Reviews

31 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Moonfall (2022)
6/10
It's Roland Emmerich, that is all you need to kniw
9 December 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I can understand why people a5e down on this film, but it brings us exactly what we should expect of a Roland Emmerich film. No one goes in expecting great acting, great characters or a stunning screenplay. What we expect is mediocre acting, cursorily fleshed out characters, huge action, great visual effects and lots of explosions. In that regard, this is the quintessential Roland Emmerich film. It delivers a couple of hours of entertainment that doesn't require anything more than your favourite snacks and beverages to enjoy it.

Which is a good thing given the basic premise of the film is utterly preposterous. Science be damned in so many ways. However, if you suspend disbelief for a second, then the idea of a Dyson Sphere could hold true. Of course we could never prove it as harnessing the power of a star in such a way is beyond the ability of all but the most advanced aliens.

The cliched characters extend as usual to the military, depicted as usual with the trait of having no solution beyond resorting to nuclear weapons. It would be nice if for once there was an action film that did not resort to such cliches.

Not sure that I would consider it a guilty pleasure as such but it has elements that almost make it such. I kind of enjoyed the film for what it is rater than harping on about the scientific blunders it contains.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Visually stunning but the story is a bit cliched
9 December 2023
After watching the film finally, the immediate reactions are what a visually stunning film this is. This is a visual delight from start to finish and that alone would be enough to get me to watch it again and again. Certainly worthy of watching in $K.

As far as the acting goes, well that was not so impressive. Once again the choice of male lead was the biggest problem, with Dane DeHaan totally unconvincing as both an action lead and as a romantic lead. He just doesn't have the chops for the role and falls flat most of the time. He certainly is upstaged mostly by Cara Delavingne, who whilst doing a decent enough job just seemed to leave you wanting more. The supporting cast does its job.

The whole story is nothing that we have not seen many times before, borrowing bits and pieces from various films in the past such as various Star Wars films. It is not doing anything new but and seems to have been written knowing that the visuals were the important part. I guess there is nothing wrong with that if that was fully intended, and I presume it was.

Overall, not the best sci-fi ever but it has its moments and the visuals really carry the film.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Arrival (II) (2016)
10/10
A gem of a film
19 November 2023
I decided to purchase the disc of Arrival on a whim bask in the early days of 4K Ultra HD. It took me a few years to get round to watching the film and I now regret that immensely. Okay, if your film watching pleasure extends to such films as Independence Day and its ilk, and I enjoy that film as lightweight entertainment, then Arrival is unlikely to be a film that you will sit through. However, if you give it the chance, this is one of the best films you will ever see. Thought provoking is an understatement. Superbly casted, with Amy Adams utterly amazing in the lead, There is barely a foot wrong in the direction or cinematography, it is a fine achievement that demonstrates what film can do as medium without resorting to endless cliched repeats of the same storyline. A stunning achievement in every way if you invest the time in the film.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Awful, story and substance lacking film
10 July 2015
I have never understood the praise for the Wachowski brothers and their films. Speed Racer was diabolical and The Matrix one the biggest pieces of horse manure I have ever seen. Visually great but lacking enormously in every other way.

I did not know this was a Wachowski Brothers film until after I had watched the movie. It explains so much...

Even as I watched the film I kept on thinking WTF... the story line was barely there and what little there was was so utterly confusing. It was like the brothers had grabbed their favorite 10 seconds from 200 sci-fi/action films and edited it together in some random way expecting it to make some sense. It didn't.

Couple that with some fairly dire acting and this just descended into a turgid mess from which there was no hope of recovery.

Visually of course there is no problem but that simply highlights everything that is wrong with this film and indeed a vast chunk of the depressingly formulaic output from Hollywood nowadays. Impressive CGI does NOT a film make...

Honestly this was the worst two cinematic hours of my life for a long long time. It is easy to see why this tanked big time at the box office. Hopefully the Hollywood studios will start to realise sometime soon that to make a decent film you need to start with a good story. This didn't. There is nothing here that could induce me to recommend the film in anyway other than the impressive visuals.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A really interesting show
9 July 2014
I recently managed to catch a couple of episodes of 'World's Toughest Fixes' whilst traveling overseas and I found them really amazingly interesting. This is the sort of thing that I wish I saw more often on TV - it might actually get me back to watching TV!

