The plot of this movie is "race" based and that is known from the story line itself. The boy meets the girl whose family seems to welcome him very, very easily. A lot of the "obama" and "tiger woods" comments are thrown in deliberately to make him seem comfortable.
Comfort deludes him. There was something amiss.
There were a few strange events going on that made him curious and then frightened. It is revealed slowly near the very end. This plot is difficult to predict despite several hints thrown in.
Overall, the plot made it worthwhile but the acting of the lead actor was so-so, in my opinion, despite rave reviews. I felt the girl's acting was better, given the character she was portraying.
The mother's acting was comic, but otherwise a good movie
Whatever I try to remember about this movie brings memories of the mother's acting. It was poor. She seemed to have no issues losing her daughter to ..., as happens early on in the movie. She didn't seem to know when to cry, when to drink, when to bathe, when to laugh and when to feel worried. Her demeanor actually made many scenes predictable.
Overall, this movie is not bad. It's the same old plot of a family moving into a new house, which shows signs of a haunting pretty quickly. A tree is bothering the son while the daughter sees strange things through a TV. The second half is more of a "cleansing of the house" to bring back the daughter from the clutches of the... (you'll find out).
The best part of the movie is the background score and the cinematography.
KK's acting is superb and steals the show. The others are also usually good (with occasional overacting). I had never noticed Tisca Chopra earlier but she does a pretty good job in her limited role. Overall, characterisations are pretty good.
Neat story. So far, I am unable to find a plothole.
Many elements in the movie are portrayed realistically, with minor details like the behaviour of a hotel manager also taken into consideration.
Overall, I liked the execution of the movie, a rare murder mystery from Bollywood. Recommended watch.
If you decide to stop thinking and enjoy for 3 hours... well, this movie may still not be for you. Of course you have to stop thinking but you will be able to enjoy bits and pieces of the movie.
What I liked:
Katrina's dance moves (I'm not a fan of hers)
The rest of the movie is pretty average to below average. That includes:
Aamir's acting - he has tried hard but I'm not impressed.
Story - the less said about it, the better you will be able to enjoy the movie.
Abhishek and Ali (Uday Chopra) - same as Dhoom 1.
Unnecessary song and dance routines
Unnecessary emotional sequences in a thriller
They don't actually show any heists. It's all about the chase. Some parts of the chase sequences were irritatingly reminiscent of 70s and 80s Hindi movie chase sequences.
By the way, contrary to what people are saying, the movie is NOT a copy of "the Prestige", not even remotely. Maybe they have taken one concept from that movie but it is a very, very subtle resemblance. Similarly, they have taken one dialogue-concept from "Now you see me" but have not actually applied that at all. So, it will be unfair to say this is a copy of English movies.
Two friends, Adam and Stefanek, land in a soup as they are looking for a business loan and Stefanek runs into an ex-neighbour of his, Gerard. He tells Gerard his business plan and Gerard offers to get a buyer.
However, the deal doesn't work. Yet, Gerard keeps harassing the two friends to recover his costs.
Realities dawn slowly, adding to the mild suspense of the film. The acting is top class as the two friends face unusual and unexpected situations and try to come out of them unharmed.
This is an atmospheric, cold movie. The least it would do is to make you think. What are the options? What are the alternatives?
This happened after many days. Even with low expectations, I felt I should leave the cinema without watching the show until the end.
The movie was quite a bit theatrical, quite a bit over-dramatic. By the way, I like art-house stuff but even on those parameters, I can't call this good by a stretch.
The sets are slick. The acting was passable. Some of the background music was cool. It appeared I was watching an English comic movie. Not the comedy I would want to watch in a Hindi movie. And I do love subtle comedy. This movie didn't have it. Some intelligent word-play were all I could get but they were all forced in and shallow.
The main culprit is the story, or lack of it. Is it a love triangle, is it a comedy, is it a romance? The direction was OK, given that there wasn't much to direct. I wouldn't have noticed if the direction was lacking any more. The cinematography was good parts.
I haven't been this bored by a movie in a long time. I was quite relieved when it ended.
This is not the best courtroom movie ever made but will be one of the better ones. The movie does pack a strong satire about the systems in India.
Many scenes are there just to add some comic relief but my opinion is that they do balance the load of the satire and set the tone for the movie.
