SCREAM 4 Wes Craven to direct

SCREAM 4 Wes Craven to direct Dimension Films is putting the finishing touches on its 2011 slate which focuses on continuing its most successful franchises. The first project to go into production this spring will be SCREAM 4, which Kevin Williamson is writing and Wes Craven has signed on to direct. Neve Campbell, David Arquette, and Courteney Cox Arquette will be reprising their roles from the original SCREAM installments. Joining the returning cast members will be a new group of young actors. The SCREAM franchise has grossed more than $500 million at the worldwide box office and ushered in a new wave of horror in the 1990s. SCREAM 4 will be released on April 15, 2011.

“SCREAM has been such an integral part of Dimension’s history, and I look forward to continuing the franchise,” said Bob Weinstein, co-chairman The Weinstein Company. “I’ve worked with Kevin Williamson and Wes Craven on so many films at Dimension and hope to continue our successful collaboration.” Wes Craven added, “I am delighted to accept Bob Weinstein’s offer to take the reins on a whole new chapter in SCREAM history. Working with Courteney, David and Neve was a blast ten years ago and I’m sure it will be again. And I can’t wait to find the talent that will bring new blood to the screen as well. Kevin is right on his game with the new script – the characters and story crackle with energy and originality – to say nothing of some of the most hair-raising scares I’ve seen in a script since… well, since the original SCREAM series. Let me at it.”

Read more...

SXSW: Rodriguez introduces key ‘Predators’ collaborators at an exclusive screening

SXSW: Rodriguez introduces key ‘Predators’ collaborators at an exclusive screening
BY TODD GILCHRIST

On Friday night, while the streets of Austin teemed with carousing co-eds and festival attendees, Robert Rodriguez hosted an exclusive screening of footage from his upcoming production of Predators, a reimagining-cum-sequel to the 1987 action film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. The director, who was enlisted by Fox 2000 to produce a new film to be directed by relative newcomer Nimrod Antal (Armored), screened two versions of what one presumes will be the film’s theatrical trailer and fielded questions from the capacity crowd at Austin’s storied Alamo Ritz Theater.

Check out audio of Rodriguez’ introduction by clicking below:
Following Rodriguez’ greeting to the crowd, he brought director Nimrod Antal to the stage, where the two of them discussed what creative and commercial mandates they faced as they tried to resuscitate the Predator film series.
And before offering attendees the opportunity to ask questions about this upcoming interpretation of the Predator mythology, Rodriguez introduced none other than Greg Nicotero, who not only created all of the creatures used in their film, but was the creator of the original Predator used in the ’87 film, and surprised the crowd by bringing its still-functioning head on stage.
Hollywood News has already posted footage from the event that debuted simultaneously online. But stay tuned for more in-depth information about Predators and other events and screenings at South by Southwest!

Read more...

‘Ghost Writer’’s Olivia Williams on acting with Ewan, reacting to Roman Exclusive

‘Ghost Writer’’s Olivia Williams on acting with Ewan, reacting to Roman Exclusive BY TODD GILCHRIST

Although not quite a household name in the U.S., Olivia Williams has steadily worked over the last decade to establish herself as one of the movies’ most versatile and interesting actresses. Early roles in Wes Anderson’s Rushmore and M. Night Shyamalan’s The Sixth Sense earned her both visibility and indie cred, and since then she’s continued to explore different sorts of characters in films big and small. Her latest film, however, may prove to be her biggest breakthrough yet: as the frustrated wife of an ex-British prime minister in Roman Polanksi’s riveting thriller, The Ghost Writer, she gets the chance to exorcise the thankless responsibilities of playing second fiddle to male co-stars with a character – and a performance – that is nothing short of unforgettable.

Hollywood News was lucky enough to catch up with Williams via telephone late last week to discuss her character and her contributions to The Ghost Writer. In addition to talking about Polanski’s exciting (and sometimes terrifying) directing style, Williams examined her approach to each role she gets, confessed that her interest in certain opportunities is not always career-friendly, and revealed why she’s grateful for the many diverse and challenging characters she’s played thus far.

Hollywood News: Your role is sort of deceptively unimportant to both Ewan and Pierce’s characters in the film. When you came into this, what did Roman tell you about what he saw for the role, or what did you know you would have to do in the film?

Olivia Williams: It was very much described to me as a wife role, and if you read the novel, Kim [Cattrall]’s character Amelia Bly is more sort of interestingly described. It was really what happens [with my character in the film] that makes her interesting; I’ve played a lot of wives, but thank God this wife never says, “your dinner’s ready.” My ears perked up when Robert Harris said she was his favorite character in the book, and I didn’t know if he was just sort of blowing smoke up my ass, but he came up with this incredible paragraph of adjectives of what she needs to be. And to set that down as a challenge for an actor, it was like sort of throwing the gauntlet down – I was like, I can do this, and I want to fulfill every single one of those oxymorons that he set out for me. Hollywood News: I imagine it can be kind of a thankless job for actresses to play conventional wife roles. What is your approach to the work that makes sure you feel challenged or satisfied by each role, regardless how it may look on the page?

Williams: Well, I do look for something [specific], and I’ve just been playing a role and it was kind of like going to Leonardo Da Vinci and saying, “I’d like another Mona Lisa, please.” Basically the people who gave me this job I’ve just done basically wanted a performance I’d done in another movie and said so. But there’s something that Roman taught me that I’ve always latently held belief about which he brought to the fore, which is that it’s really important for an actor to play the right-size cog in the greater machinery. If you go in as an actor going, “yeah, this isn’t interesting for me, I’m going to create this sort of complex solo performance and f*ck the rest of the plot,” it doesn’t work. Actually what made this work as a role was not playing complexity, it was actually just wholeheartedly playing each scene on one level and any subtext has to be provided by the audience, if you know what I mean. I absolutely couldn’t play my ulterior motive or it would have killed the plot. To start off it was important that she was a frustrated peripheral character, and that’s her tragedy – that is her story.

Hollywood News: Ewan talked about the way that Roman directs with a kind of unvarnished honesty. Can you talk about getting acclimated to Roman’s style and approach as a director?

Williams: Well, Ewan made it very easy. He kind of nannied all of us through the first day; he’d been working with Roman for about a month before Pierce or Kim of I showed up, and he did a hilarious impersonation of Roman. He said, “he’s going to do this to you. He’s going to stop the take and he’s going to go, ‘no no no!’” And when it happened to me the first time, I was terrified, but because Ewan showed me that before it kind of took the sting out of it (laughs). It is alarming the first time it happens.

Actually quite late on in shooting, it was the crying-shagging scene, which God knows I’ve done enough of those. Roman was sitting with his head in his hands after the take, and it’s quite distressing for an actor after she’s just done a crying-shagging scene to see the director with his head in his hands. I walked up and he said an interesting thing: “when I have my eyes closed, I’m trying to remember what I saw in my head at the original model as I had when I wrote this scene before all of this stuff turned up.” Once I understood there was kind of a pre-existing, platonic ideal we were striving to achieve, I kind of wanted to collaborate with him and make that happen, and I realized why he was so frustrated when you weren’t doing what he needed you to do. The “no no no!” could apply equally to a misplaced vase of flowers, or in this case, the manuscript on the table or the weather.