The presentation is a nice balance between educating and entertaining and provides a fascinating insight into how some things that we probably never ever think about are actually fixed when they go wrong. It has a nice blend of human interest involved too, revealing some of the characters behind the jobs.

I caught 3 episodes of the show - plus the repeats that pad out the National Geographic Channel programming from day to day - and even when watching the repeats there was still something I missed the first time round.

I wish there was more TV like this around.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Diggers (2012– )
1/10
Awful show even by reality TV standards
9 July 2014
I don't watch TV ordinarily but on a recent trip overseas I got a little bit hooked on the National Geographic Channel as they have some really cool, interesting and entertaining shows.

Diggers is not one of them...

On the plus side I guess the guys are VERY enthusiastic and they do visit some interesting locations.

On the down side, the show is boringly monotonous and the endless 'Diggers jargon' soon grates like crazy as there is not much in their dictionary. How many times can a viewer possibly be expected to suffer phrases like 'I see round in the hole' in any 30 minute period, no matter how enthusiastically delivered? By the end of the first show I watched I was ready to smash the TV the next time I heard another one of the 'Diggers dictionary' phrases. The enthusiasm starts to grate too when the guys go off when they discover something 'awesome' - rolling on the ground, running through the forest or whatever. They remind me of 8 year old kids let loose from school for the first time in months... Oh and just about everything they seem to find is awesome. Hint: it usually isn't.

This is a fine example of exactly why reality TV is killing the medium. Pure rubbish of the highest (or should that be lowest?) order.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daruvu (2012)
1/10
Truly appalling
1 June 2013
Well this review is going to be difficult to write. Just how does one expand two simple words into at least ten lines? Okay I admit I have not been able to watch the whole film as I had to give up about 30 minutes from the end - yes it really is that painful. From about the fifth minute onwards it was quite clear that this was going to be an awful experience and the next 30 minutes pretty much confirmed it. After that it was a toss up as to how much longer one's fortitude could last. I am staggered that I managed as much of the film as I did. Just how does this sort of rubbish get made? Are there people really that desperate for some tax write offs or something? Are there people actually desperate enough to watch it?

I really don't even know where to start with this painful excuse for a film, but I guess we could talk about the man who directed it - Siva. On the evidence here, to describe him as a talentless hack would be to seriously overstate the situation. I don't think I have ever seen such appalling direction. I still have no idea what he was trying to achieve but whatever it was he failed miserably.

But special mention must be made of the screenplay: a more incoherent pile of tripe would be impossible to imagine. It is said that if you sat 1,000 chimpanzees in front of 1,000 computers and gave them 1,000 years, they would write a Shakespearean masterpiece. Using that analogy, this was quite clearly written by one chimpanzee locked in a room for 10 minutes using a pencil and some paper. As for the dialogue - it might as well have been in chimpanzee for at least then it might have had some novelty value.

Seriously, this film has absolutely no redeeming value at all. At the time of writing 22 people have rated this film a 10. I am staggered that anyone, not even the director, could possibly give this fetid piece of tripe anything even close to a five. I honestly say this would be in my worst 10 films of all time.

Utter garbage, watching sewage would have more entertainment value than this. Makes Going Overboard look like a masterpiece... If you value your life, avoid this at all costs.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Julayi (2012)
6/10
Mostly fun if you can stop picking which movie each scene comes from
31 May 2013
Okay, after watching Routine Love Story anything would have to be a massive improvement so maybe I am being a little too easy on Julayi but overall this was a enjoyable enough way to spend an evening. Naturally it is highly derivative and sometimes it is very difficult to ignore the sudden thought popping into your head of where you have seen this scene before but at least the disparate scenes were put together with reasonable cohesion.

On the plus side the whole film does not seem to take itself too seriously, it rocks along at a reasonable pace and it does not overstay its welcome at all. On the negative side some of the jokes are a little forced, some of the acting is a little annoying, inevitably the item songs took you completely out of the film, some of the ADR was poor, some of the actors cannot lip sync to save their lives and there is not enough of Ileana especially in the last quarter of the film.

