jbengel-2

From the very first frames 3 Deewarein grips you and won't let go. This very well may be the best movie of its kind I have ever seen an *any* language. In fact, apart from the subtitles, you might just forget that you're watching an Indian film. Even the normal liberties that Bollywood normally takes with the concept of "suspension of disbelief" (and that Bolly fans have come to accept) are mostly absent from this movie. The characters are deep, intense and best of all completely credible. Others here have hailed 3 Deewarein as Juhi Chawla's comeback film, and she certainly shines in her role. But perhaps more surprising to me was Jackie Shroff's performance. Shroff's typical roles haven't impressed me one way or the other -- as especially good or bad -- in most other movies I've seen him in. But his portrayal of "Jaggu" here definitely made me sit up and take notice. And left me wondering how much of my former indifference was due to Jackie, and how much was due to the scripts he's been working from. Nasserudin Shah presents another complex and lovable character in "Ishaan". While not quite as endearing as the title role in "Shree 420", "Ishaan" certainly shares some qualities with that character.

The story might be best compared to a pointillist painting. In the beginning we see very narrow views from very close angles. It's only as the plot unfolds and we back away from the canvas that we see the actual picture. And the canvas itself is impressive and elegantly understated. The opening sequences -- shot in blue-toned monochrome -- introduce the story in very short order (the entire run time of the film is listed at 120 minutes, which by Bollywood standards almost qualifies as a "short subject") and there is nothing wasted during the exposition. And it's because of this that you are drawn in immediately and rooted for the duration.

I cannot bring myself to write anything that would hint at the ending of the story. To do that here would be to do you and the film a grave injustice. Let it suffice to say that the ending was not even *remotely * what I expected.

If you're only a fan of "Masti-Masala" fare, don't watch this movie. You will be disappointed. But if you can spare two hours to be engrossed by a story that is at times grim, and times heartwarming and most of all surprising you *need* to see this film. From casting to camera to script, this is an astonishing work.

It wasn't until the very end of Ram-Janne that I realized I was watching an homage to the 1938 "Angels With Dirty Faces" with James Cagney. If you can hold out that long, the final 15-20 minutes of the film is worth the wait. Until then, this is pretty typical masala fare with Shah Rukh Khan and Juhi Chawla dancing their way off to exotic locales not remotely related to the movie. It's those musical interludes -- and a few comical moments during "Ramjanne's" childhood -- that make the majority of the first half of the movie bearable. As much as I love Juhi, her character was a cardboard cutout in most scenes, Vivek Mushran's "Murli" (the alter ego of Pat O'Brien's "Father Jerry Connely" in "Angels") was less saintly than saccharine, and Pankaj Kapur as "Pannu Technicolor" was just plain annoying. Even Shah Rukh's version of Cagney's "Rocky Sullivan" (the title character, "Ram-Janne") couldn't prop this film up most of the way through.

But the film's final scenes vindicate the patient viewer. Yes, it's still Bollywood at its melodramatic best. But the same elements that made "Angels" the classic it is are all in place for the big finish. And perhaps Ram-Janne -- being a masala film -- lends itself even better to this denouement than did its predecessor.

Because it's this kind of scene that Bollywood does better than anyone else. Seeing SRK begging for his life on the way to the gallows is somehow more believable than watching Cagney blubbering in fear on his way to the electric chair. And give credit to F.C. Mehra for at least choosing to remake a film that's not been (re)done to death.

A remake -- by definition -- will never change the course of cinematic history. But if you have an evening to spare, there are far worse choices you could make.

...and that only as a last resort.

I have seen a LOT of bad films. But rarely do I see one that in which can't find something to like. It would be impossible to write a spoiler for Akhiri Inteqam if for no other reason than its completely predictable plot. The short version: girl meets boy, girl's family disapproves, girl's family's rivals kill boy (for reasons that are never completely clear)then assault girl for good measure. Girl plots revenge. Result much mayhem. Poorly scripted and even more poorly acted mayhem at that. The requisite "training montage" takes cues from Jennifer Lopez in "Enough", Sylvester Stallone in the original "Rocky" -- complete with a chicken chasing scene -- and every other bad 80's underdog action film. At the end of it all our heroine has been transformed from shrinking violet to commando in a B-cup, and still hasn't learned how to properly hold an assault rifle. She's apparently not learned how to shoot it very well either, as we see her miss her intended target multiple times at point blank range despite blazing away on full-automatic. Even the nom d'voyage she chooses -- "Jallad" (loosely translated in the subtitles as "Terminator") -- is laughable.

