapped in the amber of [that] moment..." (Vonnegut 76) With a change of medium, a change of narrative point of view is also necessary for the film to transition nicely into something to watch. The first and last chapter of the book in which Kurt Vonnegut talks to the reader as himself is completely excluded. In addition to the need to compress, the first-person narrative of the first and last chapters of the book would have no place in a medium of a story mainly told through dialogue and visual action. Vonnegut does not mention anything about his old war buddy, Bernard O'Hare or their visit to Dresden after the city was rebuilt after the horrific fire-bombing. The saying "So it goes," is not present once inside the movie even though it is mentioned 106 times inside the book, emotionlessly dismissing death. The ending for the both of them are also different. In the movie, the story ends with a generic cheering and fireworks show on Tralfamadore to celebrate Billy Pilgrim and Montana Wildhack (a famous movie star with whom Billy Pilgrim mates with) having a baby boy. In the book however, the book switches back to Vonnegut as he describes what he and his other comrades did after the Bombing of Dresden. Birds were singing and one asked, "Poo-tee-weet," symbolizing the lack of anything intelligent about what had just happened.Overall, both the film and the movie are well written works of art that everyone should have a chance to read and/or watch should they have the chance. I personally enjoy the book more than I did the movie, as the Vonnegut's blunt descriptions and deep symbolism intrigues me more than the movie, mainly due to the time constraints that restricted the movie from reaching the greatness of the original book.

Alex R (ru) wrote: Depp and Holm are superb, but the rest of the film isn't up to par.

Marta R (jp) wrote: This movie was all over the place... and didn't really hold my attention. As far as the topic, there are a bunch more movies that could do it justice...