The direction was solid, the cinematography was good and overall a not exactly taxing way of spending a few hours. However, it does illustrate how bereft of ideas modern Indian cinema seems to be as far as making films is concerned - it really is far too derivative to be anything but a pleasant interlude on an otherwise boring day. Okay Hollywood at times is just as bad but that is no excuse for others to follow the same path of lack of originality.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Utter rubbish of the worst quality
30 May 2013
Okay, I understand that the movie industry has to put out a certain number of films each week in order to fill the screens with new stuff to attract the punters paying their money to be entertained for a couple of hours. I understand that this will mean that some pretty average films will end up on the big screen that really don't deserve to ever be there. But do they honestly have to be this bad?

This would appear to be another film that got made because someone thought they had a great angle with which to tell a very average story. News flash: it was not a great angle to tell a story. It was a painful way to tell a story, assuming that there was something worth telling in what passes for the story here.

I have no idea who wrote this abysmal screenplay but at a guess it must have been someone about the age of 13 – yes it really is that bad. Puerile is the only way I can describe the writing and that is probably being too kind. I have no idea how to describe the acting, as I am not sure there was any acting actually involved here. Both of the leads were awful, completely unable to emote on any level. I presume that they were solely chosen on the basis that they look good.

The direction lacked focus and had a tendency to wander far too much. A poor script like this one needs a much clearer focus, a much more assured hand to try and make something coherent out of the material. What is found here is almost the antithesis of what the film required and the inexperienced director was not exactly helped by an even more inexperienced cinematographer.

The whole film in every respect comes across as an amateurish attempt at making a big film. It failed at every level. It is so bad that it took me three sittings to get through just one viewing of the film. I would not in a million years contemplate ever trying to watch it again.

Woeful story, poorly directed, badly acted, unimaginative cinematography, interminably long – take you pick as to which made the biggest contribution to the murder of this film.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sarocharu (2012)
5/10
Barely worth the time to watch it
28 May 2013
I must admit that the only reason I watched this was because Kajal Agarwal was in it. That is pretty much the high point of the film in just about all respects. Okay, its colorful and the songs are not too bad but other than that it is a long winded film that takes a long time to get absolutely nowhere whatsoever. Clearly someone thought this was a great screenplay but it really is far too clever for its own good, it loses its way a bit too often and leaves you a little confused as to what the screenwriter was trying to achieve. Sorry but on the evidence of this Parasarum is neither an especially good writer, certainly not great with dialog and leaves a whole lot to be desired as a director. Perhaps he should consider a career change after some pretty average displays as a director and screenwriter. The casting is in general very average and there was absolutely nothing believable about the relationship between the two leads, which really sinks the whole film as pretty much everything revolves around them. Even just a few hours after watching it there is little remembered about this effort. Strictly for very hardcore Telugu film fans only.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dhada (2011)
3/10
Awful, just awful
29 December 2011
Just how bad is it? Well, I was yawning for most the the second half of the film, which is never a good sign.

Just what were they thinking when they green lit this? Even by the sometimes appalling standards of Indian cinema, the story here was just about non-existent. Barely any coherence whatsoever, it seemed to lurch from one direction to another without any regard for what made sense. The whole thing just seemed to be an excuse to string a whole bunch of unrelated action sequences together presumably on the premise that copious action sequences would hide the lack of any coherent story.

Whilst the action sequences were not that bad most of the time, they certainly were not any where near good enough to mask the lack of a story. The mish mash of locations only compounded the lack of coherence of the film overall.

Given what little they were given to work with, you can hardly fault the actors for what they dished up. I was most impressed by Naga Chaitanya Akkineni in the very, very impressive "Ye Maaya Chesave", not quite so enamored with his performance in "100% Love" but this was not even close to what we have seen him achieve. Perhaps action is not his strong suit? Similarly I thought Kajal Agarwal was very good in "Mr Perfect", the highlight of that film in fact, but this role does her no favors at all, as much as she did try.

As for the rest? Well, I suppose there was supposed to be some comedy elements but they mostly just fizzled to nothing before they even started, and the appearance of the comic turns simply mired the film in the proverbial mud even more. Talk about firing blanks! These didn't even leave the firing chamber...

On the whole there is simply not a single redeeming feature I can think of to give even a modest positive spin to the film. It really is that bad and it should come as no surprise that this apparently bombed at the box office.