The change of character was a bit sudden and could have done with a little depth. The songs and dances were unnecessary (although Arshad Warsi is a great dancer). The twists are quite good.
Unlike some other reviewers, I believe: Arshad's acting was quite good (but could have been better). Boman's acting was above average (but not great). Amrita's acting and diction were not up to scratch. Saurabh's was the best acting in the movie. The evidence was there. The decisions were made based on evidence, not on emotional speeches. Please keep this in mind and don't get carried away by the speeches. The story is set in very raw tones and inspired by reality.
Some parts of the movie are not convincing but overall, I still liked it enough to give it an 8.
When I went to the theatre yesterday, I did not know this movie was by Neeraj Pandey ("a Wednesday" fame). (Interestingly, I was also watching "a Wednesday" (yet another time) later yesterday night on TV after watching Special 26.) I had hoped on this based on the trailer and Manoj Bajpayee. I didn't know it was based on a real life incident.
I expected only entertainment and got only entertainment.
The plot is fast paced and starts off right in the beginning. You kind of get the introductions later. It took me a while before I realised this was a period film with no mobiles and with old (now illegal) vehicle number plates.
The plot is not very tight and there may be small holes here and there, but overall, it is executed with precision. The acting of Akshay, Anupam, Rajesh Sharma, etc, were top notch. Manoj Vajpayee does a fairly good job, too.
The only character that did not impress me was Kajal Agarwal's. Neither did her acting. She had trouble speaking Hindi, too and many a times, I felt her sequences were unnecessary. But the movie goes on at a pace that can make you ignore this aspect altogether.
Overall, I give it 8 for entertainment and direction.
I will not trash this movie. I did not find it bad at all. It had some action, some suspense, some romance and drama. It had the potential to be a very well balanced film. And the acting and character building is good here, possibly better than Sprangaren. Yet, I did not like it all that much. Why? The action appeared mindless and the film was not dependent on that. A major suspense link was killed in the middle of the movie. Perhaps, the Paradiset link could have been explored in more depth, especially given the title of the movie. The introduction of romance and drama was all right but not what I expected from this series. In the end, it is still a one time watch for someone who appreciates a balanced genre movie with a lot of character study. But this is not really an action movie, a suspense movie or a thriller.
I watched this Swedish movie Sprangaren with subtitles based on an IMDb recommendation on another film (Irene Huss - Nottrand). The comments here had discouraged me but I went ahead with this. This is not a nail-biting thriller and may not be as good as the "girl with ..." series. But it is definitely watchable. The lead actress has done a good job as have most of her colleagues. There is a little thrill, a little investigation, a little analysis, a little emotion (especially with the colleagues) and a good bit of curiosity. And I did not find the movie slow. It is just that most of the events were inside the newspaper office and not out on the streets like American movies. There isn't much of screaming, either. But after watching a movie like this, I can appreciate why screaming and street action may not be required for every thriller. Overall, it's a good job done.
This is not an exceptional film but it was still a good way to pass about 3 hours (including intermission). It helps if you keep expectations low. If you've watched "Race" by the same directors, please do not compare this movie with that one. "Race" had very well executed twists. "Players", on the other hand, has a few twists that appeared expected. I did not find this to be a copy of "the Italian Job" (although it is an official remake) discounting for the Coopers and the first twist and a few other scenes. We can say that it is based on the same story idea. I liked the heist execution and most of the movie plot, although I must admit that several scenes were overdone and overacted in. There are plot points which are unclear. One would need to NOT think hard about the plot here, unlike in "Race". The songs could have been avoided as well. Abhishek Bachchan and Omi Vaidya failed to impress, as did the bit about Johnny Lever. Sonam Kapoor acted very poorly. I really liked NN Mukesh, though. His work more than made the plot believable.
Yes, Chitrangada looks good in this. Yes, Smriti has acted well in this. Yes, Shiny has acted OK and not screamed in anger as much as in his other films.
With a plot this interesting (A likes B but gets married to C where C and B were college friends as well; A spends a night at B's while C gets killed; Suspicion points towards A and, later, on C's family as well as the A-B combine), I feel the movie could have ended as a much better product if the characters had been given time to develop.
I just could not digest the poor editing. The editor might think his work is "slick" and ends in a "fast-paced" product. However, in my opinion, the editing spoiled the movie and many times after a "quick- snip" shot, I found myself trying to remember the previous scenes to understand what exactly happened in the current scene. Besides, I don't understand why they kept many unnecessary slow scenes at all (this editor's "skills" could have helped) while major parts were cut.