You realize as an actor, you are a very specifically-sized cog in the machine, but the other bit of the machinery can be stationary objects or the weather or a light or a beam of light, and once you realize your position in the great scheme of things, it’s very freeing, and actually, I realize now, it shows a huge respect for his actors. His expectations of his actors are very high; he’s not going to discuss with you your feelings or motivations or how you get there, he says “I need you to do this now. Can you do it? and that is sort of enormously complimentary, although he does get very frustrated if you can’t or won’t. But it’s a struggle, so it’s not fun for him; it’s a painful sort of birthing process for him, I think.

Hollywood News: As an actor, is it necessary to think about the themes of the movie as you’re performing in each scene, or is it more important to be present and not think about connecting everything together in the finished film?

Williams: I like to be aware of them. I love doing my research and I love scouring the novel and finding the connections, but it is terribly important not to try and show off as an actor and try and play [all aspects] at once. I have a scene that has gotten me almost work as Rushmore which is the scene in The Sixth Sense at dinner with Bruce Willis. You have to be able to watch that while it’s playing to you, the pissed-off wife with the workaholic husband, and then you have to watch it again and say she’s a tragic woman alone and a grieving widow. So the only way to play those is to be single-minded enough in the scene for the audience to be able to interpret the performance both ways, and so when I was in the scene [in The Ghost Writer], my action was to seduce, but what got in the way was her sort of rudeness and impatience with people. So you have the underlying character with the overriding motivation – but you can’t play the subtext, if that there.

Hollywood News: What was your reaction to the end of the film? Because it seems to feed back into some of the themes that run through the rest of the movie, but it’s definitely ambiguous.

Williams: There’s a beautiful feeling in the novel that you get that if you’re reading this I’m dead. It’s funny because Robert Harris and Nick Hornby are brothers in law, and this occurred to me only this very minute, but really, Ewan is a kind of Nick Hornby character, and he’s poured into a political thriller kind of space. He shags Ruth because he’s a bit of a lad and he knows it’s a bad idea, and he’s a good ghost writer because he can trot in motion as Nick Hornby can into the brains of [other] people. I love Ewan’s performance; because that moment he’s sitting in the diner and realizes he’s going to have to get on the airplane with someone who wants him dead, he looks so shocked and trapped. Ewan is such a big star, but he plays a really low key. He’s like a reflective surface that we kind of react from as these f*cked up people, and it’s so selfless of him to be such an innocent in the way he plays it – you know, not to be flashy or one step ahead of the game. He’s one step behind all of the time! So the end, what I’m getting to, is that when I watched the movie for the first time, it made me cry. I know that sounds like a pathetically sentimental response, but it’s so desolate.I did ADR for this film in LA on my own, and it was a hot California day and I go into a studio and just watch the 20 seconds of the movie that I have to re-voice because of a dog barking or whatever, and I was seeing literally sort of 40 seconds of film with my the finished product, and my agent said, “how does it look? What’s it like?” And I was like, this is one cold movie. Just those few minutes had left me with chills – I was physically cold. I was like, man, I hope the general public will like going to watch something that bleak, because it’s bleak, and to some degree it makes me feel very desolate.

Hollywood News: You talked earlier about the roles you’ve played and sometimes had to play. Do you think strategically about your career at all? For instance, agreeing to be “the wife” in a big studio film that might give you the opportunity to play several interesting roles in smaller ones?

Williams: Have you been listening in on conversations with my agent? I’m actually sort of in that position now for the first time in my career, where there really has been an element of choice. There may have been a moment, again after The Sixth Sense and Rushmore, but I sort of missed it. I was doing something else in my life at the time and didn’t concentrate on it. I haven’t had a plan up until now, and it’s the first time people are saying “what you should do now is…” which I find an incredibly painful process because it involves levels of assumption and arrogance which I can’t sort of countenance. So I’m still going for the thing that appeals regardless of its above-the-line or below-the-title status. My agents respect my decision, but it’s tough. I wish I could get my sh*t together to have a better career attitude (laughs). But it’s served me well so far; I couldn’t be happier with the past year. I took An Education because I loved it. I took Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll because I loved it. And by happenstance, the three films I made last year have worked out so well, so maybe there’s a method to my disorganization.

Hollywood News: Notwithstanding that careerist perspective, do you think at all about what people respond to in your performances?

Williams: The things that sort of alarm me are the sort of physical things over which I have no control. I remember a scene that was tragically cut from The Sixth Sense because it was a very good scene, but the lines in the script said, “she looks like an angel,” and you just go, please lord, let me not wake up with a pimple the size of Europe on my face. But if it’s playing the spirit of something – if you [are supposed to] represent something – that is what I want to be doing. That’s the challenge. I love that, and the more the director has to fire at me – like when Robert Harris said to me, “she is naïve and arrogant, she is vulnerable and aggressive, she is contemptuous of her husband,” and then underlined, “but absolutely not evil.” That I went away and [thought], I’ve got my material now. My homework is done for me.

[But] when people have these expectations of my, that’s when I want to rise to it, and even if it is “dinner’s ready, honey” – even if that is what you want me to be, then I’ll be the best f*cking wife with the best dinner. I will do that, and I’ll do that one hundred percent. If I agree to take a job, I’m in, and that’s what I’ll do. But the problem is that there’s an earlier stage when you’re not being offered a wide range, and when you put the part together, I can see that path you’re talking about. But in blank terms, I’ve played a British nurse on a submarine, I’ve played a teacher, I’ve played an artist, I’ve played a prime minister’s wife, and if you look at the range, I’m so ahead of the game. I can’t join the ranks of the women who with justification complain that there is no range for middle-aged women, because I have been so bloody lucky in that respect.

Read more...

Film Critic Armond White Dislikes Baumbach’s Movies Exclusive

Film Critic Armond White Dislikes Baumbach’s Movies Exclusive, BY ROBERT W. WELKOS

New York Press film critic Armond White wants to make one thing perfectly clear: it isn’t that he doesn’t like director Noah Baumbach. It’s Baumbach’s movies he dislikes
“I have no more against Noah Baumbach than I do against Michael Mann,” White told HollywoodNews.com. “I never met either of them. It’s not personal. I just don’t like their movies.”

White’s comments came after he had been disinvited, some would say “banned,” from an early press screening of Baumbach’s new film, “Greenberg.” His invitation was later restored but the controversy still swirls.

Leslee Dart, the film’s publicist, said she made the decision to keep White from the early screening with “100 percent” support from Focus Features, which is releasing the movie.

She said White’s previous writings and statements prove that the reviewer crossed a line, letting his personal animosity for Baumbach cloud his journalistic responsibility to judge Baumbach’s work fairly.