Not even fans of any of the main cast should bother with this one. A blight on Telugu cinema, the stench of which may take some time to be removed.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Oh my lord!!!
13 September 2011
Short review: this is the biggest pile of manure that I have ever seen, ranking right down there with some of the worst films in cinema history.

Long review: pretty much the same as the short review, with way more words to convey how awful it is.

First up, this was supposed to be a comedy, right? I only ask as it is anything but funny. Two odd hours long and seriously there is not a single laugh in the whole film. Perhaps they were aiming at a spoof-style of film but missed the mark completely? Quite where to start with the awfulness is hard to determine, it is that bad across the board.

The script is pretty atrocious, clichéd to within an inch of its life, lacking any sort of originality whatsoever. It didn't even manage to rip off any decent scenes from any other similar sorts of films in an effort to at least try and lift itself out of the mire.

This of course meant that the actors had little to work with but that hardly excuses the atrociousness of the performances given here. If this is the best script that Sanjay Dutt can get to work with, we can pretty much accept that his career has well and truly gone down the toilet big time. His performance was about D-grade at best and pretty much laughable. Seriously, he needs to retire if this is the best he can do. As for the rest? Oh my lord, they must have been desperate for a pay check. All the main cast were woeful, putting in appalling performances of the highest order. At times they descended to outright vomit-inducing degrees of ineptitude and offensiveness.

One can only presume that this was at the instruction of the director as surely no self-respecting actor would descend to the level of awfulness seen here. Indra Kumar does not have much of a filmography as a director after 21 years and on the evidence of this film it is obvious why - there is nothing on earth that would induce me to watch another film done by him. Yes, this one is that bad.

On the positive side of things, cinematography wasn't bad, editing was reasonable and the film looks great.

A truly, truly awful film. Should be avoided at all costs unless you feel the need to be reduced to a state of depression. On the evidence here, depression is what Indian cinema is in if this sort of tripe can get made.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Refreshingly different
11 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
One thing that Indian cinema is very good at is feel good stories - boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, boy overcomes obstacles to finally get and marry girl. Its a basic premise that probably forms the basis of 80% of Indian films. That's not to say its a bad thing either - we all need feel good stories to entertain and take us out of our often problematic lives.

One thing that Indian cinema is not very good at is finding a new way to present a feel good story. In this regard they are not any worse than Hollywood to be sure but far too many times they simply rehash without even making an effort.

Tanu Weds Manu is one of those rare exceptions where some new approach was found and as a result the film ends up being a lot better than you were expecting.

Straight out though - why the title? It gives the whole film away, no matter how refreshingly different the journey to the conclusion is. Couldn't they have used a far more intriguing title like simply "Tanu Weds?".

From the start, this is not your average retelling of the common story. The whole setup is very different, quite funny, perhaps a little unbelievable but nonetheless a very good setup for a very entertaining film. As the first hour unfolds, it becomes clear that Tanu is a very different female character than we are used to seeing in Indian rom-coms (although I still don't see the need for the smoking). She definitely is one that will do things her way! Great news for film watchers, not perhaps great news for Manu as he tries to marry!

Aside from the story, which to be honest does not quite hold out at a high level all the way to the end even as it tries to avoid the clichéd route, this film rests on the performances of the actors. Collectively they do an excellent job. Madhavan is great in a wonderfully understated performance that leaves no doubt as to his feelings, even when buried. Deepak Dobriyal is the spine of the film though as he ends up in just about scene as the devoted side kick: perhaps the role was a tad underwritten but he made the most of it. If anything Kangana Ranaut was the weak link of the cast and it would have been interesting to see what an Anushka Sharma would have done with the role: despite that, Kangana does a fair job and aside from not having the emotional range that the role perhaps needed hardly puts a foot wrong.

The direction was just about spot on, the cinematography can hardly be faulted and the use of music and dance to push the story forward was a nice change.

It is not often that I watch a film twice back to back but I did with this one. That does make for a refreshing change in Indian film. It's not a mind-blowing experience but as far as Indian rom-coms go, this is well ahead of most of them. A refreshing change and well worth a visit or two.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Enthiran (2010)
5/10
What the heck is the fuss about?
11 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Perhaps I went into viewing this film with too many expectations based upon what I had heard about it, but Endhiran just left me bemused.