To round out the Bollywood Masala formula we must have the comedic relief -- in this case supplied by an unconvincing Johnny Lever clone -- and at least one song and dance number, but even that can't save this movie. The number itself features the heroine and her boyfriend dancing to the required love song, which is standard enough. But the song visualization is embedded in the scene where the heroine is being gang raped and the boyfriend we will soon learn has been murdered. A cheery counterpoint to a musical pledge of undying love, hai na? To sum up, why I sat through 2 hours of mind-numbing dialog, amateurish special effects, horridly contrived fight scenes and a story line that is barely discernible is the biggest mystery this film provides. I suppose I was waiting for it to get better.

It didn't.

"Raat" has its moments that could be called creepworthy, but while not necessarily formulaic in the sense that it follows the pattern of most Indian horror movies it certainly IS formulaic for Ram Gopal Varma. The "family-moves-to-a-new-house-and-guss-what-it's-haunted" theme is a staple of Varma's, but was much better done in "Vaastu Shastra". But if you want to see the "finished" version of Raat, watch Ramu's 2003 offering, "Bhoot". Still, it's difficult to flatly dislike "Raat" if for no other reason than it displays some talented lesser-known players. Of the featured cast only Om Puri could be considered a marquee actor (though Revathi, who stars in the role of Minnie and Anant Nag, the psychiatrist, both have a long list of films to their credit). But perhaps the best feature of "Raat" is the cinematography. Varma is masterful in his use of camera angles in virtually all of his films and this one is no exception. The "first-person" angle is a trademark of his and he uses it to perfection in the opening sequence and multiple others. This simple technique not only creates a good deal of suspense, it allows the director to do so without blowing a fortune on special effects. In sum, "Raat" is entertaining, avoids too many serious plot holes and is capably staged and lit. But I would recommend either "Vaastu Shastra" or "Bhoot" over it for pure horror value.

At this point I've seen more than a few Hindi horror movies and for the most part I usually find them amusing but certainly not scary. This one... well, "scary" might be taking it too far, but creepy it certainly was. I'm not sure that any Indian horror film has raised my neck hair as often as this one did. Predictable? Sure... but aren't they all? There are very few "original" story ideas left in the horror genre. But even with the best of story ideas, it's the execution that separates the good from the mediocre from the truly bad (see "Kaun?", 1999). And Vaastu Shastra is pretty much spot-on in the execution department. Staging and lighting worked well, even the makeup was better than the norm (especially for the creepy dead-things). And while some have pointed to other films as "inspirations" for "Vaastu Shastra", it's not the obvious Hollywood or Korean or Japanese (or Hong Kong, or...) ripoff that you might expect. Yes, there are elements of several previous films, but really... can't you say that about just about every horror movie released since "Night of the Living Dead"? Someday perhaps a writer somewhere in the world will come up with a story we've never seen before. But with the sheer number of films that have rolled out since the invention of the motion picture camera, it's nearly impossible to make a film in any genre -- especially the horror genre -- that doesn't include elements of those that have gone before. "Vaastu Shastra" is no exception, but the "borrowed" elements are more a salute to the films that came before it than they are blatant plagiarism. This is a well written, well-directed, well produced movie and one well worth watching.

As mentioned by others, Hawa borrows heavily from the Barbara Hershey film The Entity and to a lesser degree from Poltergeist. This kind of homage is typical of Bollywood horror films, but outside of that Hawa is anything BUT typical of Indian horror movies. As an American viewer I -- like most of my countrymen -- have been desensitized enough by Hollywood slasher films that an old-fashioned spook story doesn't usually get much of a rise out of me. What is horrifying in India is usually prime time TV fodder here on this side of the world. And while Hawa isn't going to make me check under the bed at night, it did have enough suspense to raise a few hairs on my neck. Surprising when considering its obvious similarities to two films I've seen several times before. A few more films like this one and Bollywood will begin to be viewed as a credible producer of films in the horror genre by those accustomed to the more graphic Western versions. Normally I would recommend that if you want to watch Indian movies, stick with what Bollywood does best -- romantic comedy, drama, musicals and the like. But in this case I'm willing to make an exception. Hawa is definitely worth a watch, and if you're easily spooked it might even scare you. If you're not, it may still creep you out a little.

