Reviews

Lo Mar's "Monkey Kung Fu" does not have much of a story but the action and performance by martial arts choreographer Tony Ching Siu-Tung ("House of Flying Daggers", "Chinese Ghost Story") is absolutely amazing. His athletic stunts, wireless jumps and kicks are a joy to behold. The new Shaw Brothers DVD is the best deal to watch this incredible action.

However, it seems there is a little mix-up in the names and the user comments of the film. The time I'm writing this, the IMDb picture shows "Monkey Kung Fu" aka. "Monkey Fist, Floating Snake", a vastly inferior movie. But the cast refers to the Shaw film, which is also listed as "Stroke of Death" (1980) - its alternative title.

"Monkey Kung Fu" by Lo Mars starring Ching Siu-Tung tells of a small time crook who gets sentenced to prison. He meets a one-eyed master in the cell who gives him a mysterious object. Ching breaks out of prison with another guy and searches for the answer to the riddle which will lead him to "Gibbon Fist Clan"'s kung-fu technique.

"Tokyo 10+01" comes from director Higuchinsky who brought us the imaginative and entertaining "Uzumaki". That makes it all the more surprising and disappointing that the action flick is such a mess. It starts out with 11 people in an unknown room (shades of "Cube") and quickly turns into a parody/hommage of Kinji Fukasakus "Battle Royale" with a couple of ideas from the German TV movie "Das Millionenspiel" thrown in for good measure. The result is an embarrassing piece of film: The story has no power, no sense, no timing, no anything. It just moves along for only 70 minutes and still manages to bore. And the twists at the end are so bad, the film even manages to have an anti-climactic ending.

It's neither funny nor gory, neither suspenseful nor witty. So at least you could expect it to be stylish coming from the guy who did "Uzumaki", right? No. Its look is utterly cheap. The digital technology makes the sets look like remains from "Battlefield Earth" and the camera tricks (zooms, blood on the lens etc.) are both childish and annoying. I don't get how Higuchinsky could have done this. What did he try to do? Low-Budget-Trash? Some sort of guerilla film making? Whatever he tried, the result is a disaster. If you loved "Uzumaki" like I did, avoid this film at all cost or the name Higuchinsky will fall a lot in your esteem. It's a bore-fest that looks like it's shot by an amateur. Or in short: Crap!

Rating: 1/10

"Phra-apai-mani" by Chalart Sriwanda is an adaptation of the literary classic "Soondhornpoo" by poet Sunthon Phu (1786-1855) - sorry if my spelling is wrong. It uses a lot of CGI, but for once that is not so bad. Thai fantasy and horror pictures often use too much CGI and make them rather funny than impressive. One example would be "Kunpan: Legend of the War Lord" (2002), another "The Trek" (2002) or "Krasue: Demonic Beauty" (2002). "Phra-apai-mani" uses even more digital imagery than those two, but since we're completely in a fantasy world, I have no problems with that.

We are presented a world in which sea witches reign, in which a flute enchants tigers, in which Kings lead bloody wars. What I'm actually reminded about is the work of Ray Harryhausen in his Greek history movies. The effects in "Phra-apai-mani" are never as good as in a a Harryhausen film, but I accepted the heavy CGI stuff because I accepted this world as a fantasy world. A world where such creatures dwell. And hey, I have never seen a sea which, so if she's a huge creature in front of a blue screen with lots of CG-weapons, what do I care. At least this film tries to go all the way and show us creatures, show us strange worlds and places, I as a fantasy- and sci-fi-fan can appreciate that.

That said, the film is not for everyone. Of course you have to be a fantasy fan because this is hardcore fantasy. Also, you should be able to accept this visual style which relies so much on CGI. Try to remember how you felt watching "Final Fantasy". Not that this film would come close to the CG-work in that one, but it's the same effort you as a viewer have to make in order to enter this strange world and appreciate the motion picture. It might never get into any film book about important fantasy work, but the Thai film "Phra-apai-mani" is worth a look. I've already seen more than a hundred Thai films and I enjoyed this one more than I enjoyed most other CG-heavy pics from Thailand.

My rating: 7/10

A really sweet movie that has some similarities to the 2001-hit "My Sassy Girl" but is able to enchant most of the time. The biggest applause should go to the two leads. Ha-Neul Kim is both sweet and quirky, Sang-woo Kwon is both attractive and rebellious. The chemistry between the two is very good.