On the plus side, yes it was marginally different to most Indian films but ultimately once you removed the very good veneer not that much different. That veneer was some of the glossiest and best effects seen in an Indian film ever, although even those at times were by no means a good as has been claimed (think low definition in an otherwise high definition presentation).

But the negative side? Whoa were there lots here. I don't think the writers actually knew where they wanted to take this film after they got into the meat of it and in the end it feels like a compromise that ended up going a well trodden path. Rather than being truly original they tried to seek inspiration from way too many robot sci-fi films which really destroyed where they were heading. Did they really need to go the robot runs amok route for instance? Jealous, bumbling lab techs? Been done to death by many a B-grade sci-fi film and I don't think it added much to the film other than a lot of length and poor attempts at humor.

Sorry to all the Rajnikanth fans out there but his recent work has not been of high standard to me (and that includes the woefully overrated Sivaji) and again his "acting" lets this film down badly. He does not have the emotional range that his character needed. Some of that perhaps lies in the casting. Whilst Aishwarya is undoubtedly a very beautiful woman, I cannot help but feel that this film needed perhaps less beauty and more substance that an older, better actor could have provided. The age difference of the actors here simply did not convince at all, for all Aishwarya's efforts, and the chemistry just did not seem to be there - and that relationship was crucial to the film.

The editing could have been a lot better too but in some respects I guess that they wanted to emphasize the technical aspects of the film which absorbed a large chunk of the budget no doubt. Indeed, too much seemed to be compromised to allow the effects to take center stage. Never a good idea, whether you are James Cameron or Shankar.

The effects themselves were never as smooth and realistic as those found in Hollywood. That in itself would not be a concern except there was a such a huge emphasis on the effects that every little issue with them became clear. If you are going to do an effects-laden film then you need to get the effects 100% spot on, something that a great director knows. Failure to do so can take the audience out of the illusion very easily as it does here on occasions.

Whilst I understand that the Indian viewing public expects and demands songs in their films, there really was no easy way to include them in this film without it being a huge distraction. Had this truly been a groundbreaking Indian film, they should have had the guts to cut the songs out. They added nothing to the film and took the viewer out of the storyline too much.

Maybe its just me and Shankar films but this was a disappointment of the highest order.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Thank You (I) (2011)
4/10
Oh lord, save me from Anees Bazmee!
3 September 2011
Memo to self: avoid at all costs any film directed by Anees Bazmee.

If you look at his filmography as a director, after some promising films early on in his career, he has turned out some incredibly trite rubbish. The last decent film he did was probably No Entry but since then it has been a downward spiral of rubbish culminating in Thank you and Ready. It is hard to know which is worse.

His record as a writer is probably even worse than his record as a director, so this film suffers the double whammy of tremendously poor direction and a tremendously poor script. Whoever pegged this film for production must have had rocks in their head. The whole film dies by its awful script. Unbelievable, contrived rubbish that gave the actors (using the term very loosely) anything to work with.

The one thing that Akshay Kumar does not need is poor material to work with. Nowadays he struggles with even good material - with bad material the "acting" is reduced to tear-inducing cringe-worthy awfulness. Not that Akshay is the only culprit here.

Sonam Kapoor might be high up in the eye-candy stakes but as an actor she needs good direction. Suffice to say that it is sadly lacking here and so her performance ends up almost like a melodramatic parody. Now don't get me wrong, I like Sonam and she has done some decent stuff but I fear that this represents a very bad choice for her acting career.

Of the rest, I sort of get the impression that Bobby Deol, Irrfan Khan and Sunil Shetty were simply going through the motions for a pay check. They are competent enough but these are performances certainly not worthy of their talents.

So basically, bad direction, lousy story, mediocre at best acting, what else could be wrong? Well, put it this way, when the cameos by Vidya Balan and Mallika Sherawat to a lesser extent are the highlights, then pretty much everything.