Forget everything you thought you knew about Indian cinema.

No matter where you live in the world, you need to see this film. Onir has taken a potentially controversial story and put it in a context that not only treats it with dignity and respect, but evaporates all of the cultural, political, socio-economic and even geographical boundaries that separate us. It would be easy to dismiss My Brother Nikhil as a "gay film" or an "AIDS Awareness film", but while both of those components are contained in the story, the movie is -- at its core -- a family drama. The crisis in this case is HIV/AIDS, but it could have just as easily been some other problem. AIDS is not the point, homosexuality is not the point. The point of the film is the impact of a tragic circumstance on a young man and his family.

Onir has managed to portray this drama in an even-handed manner that imposes no judgments on the characters. Sanjay Suri -- in this reviewer's estimation -- climbed several rungs of the credibility ladder with his performance in the title role. Juhi Chawla sparkles as Nikhil's sister Anamika, Victor Bannerjee and Lillete Dubey offer a seamless portrayal of parents whose world has been turned upside down and relative newcomer Purab Kholi shines as Nikhil's young lover.

In addition to being an "important" film, My Brother Nikhil is a masterpiece of lighting, photography and music. Which is why I titled this comment "Yeh film sab log dekhna ki hain!" (Everyone needs to see this film!)

I come to Pinjar from a completely different background than most of the other reviewers who have posted here. I'm relatively new to Bollywood films and was born and raised in the US. So I don't have a broad basis for comparing Pinjar to other Indian films. Luckily, no comparison is needed.

Pinjar stands on its own as nothing less than a masterpiece.

In one line I can tell you that Pinjar is one of the most important films to come out of any studio anywhere at any time. On a mass-appeal scale, it *could* have been the Indian equivalent of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" had it been adequately promoted in the US. This could very well have been the film that put Bollywood on the American map. The American movie-going public has a long-standing love affair with "Gone With the Wind", and while Pinjar doesn't borrow from that plot there are some passing similarities. Not the least of which is the whopping (by US standards) 183-minute run time.

Set against the gritty backdrop of the India-Pakistan partition in 1947-48 is a compelling human drama of a young woman imprisoned by circumstances and thrust into troubles she had no hand in creating. Put into an untenable position, she somehow manages to not only survive, but to grow -- and even flourish.

If the story is lacking in any way, it's in the exposition. Puro's (the protagonist) growth as a person would be better illustrated -- at least for western audiences unfamiliar with Indian culture -- if her character's "back story" were more fully developed in the early part of the film. But that would have stretched a 3-hour movie to 3 1/2 hours or perhaps even more. Because not one minute of the film is wasted, and none of what made it out of editing could really be cut for the sake of time. Better that the audience has to fill in some of what came before than to leave out any of what remains.

I could use many words to describe Pinjar: "poignant", "disturbing", "compelling", "heart-wrenching" come to mind immediately. But "uplifting" is perhaps as apropos as any of those. Any story that points up the indomitability of the human spirit against the worst of odds has to be considered such. And Puro's triumph -- while possibly not immediately evident to those around her -- is no less than inspirational. For strength of story alone I cannot recommend this film highly enough.

Equally inspiring is Urmila Matondkar's portrayal of Puro. All too often overlooked amid the bevy of younger, newer actresses, Urmila has the unique capability to deliver a completely credible character in any role she plays. She doesn't merely act Puro's part, she breathes life into the character. Manoj Bajpai's selection as Rashid was inspired. He manages something far too few Indian film heroes can: subtlety. His command of expression and nuance is essential to the role. He brings more menace to the early part of the film with his piercing stare than all of the sword-wielding rioters combined.

If you only see one Bollywood film in your life, make it Pinjar.

First off, I'll have to take the word of everyone who claims "Naina" is a ripoff of "The Eye". Since I've never seen it, I can't confirm or deny.

Second, as an American viewer, I appreciated the notable absence of the "big song-and-dance" number that seems to make its way into most Bollywood films -- no matter the genre. The grandmother is endearing even if she seems a bit out of place.

"Bhoot" was a better offering purely as a horror film. Not that "Naina" didn't have its moments, but it wasn't so much scary as merely creepy. The first time Naina comes face-to-face with Khemi is a prime example of what I mean (and if you want to know more than that you'll have to watch it).

But "Naina" has a special place for me because it was my introduction to Urmila Matondkar -- quite possibly THE most exquisitely beautiful woman in the world. And for her -- or any sighted person -- to play the role of a blind woman and do it with eyes wide open is a challenge. That Urmila was completely *believable* as a blind woman says a lot about her talent.

And to a couple of earlier reviewers: The bald child in the hospital was a GIRL, and Naina was NOT blind from birth -- she was blinded in an accident at age 5. I wouldn't bring it up, but if you're going to call somebody out about attention to detail you should really make sure your own slip isn't showing first.

Billed on the cover as "American Pie meets Risky Business" you'd expect The Girl Next Door to be one of the mindless teen comedies so ubiquitous in today's market. Typically I wouldn't have given this DVD a second look, but I like Elisha Cuthbert so I picked it up.

Not that this is a film destined to change the course of cinematic history, but it IS considerably more thoughtful than most of its genre. Yes, we know before the first scene opens what's going to happen. This is not just boy-meets-girl, this is more like boy-meets-fantasy-girl and if you've ever been an 18-year-old boy, or even known one for more than 15 minutes you can see what's coming. The only question is going to be how, right? Not really. What you won't see coming is a surprisingly poignant performance by Cuthbert as the girl jaded far beyond her years. The character Danielle is a vulnerable girl guarded by the brittle hard edge of a veteran of the adult film industry. But when she meets Matthew (Emile Hirsch) who knows her only as Danielle, the house-sitting niece of his next door neighbor she lets down her guard in the hope that she can reinvent herself in this smallish town where she's an unknown.

It probably would have worked too if not for the meddling influence of one of Matthew's friends, Eli (Chris Marquette). Eli, it seems, is plugged into the world of porn and reveals Danielle's secret to Matthew.

At the prodding of his friends, Matthew makes his play to bed the beautiful Danielle. A gambit that is as endearingly clumsy as it is predictable. But it is here that Cuthbert renders what -- for me -- is the defining moment of the film. And she does it in one word.

The word is "Okay", and is delivered in response to Matthew's suggestion that they get a room. In that moment, in that one word, we see Danielle pull back from Matthew and resign herself to the idea that she will never be anything more than the porn queen she was back in the big city. She sheds no tears, and she makes no sign that she knows that he's found her out until later. But in that one moment, we see the hope of the re-invention of Danielle evaporate in a way that's nearly palpable.

In the real world, this would have been the end of the movie. Lucky for us, this isn't the real world and Matthew somehow manages to mature enough in the next few scenes to attempt a comeback.

The details of the comeback are a source of great amusement including a break-in at the home of a big time producer, crashing the adult entertainment convention in Las Vegas, and showing up to deliver a speech to a scholarship committee after being slipped a dose of Ecstacy.

Ultimately, we can see that the two will eventually sort things out and they do. Though the way they do it is something of a surprise that I'll leave for the movie to tell you about.

If you liked Risky Business, The Breakfast Club, Ridgemont High, and the rest of this class, you'll like The Girl Next Door. If you LOVED those films, you might NOT like The Girl Next Door. Ardent fans of mindless comedy might find this film a little too deep for their tastes. And if you're expecting borderline soft core porn, you're going to be disappointed. While the film does contain some nudity (it would have been almost impossible for it NOT to) it's hardly chock full of gratuitous sex.

In the end, Cuthbert's character is compelling (more so than even her later versions of Kim Bauer on TV's "24") and Hirsch is the perfect foil for her. This is a movie worth seeing -- a rare feat in modern Hollywood.