Overall, a good premise but poor execution ends up as an average product.
I'm rating this quite low because it was much below the expectations set by watching Scream 1 and 2, of which I'd really liked 2.
This one somehow appeared to be a lot of comedy with not much of tension, really. There was way too much screaming, quite a few red herrings, etc. At times, I wondered if I was watching Scream 3 or the spoof series called "Scary Movie".
Even the villain of the piece did not look convincing and I did not understand his motive either. Overall, this one is a good candidate to win the comedy award for slashers. One can watch it if one wants to complete the series but there is not much of thrill to speak of.
I really would give it 9 or more as others have, if it were only the concept I thought of. It's really amazing to have thought of this AND to have thought of actually putting this up on screen.
However, I take a few points off that because I was somewhat disappointed with the storytelling.
I personally prefer a linear story especially when the plot is complex. Explaining things in bits and pieces and flashback are nice filmmaking techniques but I don't like them when used with complex plots, especially when the simplicity is lost.
I also did not appreciate the idea of lengthening the last few scenes since the action was quite average and boring. Anyway, with all the expectation generated by its reviews, I had NOT come in to watch an action-fest. They could have simplified those scenes.
I don't know why they decided not to have a 3D for this one. This is one where 3D actually makes sense since the buildup was nice.
As this is almost a scene-by-scene remake of Manhunter (1986), the comparisons are but expected.
In my opinion, it all boiled down to the casting and the "performances".
I was not very impressed with the Will Graham of Manhunter (I thought it was overacted) until I saw this one. This one was not overacted but instead appeared lackadaisical. It is only in a couple of scenes towards the middle of the movie that Edward Norton shines.
Hannibal - that's what this is about, isn't it? I would say both Brian Cox and Anthony Hopkins outperform each other in various scenes. Yet, I have that little bias in favour of Brian Cox as Hannibal because there was this eeriness about him.
I also liked the cinematography and sets of Manhunter better than this one.
The tooth fairy was better cast in this one, I guess. I also felt that Seymour Hoffman was miscast as the reporter Lounds in this one. He is a very good actor but he did not portray the callous attitude of the reporter well. However, he did a very good job in the "serious" scenes towards the end which were not managed by Stephen Lang in Manhunter.
Joan Allen did a wonderful job as Reba in Manhunter. Although Emily Watson also did a good job as Reba in this one, they appeared to be portraying a different Reba each.
Overall, I was more satisfied with Manhunter which I watched prior to Red Dragon (maybe that has resulted in my bias).
However, the story was explained better in Red Dragon than in Manhunter.
Some good performances - the second half is exciting
The VCD story, when read, may appear to be telling about several conmen trying to outwit each other. However, it is the catchline (tagline) that takes the cake and paves the way for the story to unfold.
The first half was a bit stretched although it was good for character development of some of the lead characters.
Paresh goes a little over the top several times in this movie, perhaps as a result of bringing a theatre piece to the screen. Boman, Paresh, Om and Naseer are great in the other scenes, especially in the second half when the pace catches up.
I did find a couple of plot points predictable but it still manages to get the attention of the viewers due to clever atmosphere-building.
This is not a great film or a masterpiece but I still give it 9 for its plot and entertainment value.
I gave the original a 6 for its concept while disliking everything else about it, especially the acting. In this sequel however, the acting is somewhat palateable (even the same lead actress does a better job here) but nothing else is. So, it gets a 4 from me.
The tricks of making the camera fall down, lose light, lose focus, go off and record upside down in key sequences continues in this sequel. So, there are even fewer "jumps" here than in the original.
Add to that a story of stupid teenagers who got entangled into the whole thing by sheer stupidity. However, they were not the only ones to act in that manner. Officials did the same. Some may say that this is required for situations to develop in a movie. I disagree with that line of thought unless the makers are going for an average movie.
The worst thing about the movie is the explanation provided which leaves many more questions unanswered.
I had watched "No country for old men" quite some time ago. There are these similarities between the two movies. Both have a cold blooded killer, both are set in vast unpopulated lands where crime can really go unnoticed. Both are from the same house of direction, of course.
10 stars for Frances McDormand. Her acting was confident and yet nervous as would be in her character's situation. Both her and Macy's acting was animated to an extent - his because there were secrets he wouldn't reveal, hers because it was her way of getting information by identifying with people. Both of them acted well.