Director Kyeong-hyeong Kim uses some CG-inserts to pepper up the visuals and also offers impressive fight scenes in which Sang-woo Kwon can shine. I liked him a lot better here than in the highly overrated "Volcano High". And that boy has a future - those looks, those fight techniques, and a romantic lead. Not bad.

Well, I can make it short: Nice film. My rating: 7/10

I love this film. It might further enhance the Western clichee of the uprising-ridden India as another reviewer states, but actually, that's beside the point: This film is a fairy tale. The voice over at the beginning tells of "a little red and white bus" ... and you're already in the fairy tale world. There is always danger in a fairy tale and I'll focus on that later, but criticising the film for not portraying real situations is like accusing "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" for inaccurate portrayal of lilliputians ...

The film is actually quite close to films by Mani Rathnam who also takes a politically hot topic and connects it with a personal drama (good example: "Kannathil Muthamittal"). With Rathnam, the focus always seems to shift more to the political side of this dual idea, whereas in "Mr. and Mrs. Iyer", the focus is more on the personal aspect. In this punctual uprising of extremist Hindus, the two leading characters discover how they themselves fall victim to distrust and prejudice. It seems an easy target to criticise the conservative Brahman woman's ideals, but the film doesn't do it harmful. In the end, the woman still is who she was before, but she opened up - especially opened up her heart.

And this is what the film is all about: Heart. It oozes love in so many scenes. The violence takes over for a couple of scenes, but then the film returns to the topic of love. There are incredible scenes that you won't easily forget: The "couple" in a diner telling their fictional story of their honeymoon, the fooling around in the woods in the morning, the killing of a man right in front of their window, the last night they spend together when she takes his hand to comfort herself. These are all very subtle but convincing scenes that don't primarily assault the woman's Brahman principles but tries to expand them. Again: It's a fairy tale and in this fairy tale world which is ridden by real-life violence, a woman and a man come closer - emotionally. Not with sex or a common way of love. It's a very heartfelt sort of love you don't usually see in movies. It felt extremely sincere to me - and the just cracked my heart.

"Mr. and Mrs. Iyer" is not your typical Bollywood movie because it's rather short, has no songs, no stars and is rather subtle. But it works on so many level. It is a cry for peace and unity - something Indians do so well since they live in the biggest democracy in the world. There are so many people in this country who still believe in living together and this is visible in many of their films. This is one, Mani Rathnams "Bombay" is another. Also, the film is a tribute to deeply felt and sincere love, a love that is more touching than many love stories I've seen before. I know the film is not fully realistic and of course there are a couple of problems that I have with the film. But if a film is this charmingly acted and poetically directed, I'd cannot but defend it and recommend it to you. Such a beautiful film.

Rating 8/10

I don't like Dario Argento. But while "Suspiria" or "Profondo Rosso" are at least fun to watch, "Inferno" is one big insult to storytelling. Fans tell me I have to ignore logic and plot and focus on the imagery, the style and the atmosphere - but what are images if not connected by something? Nothing more than ... well, images. There truly are some nice images in this film. There's even a nice atmosphere in certain scenes, but the overall effect is nauseating.

I made it through the film however. Argento has a way to lure the viewer into believing he's telling something (which he's not) - but at the end, everything truly falls apart. Everything. I don't like the ending of "Suspiria", I hate the endings of "Opera" and "Non ho sonno", but this one is truly an ending to just loathe. It destroyed everything I even remotely liked about the film. Genius? No, just plain bad screenwriting. Dario Argento cannot write a coherent screenplay to save his life. Some love him for that, I don't. Yes, many of his films are a visual treat (the "Suspiria"-scene on the plaza with the blind man and his dog is amazing!), but ultimately a huge letdown.

This boring film, I'd rate 3/10

The Korean military drama "Blue" borrows heavily from "Top Gun" and "Le grand bleu" and tells the story of two Korean Navy divers who fall for the same woman and struggle with their hard duty.

The film is well done technically but I wasn't too much impressed by the story. It takes a couple of turns too many. The last hour is the only part of the film that seems to focus on one specific adventure. It's the only coherent part of the movie - the rest is all over the place. It's a love story, a film about friendship, a boot camp movie, a military thriller, a diving adventure - and much more. That doesn't mean it's a richly themed film but only one that doesn't seem to know where to go. As I mentioned, the film gets tighter towards the end and gets into a kind of "Abyss"-routine. It's pretty solid in that part.