All in all an extremely poor film in nearly every respect and one not worthy of even catching for fans of the leads. Avoid at all costs would be the only way to describe this (3/10 score simply because its got the cameos from Vidya Balan and Mallika Sherawat - without them it would be 1/10 at best).
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ready (2011)
4/10
Ye gods, can Indian cinema get any worse?
3 September 2011
It would seem that Indian cinema is in a downward spiral led by the desire of Akshay Kumar and Salman Khan to prove who is actually the worst actor in India and the most incapable of performing in comedy roles. If this effort is any indication to go by, Indian cinema is in a very, very, very bad state.

Good points? Well, Asin as ever looks absolutely gorgeous and illuminates the screen every second she is on. Paresh Rawal is also as ever excellent. Some of the cameos are good. Err, a couple of the songs are excellent. That's about it I am afraid.

Bad points? Way to many to list unfortunately. I am guessing this was an attempt at some slapstick humor Bollywood style but it missed the mark by such a long distance it is not funny (no really, it is not funny). Its a turgid 3 hours indeed when you don't even get anything remotely resembling a good laugh out of a comedy.

Okay, we all know that Salman Khan cannot act to save his life but please, can we at least get one film without him removing his shirt to show off his physique? Its getting boring... and honestly it isn't that great. Some of the action sequences are laughably bad (sorry, there was a laugh in the film!), characters are clichéd beyond the ridiculous, the plot is non-existent (more like a collection of short films that may or may not be edited together in a coherent way), nothing in the way of originality to be found and they really didn't even take the opportunity to properly use some of the great locations Thailand would have given them.

Basically a formulaic film to showcase the dubious talents of Salman Khan. The only reason it gets 4/10 is because of Asin - otherwise it would barely get 2/10. If you are looking for some mindless entertainment (or are obsessed with Salman Khan) then this might just about suit but there are definitely plenty better out there, even from Salman.
11 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Patiala House (2011)
6/10
Worth while watch
21 May 2011
Okay, first up I suppose I best say that this is the best film Akshay Kumar has done for a long time. Whilst he will never be a great actor, at least here he does an excellent job with a character that could have been a disaster. No over the top performance, this is a measured effort that conveys the character's inner turmoils very well.

The rest of the cast also do a fine job. Rishi Kapoor is always excellent and does a very creditable job as the head of the house. Dimple Kapadia plays his wife with sensitivity and purpose, although she is under utilised and perhaps underwritten and subservient in the screenplay. Anushka Sharma also does an excellent job in a role that could quite easily have devolved into a mess. I quite fancy that, on the evidence of her first four films, we may potentially be seeing the emergence of a new Queen of Bollywood.

The film itself is a very interesting look at the family in an Indian household in Southall, London, where traditional values are being undermined somewhat by the younger generation being more influenced by the cosmopolitan opportunities of a more accepting London than that which their parents faced.

The only real complaint I have with the film is that too many characters were brought to the fore and it results in a bit of confusion as to who is who. However, that aside, the screenplay is good, the film has a sense of purpose and moves forward at a nice pace. There is no unnecessary sentimentality brought into play and the end result is a film that does not scale great heights of classic cinema but is an eminently watchable film that deals with its subject matter very well.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not classic cinema by any means but damn entertaining!
28 April 2011
Perhaps I should preface this by saying that the previous Hindi film I watched was Kambakkht Ishq. Thus any film after watching that turkey would have a better than even chance of being entertaining.

Ten minutes into this film and I was wondering whether I had chosen wisely and to be fair the first half of the film could have done with some judicious re-editing to tighten it up a bit and remove some truly superfluous stuff. Thereafter however, the madness just pulls you in and the second half of the film is a comedy blast.

Despite the absurdity, the clichés, the plot holes and everything else that might be wrong with it, the reasons that this film succeeds are simply because it does not take itself too seriously and it has the Deols.

The whole film rests upon their very capable shoulders and they pull it off with ease. Its almost as if they were using each other to boost their own performances like some sort of springboard and got into a little unspoken competition to see who was best in the process. My money is still on the old man! Which is not to say that the supporting cast is any less capable, for in general they are more than able to hold their own with the Deols in full flight. Sure there are some minor quibbles in the casting but overall it is as strong a cast as I have seen in a Hindi film. Special mention for Kulraj Randhawa, someone I have never seen before and wondering why. No slouch as an actor, she is undoubtedly beautiful with the most mesmerising eyes and a gorgeous smile which are used to excellent effect in the film.