The fact that FM actually commented about being a character actress more than a movie star earns her my respect. I will remember her at least for that quote and this role.
The two accomplices also acted well and gelled into their characters.
Overall, this was a much above average movie with great direction and a good story.
While this is a simple story of behind-the scenes crime and gambling, it required above average acting for it to work. The actors do not disappoint. While the lead actor is excellent, just about everyone including the "brothers", the master of "ceremonies", bring out multiple facets of the characters in an unbelievably watchable way.
The tension and relief are quite visible on most faces on consequent occasions - but the tension and relief are different for the different characters. This was the challenge for the actors and they have excelled.
In order to truly appreciate the movie, one must be 1. mature. 2. able to imagine oneself as the different characters.
There are many implausibilities in this movie. This is not exactly erotica, nor is it drama (the characters barely speak and considering that, the expressions are not enough). HG's character, Alice, seems too cute to be sexy and adventurous.
Also, I have watched many films with similar endings, so I could guess it much earlier. However, the red herrings were nice.
I couldn't understand the loose end of Alice's boyfriend seen with her colleague.
Overall, I feel that this film's premise could have been explored on film much better than how it was. And the acting was rather on the poorer side.
The movie had interesting premise and began with a nice atmosphere that could have pushed it up the horror quotient by itself.
However, all that is spoilt by the lighting or lack of it. I know some fans here are trying to defend this by saying it was deliberate. But hey, if I cannot make out what is going on for more than half the movie, deliberate or not, what is the point of watching such a movie? Several times through the fare, I wondered if the print was bad. But every time there was daylight, the pictures were bright and clear. So, the print was actually really good.
The moment Nick starts climbing up the island, I was unable to understand where he was going or what exactly happened to him. By the sounds, I realised he was dead.
When I saw the two figures hanging, I thought they were Nick and Eric. Yet, Eric came back alive. That's when I realised it was Donna and the other guy. The lighting was SO poor.
As far as the monster was concerned, I couldn't see his face ever in the movie.
I also disagree with the "intent" of "deliberate" darkness in a horror movie. True horror in a movie should come from the events in the movie. Yes, yes, there are the "atmospheric" horror movies and this one probably tries to be one. The background score's (pun intended) in this direction. But due to the darkness, horror gives way to curiosity in trying to find out what exactly is going on.
Note: These movies are not comic! They're light action/adventure movies. I do not remember a single comic scene in this movie or its predecessor.
I watched "the Doberman Gang" and this one back to back. I gave this an 8 while the predecessor a 9. Although the acting was better in this one, the only plausible reason for the difference in my mind was the "usualness" of it all when I watched the second one.
The training sequences in both of them are amazing and there was a lot of detail in the plot. The schemes were well-thought over and well-explained. I give credit to the writers, directors, trainers and almost everyone else who worked in this difficult movie and achieved near-perfection in its execution.
Honestly, this is a movie built on a strong premise. The same could have ended up as a gruesome fare or an overly dramatic fare in other hands. In this case, it remains entertaining.
While the story had its good plot going for it (racism and reverse racism, exploitation, inhumanity, revenge and even misuse of religion), what may count as negatives is the average to poor acting of the leading man and the slave driver. Also, the scenes in the darkness could have been done much better. For instance, when Charles runs after Jonathan, I thought for a moment that he'd run back into the house.
A few points are not clear - how was Susan so comfortable with the slave driver after the previous night's incidents? How were Charles and Susan so comfortable after the day's violent incidents? Why did the capitaine keep Charles' secret? Why was Charles captured? What happened to Charles? Anyway, I enjoyed watching the movie, especially due to its premise.
This is a cola and popcorn movie, to be enjoyed, not criticised for its 'artistic' quality. It is one to pass time with, not scrutinise.
The plot was simple and plausible. While some say the acting was bad, I would disagree. The characters were portrayed well. Besides, the actors were from 1974, not 2009. I assume the acting was up to the standards of the days, especially so for a mindless action movie.
There was a bit of suspense, too, although not enough to change the genre of the movie. We more or less knew who was on which side.
The chase sequences were picturised well. Of course, being a 1974 film, the action was of a class of that era, not today's. So, no hi-fi gadgetry here. Pure rustic truck-boy action.