The characters are OK, the actors playing them are good (the most famous face being Eun-Kyung Shin from "My Wife is a Gangster") and the technical aspects of "Blue" are solid. The movie overall is average due to its lack of storytelling focus. It's far from a bad film but a surprisingly uninvolving one due to the problems mentioned above.

I'd rate it 6/10

"Sex Friend Nurezakari" is an example of Japan's pink cinema which came into existence in the 60's with its rather daring use of eroticism. "Sex Friend" is a soft-core entry into the genre. The most fascinating aspect of the film is how it mixes a roadmovie with a ghost story and a softcore sex film. The result however left me bored.

The film is only 58 minutes long but since there's not much plot, this hour seemed rather long to me. The occasional nude scenes don't help much. What you're left with at the end is a sort of "Field of Dreams" with a little sex. An interesting concept? Perhaps, because I've read a couple of reviews that suggested "Sex Friend" should be considered a cult movie. I think it shouldn't. I think it should rather be considered a sloppy, mildly entertaining sex romp with supernatural elements and flashes of absurd humor. If that's your thing, go ahead.

My rating: 3/10

Darna is the Philippines' answer to America's "Wonder Woman". She has been created by Mars Ravelo in the 50's and has appeared in many comics and films. "Darna: The Return" is one of the weaker entries into the series. Watched by a Westerner, the film comes across as campy fun this side of "Xena" or "Supergirl". Perhaps someone from the Philippines might see more in the film - mainly because Darna is considered a national heroine of highest proportions. I however had to laugh a little too many times.

The effects are of course sloppy but I wouldn't mind that. The story is ridiculous which I minded more. The music (a sort of midi-superhero-score) is laughable and a lot of the dialogue is pure trash. Actually this is perfect "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" material. I don't want to be too harsh because it's obvious that the resources for the film were limited. That doesn't change the final rating: 4 out of 10 - mainly for the trash value. But, alas, it's still a lot better than the directing team's terrible "Unfaithful Wife 2". If you want to see a good film by the directors Galaga & Reyes, stick to "Ang Kabit ni Mrs. Montero", a version of D.H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover" ...

Rating: 4/10

Thailand's Prince Chatrichalerm Yukol has done some great movies, ranging from the epic "Suriyothai" to his critically acclaimed dramas "Daughter" and "Song for Chao Phraya" or the ecological adventure "The Elephant Keeper". "Daughter 2" (aka. "Sia dai 2" or "Sei dai 2") doesn't follow aforementioned "Daughter" but offers another look at Bangkok's youth. In "Daughter" Yukol focused on drug problems, in "Daughter 2" he focuses on Aids.

Yukol's primary goal with this film seems to be to enhance the acceptance of HIV positive people by the society. As often with Yukol's films, the topic comes a cross a little preachy, but I found his approach to be more subtle than in "Daughter" which ended sort of over-the-top moralistic. "Daughter 2" is not really better than "Daughter" (I'd rate them about the same) but a well done and entertaining companion piece.

The director's style is interesting because he uses different cinematic tools to tell the story - black and white, flashbacks etc. It's a very assured direction and definitely has Yukol's stamp on it. And as so often in Yukol's case, the film has a big heart and a social message - which is by itself already a good thing. "Daughter 2" is a superior Thai movie that fans of Thai cinema should not miss.

My rating: 7/10

"Human Lanterns" mixes Wuxia-style martial arts and horror in a cultish but ultimately disappointing manner. The fights are well staged and surprisingly good for such a campy movie, but the horror elements felt way out of place. And they are far from scary.

The acting is over the top, the plot is weak and the direction awkward. I know that many think of this film as a cult movie, but this only proved to me that many times cult does not equal class. Personally, I'd rather rate this trash - an interesting mix but an ultimately disappointing view.

Rating: 4/10

"Runaway Pistol" is a well meant anti-gun film that never quite manages to get the message across or to entertain. It portrays "the way of the gun" - a pistol's different owners and their fate, which is of course always tragic. The problem with this episodic structure is the lack of connection. The style limits our affection with the characters, it's even hard to follow who's who because of the swift changes in the story.

Apart from this lack of focus, the film is also rather dull - technically and story-wise. It's badly directed, filmed and edited and it has this cheap category-III-look that makes it appear like a cheap exploitation film. That of course sabotages the anti-gun-message and makes "Runaway Pistol" an uninspired b**tard of different genres. Not utterly bad, but really far from good. I'd give it a

3/10

"R. U. Ready" is a Korean adventure film with a big budget. It has some nice visuals but plot wise, it's an inexcusable mess. The characters encounter a series of supernatural situations which are loosely connected to the nightmares of their past. Director Sang-ho Yu conjures some nifty CGI-effects but with no emotional result. I didn't care a bit for the characters since they were even duller than their Hollywood counterparts. They just run from adventure to adventure, each of which makes less sense than the previous. The money-shot-scene with the falling rocks even looks like a car commercial ...