“I don’t care whether he has it in for Baumbach’s films,” Dart, the head honcho at 42 West, said in a phone interview. She believes that White’s attacks had become “personal.” One example she cited was a review in which White suggested that Baumbach’s mother should have undergone a “retroactive abortion.”

Village Voice critic J. Hoberman dug up a 1998 review of Baumbach’s film, “Mr. Jealousy,” in which White wrote:

“I won’t comment on Baumbach’s deliberate, onscreen references to his former film-reviewer mother except to note how her colleagues now shamelessly bestow reviews as belated nursery presents. To others Mr. Jealousy might suggest retroactive abortion.”

White denies ever saying that Baumbach’s mother should have aborted him. “Reading the English language, I am not calling for him to be aborted,” White told HollywoodNews.com. “But (Hoberman) decides I am calling for Noah’s abortion. He sides with the mob. What a jerk.”

“That’s splitting hairs,” Dart responded, when told White’s comments. She said if something gets in the way of a journalist’s objectivity he should recuse himself.

The current dispute began, White recalled, when he received a phone call last Thursday from RJ Millard, a publicist for Focus Features, informing him that Baumbach and producer Scott Rudin didn’t want White to attend this Friday’s press screening because of his previous reviews of Baumbach’s films, “The Squid and the Whale” and “Margot at the Wedding.”

White said Millard went on to say: “I see your name is on the RSVP list of names for the press screening, I’ve been instructed to tell you not to come to the screening by Noah Baumbach, Scott Rudin and Leslee Dart.”

“Then I asked him why and he said, ‘Because of the things you said about Noah Baumbach,’” White added. “I said, RJ, how dare you come to me with bullshit”

White said he shouldn’t be held responsible for statements he supposedly made that appear on Internet blogs. White said he told Millard: “I’m not responsible for what people say about me in a blog. I’m responsible for what I write under my byline.” White said he then told Millard that Focus Features was “infringing on my First Amendment rights as a critic and as a journalist and I will not be held responsible for what is attributed to me on a blog. A blog is not a legitimate media source.” Millard said, “You are responding to this in a mean-spirited manner.” I said, “No, I’m not. I’m responding with anger.”

“So, the blackballing held until Monday afternoon,” White continued. “I wrote a few friends about what happened and they put it on the Internet. That’s when (Focus Features) backed off.”

“He’s seeing the movie tomorrow (Friday),” Dart said today (Thursday). “It was always the decision that he could see the movie in time to review it.”

Some bloggers contend that the dispute is rooted in White’s professional relationship with Baumbach’s mother, Georgia Brown, who was a film critic at the Village Voice back in the 1980’s. White recalled that during an appearance with Brown on a local radio show, he took objection to what she had written about a 1989 film called “Chameleon Street.”

“She’d written things about “Chameleon Street” that I felt were racist,” he said. When she replied, “Like what,” White told her, “I’m not going to tell you what. You should know your own things.”

Today, White regrets not answering her more fully. “I was just being too clever,” he said.

“He called her a racist and didn’t substantiate his reasons why until many, many days, maybe months, later,” Dart noted.
White is up front when asked his opinion of Baumbach’s films. “I can point to dialogue, scenes and characters in his films that I find offensive,” White said. “I haven’t thought about (his mother). Her son continues to make movies that I think are living ugly.”

Despite his negative view of Baumbach’s films, White points out that he is a “huge admirer” of the director’s wife, actress Jennifer Jason Leigh.

“I think Jennifer Jason Leigh is the best actress in America,” White said. “He thinks I hate his mother, but I really love his wife. That seems not to matter. I’m on record calling her the best actress in the ’90s, but that seems not to matter. So, where is the grudge? You look at my reviews of Jennifer Jason Leigh and I’m praising her to the skies.”

Read more...

The Wolfman Review

THE WOLF MAN REVIEW IT HOLLLYWOOD MOVIES.First things first, remakes of classics are difficult to make and The Wolfman is a remake of the 1941 classic horror film of the same name. Directed by Joe Johnston, the film stars Oscar winners Benicio del Toro and Anthony Hopkins. It also has Emily Blunt, Hugo Weaving and Geraldine Chaplin. Joe who had helmed the blockbuster Jurassic Park III tries to revive the classic monsters at a time when vampire stories are making quite a comeback and are popular with a younger generation of fans.

Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) a haunted nobleman who has a very childhood and it almost ended the night his mother died. After he left the sleepy Victorian hamlet of Blackmoor, he spent decades recovering and trying to forget. He is lured back to his family estate in Great Britain after his brother vanishes and dies mysteriously. He reunites with his father Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins) who tells him that his brother 's body was already found in a ditch. Lawrence inquires about the body and goes to see it. Ben's remains are thoroughly mangled and torn apart.

Lawrence agrees to investigate his brother's disappearance at the request of his fiancee, Gwen Conliffe (Emily Blunt) who tracks him down and brings him back home. He starts his inquiry at a travelling gypsy caravan, and while he's there, a marauding beast attacks. Lawrence is bitten, and though he survives, he discovers that he has incurred a grim fate. He learns that something with brute strength and insatiable bloodlust has been killing the villagers, and that a suspicious Scotland Yard inspector named Aberline (Hugo Weaving) has come to investigate.

While hunting the murderous beast who killed his bro, Lawrence is bitten but survives, thus contracting Wolfman disease himself. The plot unfolds and he pieces together the gory puzzle, he hears of an ancient curse that turns the afflicted into werewolves when the moon is full. Now, if he has any chance at ending the slaughter and protecting the woman he has grown to love, Talbot must destroy the vicious creature in the woods surrounding Blackmoor.

The Wolfman tries to be a legitimate remake of a classic monster movie. It however fails in its pursuit due to some horribly acting coming from Oscar winners Del Toro and Hopkins. Joe Johnston tries his best to control the movie but the movie seems good only in splits. The Woflman is spectacular in the occasionally gruesome special effects. It is all done in typical monster-movie but surely fails to live upto the hype created around it.

Read more...

ROKKK IS THE HINDI HORROR FILM

ROKKK IS THE HINDI HORROR FILM FROM INDIA.
Horror films made in India follow standard rules and guidelines. Every possible ingredient that viewers have witnessed since the Ramsay era automatically finds its way into horror films even today. Rokkk too borrows everything available on the shelf.

Buzz up!
Rokkk hinges on a half-baked script, but what saves the film from complete breakdown is the execution of the material by debutante director Rajesh Ranshinge. The proceedings may be far from innovative, but keep you hooked nonetheless.


Anushka [Tanushree Dutta] weds an elderly man Ravi [Sachin Khedekar], who has remarried after the death of his first wife. Anushka's mother [Nishigandha Wad] refuses to accept their relationship.

Anushka and Ravi begin their journey in a beautiful home that Ravi gifts Anushka. However, strange and quirky things start happening there. Anushka tries to share her experiences with Ravi, who in turn thinks that his wife is hallucinating. They decide to move back to their earlier home, but the incidents don't seem to stop.

