sayakboral-1

I'm going for a generous 5 out of 10 for this travesty only because I admire Cameron Diaz's acting skills. She's among very few female actors that can make you laugh with their sense of comic timing, the other one would possibly be Jennifer Aniston. I mean I didn't even look at the trailers and went straight ahead to buy the overpriced ticket, thinking it would simply be another roller-coaster comedy ride not very different from Bad Teacher (which is one of my favorite comedy movies) what with Bad Teacher's Jason Segel also thrown in into the potboiler.

However, the whole premise was a major disappointment. The absence of a storyline was evident right from the beginning. This includes characters like that next door neighbor and the flirtatious boss, while everyone found them obnoxious, I'd venture to say these characters seemed to have been lifted straight from imbecilic pornography movies. Well as a matter of fact, this movie really lives up to its promise - it's almost like a soft-core porn flick with cheesy dialogs and overacting at every scene. Jason Segel just seems to be a happy guy, I mean it seems every 5 minutes he jumps into bed with Cameron Diaz, what I wouldn't give really.

Did I like anything about this movie? Yes there was this overgrown, super-mature, obese kid in the 5th grade called Howard something - I found him really funny every time he went around blackmailing Jason Segel for the sex tapes.

There's also a scene with Cameron Diaz in a miniskirt putting on her roller-skates. That would feel super awesome for genuine Cameron Diaz admirers. We all love her!. Had there been any other female playing the lead character instead of Cameron, it wouldn't prick my conscience even once to trash this movie completely. That's how bad it is.

This sequel of an all-time favorite cult classic seriously disappoints: considering they had so much good going for them, they really blew the chance. For one, the plot is based on a historical episode "Battle of Salamis" which in fact, had a bigger role to play in securing Greek victory over Persians than the "Battle of Thermopylae" depicted in the original 300.

You might like this movie ONLY and ONLY if you have not seen the original 300. And why call this one "300" anyway? The Battle of Salamis was not fought by 300 Greeks but at least 10000-- the title itself is misleading. And as you watch the events unfold before you, the inconsistencies start adding up and if you have an above average IQ, it WILL eventually kill your interest.

The sequence of events wasn't lengthy but within the first 10 minutes, the plot became clichéd and boring. I slept through the remaining movie except for 1 or 2 scenes. One might be forgiven for pinning the blame on Frank Miller's, he was unable to make the comic sequel (on which this movie is based) as interesting as the original 300 which managed to grab your attention within the first 10 minutes itself.

As time went on, the drama was rapidly unfolding before you and combined with an all-powering action, you knew that it would certainly head for a brilliant climax - the last stand of Leonidas and his men was EPIC of magnificent proportions.

Now you can't change the events of history but it was certainly possible to make 300: The Rise of Empire more interesting. You have to use a different formula.

The character of Xerxes was totally wasted on this one; I was done with him after the original 300 and in no mood to watch him again as this wasn't his episode!! In fact, Xerxes didn't participate at all in the Battle of Salamis and left it to his generals why devote so much screen time to him including over 10 minutes of background on how and why he became a God-King. Totally pointless.

Another historical inaccuracy: Darius I of Persia didn't die from an arrow wound in the Battle of Marathon but 3 years later peacefully in his bed. You can certainly take a few liberties when documenting history in a cinema but not so much that it distorts the original events.

Another inaccurate idea was the premise that Artemesia saw her family massacred before her eyes, got sold into slavery and was discarded to perish before being picked up by a kind Persian emissary. That's not correct as wikipedia suggests she was a Queen in her own right. Factually speaking, many Greeks were satrapies of Persians and were entirely devoted to Xerxes. The background of Artemesia has been filled with wild imaginatons and takes away the story's credibility.

The acting was tolerable at best and second rate at worst. None of the characters seem to be speakng their dialogs with any sense of conviction except for one scene where Themistokles blurts out "we choose to die on our feet, rather than live on our knees!" -- I liked that one, the only dialog inspiring enough in a movie filled with bad writing. Only a bad writer can write something so unoriginal as:

1. XERXES" Today we will dance across the backs of dead Greeks (yawn) 2. ARTEMESIA: I will attack the Greeks with my entire navy! (No points for that, genius) 3. QUEEN GORGO: Leonidas is dead THEMISTOCLES: Then avenge him (Wow, that was sooo original!!) 4. XERXES: Nothing will stop the march of my empire! (Enough already, I need my aspirin now)

Not a single dialog in this pathetic sequel comes close to the immortal line "THIS IS SPARTA". Gerard Butler kicked ass as Leonidas none was disagree with that statement...whatever the actor was who played Themistocles, he seriously sucks. A truly forgettable performance.

As for Eva Green playing Artemeisa, to be fair, she acted well but the script let her down. Her dialogs were cheesy and totally lacked depth. Oh, they didn't forget to add a sex scene, but it was so corny and must have been played out a million times in C-grade porn movies...less said about it the better.

Was there anything redeemable about this movie? Hmm...difficult to answer but let us say 5 years down the line when you check on your DVD collection and come across a copy of the original 300, you will still want to see it again...I saw the original 300 probably 50 times and it's still as fresh. As for this pathetic sequel, it will soon be forgotten in the annals of history - the rubbish bin of bad movie-making.

Methinks the movie-makers of current generation have become a LAZY LOT...they lack the craft and ingenuity required in telling a good story. Now that would be an unfair statement, THE WOLF OF WALL STREET holds its own in this entire season of mediocre and over-hyped movies - another piece of drivel being Dallas Buyer's Club. Whoever likes that movie and this so-called "300 sequel", please let me know so I can unfriend you on Facebook.

Often when you talk of biopics, movie-makers tend to oversimplify the lead characters showcasing them at the same level as common people. I can think of recent movies made on Margaret Thatcher and Princess Diana. While it does the job of making those famous people appear down-to-earth and humane, it somehow fails to capture their innermost strengths that contributed to make them such great, astounding individuals in the first place.

This biopic on Nelson Mandela can be accurately summarized as a cult CLASSIC. From the beginning to the end, you couldn't have asked for a more riveting, edge-of-the-seat, high quality entertainment. Hats off to the movie-makers for pulling this one off with such superb finesse. There wasn't a dull moment in the whole affair.

Before I saw this film, I wouldn't have cared much for Mandela or why the world considered hum such a famous individual; I didn't even pay attention to his recent funeral news except for the Obama "selfie" goof- up. Can't blame me, I come from a different part of the world (India) and was a very small kid when Mandela got released from prison. OK, so I saw him on Television and read a bit about Apartheid in South Africa but frankly speaking this wasn't a story that would have grabbed my attention in 2014.

That's where the power of cinema can drastically change your apathetic views, in less than two and a half hours, this movie managed to shock, delight, make me laugh and cry at the same time. Idris Elba's portrayal of Mandela was probably as good as the real man himself. In one scene, he lambastes his wife, Minnie Mandela for supporting those who brought the African National Congress a bad name through their use of violence and intimidation tactics. And the scene where he calls for forgiving his past enemies was done so well that it deserves a standing ovation.

But what I liked most about this movie was the fact that here we really get to experience Nelson Mandela's inner person at every step of his long, arduous struggle. Great men don't became great overnight, they just happen to be more resilient and powerful dreamers compared to your average person who give up early. The time when Mandela got arrested, in 1963, he wasn't really the VIP guest he was meant to be when he eventually got out of prison. Life behind bars was as hard for him as any other person: like all black prisoners, Mandela was made to wear humiliating shorts clearly indicating that he was supposed to be the lowest on the totem pole compared to non-Black prisoners who get to wear full trousers. He was allowed only two letters in a year to his family (that too heavily censored), no chance to see his little kids for a very long time, the unbearable agony of reading the news that his wife is serving time in prison, the terrible tragedy where he learns that his son died of a motor accident. I mean you really gotta admire this man's strength of character, after experiencing so much, most normal people would break down. But not Nelson Mandela, he grew more powerful with each act of oppression. What was the source of his strength hardly anyone would know but this clearly was no ordinary man.

Where do I even start? Like another reviewer just mentioned, it would have been more fun watching paint dry. So, I saw this 7.8 rating on IMDb and thought this one is just going to hit the spot for the week-end, especially after Wolf of Wall Street, I thought there is another surprise in store for me. For a movie that is supposed to be all about con-men and con women, the only thing they managed to con was the money you spent to watch this drivel.

It seems the directors themselves were not very convinced of the script that's why the lame precautionary note in the beginning reels, "Some of the events depicted in this film are true". They spent too much time trying to build a background for those characters and those irritating voice-overs didn't help matters. I was deceived into watching this crappola as the trailers were misleadingly interesting: turns out they used up all the funniest portions in the trailer itself. The rest of the movie was as boring as watching a cat take a poop next to your neighbour's window.

Know what, the only character that was remotely natural and convincing turns out to be Jennifer Lawrence in her role as a housewife suffering from attention disorders. She outdid the other veteran actors like Christian Bale and Bradley Cooper and was not an eyesore exactly. The other girl, some Italian actress I suppose, all she does on screen is trying to pretend to be a "con-woman" and flash her two little assets whether or not the occasion calls for it. And that Arab Sheikh played by a supposedly Mexican guy, I didn't understand the twisted logic but they should have just picked a mannequin and covered it with those thawbs that Arabs wear, it was as unconvincing to the audience as to the supposed con victims.

In all fairness, for Jennifer Lawrence alone, this movie deserves maybe a 3 or 4 stars but I'm giving it a 1 to somehow balance out all those outrageously false ratings.

Don't waste your money and time, you'll thank me for it.

Just saw this movie, have to admit it makes me feel really "high". The last action movie that impressed me this far was Expendables 2. Vidyut Jammwal has given an all-round performance in the role of a commando, and would leave you speechless with his convincing stunts and kick-ass dialogs, girls are bound to wet their panties when they see such a hardcore manhood depiction and even the most insincere critics should not find fault with the predictable clichés that are so essential in giving life to the script. There isn't a boring moment in the entire movie. You should watch it again and again only so that you can rehearse some of the impressive dialogs like the one below.

"Kabhi Adam chhodta hey, kabhi cootie, eke bar a Kale ah mil, Mard hone Kay Essa's ho Jaye gay" (ENGLISH TRANSLATION: Wow, first you send your cronies then your vicious dogs. For once, I dare you to come alone so that you can realize what it takes to be a MAN).

Jaideep Ahlawat gave a nice performance as main villain, the new girl Pooja Chopra perfectly fits the role of damsel-in-distress.

They should definitely do a sequel of Commando. Vidyut, a new star is born. I hope he sticks to such roles in future and can cultivate the image of an action actor, just as Emraan Hashmi has of a serial kisser.

I'm not exactly what you'd call an action movie fan but I had enjoyed Expendables 2 when it hit the cinemas. The difference between a good action movie and a mediocre one is that the former contains well- developed, understated characters that don't beg you (the audience) for attention.

"Show, not tell" is the most important lesson they teach you in drama school, unfortunately too many movie-makers ignore these basics thus, driving their entire plot into clichéd territory. Whereas Expendables 2 made a strong impression due to deadly performances by French-accented Jean Claude Van Damme and Jason Statham, Olympus has fallen fails to make the mark despite some edge-of-the-seat excitement and a brilliant storyline. It's nice to have ceaseless gunfire, helicopter attacks and rogue nukes all over the screen but they should remain in the backdrop.

I repeat, NOTHING can replace method acting, especially when you have a cast like Aaron Eckhart (Thank you for Smoking), Morgan Freeman and Gerard Butler. Freeman looked tired and bored whereas Butler was too busy being badass, his character didn't come alive despite being portrayed as a one-man demolition machine. But, he still has a few cheeky one-liner moments against the Korean villain Kang and the United States government, but don't you see, anyone in that situation would have reacted with the same sense of humour.

A lot of dialogue writers need to be fired for lacking imagination, and for making me yawn!

On the surface, Chakravyuh comes across as a fairly competent film on the subject of Naxalite problem, and need I add it's fairly entertaining with not too many moments of boredom. But, once you get past the entertainment, the script is really weak in most parts and the acting, not convincing at all. Basically, this film attempts to play on most stereotypes collected from news events surrounding the Naxalite problem, and it awfully fails when it deviates from the stereotypes.

For starters, Prakash Jha did a gross injustice to cinematic ethics by portraying this unrealistic romantic angle between Abhay Deol's character and a Naxalite female leader. He's basically supporting anti- nationalism and such a stupid portrayal is grossly insensitive to Indians who consider themselves patriotic. Even given the fact that Abhay's character is a bit of a rebel without a cause, it was totally wrong to depict him go against his best friend and country for some newfound love interest. This romantic angle is a gross trivialization of such a sensitive topic. I know all kinds of characters - good and bad, exist in the real world but this is where an intelligent movie-maker should know how and which characters to sympathize with.

Have you ever seen a mainstream Hollywood movie where the director sympathizes with terrorists and American troop-killers - NO - this is because Americans have profound respect for their armed forces! By showing his clear-cut sympathy for shady characters from the Naxalite movement like the one played by Om Puri, Prakash Jha and all script- writers who worked on this movie project, have betrayed this country and its armed forces. It's an absolutely UNFORGIVABLE act and all Indians should reject this film. Such a project can only be the work of a traitor.

I really expected to see a lot of dead Naxalites but I only saw dead Policemen and dead armed force personnel. This really disgusted me. Prakash Jha, you might as well take foreign citizenship - the medium of cinema is a means to connect with your countrymen, not play against their sensitivities. You are an absolute disgrace to India. The fact that you didn't kill the main Naxalite characters, played by Manoj Bajpai and Om Puri, is unforgivable in my book. You should not be allowed to make political films in future given your anti-national rhetoric.

Now, I must say I don't have a problem in those scene depictions where greedy corporate barons played by Kabir Bedi and his son resort to atrocities against the villagers. But, there are other ways to confront those characters. Maybe, the SP played by Arjun Rampal could have been depicted showing a strong stand against the greedy industrialists and politicians.

India may be considered a corrupt country but every Indian should have ABSOLUTE UNFLINCHING support and respect for our armed forces and Police. These are men who put their lives on the line to keep our civilians safe. Any movie-maker who grossly portrays the armed forces and police in a negative light, deserves the label of "traitor" and that should certainly apply to Prakash Jha and team.

With Raaz 3, the Bhatt camp continues to explore the viewer's fascination with the afterlife and the occult, liberally borrowing plot elements from a host of Hollywood movies that have acquired a cult following. These would at least include "The Exorcist" (priest exorcism), "House of Wax" (abandoned studio), "Resident Evil" (close-ups of freaky monster), "Nightmare on Elm Street" (the girl can't sleep), "Drive-thru" and "We all scream for ice-cream" (for the scary clown).

Apparently, the Bhatt camp took the misquoted sentence "Copying from one source is plagiarism, copying from multiple sources is Research" in a plain wrong way. In the words of Emraan Hashmi from this very movie, do they think the audience is dumb enough not to care about this kind of "chutia-paa"? Come on, Mr. Bhatt, give us something original, just sprinkling some Indian flavour where Ganeshji loans a trident to the hero so he can fight Evil in the end doesn't quite absolve you of plagiarism.

The worst part is the didactic manner in which the Bhatts explain stuff about the afterlife; almost, as if Class 6 students are being introduced to a History subject. "This is called Black Magic", "This potion of water is laced with black magic", "Now you go to the world of souls where you fight the baddies", "If God doesn't answer your prayer, come to the Devil. He might help you." Every time one of these dialogues flashed on screen, I couldn't help but yawn.

The only redeeming feature about this movie is Bipasha Basu. I think she showed some strong conviction in her acting - Esha and Emraan looked jaded and Esha's histrionics were a bit over-the-top. Manish Chaudhary, I generally consider him a good actor but this time, he somewhat failed to convince in the role of Satan.

Murder 2, the much anticipated sequel is surprisingly very different to the original Murder. If you want to watch this film for its erotic aspect alone, you'll be somewhat disappointed with the lack of originality as several recent Bollywood flicks have turned sex into an over-rated, oversold theme. However the serial-killer dimension is a novelty - all the blood, gore, darkness and intimidation blends into a perfect plot to literally scare the living daylights out of you, pun intended. This movie is clearly a popcorn fest and recommended to be seen when you have been bored like hell or had a very bad day at the workplace. Please don't watch if your mood is cheerful - Murder 2 is far too disturbing. An A certificate is justified and children should be prevented from coming close to a DVD release.

As for the performances, every actor played his/her part quite well. Jacqueline looks beautiful, Emraan comes sharp-witted with his dialogue delivery but the real scene stealer was Prashant Narayan who brought great conviction and authenticity to his serial killer role. He should undoubtedly win some kind of Best villain award.

Jack Sparrow...I mean Captain Jack Sparrow, it's probably time to hang your boots and bury your sinking pirate career before dirt-storm wrecks whatever remains of my sweet memories of the original Jack Sparrow legend, the Curse of the Black Pearl. Although, I wasn't half as impressed with its sequels, somehow even in those movies the Pirate magic weaved its way into the hearts of loyal fans, many of whom I'm sure are as aggrieved and disappointed as I am, just choosing to remain silent out of respect and love for the Jack Sparrow we all knew and cared about. However it needs to be said, the current version achieves nothing apart from making you scratch your head in frustration.

Someone here commented this was supposed to be better than at least its last two predecessors -bollocks. After all, who can forget the inspiring "Hoist the Colours" speech by Elizabeth in "At World's End", and that opening execution scene did it not send shivers down your spine? About this version, I don't recollect ONE memorable scene worth talking about. There's nothing, absolutely nothing inspirational or redeemable.

Before watching this monstrous travesty of a pirate story, I read each and every review on IMDb and was confused whether or not to spend a lot of money on it. Finally I listened to my heart who cares about critics, being a loyal Pirate fan I knew at least Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush wouldn't disappoint. My, couldn't have been any wronger. In fact, I never felt so disappointed listening to my heart. With a straight face, I managed to sit through the entire screening, taking a while to realise how casually the sublime Pirate magic was fading away into an appalling doom of mediocrity, clichés and earthy innuendoes.

Plot aside, everything about the movie was repetitive and easily predictive, "now comes the swordfight", "now comes the menacing Blackbeard", "the mermaid's about to bite". If they paid me a dollar for each correct guess, I'm sure I would have been rich by now. Even the soundtrack failed to strike a chord. About Jack Sparrow and Barbossa, I could notice a deep sense of fatigue in dialogue delivery with such fine actors despite the fact no one else can take their roles. Was it like let's just take our money and get over with this nonsense. About Blackbeard, impressive introduction but for the remaining film, I don't think that character could have scared a two year old in a dark room. Angelica, that Latina lover of Jack Sparrow, well she could have been a breath of fresh air but the character lacked depth and dimensions. Speaking of Latins, why did they make the Spaniard Kings and soldiers speak English? I've read a lot of history about Spain's naval prowess in the olden days, for greater authenticity couldn't they have made them speak Castilian Spanish with sub- titles in English. It's tiny details like these which make you angry about the lack of research in putting together such a fabled story. The "Fountain of Youth", again a great plot element but I wanted a genuine SENSE OF HISTORY with that like its legendary connections with Ancient Greeks and the lost kingdom of Atlantis. Again, deja vu remember how Barbossa made an introduction of those Gold nuggets in Curse of the Black Pearl, connecting them with Aztec civilisation and the Conquistadores led by Hernan Cortes. Now, that's called RESEARCH.

The mermaids were neither beautiful nor significant enough. I think they should have casted blonde Russian chicks straight from Moscow and St.Petersburg for that look of vulnerability. The priest who fell in love with the mermaid was neither convincing in his religious fervour nor his romantic passion for the woman.

VERDICT: Let this Pirate of the Caribbean storyline end now already, and not be resurrected until another 50-100 years!

P.S.: In all fairness, I've seen far worse movies than POTC- On Stranger Tides. If it were simply another movie, I would have rated it a Three Point Five. But, since you have the legendary POTC appeal to bank upon, expectations will always be much higher, so you just can't afford to disappoint. Thus, there you are - One Star.

"It horrifies me that ethics is only an optional extra at Harvard Business School". - John Harvey

Finally, a refreshing film that deals with disgusting realities of some of these top-notch private schools in India: donation issues, discrimination against children based on their parents' financial status, the obnoxious atmosphere that reality TV shows create in a school's learning environment and unbridled interference by corporate trustees in school affairs.

The message of Pattshaala is simple - left to its own devices and without proper checks and controls, the teaching profession, one of the few remaining noble professions in this country, can also become victim of the same corrupt mindset that presently plagues other institutions especially corporate ones - putting profits before people, considering the end more important than the means and the top-down strategy of creating an environment of fear by dangling the carrot of money and the threat of expulsions.

The film is indeed a hard-hitting commentary on the impact that can take place over an entire organization (in this case, a school) when the leader (the Principal, played by Nana Patekar) decides to compromise core ethical values, and buckle under outside influence to create an unlivable atmosphere in the school, for both students as well as teachers. Against this backdrop, a lone protagonist (played by Shahid Kapur) resists, rising up to unify all teachers and students in questioning the decisions of the management and Principal, and giving a live demo to their pupils that passive resistance is the only way to achieve social justice.

An oft-quoted liner from the film, "The age of revolutions is not been relegated to the past. It can occur anytime, anywhere today." Indeed, for too long we Indians have relied on Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose and other charismatic leaders of the independence era to find our ethical compass as a nation- fact remains, with each passing generation, we need a new set of leaders, young and dynamic, who are able to selflessly dedicate themselves to refashion the youth's moral fabric.

And let me add, such people do exist. But, the media largely ignores their contributions, instead focusing on uninspiring and irrelevant stories that glorifies all sorts of scoundrels I see on TV today.

In summary, Patahshaala is a must-watch film, and a real exercise in coming face to face with your moral backbone. The film poses an interesting set of questions - what should one do when faced with dilemmas that are faced by the school principal depicted in the film.

Indeed, the author is of the opinion that ethics should be a compulsory subject in all primary schools of the country, and also institutions of higher learning, no matter what the stream is, technical or non- technical. Well, we do have something called "social studies" in schools but in my opinion, the subject can be broadly restructured to incorporate a strong ethical element, that too with practical lessons. Past studies has shown that if children are exposed to ethical decision- making through intensive class- room discussions, they're more likely to grow up into well-rounded citizens as adults, and question the wrongs and moral decay in society.

Performances by all lead characters were good, and thoroughly convincing. A few characters, such as that of the repugnant school administrator were a bit over-the-top and exaggerated, but understandable from the point of view of the script - there's no point in showing such characters in grey. Their underlying motive is abhorrent, and should be exposed in the true light.

I enjoy scary movies with twists and turns, flashbacks and vengeful motives. As long as the script is executed nicely, and the actors don't ham it up, I'll rate such movies higher.

The Blair Witch Project, Hostel and other movies are what you watch when you seek night-time entertainment - Hide & Seek unfolds in a very similar way. Six characters who mostly dislike each other, are abducted by a mysterious agent and end up in some enclosed mall with all communication to the outside world broken down, not even mobile phones work here. Wonder why there's no security in such a huge premises anyway let's leave it at that.

The main antagonist is set to play a game of "hide and seek" on these clueless bunch, that too on similar themes that were played by the same characters 12 years ago. There's plenty of symbolism in the movie with Taj Mahal replica gifts, a loaded revolver, a video camcorder and a butcher's knife.

In short, hide & seek succeeds in grabbing your attention from the first scene itself. Also, special kudos to the acting cast that they did so well despite initial thoughts they could be amateurish.

However, the script still leaves behind plenty of loose ends which the film-makers should have solved. It looks like they were in a hurry to finish filming. Probably they were struggling due to tight budgets. If it's a low-budget flick, it's quite good quality though.

1. The original Hide & Seek game 12 years back wasn't depicted properly. They showed bits and pieces in flashbacks but the sequence wasn't clear. It would have been better if had they shown the entire sequence in one go. Here's my humble appeal - PLEASE DON'T OVERUSE FLASHBACKS.

2. The climax (I won't reveal) could have been handled better.

Anyway, next time I have to go to a mall alone at night, I might think of scenes from this movie.

Go and watch it.

Who would've thought Bollywood producers would dare to experiment with a script on Mathematical Probablity equations!!! But, here we go - Amitabh Bachchan as Professor Venkat Subramaniam is a reclusive Math teacher in a college where no one really appreciates his ideas because of his eccentric ways. Silently buried in research for 30 years something, Venkat suddenly hits upon a blockbuster theory, something that should forever change the course of mathematics. According to the director, probably the last person to make similar impact in the field of Mathematics was Sir Issac Newton when he saw the apple fall from a tree. As a symbolism, the professor is shown receiving the Cambridge University's Issac Newton nomination before the credits roll.

So far, so good. But, I lost interest in the film as soon as it was clearly evident that a lot of scenes had been straight lifted from Kevin Spacey starring "21". From a Jim Sturgess character who's facing a huge debt and must somehow find a way out (Madhavan's character), to a genius Mathematics professor who hits upon a brainwave idea in "Teen Patti"; in the English version it was Blackjack. Throw in scenes of gambling dens, underworld criminals and you get the complete picture. I was able to predict climax scenes too, such as the identity of the blackmailer.

I was expecting to see more out of Ben Kingsley but his character was simply mired in some sort of mystique without backing it up with background or foundation. But, the bigger disappointment was this blatant script plagiarism. That alone should make me rate it 2 stars or less.

"In our village, kids learn how to operate a firearm much before they could how to wipe their butts", a matter-of-the-fact verbal bullet from a 15-year old boy, with thrice the maturity for his age. Ishqiya's essence is captured in its telling it like it is portrayal of some lawless badland in Eastern Uttar Pradesh where you really have to project outward toughness to avert an untimely death.

This ruthlessness is reinforced by several shady characters, mentions of caste warfare, a local warlord who wrote the script of his own accidental death to get rid of a clingy wife, a steel businessman who also smuggles firearms in the covers, and two small-time city crooks who enter this paradise of aberrant, untrustworthy people and blend in quite easily with their slightly urbanized brand of deceitfulness.

There's also plenty of symbolism here with depiction of gas cylinders and the absence of any real protagonist in the entire story. Each individual character has shades of grey and has been given adequate space to develop in sync with the plot. To say that the film's screenplay is brilliant would be an understatement, in fact it's after so many days I recall having seen a screenplay that actually outdoes the script.

Ifthiqar and Babban Hussain are two petty thieves who're hiding for cover after running foul with Mushtaq-a big gangster. With some quick thinking, the two manage to contrive an escape and enter this village where they seek refuge with the widow of an old friend, called Krishna. Sparks fly and both men (an uncle and his nephew) take turns to seduce the woman. The younger one, Babban wins this affair much to the anger of the older suitor who hasn't lost his touch with gentle romance. Krishna, however, turns out to be the one who can play both of them for her own interest. Together, they plot a kidnapping sequence which goes awry and leads the plot to a climax.

There's plenty of raw sexual chemistry in the film - Vidya Balan as the widow Krishna does quite well in this department. I was a bit surprised to find an element of sado-masochism in quite a few scenes, this has rarely been explored by Indian cinema in the past. The love-making scene between Krishna and her husband was on the theme of slave concubine (bandi) with her Emperor (Jahanpanah). In another scene, you have an adulterer male character in the blindfolds, tied to the bedpost with a cat-eyed dominatrix whipping him gently.

Overall, Ishqiya is a must-watch thanks to its huge amount of unpredictability. Even though you don't really feel sympathy for any of the characters because of their antagonizing ways, you'd love the eventual outcome.