At the end, I was left with nothing. The plot turns out to be every bit as idiotic as I feared throughout the movie. I felt cheated. So much money, so little imagination. So little brain. It's like "The Mummy Returns" dumbed down. Yes, that is possible. Also take away the humor, any sense of adventure, any epic feel ... and you're almost there. My rating

3/10

For everyone who's experienced in Korean cinema, "Family - Action Vs. Love" will not bring anything new. It is however a very entertaining film about two young gangsters who take over the city of Incheon only to run into problems with a little brothel ...

The action is as raw as usual in Korean cinema, but it is mixed with scenes of (good) comedy. Also, the director took a rather flashy approach in filming: The colors look bright (especially the reds) and give the scenes a cartoony style - but there's still enough blood and fist fighting to please the more brawny viewer.

Acting wise, Sin-Hye Hwang stands out as the owner of the brothel. It's nice to see women who stand up against the men (like in "My Wife is a Gangster") and Hwang definitely commands the scenes believably. Her counterpart Min-jong Kim (of "This Is Law") holds his coolness against her and together, Kim and Hwang make a strong couple - and a good pair of opponents.

Content-wise, there's not much to find in "Family". But it's well acted, well directed and fun to watch. I'd rate it

7/10

"Hum Kisi Se Kum Nahin" is an entertaining copy of the De Niro / Crystal-comedy "Analyze This". Macho-man Sanjay Dutt is wisely casted in the De Niro role (both performances live from the image the viewer has of the actors) while Crystal's role is played by Amitabh Bachchan. That casting might not be obvious in the first place, but "Big B" makes the character his own rather soon and we go along with it. He is of course not anywhere as funny as Billy Crystal, but Bachchan has other qualities that make his appearance a good one.

Director Dhavan and writer Bhatt ("Ajnabi", "Mela") focus more on the complex web of relations than on the comedy. There are more story lines in "HKSKN" than in "Analyze This", boosting the film's length to a Bollywood-friendly 163 minutes. However, this is not always to the film's advantage. As much as I like Ajay Devgan, I thought his whole plot line is rather unessential to the film. He acts well and I liked seeing him, but if one thing had to go, it would be his role.

That leaves me with one other player: The always stunning Aishwarya Rai. Nobody faints more beautiful than she does - and her dance in a miniskirt will sure amount to a couple of heart attacks among the male audience. She's just a pleasure to watch and acts her part full of life. She's definitely a huge plus in "HKSKN".

However, because the story is already well known and because the ending is pretty weak, I'd stick with a rating of

6/10

"Mae bia" (aka. "The Snake Lady") is another of those Thai mixtures of exotic jungles, murderous CGI-animals and steamy love scenes. Thai film makers are good at that - but "Mae bia" is not good. It's slow, the ending is disappointing and the story about overly protective snakes as and adultery doesn't have much substance. Also, it's badly edited. So where are the reasons to watch it? They are purely visual ...

First, there's the jungle, the river, the village. It's just nicely captured and contrasted to the skyscrapers in Bangkok. Second, there's the lead couple. Napakpapha "Mamee" Nakprasitte (Makala) is a beauty and her eyes are seductive. She makes a sexy couple with Puthichai Amatayakul (Chanachol) who has an adorable physique and a sweet face. Pity he can barely act and has a stupid grin on his face for the first half of the movie.

So there's Nakprasitte for the boys and Amatayakul for the girls - but that's it. Yeah, I know, that's a weak commendation. But it's really to only thing "Mae bia" has going for it ... Rating

3/10

I'm not Indian but I can claim to have seen about 150 Bollywood-films until today, so I guess that qualifies me as someone with at least a little insight. My insight into the movie at stake, Indra Kumar's "Rishtey", is very brief: It's a bad movie.

I'll dive into the movie a little further. It's the story of a hard working street boxer (Anil Kapoor) who kidnapped his own son because the father of his wife (Karishma Kapoor) wanted the baby and him killed. He raises the boy - and after seven years, he has to face his past and confront the family of his wife again. Standard Bollywood-plot, so to speak. But that's not yet a criticism: Someone like Mani Rathnam could have done a good film out of such a tired story.

I'd also not blame the actors: Anil Kapoor gives a strong performance, the boy does a good job too and Amrish Puri (who plays Karishma's father) acts such roles in his sleep. Karishma herself is less convincing. She stumbles and cries through the scenery and her role is terribly underwritten. She's more a red herring than a character. The better female in the cast is Shilpa Shetty who delivers some humor and a lot of skin.

So who's to blame? Well, where do I start. The music is terrible. It's your typical "angelic Bollywood choir" with its "aaaah aaaaaah" over every emotional scene. Sometimes that works, here it does not. The sound effects are equally bad. Expect sound effects right out of a Batman-cartoon. You can hear all the "swooshs" and "swishs" in the sound track and it's just utterly annoying. The direction: Could this be any more heavy handed? Every event in the movie is forced upon the story (and the viewer) without any ease. The courtroom scenes are cheesy, the divine intervention by Rama is wooden and the final half hour is as fatalistic as possible and results in a unbelievable happy end.

The movie was ruined for me in the first half hour already. After they stole a scene from "Forrest Gump" ("Run Karan, run!"), the boy gives a clumsy speech for his daddy. And it goes on in this direction. The meetings between Anil Kapoor and Shilpa Shetty get equally embarrassing. In one scene, he has to tell her, how beautiful she looks and she cannot believe it. Hellooo? Isn't it, well, obvious that she's very pretty? Ok, I can forgive all that... but then, the movie tries to copy "Over to Top". Why this one? Why perhaps Sly's worst movie? And the title lends itself perfectly for a negative review of this film ... over the top. Well, what I'm trying to say is that once you've seen that it tries to copy that movie, the suspense is gone as well.

I could go on and on. To make it short: It's an embarrassingly heavy handed movie. Nothing flows easily in this film. There are some nice songs (the one after 30 minutes is strangely sexy for a family film) and some nice performances, but that's about it. If you want a "boy wants to live with his daddy"-film, try "Rahul". That one's heavy handed too, but it has more charm than "Rishtey" and comes across less forced. My rating

3/10

A little "Eyes Wide Shut", a little "Last House on the Left", an extremely tough rape scene, an extremely ugly head-splitting-scene. And a big dose of arthouse pretentiousness. Voilà "Irréversible", a movie with the ability to shock you three times: In the amazingly raw head splicing scene, in the equally raw anal rape scene - and in all the emptiness in between.

This is no more than an arthouse-shocker. All the messages Noé wants to bring across are lost on the exhausting way to the boring ending. Man is an animal? Well, yeah, how insightful. And it's not even brought across convincingly.

There would be so much to deconstruct in this nihilist film, but I won't waste too much energy. I too have to say, that there is a technical interest in the film, that I admired the rawness, that I was fascinated by the length of the scenes (for example the one-take-rape. Really tough) - but the showing off amounts to a big nothing. It's an empty film, it's arthouse exploitation. And a dishonest, actually uptight film for intellectual revenge freaks.

One might think that there's something interesting behind all the technical wizardry, behind the atrocities ... but no. There's not. Just watch closely and you might see it too.

Rating 1/10

PS: I was reminded of "Trouble Every Day", another film that tries to take a geekish shock-genre (Vampire-Horror with lots of blood) and give it an artsy fartsy touch. And it also fails miserably.

YKHRH tries hard to be a Bollywood equivalent to the likes of "American Pie" - but fails because the moral starts creeping into the plot fairly quickly. That ruins every attempt to make it a gross-out-comedy. Not that this is bad, of course. What remains is more a teen-version of the enchanting Aamir-Khan-Hit "Dil Chahta Hai". Or even closer: Bollywood's answer to the Israeli smash hit "Lemon Popsicle/Eskimo Limon" (1978).

What's funny is that those two movies are essentially movies about male bonding and the search for women. Therefore they are considered films about men for men. YKHRH however might prove to be more successful with the ladies, mainly because of the cast. Prashant Chianani who plays Ranjiv looks straight out of a Playgirl-calendar and you sometimes get the feeling, the camera is actually making love to his body. The guy who plays Johnny is equally cute.

That all is for the female audience to sink their teeth into - but the men shouldn't be disappointed. There's an attractive female cast, some crude humor and a nice message about male friendship. Not too bad either.