Anushka seeks advice from a healer [Arif Zakaria] and tries to discover the motive behind these unexplainable incidents. The story takes a turn when Anushka murders her husband and sister-in-law. Ahana [Udita Goswami], Anushka's sister, begins her journey to rescue her.

Horror movies ought to have a great start and a pulse-pounding finale. Unfortunately, ROKKK has a lacklustre start and a convenient finale, with the makers leaving scope for a sequel, if the film works. The film suffers due to inept writing, with several questions remaining unanswered till the end.

No reasons are offered why Tansuhree marries a man much older to her, except a fleeting reference by Udita. No reasons are offered when Tanushree enquires about the circumstances that led to the death of Sachin Khedekar's first wife. That's not all, Tanushree even manages to escape from the asylum even though the spirit almost gets her. Now that's difficult to gulp!

But things do stabilise in the post-interval portions. The spirit now set her sights on Udita and the sequence in the elevator sets the ball rolling. Ditto for two more sequences - [i] Arif Zakaria wanting to free the mansion from the spirit and [ii] Ashwini Kalsekar's story of how the blood-thirsty spirit came into being.

With the film holding your attention in the second hour, you expect the finale to reach its zenith, but it does an about-turn and touches the ebb. Tanushree's re-emergence on the scene is formulaic and ruins the impact. If the writing is patchy, the effects are tacky and the background score relies on the same sounds that one has come to expect from horror films.

Both Tanushree and Udita try to make the proceedings watchable. Udita is efficient, while Tanushree uses her eyes effectively to express fear. Shaad Randhawa is decent. Sachin Khedekar is okay. Ashwini Kalsekar is the best of the lot. Murli Sharma and Nishigandha Wad don't get much scope. Arif Zakaria is perfect. On the whole, Rokkk is ordinary at best!

Directed by - Rajesh Ranshinge

Starring - Udita Goswami, Shaad Randhawa

Read more...

“Paa Movie” is Releasing with 700 Prints in 20 Countries

“Paa Movie”is Releasing with 700 Prints in 20 Countries.Big B’s much awaited film “Paa” is releasing this Friday in 20 countries and with 700 prints. In the film Amitabh Bachchan is playing a character of a 13 year old boy suffering from “Progeria”. It is a disease that speeds up the ageing process.
“Paa” is being released by the AB Corp Ltd. in association with Reliance BIG Pictures. The film is going to release in India as well as in the other countries like Britain, Canada, US, UAE, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. The director of the movie is R. Balakrishnan. Abhishek and Vidya Balan are playing the characters of Amitabh’s parents. The film is doing extensive marketing and promotion campaigns.

Idea Network has tied up with the film “Paa” for “Talk to Auro” activity. It will allow callers to leave messages for Auro (Amitabh’s character in the film) and in return receive calls from Auro on a pre-determined date. Idea Network is also providing the ring back tones in Auro’s voice and other value added services for promoting “Paa”.

‘Bajaj Allianz Company’ has tied up for an integrated TV ad on Child Plans that has been interspersed with the film’s promos and is currently on air. Besides this the film’s official Radio Partner is Big FM.

Read more...

Aao Wish Karein

Every kid imagines what it would be like to be an adult. He wishes he could grow up quicker. Of course, once he grows up, a small part of him wishes he could go back to his childhood days. Quite an irony, isn't it?

There's a line in AAO WISH KAREIN that goes, 'If you want to be a part of a fairy tale, it's important that you believe in it [fairy tale].' The statement is applicable for everyone desirous of watching AAO WISH KAREIN.

In terms of concept, AAO WISH KAREIN bears a striking resemblance to the Tom Hanks starrer BIG [1988]. A decade-and-a-half ago, the Salman Khan - Sridevi starrer CHANDRAMUKHI also tackled a similar theme. In that respect, the concept isn't alien at all.
It's not sacrilegious if a film bears an uncanny resemblance to another film [it could be a coincidence], but films like these need to be well-structured and most importantly, supported by incredible actors who can make you believe in fairy tales. Also, the makers ought to take a stand at the very outset: Should it be targeted at kids or youth? You just cannot sit on the fence. In this case, you don't know if AAO WISH KAREIN is aimed at the kids or is it a breezy romantic flick, targeted at the youth.
All said, AAO WISH KAREIN has some endearing moments, but not enough to salvage it.

12-year-old Mickey's life was almost like a fairy tale: A beautiful family, best buddy Bonnie and his angel on earth - Mitika [Aamna Sharif]. One fateful day, Mickey's fairy tale is shattered into a million pieces. He realizes he's an adopted child and his 23-year-old angel Mitika too calls him a kid. A heart-broken Mickey sits all by himself until Hitchcock [Johny Lever] appears.
Mickey hopes for a miracle to happen. He wishes to become big. To his astonishment, he wakes up next morning and realizes that his wish has been granted. He has indeed turned big. But was this miracle a blessing or a curse in disguise?

The choice of the subject is perfect. But there's an inherent flaw in the story and that is, the 12-year-old kid seems to be in love with the pretty woman, but the moment his wish his granted and he transforms into a grown up man overnight, he continues to behave like a kid. Romance, therefore, just doesn't exist and even if it does, it's far from exciting.

Ideally, the writing would've worked had the kid-turned-grown up behaved like a grown up.

The culmination to the story is well penned, but, again, it might not work in entirety. The writers could've run their imagination wild, given the fact that they were writing a fairy tale, instead of taking the safe route here.
Director Glen Barretto has handled a few individualistic scenes well, especially the ones between Aftab and Johny Lever. Music is soothing to the ears, but the non-promotion or lack of popularity will make the effort go unnoticed. At the same time, there are too many songs in the second hour, which weren't required frankly. Keshav Prakash's cinematography is top notch. The locales of Himachal Pradesh and Goa are well captured on celluloid by the DoP.
Aftab pitches in a sincere performance. He looks the character. Aamna is easy on the eyes, although the role doesn't demand histrionics. Johny Lever is first-rate. Rati Agnihotri is good. Yatin Karyekar is alright. The kids are full of energy. Riteish Deshmukh makes a brief appearance towards the end.

On the whole, AAO WISH KAREIN is engaging in parts, but how one wishes the film would grab your attention in entirety. The wish of striking a chord and hence, succeeding at the box-office won't come true for this reason

Read more...

The Horseman Movie Review

This unflinchingly horrific revenge thriller has a whiff of Death Wish in its story of a father exacting retribution far beyond reason. But this ultra-violent bloodlust makes it hard to find a character to identify with.

Christian (Marshall) is a man on a mission, tracking down the men he holds responsible for his daughter's death from a heroin overdose after shooting a porn film. One-by-one, he stalks the pornographers, torturing them viciously to get the name of the next person in the chain. Along the way, he picks up a young hitchhiker (Marohasy) and begins to worry that she's making the same mistakes as his daughter. But by the time he realises that his fierce murder spree might be a terrible mistake, it's too late to stop.

Even though we feel horrible about what happened to his daughter, it's impossible to sympathise with a man who sadistically tortures and kills anyone, regardless of what they've done. At every turn, Christian is faced with people who tell him that his daughter freely made the porno and took the drugs of her own volition. This doesn't excuse what the men did, of course, but no one deserves their fate.

Fortunately, a serious theme gurgles under the surface about a man who is punishing everyone else for his daughter's mistakes and his own failing as a father. Eventually Christian does begin to realise this, and this is especially well-played by Marshall. The film threatens to take a much more interesting turn at this point, but the filmmakers can't resist a big blow-out of a final act. And fans of on-screen brutality won't be disappointed.

There are other problems with this film, such as the way the 44-year-old Christian is able to fight off much younger muscle-men, even when they come at him in fours. And one of his close escapes stretches credibility beyond the breaking point. But filmmaker Kastrissios assembles the film with remarkable skill, creating an effectively dark and gritty atmosphere while quietly alluding issues such as self-harming, teen runaways and fractured marriages.
But it's impossible to root for someone who does things that are this vile. Or at least it should be.

Read more...

2012 Movie Review

Directed by Roland Emmerich
Starring John Cusack, Danny Glover, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor

Disaster movie maven Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow) crafts this apocalyptic sci-fi thriller following an academic researcher who opens a portal into a parallel universe, making contact with his double in an effort to prevent the catastrophic prophecies of the ancient Mayan calendar from coming to pass. According to the Mayan calendar, the world will come to an end on December 21, 2012. When a global cataclysm thrusts the world into chaos, divorced writer and father Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) uses his knowledge of the ancient prophecies to ensure that the human race is not completely wiped out. Chiwetel Ejiofor, Danny Glover, Amanda Peet, Thandie Newton, and Oliver Platt round out the cast of this end-of-the-world thriller co-scripted by the director and his 10,000 B.C. writer/composer, Harald Kloser. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide

Read more...

Pontypool Movie Review

Cast and Crew
Director : Bruce McDonald
Producer : Jeffrey Coghlan, Ambrose Roche
Screenwiter : Tony Burgess
Starring : Stephen McHattie,Lisa Houle,Georgina Reilly,Hrant Alianak,Rick Roberts,Beatriz Yuste,Daniel Fathers,Rachel Burns

This is one of those little films that proves that you don't need a blockbuster budget to make a high-concept movie. McDonald and Burgess create a mass-chaos apocalyptic thriller with essentially just three characters in a windowless room.

On a snowy night in Canada, Grant Mazzy (McHattie) is presenting his early morning radio phone-in programme with the help of producer Sydney (Houle) and technician Laurel Ann (Reilly). Then they begin to hear reports from their traffic reporter (Roberts) about chaos in the town of Pontypool. But what starts as a seeming hostage situation turns out to be a vicious zombie-creating virus. Eventually, the marauding undead converge on the radio station, and Grant, Sydney and Laurel Ann have to figure out a way to survive.

At about the mid point in the film, a doctor (Alianak) helpfully crawls into the station's basement window, gives a nutty explanation of what he thinks is going on outside, then leaves as suddenly as he arrived. Besides being the film's only real plot exposition, this also demonstrates the gleefully silly approach the filmmakers are taking here. The cameras otherwise remain locked on this trio of characters as they listen to the carnage outside down the phone lines.

In other words, the whole film feels like a radio play. And visually it's not hugely interesting, mainly because it's so contained in the setting. A few scenes of zombie chaos spice things up, as do some random moments of raucous grisliness, but the limited perspective keeps the tension from ever really cranking up. On the other hand, it allows for some terrific performances, most notably from McHattie, who is clearly having a ball with his grizzled, sardonic character.

What's amazing is the way the filmmakers spin this simple premise into an effectively freaky little movie. With no big effects shots, and no real action to speak of, they keep us watching by focussing on the characters and making us feel trapped along with them while the world collapses outside. There's also an effectively mind-bending explanation for what's happening, something that's enjoyably cheesy and cleverly plays with the film's style. Just don't expect to be frightened.

Read more...

Fantastic Mr Fox Movie Review

This is much more of a Wes Anderson film than the Roald Dahl classic on which it's based. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it could cause problems with fans of the book. The central themes are still there, but this is essentially a quirky dysfunctional family romp.

Mr Fox (voiced by Clooney) has a pretty fantastic life as a newspaper columnist living in his den with his wife (Streep), surly teen son Ash (Schwartzman) and visiting nephew Kristofferson (Anderson). After Fox convinces his wife to move aboveground to a tree, he becomes tempted to go back to his bird-stealing ways.
And with his possum pal Kylie (Wolodarsky), he goes on a spree that enrages the local farmers, led by the furious Bean (Gambon), who vows revenge. But this puts the entire local animal population in danger.

By focussing on the offbeat family and extended animal community, Anderson shifts the story into his usual exploration of internal angst and interpersonal carnage. While Dahl's central tale about creatures outwitting humans is still there, this is much more a story about a man rediscovering who he really is, namely a wild animal. Fortunately this is explored with wit and energy, some hysterical dialog, terrific characters and absolutely gorgeous animation.

Visually, the film looks timeless, as the old-style stop-motion is deliberately jerky and goofy. This makes it that much more tactile. And the animators brilliantly bring the characters to life, complete with strong emotion and sharp personalities, energetically conveyed by the great vocal cast. And Anderson directs the action with his usual brand of straight-on camerawork, yellow-orange colour scheme and amusing little touches.

At the centre is the idea that a fox can't really be happy without a chicken in his teeth. Obviously, this idea resonates on a deeper level, but the film's essentially a snappy, lightweight comedy. Why Anderson decided to make the animals American even though the humans and the above-ground setting are firmly in Dahl's Britain is anyone's guess. So if the message is a little simplistic, at least the film shows astounding visual innovation. And it's a thoroughly engaging place to spend 90 minutes.

Read more...

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus Movie Review

Returning to the florid visual style of Time Bandits and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Gilliam takes us on a whimsical flight through his imagination with this scruffy, messy movie. The plot doesn't really hang together, but the cast and imagery are magical.

Travelling showman Parnassus (Plummer) performs on the backstreets of London with his lively troupe: his elfin daughter Valentina (Cole), the eager Anton (Garfield) and the tiny Percy (Troyer). One night they encounter an amnesiac, Tony (Ledger), who joins the gang and suggests modernising the show to attract a better audience. What Tony doesn't know is that Parnassus has made a pact with the devilish Nick (Waits), buying immortality in exchange for Valentina's soul on her 16th birthday, which is coming soon. And Tony has some secrets as well.

Even though it's set in modern-day Britain, the film has a medieval feel to it through the colourfully rattling sets and threadbare costumes, plus Gilliam's usual atmosphere of kinetic chaos. It's a fascinatingly inventive world for us to fall into, mainly because we never have a clue where it's going next or what we're going to see. And the cast members maintain a loose restlessness that allows for some inner emotion to emerge. This is especially effective with Plummer and Garfield.