The music for the most part is wonderful and serves the film very well indeed. Like the rest of the film, the music gets better the further the film goes.

Not classic cinema by any means but damn entertaining, this is the sort of film that you can pull off the shelf every so often and watch again as if for the first time. It is one of the very few films I have ever seen twice in one day, and still enjoyed it.

Overall a solid 7/10 pushing towards an 8/10
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The more you watch it the worse it gets
28 April 2011
When I first watched Kambakkht Ishq I thought it was a mildly entertaining piece of flotsam to fill in the time until something better came along. But the more times I have watched it, the worse it gets - big time.

Sure it has it moments - I mean Amrita Arora in a bikini is well worth watching and Kareena Kapoor looks pretty fine. But a two hour film needs more than ten minutes of high quality eye candy to live on. Unfortunately, you will not find it here.

Its hard to know exactly where to begin but really the screenplay here is diabolical - clichéd to within an inch of its life, you know just where this is headed after the first five minutes. Then it has the temerity to stretch the obvious out for two more hours. The dialogue is atrocious to say the least, and even by Bollywood standards the plot holes here are roughly the size of the Indian Ocean. Whoever thought the Keswani character was a good idea should be taken outside and beaten to death. That one character alone is all the proof you need to explain why this is a festering turd of a film (to paraphrase Billy Mack from a rather good film).

Its hard to know exactly where Akshay Kumar's career started to really hit the sewerage farm. I mean Namastey London wasn't too bad and Heyy Babyy was tolerable, but something went seriously wrong after there and it has been getting progressively worse ever since. This? Woeful overacting, with all the emotional sense of a piece of granite, that grates more every time you see it. Kareena Kapoor was okay but boy did she have some crap to play with. From there it gets worse. Amrita Arora cannot act to save her life (but kudos for looking very good in a bikini), Aftab Shivdasani was awful (what happened to him after Koi Aap Sa?), and the rest of the Bollywood brigade don't exactly shine in any way. However, special mention should be made of Rajesh Khera for the finest display of atrocious overacting since the last Under 12's school play you saw. As for the Hollywood crowd, oh lord they must have been desperate, not that I really expect much from the likes of Sylvester Stallone or Denise Richards, neither of whom could ever be accused of being great actors.

Even the music here, which can often redeem at least partially any Bollywood film, is sadly way off the mark.

Not even the visual delights of Amrita Arora and Kareena Kapoor could entice me to watch this piece of rubbish in its entirety ever again. Its hard to imagine a film as bad as this across the board (although some comments passed about Akshay Kumar's more recent films would indicate that he is trying to make this look like a pinnacle of his career).

Believe me, you do not need to watch this film - find the stills of Amrita in bikini that are floating around the internet: you would then be seeing the highlights of the film just about.

3/10 only because its got Amrita in a bikini and Kareena looks good.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
London Dreams (2009)
5/10
All that is wrong with Bollywood is right here
20 February 2011
Whilst the film has an interesting enough premise the execution is pretty much diabolical.

With the film being effectively developed over a ten year period, you would have thought that for a start the screenplay would have been a lot better. It really is weak with some barely creditable plot developments, which at times do chronically insult the viewer. I mean were they really serious about the last twenty minutes of the film? Atrocious!

The film is horribly miscast. Ajay Devgan as a young man trying to get a break in the music business? Okay he tries, but really this needed one of the up and comers or a completely new face. Salman Khan is at his usual overacting worst here and fails to convince at any level. Poor Asin gets stuck with in a "leading" role with basically nothing to do other than being the token shatteringly gorgeous love interest which for all the limited time on screen could have been competently handled by any number of Bollywood supporting actresses.

On a technical level there is not much horrendously wrong here, but it could and should have been so much better. The cinematography is good although the editing could have perhaps been a little tighter. Music was okay but not as good as it needed to be since it was the whole point of the film. Choreography was very average: I am still in two minds as to whether it should have been stripped out of the film completely or whether it needed to be more dazzling to support the music.