Still, I wouldn't rate YKHRH too hight because with the exception of the first song, the music is highly average. The acting is so-so and the novelty factor rather low. It is entertaining .. that's why I'd give it a rather generous

Rating: 6/10

The French action movie "Samouraïs" boasts an incoherent plot, some slightly better than average fight scenes and weak attempts at humor. Nothing that would cause any applause from the viewer, I guess.

Why watch it at all? For one, there's the music by Kenji Kawai. The legendary composer incorporates some nice tunes, except perhaps the guitar-heavy-title track. Also, the cast is OK - most notably action veteran Yasuaki Kurata and the cute leading man, Cyril Mourali.

There's really not much more to say about the film which has the look of your typical direct-to-video-stuff. Nothing exceptional. I'd give it a

Rating 3/10

I gave "Paradise Villa" a 7 but purely on the basis that I highly enjoyed its storytelling and direction. I don't know how you could think the movie is particularly scary. It's raw and violent, but not really scary. Actually it's closer to "Short Cuts" than "Panic Room" ...

The "Short Cuts"-comparison comes from a directorial viewpoint. "Paradise Villa" tells a lot of stories and connects them over and over again. I really dig that approach, especially because it's limited to this one house. In only 100 minutes you get a lot of looks into personal lives, into small problems, into neighborhood quarrels. Very nicely done. I have to admit that in the middle of the movie I had to skip back a couple of scenes to catch up with some of the connections of the people. I didn't pay attention for a second there and got the penalty later.

Ah, penalty. That brings me to football. The movie is done in real time. Remember "Lola Rennt" - "The game lasts for 90 minutes". True for "Paradise Villa" too. The game (Japan-Korea of course) isn't that important, but sets a nice tone and a feeling of time.

Let's go back to the people. The way the movie slowly reveals the connections among the people is marvelous. There's a phone call that results in a whole series of mishaps - and only late in the game you actually realize that the phone call was a complete misunderstanding. A lot of things told earlier now pay off - and that's true for most of the things you pick up along the way. There might be some logical bumps, but overall, it works.

Then of course, there's the violence. There's quite a lot of it, and all of a raw kind. The killings are very simple (mostly done by knife) and there's some violence off screen that you only catch via a grisly soundtrack. The violence didn't have such a big impact on me because a) I was hooked by the story more than by the killings and b) because the story is infused with a morbid sense of humor. We're not talking a "Pulp Fiction"-approach to the violence, but you cannot take it completely serious. I know it sounds contradictory (raw vs. ironic), but I just got that very feeling from the movie.

So don't watch it for the gore. There's some, but this is more a story-drive tale. Not one grand story, but a big amount of small, everyday stories. That's what makes the film rewarding in my view.

Rating: 7/10

"Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam" is Bollywood in its purest form - and a stunning achievement. It's an epic of grand emotions, gorgeously filmed and well acted. At 188 minutes, it seldom seems overlong and at the end left me crying. Yes, they pulled all the right strings.

The story tells of Sameer (Salman Khan) who comes from Italy to India to learn classic songs - and falls in love with Nandini (Aishwarya Rai), the daughter of his teacher. I don't want to spoil what happens next, but a couple of unexpected things kept me involved in the somehow simple story.

The first hour does not really progress much story-wise. It's all character development and a lot of song and dance. It's actually more a mixture of a ballet and a musical, than a film. There's more music than in your average Bollywood film - and what feels different is that it's not your usual number where the actors pretend to sing, but it's more like traditional background music, where you listen to music and the actors dance and move to it.

The second half involves a lot less music but the plot gets heavier. And until the end, it builds up. Competent direction by Sanjay Leela Banshali ("Devdas"). Additionally, the images are amazing. Director of photography Anil Mehta ("Lagaan") is in the bloom of his craft. Even if you don't like the story, you'd have to agree that it's a visual feast.

That, of course, is also true for Aishwarya Rai. 1994's Miss World has never looked this good, I believe. She radiates beauty in almost every shot and is the most charming when she's the most natural. It's easy to see why Sameer would fall in love with her. Khan plays Sameer as he plays a lot of his characters, and it works. He too looks very good in the film. Of course he takes off his shirt a lot - but his body appears more virile than in other pictures so that it too works well. Finally, Ajay Devgan plays the solid counterpart to the two love birds. His role gets more important as the film progresses and his performance comes off as both strong and restrained.

"HDDCS" might have some flaws (the music, although rather good, is not memorable), but it is great entertainment. Out of all the love stories Bollywood offers us each year, this one emerges as a winner.

Rating 8/10