The key to all of this creativity is the doctor's magical mirror, which sends punters into their imaginations, an experience that's either wonderful or horrific, depending on the person. This element also allowed Gilliam to complete the film after Ledger's untimely death, as his through-the-looking-glass alter-egos are cleverly played in three key sequences by Depp, Law and, most effectively, Farrell. It's almost serendipitous that this twist of casting lends the film some subtextual weight it might not have had otherwise, touching on issues of identity along with the more obvious central theme about the masks we all wear every day.

So it's a bit frustrating that the plot doesn't hang together better than it does, lurching through the jarringly twisty story about Parnassus' haunting encounters with the cheeky Nick, during which the doctor gets a chance to save his daughter in exchange for five other souls. This race toward redemption never grabs much traction, but it's so vividly put on screen that we can't help but enjoy the ride.

Read more...

Johnny Mad Dog Movie Review

Harrowing, violent and deeply disturbing, this realistic drama about children fighting in Liberia's grisly civil war (1999-2003) is not only a strong story, but it has wide resonance as a look at young people living without limits.

Mad Dog (Minie) is the 15-year-old commander of a group of boy soldiers, all stolen from their families and turned into ruthless killers by the age of 10.
Operating in a world with no moral centre, they rape and pillage their way through the country challenging everyone with big guns and macho posturing, including the UN peacekeeping force. Mad Dog is also on a collision course with 16-year-old Laokole (Vandy), who has lost her little brother and is trying to get help for her wounded father.

Filmmaker Sauvaire tells this story with doc-style urgency, and the mainly non-actors in the cast are eerily realistic. Most have firsthand memories of these events, and yet they dive in with gusto to create characters who are seriously terrifying, all while adding telling touches of humour and yearning childishness. As these boys go on a rampage through their society, they clearly think their weapons and pack mentality make them invincible.

And of course the scariest thing is the Lord of the Flies angle: is this how young boys anywhere in the world would behave without any rules? In other words, in addition to revealing a staggering chapter of history, this film has something important to say about human nature. And it's also telling that they excuse this viciousness because they're "bringing freedom to our people", while their chanting echoes American movies and videogames, including their "no die, no rest" mantra.

This is a deeply authentic and electrically charged film. It's loud and violent, restless and relentless in its grim depiction of a previously civilised society in freefall. It's also shot on a remarkably large scale, with crowds of people adding a believable backdrop to the compelling drama at the centre. And it's so strong that it kind of earns its few heavy-handed moments (such as a Martin Luther King speech on the radio). In the end, it's painful to see what this war has done to a once-promising country. And an entire generation of children.

Read more...

An Education Movie Review

A lively tone and very funny dialog kind of throw us off the scent of this film's starkly serious themes. Beneath the charm and humour is an intriguing story about a time when being a strong-willed young woman just wasn't allowed.

In 1961 London, Jenny (Mulligan) is a gifted 16-year-old on track for a place at Oxford University, much to the joy of her parents (Molina and Seymour), literature teacher (Williams) and headmistress (Thompson). Then she meets the charismatic David (Sarsgaard), an older man who sweeps her off her feet with a love of the arts, his glamorous life and intelligent friends (Cooper and Pike) who offer more engagement than Jenny finds with those her age. Jenny loves being all grown up around them. Who needs Oxford?

Of course, as the story progresses, David starts to seem increasingly predatory, which gives the film a shadowy undertone that causes crises for everyone in Jenny's life, mainly because she's so determined to do what she wants to do. And the story is told from an intriguingly nostalgic angle, as if all of the characters are being seen through the haze of Jenny's memory, from David's dualities to her parents' and teachers' attempts to protect her from her own stubbornness.

Along the way, the story also reveals important life lessons that are actually quite provocative. The main issue here is whether risking your future is worth having a full life today. This is a question no one can really answer, but at least the filmmakers have a go, and get our minds spinning as we think about such issues as why education is valued so far above experience. Although the script really only raises these things without offering true insight.

What makes this essential viewing is the cast, all of whom deliver full-bodied performances. Mulligan gives a star-making turn as Jenny, a thoroughly engaging central character we can really identify with. While Sarsgaard bravely portrays the handsome, smiling suitor as someone with sinister edges. The entire supporting cast is excellent as well, with Molina the standout as the doting, worried father. And Scherfig wrangles everyone into beautifully natural characterisations that make the most of film's somewhat slight approach.

Read more...

The Cove Movie Review

Funded by the Oceanic Preservation Society, this film virtually creates a new genre: the horror doc. It's a gripping and compelling film about something utterly unthinkable. And it makes a superb companion piece to the milder (but no less important) The End of the Line.

Ric O'Barry is the man who caught and trained the dolphins for the 1960s TV series Flipper. And when one of them committed suicide due to the stress of captivity, he dedicated his life to freeing dolphins. As he explains, these are sentient beings whose social structures and playful natures are destroyed by being held in tanks. And over the years his attention has focussed on the town of Taiji, Japan, where many of the world's trained dolphins are caught. But even worse, the dolphins that don't make the cut are taken into a cove and pointlessly slaughtered.

Most of this documentary had to be shot using covert methods, which get increasingly complex as the filmmakers try to get footage from this top-secret cove where some 23,000 dolphins are killed annually. Along the way we meet experts, politicians, sportsmen and activists, all of whom have something important to add. The big questions loom heavily: why isn't Greenpeace pressuring Japan's government about this? Why is the International Whaling Commission (dolphins are a whale species) letting this happen unchallenged?

As this extremely thorough and balanced film lays out the facts, it becomes clear that the only way to stop this is to expose it, and a massive espionage operation pulls us in with its sheer entertainment value. There are high-tech cameras and microphones, highly skilled free-divers and special effects camera-hiding rocks made by George Lucas' special effects company. Meanwhile, O'Barry and friends are followed and threatened wherever they go.

Local fishermen argue that dolphin-killing is a cultural tradition (cut to the horrified Japanese public), while politicians say that the meat is served in schools (even though it's actually toxic with mercury poisoning). But nothing argues more loudly than the footage itself, which is simply horrifying in its sheer brutality. It's bad enough that the Japanese government has essentially bought the whaling commission while indulging in rampant false propaganda. But no other country has an excuse for letting this happen.

Read more...

Main Aurr Mrs Khanna

Raina has to decide whether her love and loyalty for her husband Samir, who left her to pursue success, is more justified than her faith and trust in her new-found friend, while Akash has to decide whether what he feels for a married woman is lust or true love and whether he's justified in trying to win her at all costs, even at the cost of her marriage.

Now let's analyse…
MAIN AURR MRS. KHANNA makes a promising start. The cracks in the relationship are evident when the husband starts facing problems on the professional front. He tries to re-locate to Singapore, but decides to send his wife to Delhi, to his parents' home. Convincing!

The wife decides to stay back in Melbourne and suddenly meets an 'angel' [Sohail Khan] and a friend's friend [Mahek Chahal], who gets her a job at the airport [within hours of meeting her] and a few scenes later, Mrs. Khanna shifts into a palatial mansion. Wowwwww! How can she afford a palace-like home in Melbourne from the salary that she gets, while working in a shop at the airport? Not convincing!

The wife and angel become friends. The angel is well aware of her marital status, yet loves her dearly. The woman trusts him as a friend. Convincing!
The husband re-surfaces [very quickly]. He's now settled in Singapore, has even bought a house there, he returns to Melbourne to fetch his wife back. Complications arise when the marriage registration letter surfaces. Not convincing!

The question is, why didn't the wife confide in her husband about it? That she had to do it for the work permit? Of course, she states subsequently that she didn't want to complicate things further, but didn't she ever realise that the truth would be out sooner or later?

Also, when the husband is in Singapore, there's scant or zilch communication between the couple, which looks so unreal. There's just one sequence of the wife calling her husband, but the husband isn't responding to the call. Again, not convincing!

The ending is interesting, but the surprise appearance of Deepika Padukone looks forced in the script. Perhaps, it was incorporated so that Sohail doesn't come across as a loser. Strangely, Deepika's name is also Raina [also Kareena's name in the film] and she too was in a relationship with a Samir [also Salman's name], which looks fake.

Prem Soni has handled a few scenes well, but the writing is ineffectual. Dialogue, also by Prem, are wonderful at places. Sajid-Wajid's music is tuneful. 'Don't Say Alvida' and 'Rabba' are melodious compositions. The cinematography is striking. The locales of Melbourne give the film a perfect romantic setting.
Salman handles his part with maturity, but it's a Kareena show all the way. She is remarkable and delivers a winning performance yet again. Sohail contributes to some light moments. Yash Tonk is alright. Mahek Chahal is perfect. Nauheed Cyrusi doesn't get any scope.

The film has several star appearances: Deepika Padukone, Preity Zinta [okay], Dino Morea [hardly there for a few minutes] and Bappil Lahiri [yes, the veteran music composer has a proper role in the film].

On the whole, MAIN AURR MRS. KHANNA is weak in merits. At the box-office, the BLUE wave, followed by another strong opposition in ALL THE BEST will sideline MAIN AURR MRS. KHANNA completely. It's a non-starter!

Read more...

All The Best Movie Review

Sometimes, we laugh at movies. At times, we laugh in movies. Thankfully, ALL THE BEST, helmed by Rohit Shetty, belongs to the latter type.

ALL THE BEST makes no claims of catering to the intelligentsia or the elite. Instead, it's aimed at those who want to spend two hours of their precious life flexing their facial muscles. ALL THE BEST is for those who expect fun and laughter unlimited in those two hours. This one makes you smile, laugh, even break into a guffaw at times.
The jokes and the goings-on may appear silly, but who cares! As long as one feels positive and wears a smile on the face even after the show has ended, nothing else matters.
Comedy is serious business and Rohit Shetty is a pro at this genre now. This time, the talented director seeks inspiration from RIGHT BED, WRONG HUSBAND and what works to the advantage are two factors - the written material and the right casting. Both are just right!

From time to time, it has been noticed that some films are made with the motive of keeping you entertained. ALL THE BEST is one of those films. Go, have a blast this Diwali!
Veer [Fardeen Khan], a singer by profession, is greedy of extracting extra pocket money from his brother Dharam [Sanjay Dutt], a business-honcho. Veer lies to Dharam that he has got married and his friend Prem [Ajay Devgn], a concept car expert, lends a helping hand in cooking up this alibi.

Veer is in love with Vidya [Mugdha Godse], but has qualified in the hate list of her father. Prem is happily married to Jhanvi [Bipasha Basu], who takes care of his ancestor's outdated gymnasium. Veer and Prem land up in debts as they had opted for a short-cut to earn easy money.

The two get into a bigger soup when Dharam pays a sudden visit to their place. Time does not give a chance and unavoidable circumstances arouse such situations that Prem's wife Jhanvi is mistaken for Veer's and Veer's girlfriend for Prem's.

Like his previous films, director Rohit Shetty rests the story on multiple characters, with a dozen odd actors in supporting roles. With so many characters in the film, it generally tends to get confusing, but ALL THE BEST has an easy-to-comprehend story and a trouble-free and uncomplicated screenplay [Robin Bhatt and Yunus Sajawal].
Ten minutes into the film and you know that ALL THE BEST is all about mistaken identities. But the proceedings actually take off when Sanju enters the scene. That's when you get drawn into this madcap world completely.

A number of sequences are howlarious. Note Johny Lever's intro. Ditto for Sanjay Mishra's track. Also, when Johny Lever regains his voice - towards the climax - it's sooooo funny. On the flip side, the pace drops in the middle of the second hour. Also Pritam's musical score is uninspiring and the songs act as speed breakers.

Rohit Shetty is in top form and his team of writers, Robin and Yunus, contribute enormously in making this film watchable. Dudley's cinematography is perfect. Farhad - Sajid and Bunty Rathore's dialogue are very much in sync with the mood of the film. In fact, a few one-liners are extremely witty.
Sanju portrays his part well. His sequences with Ajay are truly fantastic. But the show-stopper is undoubtedly Ajay, whose comic timing is only getting better. He plays to the gallery completely and delivers a sparkling performance. Fardeen needs to loosen up, though he makes a sincere attempt. Bipasha is sweet, while Mugdha doesn't get much scope. Amongst supporting actors, Johny Lever and Sanjay Mishra are in terrific form. Mukesh Tiwari, Vijay Patkar, Ashwini Kalsekar and Atul Parchure lend credible report.

On the whole, ALL THE BEST is fun and laughter unlimited. At the box-office, the festive period coupled with the solid track record of Ajay Devgn and Rohit Shetty and also the strong merits will ensure ample footfalls at cineplexes, making its investors laugh all the way to the bank. Recommended!

Read more...

Blue movie review

Roll out the red carpet.
Blow the conch shells.
Beat the drums.
It's time to pop champagne
BLUE, the most awaited movie of the year, with its canvas as huge as the ocean, comes alive on the Hindi screen this Friday. Like every biggie, this one also comes with the baggage of monumental expectations. With tremendous hype surrounding it, the inescapable question that crosses your mind is, will BLUE live up to those colossal expectations?
Let me keep it concise and to the point. You haven't watched something like this on the Hindi screen before. Never ever!
It requires courage, willpower, fortitude, vision and of course, the financial backing to accomplish a project of this magnitude. And debutante director Anthony D'Souza puts his skills and the financial resources to best use. BLUE is not merely a stunning looking film, it's also a well structured film. Most importantly, it's a solid entertainer that packs in so much in those 1.58 hours.

Final word? Go, grab a ticket, if you haven't booked one yet. This under-sea treasure hunt is a kickass film. A must-see for all those who love adventure flicks.

BLUE is set in the sun-soaked white sand beaches of Bahamas. Sagar [Sanjay Dutt] is a simpleton, while his friend Aarav [Akshay Kumar] is a rich, ambitious businessman.
Sagar's brother Sameer aka Sam [Zayed Khan] has inadvertently managed to rankle the mafia in Bangkok [Rahul Dev]. He flees Bangkok and arrives in Bahamas. But the dangerous men reach Bahamas too. Sagar is the sole person who can bail him out from this crisis, but to save his brother, Sagar has to wrestle with the ghost of his dead father.

If you're a die-hard moviegoer, you'd draw parallels with a lot of international projects [especially THE DEEP] that were set in the ocean. In Bollywood, flashes of the Dharmendra - Jeetendra starrer SAMRAAT cross your mind instantaneously, but comparing the two is akin to comparing chalk and cheese.

BLUE grabs your attention from its opening titles itself. The marine life, which you may've watched on National Geographic Channel or Animal Planet, comes alive in all splendour at the start itself.

The story is uncomplicated and Anthony D'Souza garnishes it beautifully. If the aquatic life keeps your eyes wide open, the action sequences are sure to make your jaws drop to your knees. The bike chase at the start, yet another chase subsequently, the chase soon after the interval [atop a running train] is simply astounding.

Anthony's expertise comes to the fore in several sequences. One sequence that needs to be singled out is when Sanju narrates the tragic past, how he was responsible for his father's death. It's simply incredible!
Major portions of the film have been filmed in the ocean and you can't stop admiring and appreciating the enormous contribution of the underwater cinematographer [Pete Zuccarini]. The lighting in those sequences deserves special mention. Also, the underwater sequences, which feature aquatic life like puffer fish, stingrays and sharks, hold tremendous appeal. Cinematography [Laxman Utekar] is gorgeous.

On the flip side, the climax could've been more impactful. The villain's track looks cliched, but you tend to overlook the minor aberration since the film never falls prey to mediocrity.

Anthony D'Souza is a director to watch. This film has style as well as substance. Also, it requires courage and conviction to think out of the box and most importantly, execute the material with panache. There's not much scope for music in an action thriller, yet A.R. Rahman's score suits the requirements. The Kylie Minogue track - 'Chiggy Wiggy' - is already popular. Sanju and Lara's romantic track - 'Aaj Dil' - is sensuous. The song at the end credits - 'Fiqrana' - has a lot of energy.

Sound design [Resul Pookutty] is fantastic. Action scenes [James D. Bomalick and R.P. Yadav] are a treat and, in fact, one of the mainstays of the film. Dialogues [Mayur Puri] are effective, while the screenplay [Anthony D'Souza and Jasmine D'Souza] is well thought-out, especially towards the second hour.
Sanjay Dutt carries his part well, although he looks very well-fed in some scenes. Akshay Kumar steals the show with a sterling performance. This would easily classify amongst his best works. Zayed Khan is highly competent. This, despite the fact that he's sharing the screen space with two hugely experienced actors.

Lara Dutta has never looked so good before. Though the story revolves around the guys, you can't overlook Lara's small but significant contribution to the film. Katrina Kaif [sp. app.] looks gorgeous and performs exceedingly well. The feminine charm [at the start specifically] would send the youth in a frenzy. Rahul Dev is first-rate. Kabir Bedi is hardly there.

On the whole, BLUE has style as well as substance. The film has everything going in its favour, right from its incredible star cast to the superb action scenes to the hitherto unseen marine life to the tremendous hype and hoopla. At the box-office, BLUE will strike like a hurricane in the festive week. It should set new benchmarks in days to come. In short, the business will be humungous.

Read more...

Do Knot Disturb

David Dhawan has always made wacky and bizarre films and his new baby DO KNOT DISTURB doesn't push the envelope either. His critics may term his cinema outlandish and outrageous, but the fact is that his films cater to the aam junta. His mantra is simple: Haso aur hasao.

Now let's analyse DO KNOT DISTURB, inspired by the French film LA DOUBLURE aka THE VALET [2006]. David has tackled extra-marital affairs in his earlier films like SAAJAN CHALE SASURAL, GHARWALI BAHARWALI and BIWI NO. 1. DO KNOT DISTURB also talks of a married man having a torrid affair with a supermodel, but it's not remotely similar to his past endeavours.
Actually, DO KNOT DISTURB rests on a thin plot and David relies on gags and jokes to keep you hooked for those 2 + hours. Even though you realise that there's not much meat in the story, even though the situations are silly, you remain glued to the proceedings because it keeps you in splits thanks to the funny jokes and the weird characters.

So what's the verdict? DO KNOT DISTURB is sure to keep you smiling from start to end. A few portions may even prompt you to laugh aloud or break into a guffaw. If non-stop mindless entertainment is on your mind, this recipe is just for you. Do Knot miss this one!

A filthy rich businessman [Govinda], married to a beautiful and sophisticated woman [Sushmita Sen], tries to hide his extra-marital affair with a supermodel [Lara Dutta]. To save his skin, he bribes a waiter [Ritesh Deshmukh] into pretending to be the supermodel's boyfriend. What follows is a series of mistaken identities and misunderstandings.
David Dhawan opens his cards at the very outset. The emphasis is on comic situations, while the story goes out of the window after a point. You don't mind it purely because the motive, like always, is to keep you in splits and DO KNOT DISTURB succeeds to a large extent.

At the same time, writer Yunus Sajawal takes a long route to reach the culmination. The Ranvir Shorey dual role sequence, for instance, seems unwarranted. Also, Sohail Khan's portions looks forced in the narrative. Even otherwise, the post-interval portions are very lengthy, although the comic scenes compensate for the deficiencies in the writing.

David Dhawan is the Big Boss of laughathons and DO KNOT DISTURB proves his supremacy yet again. You may argue that the goings-on are plain ridiculous and ludicrous, but the entertainment quotient is so high that you ignore the weak plot gradually. Nadeem-Shravan's music is pleasant. The songs are well filmed too. Vijay Arora's cinematography is excellent. Dialogues [Amit Aryan] are first-rate. In fact, a few one-liners actually bring the house down.
Govinda is matchless in a David Dhawan film and DO KNOT DISTURB confirms this fact yet again. In fact, there are certain parts that only he can portray and David taps that potential to the fullest. Watch Govinda when he suddenly starts speaking in a female voice during the Ranvir Shorey episode. It's howlarious!
Ritesh Deshmukh is superb. Matching Govinda in scene after scene is next to impossible, but Ritesh stands on his feet all through. His scenes with Lara also are thoroughly enjoyable. Lara Dutta springs a pleasant surprise. Known for glamorous roles uptil now, she handles the comic act extremely well. Also, she looks sensuous in several scenes. Sushmita Sen is wonderful, though she gets limited scope to prove her mettle.

Sohail Khan's role is sketchy, hence it doesn't make an impact. Ranvir Shorey is excellent. Manoj Pahwa and Rajpal Yadav are amazing in their respective parts. Himani Shivpuri is alright. Rituparna Sengupta is hardly there.

On the whole, DO KNOT DISTURB is a mass entertainer that keeps you entertained and smiling/laughing in most parts. At the box-office, this one lives up to the hype and expectations and that in turn should reflect very strongly in its business

Read more...