Overall London Dreams is a very large disappointment as it could and should have been so much better than what it ended up being. A hugely wasted opportunity.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Bounty Hunter (I) (2010)
4/10
Another nail in the Hollywood coffin
24 October 2010
Okay, just to get it out of the way real quick, this is not a very good movie. I suppose it is meant to be an action romantic comedy but it fails on both counts. Its just another 100 minutes of Hollywood clichés that we have seen dozens of times before in assorted guises and they weren't very good the first time round. It takes about the first minute of the film to work out where this one ends up in the romantic side of things. The action is wildly lame. The characters are grotesquely under developed and grotesquely stereotyped. There are completely unnecessary characters that do less than nothing to move the stolid story along at anything but a snails pace. What I find terribly depressing is why Hollywood producers seem to think this short of regurgitated rubbish is worthy of actually committing to celluloid. On this sort of evidence you have to wonder why the film companies don't just save themselves hundreds of millions of dollars and just close down production. Be better than wasting money making this sort of unwatchable drivel. Oh, and the casting is atrocious (can anyone explain to me why Jennifer Aniston keeps on getting parts?). She cannot act, has all the emotive powers of the local rubbish dump and seems incapable of actually doing anything other than regurgitate the same character ad nauseam. Gerard Butler seems to be ready to rehash the same chauvinistic character ad nauseam too. You would really be struggling to find an actor in this drivel.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Futurama (1999– )
10/10
Fantastic stuff
29 October 2006
Matt Groening will forever be known as the creator of "The Simpsons". It is a pity that he will be remembered for the second-best thing he ever did. "The Simpsons" has been endured for nearly two decades yet in all those episodes, you would be hard-pressed to find an equivalent number of memorable episodes as the far superior "Futurama" managed in its five seasons of existence. "Futurama" generally has much superior story lines, the characters are far more quirky and enjoyable, the humour is way better, the animation is way better and the writing was most importantly much more consistent. Overall, Matt Groening achieved far more enjoyable television entertainment with "Futurama" than he has with "The Simpsons", yet the better show was cancelled. Go figure.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Firefly (2002–2003)
10/10
Proves US TV executives have no idea!
29 October 2006
I never saw the series on TV (I don't recall if it ever made it onto Australian TV) but picked up the series on DVD. Why? Well, I am a sci-fi fan and I had heard about how good the show was. The first time I sat down and watched the entire series, it simply blew me away. The concept was excellent (one I got right away even though some seem to have problem doing so), the writing was great, the characters believable and the humor wonderful. Joss Whedon hit the jackpot and it would seem that no one knew it. This is a show that had just about everything you could possibly want in it - action, adventure, romance, humor - and the stupid US TV executives cut it off before it even got going. Had they had the sense to let Joss do it his way, they would be sitting on the best TV show around right now - it probably was at the time they canceled the show.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Frasier (1993–2004)
10/10
The best TV sitcom ever
29 October 2006
Whilst a good fan of "Cheers", I was somewhat surprised when it was announced that the Frasier character was getting s spin-off series. I did not see how this was going to work and had rather low expectations for both the show and how long it would last. A decade later and "Frasier" turned out to be simply the best TV sitcom ever made. Virtually unique in concept and presentation, there has been hardly a dud episode in the show and the cast has proved to be one of the best ever assembled for any TV show, certainly in the United States. I doubt that this show will ever be surpassed on mainstream US TV and it would be hard to imagine life without "Frasier" either on TV or on DVD. Repeated viewings remain as enjoyable as the first time viewing on TV. Simply the very best.
58 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Nurse Betty (2000)
4/10
Rubbish is never cheap enough
24 August 2004
The premise intrigued me, so I indulged this "film" when it became available at a cheap price point on DVD. I now realise that sometimes there is no price point cheap enough for a film and Nurse Betty is one of those films. Oh, don't get me wrong - I am not knocking the actors who mostly did a fair fist of things overall but they really were not given anything much to work with here. This just drags, big time. Not remotely funny, just appallingly pathetic mostly with some odd casting choices. Not the least of those being Chris Rock, whose seeming inability to actually act and provide any sort of characterization other than his loud mouth schtick really is getting quite tiresome, and really drags the film down even further. Morgan Freeman is a great actor but deserves better than this. Overall a waste of time that might have got 5/10 if Chris Rock was not cast but as it is barely gets 4/10. Eminently avoidable.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed