Lalita (Madhuri Dixit) is married under duress from her maternal uncle, Madhi (Tej Sapru) to a cruel and possessive man, JB (Raj Babbar). He loves Lalita, but keeps her like a bird in a ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Lalita (Madhuri Dixit) is married under duress from her maternal uncle, Madhi (Tej Sapru) to a cruel and possessive man, JB (Raj Babbar).
You may also like
Yaraana torrent reviews
Armando B (gb) wrote: A pesar de que el director no es mucho de mi agrado, hay que reconocer que en esta ocasin hizo un buen trabajo. La historia es agradable y maneja un buen balance de situaciones cmicas con algunas trgicas, adems las actuaciones son muy buenas y realistas y las locaciones son perfectas para desarrollar una historia como sta. Podra haber llegado a las cuatro estrellas de contar con un mejor desenlace...
Ryan S (au) wrote: A few decent scenes, but an overall boring movie.
Peter E (au) wrote: Being a big fan of Modesty Blaise since childhood, I'm going to pretend that I never saw this movie.
Doug M (mx) wrote: this is a really really really bad movie
Kate M (ru) wrote: funny, clever and unjustly neglected
Gordon T (au) wrote: I saw BLOODSUCKING FREAKS when I was 12 or 13 years old (on video in 1984), and it (along with JOHN BOORMAN'S DELIVERENCE) TOTALLY "messed-me-up." Are images HARMFUL to children? An EMPHATIC yes. Even though BLOODSUCKING FREAKS (aka THE INCREDIBLE TORTURE SHOW) is an outrageous GRAND-GUINGOL comedy, a 13 year old may not realize that he's watching a comedy; and the BRAIN-SUCKING and CASTRATION and QUARTERING (where they sever all four limbs from a woman's body in EXPLICIT and GRAPHIC detail) may seem kind of serious to the 13 year old kid watching it. In fact, anyone with kids 12 and 13 years old: make them watch this film and see how they react to see if I'm joking or not. Figure its an experiment: CAN an image actually be HARMFUL to 12 and 13 year old children? (try it out guys and report back to me) ha ha ha ha --Another "DAMAGING" scene I saw as a kid is the "cut" of the film SNUFF appearing in FILMGORE where the "Snuff-film maker" cuts-up a-girl-lying-on-a-bed with an electric wood-saw . . . to me, at 13 years old), I wondered if the scene was real since there REALLY ARE snuff-movies out-there where dudes actually murder people on camera and then clandestinely pass-around the (usually 8mm footage). When The snuff-film maker DID sever the lady's hand from her arm, the fingers DID twitch as though it were a real hand. (so, what's a 13 year old supposed to think? a real woman had her hand sawed-off and her real-hand was twitching on the bed with a lot of blood leaking from it. Its called SNUFF, there are real SNUFF-films in existence therefore the hand is real; a woman's hand was really sawed-off her wrist; at least to a 13 year older's rationale. I "grew-up" working in my family's funeral home so death and decay is pretty commonplace to my life-experiences up to that age, but JOHN BOORMAN'S DELIVERANCE where one guy screws another guy over a log in the woods SNUFF, where a woman literally gets SAWED-APART on a bed and the aforementioned BLOODSUCKING FREAKS totally screwed with my 13-year-old mind. -- You guys are probably CRACKING-UP heartily, well, if you have children of your own or nieces or nephews who are around 12 or 13 sit them down to watch DELIVERANCE, BLOODSUCKING FREAKS, and FILMGORE (and/or SNUFF) to see if either of the three movies screws with their heads. again, figure you're doing an experiment to see if images really are HARMFUL to children. Remember, show BLOODSUCKING FREAKS to a 12 or 13 year old kid; as adults, BLOODSUCKING FREAKS wouldn't seem real so the experiment won't work on an adult; try it only on kids. and then tell me how the kid reacted. I'm interested in your results. CAN images actually HARM CHILDREN; is the question. ha ha ha ha ha
Charles P (br) wrote: Whatever beauty or gothic pleasures the poem upon which The Iron Rose is based possesses, all that is on display here is tedium.
Anders A (au) wrote: A story is never just one side, seldom just two sides, sometimes not even three, but more. A samurai morality play, with numerous twists and turns. One of Kurosawa many great great movies. One of his bests...
Nick V (us) wrote: Don't expect much historical accuracy. That's why the John Adams Series was produced. But behold a hilarious feel-good musical with brilliant performances such as William Daniels in the lead role as the feisty John Adams. Despite all the silliness, 1776 does not stray from emphasizing all the remarkable negotiations that took place to make our independence possible. By the time it's over you'll want to watch it again and sing along with the same patriotic vigor that "Sit Down, John!" displays. Not just a 4th of July classic, but an American treasure. I say, "Yay!"
Patrick W (es) wrote: Surprisingly good performance by Marshall Mathers in his first film (even though he is essentially playing himself in this biopic). Interesting look into the life of Eminem and how he got his start as a white rapper looking for respect in a primarily black industry. Battle rap performances were definitely the highlight. Kim Basinger as his mother also turns in a strong performance as well.
Jean S (ag) wrote: This is what happens when you come from life. I've never read the story, "Why don't you dance," by Raymond Carver, but I intend to now. Which came first, I'd like to know? Will Ferrell or the script? Because both are irreplaceable. They say the camera sees into your soul, Dinah Shore said that, among others, and here is a perfect example of that. I'm not done watching this movie yet. It has yet to go stale on me. Top shelf movie in my book. Everything is perfect in Everything Must Go.
Wade H (jp) wrote: A mindless CGI apocalyptic intense ride. Bale and McCoughnahey do decent and the directing is good, but the scripts lacks any interesting dramatics.