I thought Aisha was really cute. As an Emma adaptation, I thought it was excellent- they kept all the important elements of the story in, and I saw a few homages to Clueless in there as well. I like that Aisha wasn't 100% likable, as she shouldn't be- she is a girl who's been given everything in life, which doesn't always lend itself to peachy sweetness. Of course she's going to be arrogant! Nobody other than Arjun ever says no to her.
Because this film is about a very wealthy girl and her matchmaking pursuits, which do often come across as very superficial and celebrating monetary pleasures, and the characters are very shallow at times (their problems are hardly anything, compared to the very real struggles other Indians face) I can see how some people might not like it- my dad thought it was absolutely ridiculous (his exact quotes were "I can't believe filmmakers would waste celluloid on this trash").
However, the essence of the film is to show how silly Aisha's attempts are at forcing what cannot be forced, regardless of how much she tries to manipulate the situation or how much money she throws at it. She is portrayed as an arrogant girl, but we are shown that doing so ultimately alienates her friends from her. Do the filmmakers celebrate what could be labeled as "western excess" in the process of telling her story? Sure, but who doesn't like seeing pretty clothes and hairstyles once in a while? Aisha Kapoor is not one of the "mango people"- who would expect her to be?
The music was terrific, and the supporting cast did a wonderful job- especially Amrita Puri, who played the character of Shefali. For those who have seen Clueless, I definitely felt echoes of Brittany Murphy's character Tai through her performance- in a great way. She was really cute! And Ira Dubey played Aisha's sarcastic friend Pinky (Dion in Clueless) to a T, and Abhay Deol and Cyrus Shankar were great as Arjun and Randhir.
I personally highly recommend this film if you're looking for a fun, escapist Jane Austen adaptation with great clothes and danceable music. Apple , Microsoft , Dell XPS , Sony , Intel , AMD , Nokia , LG , Maruti , IBM , Titan , Samsung , Electronic , technology, movies , DVD , IMAX , Science , Cricket , Sports , Software , Hardware , PC Games, Hero Honda, pulsar , Mtv , V , Friends , Yahoo , Gmail , Facebook , Education , Games , advertising , % , $ , Russia , US, China, India , Europe , education , ebooks , songs , mp3.
The common view amongst "professional" reviews is that the movie is average. scoring below 50% from Rotten Tomatoes, and MetaCritic, and notably a 2 out of 4 stars from Roger Ebert. The average user ranking on MC puts it at 9 out of 10.
Most reviews range anywhere from 8 out of 10, to as low as 2 or 3 out of 10.
If there's one thing critics can agree on, its that the movie is clichéd, borrowing elements from plenty of epics based in the Middle East and fantasy alike, and that it's loads of fun.
The one thing no one can agree on is whether that's good or bad.
It should be pointed out that this film is produced by the same company/studio that brought us 'Pirates of the Caribbean', and it certainly shows.
With that said, I'll lead into my thoughts on the film. The first "Pirates" scored on average a 7.8 - 6.4 of 10, while the sequels averaged anywhere from 4.5 to 5.3. I'd say this movie is better than the sequels while not as good as the first.
So, I'd give it roughly a 7 out of 10.
The story is fun, for what it is. Which is a rough retelling of the video game "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time", while incorporating elements of the following two sequels, as well as incorporating stylistic elements from the following game and the first three of the original trilogy. Thats right! Based loosely on one game, borrowing elements from SIX more. The movie is stretched too thin, and it shows.
The movie feels like your prototypical "sword and sandal" action flick, borrowing heavily from films like "The Thief of Baghdad", and stories found in "1001 Nights". So think 'Arabian Nights', Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves, Aladdin, all mixed with some Steve Reeves 'Hercules' and Robert E. Howard 'Conan' flash.
Is it as cheesy as that sounds? YES! Is it as awesome as that sounds? YES!
But it's still well edited, well acted, well scored (Harry Gregson-Williams never fails), and overall well done enough to merit an enjoyable experience.
The ONLY complaints I can think of are few, but here they are: A bit too much CGI, not on the stunts (not much CGI there surprisingly) but on things like demonic-esquire snakes (you'll see). Too much random slow-motion. The sexual-tension seemed too forced (too many of those really slow "they're about to kiss but don't" moments). And whereas yes, the ending is supposed to have a "Deus-Ex-Machina" feel to it, in the game it is much more thorough and more explained, in the movie you're just expected to roll with it.
Other than that. A fun night at the movies! Grab your over-priced candy, soda, and popcorn (or do like me and sneak snacks in) and have fun with friends, family and loved ones, recapturing the fun escapism of your childhood with an epic but cliché action movie.
Apple , Microsoft , Dell , Sony , Nokia , LG , Maruti , IBM , Titan , Samsung , Electronic , technology, movies , DVD , IMAX , Science , Cricket , Sports , Software , Hardware , PC Games
Currently the most powerful laptop offered by Dell short of an Alienware, the Dell Studio XPS 16 is a sleek, performance-class machine. Recently, Dell refreshed the machine, adding Intel’snew Core i-series processors and a more powerful ATI graphics card. However, depending on the selected options, it can also bear a hefty price tag.
Dell Studio XPS 1645 had the following specifications:
500GB 7200RPM hard drive with freefall sensor (Seagate Momentus 7200.4/ST9500420ASG)
Intel Wireless WiFi Link 5300AGN
Slot-loading Blu-ray Rewritable drive
9-cell Li-ion battery (85Whr)
Weight: 6.3 lbs (as listed on Dell website)
Dimensions: 15.15” (W) x 10.02” (D) x 0.95”/1.34” (front/back H)
Unfortunately, getting the 16” RGDLED screen is a bit tricky lately, since many configurations do not seem to offer it. The last time I checked, one way to get the screen would be to order it from the small business division of dell (which means that you have to be content with a Core i5 processor). The other available 1080p screen is the 15.6” WLED LCD.
I received this machine a few months ago as a refurbished warranty/ADR replacement for my aging Inspiron E1505, which began to break down. Therefore, this review will reflect my impressions of the machine over the course of several weeks.
Build and Design The Dell Studio XPS 16 is a study in contrasts: sleek but large, and stylish, but bulky. The silver trim and black gloss paint make it classy without being garish in the least. Unfortunately, since the finish is high gloss, it attracts fingerprints like crazy. In addition, oil from your hands (and anything else on them) rubs off on the finish and is transferred to the screen when you close it (since the screen is not recessed).
The build is mostly plastic (even the metallic-looking trim), but it is reasonably robust. It creaks a bit if you grab it by the sides, but it doesn’t feel like it will fall apart. Some of the trim near the screen doesn’t line up perfectly, and tends to put a tiny scratch at the very bottom of the screen (hard to see unless you really look for it). I am not sure whether this is a defect in my machine or a general issue. The hinges are quite strong, and the screen takes a bit of effort to open. Ripples show up on the screen if moderate to heavy pressure is applied to the lid, a consequence of having such a large screen. Being a 16” machine, the Studio XPS 16 has a bit of heft, necessitating the use of two hands to carry it.
If you get the impression that this notebook has questionable build quality, please remember that this is a large 16-incher, and it is therefore quite robust for its size. I carried this machine around in a padded Messenger Bag to and from classes at college for a few months now, and it is serving me very well (my shoulder originally had a different opinion, but I acclimated quickly). However, I would agree that it could be somewhat more robust. As a side note, the Studio XPS 16 fits (barely) in a Messenger Bag designed for 15.4” laptops.
The entire bottom cover can be removed to access the hard disk and memory. While this makes for a much sleeker appearance, it does make changing upgrading a bit more work. However, unless you are taking out the keyboard (or something similar), it is nothing terribly annoying.
Screen and Speakers There is only one word for the screen: WOW! This is quite simply the best screen I have ever seen, and it has spoiled me horribly. The native resolution is 1920 x 1080 (1080p, full HD) Color saturation is extremely high (maybe a bit too high, particularly for the reds), and the contrast is excellent. While the backlighting is ridiculously bright, it has the upside of keeping the screen usable even under bright indoor lighting. Unfortunately, I ran into a little issue at this point, as the screen flickers occasionally when the brightness is ~50% or below (only when large regions of white are present on the screen). It occurs so quickly, that I found myself questioning whether it really occurred. At any rate, it is only mildly annoying, and the solution is to get used to the higher brightness levels.
The viewing angles on this screen are very impressive. Horizontally, the screen’s brightness falls off somewhat at ~50 degrees, and the screen tone becomes a tiny bit redder. However, it still looks great, and remains legible even when viewed from almost 90 degrees to the side. This makes it easy to have multiple people view the screen at once. Vertically, the viewing angles are very good, with the colors inverted at 50 degrees above or below the screen. The screen is glossy, and actually has a layer of glass in front of it that extends to the very edge of the frame (and is thus a “frameless” design). Reflections can be an issue, but the brightness can be increased to counter this. There is a webcam and dual-array microphone in the screen. The webcam has a slow refresh rate, and produces grainy images. It can be used with face recognition to log into the computer, but this feature seemed to work intermittently. I did not test the microphone.
As impressed as I was by the screen, I was satisfied but not blown away by the speakers. My old Inspiron E1505 actually had pretty good speakers, but they lacked bass. The Studio XPS 16 definitely has a subwoofer, and the bass is impressive for a laptop. However, the speakers sound a bit on the tinny side (like they are small, which they are). The volume has a nice range, and can easily fill a small to medium-size room. There is little to no distortion at high volume. The speakers have a bit of a directional effect, with some volume drop-off at certain angles. The two headphone jacks have no noticeable static.
Keyboard and Touchpad The keys are fairly flat, with a ridged shape. This permits the keys to be spaced very closely together while keeping your fingers sufficiently spaced apart. The keys have a fairly short throw and are fairly quiet unless you strike them with a fair amount of force. Pressing very firmly on the keyboard yields no discernable flex. The Studio XPS 16 lacks a numpad (unlike my E1505, it is not even embedded in the middle of the keyboard and activated by the fn key), and the Home, PgDn, PgUp, End keys are positioned just to the right of the backspace and enter keys. A nice bonus is the backlighting, which has three settings (high, low, and off).
The Studio XPS 16 sports touch-activated media controls above the keyboard. Their white backlighting remains on regardless of the keyboard backlighting settings, but I found it tasteful. One nitpick is that I often hit the ‘eject’ button by mistake when attempting to press ‘Delete.’ The touchpad is almost completely smooth, with just a tiny bit of texture. The buttons require very little force to press, but are recessed enough to prevent accidental clicking. Like the keyboard, they make little noise when pressed.
Ports and Features The Studio XPS 16 has an impressive array of ports. Most notably, it possesses two headphone jacks, an eSATA/USB combo plug, a Display port connector, and an HDMI port. One nitpick I can find in this department is the fact that it has only three USB ports. Another is that the power cable has an annoying habit of falling out of the plug if it dangles a certain way (a problem I experienced with my old machine that probably involves wear on the plug).
Left Side: Kensington Lock slot, VGA out, 1000Mbps Ethernet, Display port, HDMI, 2x USB 2.0, microphone and 2 headphone jacks
Right Side: Expresscard port, Media card reader, Mini IEEE 1394, Slot-loading Blue-ray RW drive, eSATA/USB 2.0 combo port, and Power jack.
Front: Indicator lights (Hard drive, Bluetooth, WiFi, and WLAN)
Back: Battery
Battery Life and Bundled Software I achieved a time of 2 hours and 40 minutes of battery life in ‘balanced’ mode with screen-dimming disabled, a respectable time for a large media notebook. The laptop had little bloat ware on it as far as I can recall, but I did end up rebuilding the system to solve a software issue (a good idea anyway).
Conclusion The Dell Studio XPS 16 is a good-looking entertainment notebook of reasonable build quality and decent portability (considering its size). It packs a stunningly vibrant screen, along with some gaming punch. While it has some minor flaws, particularly the amount of heat it pumps out during gaming, it is a great buy for those who can afford.
As a footnote, during the composition of this review, the speakers started blowing out intermittently (I believe due to a loose wire). Therefore, I contacted Dell support via chat, and they tried re-installing the audio driver to no avail. I also reported the issue with the uneven trim marking up the screen and the flickering issue. The tech then told me that it would be easier to replace the whole machine with something comparable or better. Contrary to what many others say about Dell Tech Support, I say that it rocks ... if you are under complete care.
Have you ever used your office photo copy machine to scan important personal document? like your credit card, income tax papers, social security document, medical records, bank records etc. If the answer is yes then you have a potential threat of these critical data to be stolen.
Did you know most of the digital copier built after 2002 has a build in hard drive and it stores an image of every documents copied, scanned or emailed by the machine on the copier's hard drive. This makes any office copy machine packed with highly-personal or sensitive data and a potential digital time-bomb.
Over a period of time most of the office copier machine are sold out to third party vendors and if somebody is in a identity theft business it seems this machine would be a pot of gold. Retrieving images and data from the copier's hard drive is a very simple process.
Advanced technology has opened a dangerous hole in data security, specific precautions can help to minimize risk. The first step could be sharing this awareness.
Also get your office IT dept. to periodically clean the copier's hard drive data.
Apple , Microsoft , Dell XPS , Sony , Intel , AMD , Nokia , LG , Maruti , IBM , Titan , Samsung , Electronic , technology, movies , DVD , IMAX , Science , Cricket , Sports , Software , Hardware , PC Games, Hero Honda, pulsar , Mtv , V , Friends.
Indian Government may ban Gmail in India... Unbelievable ? but it might happen if Gmail does not agree to make data going through their networks available to the Indian security agencies in a readable format. The data services being offered by companies like Gmail and Skype are highly encrypted because of which Indian security agencies are finding it difficult to keep a watch over the content being transmitted through them.The Government has also decided to amend the IT laws would force companies such as Skype to give complete access to their networks or set up a local server in India to allow security agencies to track content.
After China-made telecommunication equipment, after bringing the satellite-based mobile communication services under tighter security norms, it probably time for internet.
Apple , Microsoft , Dell XPS , Sony , Intel , AMD , Nokia , LG , Maruti , IBM , Titan , Samsung , Electronic , technology, movies , DVD , IMAX , Science , Cricket , Sports , Software , Hardware , PC Games, Hero Honda, pulsar , Mtv , V , Friends , Yahoo , Gmail , Facebook , Education , Games
REVIEW:- The film was written 10 years back and a different director was planning it with SRK and Aamir in lead roles
The film finally was made now with Vipul Shah directing it And Ajay and Salman starring together after a decade HUM DIL DE CHUKE SANAM(1999)
The movie however falls short due to it's 90's handling and worst it's loopholes
The film tries to pack in too many commercial ingredients and we also hav the love triangle
Everything is predictable and filmy and too clichéd
There are loopholes like how Ajay runs away from London Airport and makes a place for himself with no one? even the way he starts his band is not convincing The second half gets better with the twist in the tale of Ajay destroying Salman but sadly the climax falls short and the film ends on a bad note.
Direction by Vipul Shah is ordinary to below average Music is the worst point, most songs are mediocre
Amongst actors Ajay gives his best shot though he isn't convincing as a Rock singer yet he does superb as the negative role Salman however irritates with his punjabi and talking nonsense he only impresses when he gets drugged and thereon Asin is nothing great just a show piece Ranvijay should stick to MTV Om Puri is okay.
REVIEW:- Rajkumar Santoshi has given the bollywood film industries a lot of serious films over the last couple of years for e.g Family: Ties of Blood, Halla Bol etc. But now he returns to make another comedy flick in the form of Ajab Prem Ki Ghazab Kahani. his early comedy film which was Andaz Apnaa Apnaa was a great hit and is one of my favorite comedy movies of all of time. The same however cannot be exactly said about APKGK but it is still a very good effort on the part of santoshi.
Ranbir kapoor once again proves why acting is in his blood by giving another show stealing performance he play the character of prem so well that you will end up falling in love with the character by the end of the movie. Katrina Kaif also proves why she is one of the best bollywood actresses of this generation with her performance in this film and new york she proved that she can play both a comic and a serious role in a film. The supporting cast also does a fine job Upen Patel was decent he was not involved enough in the plot enough to get any big sort of recognition. Govind Nao was OK still feel like his character was completely destroyed in this film however the people who played Prem's friends and his parents still deliver good performances.
The plot of the film is decent it is just another love story between a boy and a girl who meet, become JUST friends and the boy suddenly falls in love with the girl but can't confess, the girl loves him but she doesn't realize it and finally does after the boy leaves her forever and she misses him and feels lonely that is when she realizes that she really loves him. Well at least the plot is not a rip off of another romantic film which the bollywood industry seems to do very often.
The comedy is silly and over the top but it will make you laugh and entertain you nonetheless. Santoshi proves that he will go to any limits to make his audience laugh and entertain them. It is very hard to make the audience of this generation laugh very easily, silly over the top comedy wouldn't work so well but this film will still make you laugh more than any other comedy film has done in the last few years. the romance is the film is only captured during two songs during the movie and the dream sequence between Ranbir and Katrina and by the end of the film. But the on screen chemistry between the lead couple is fantastic.
ALl the songs in the movie are awesome apart from Prem Ki Nayaa which is decent. All the songs in the movie have beautiful lyrics and music and amazing singers like Javed Ali and Atif Aslam. The soundtrack of this movie is definitely one of the finest Bollywood movie soundtracks to come out this year.
Overall APKGK is very good film which has a very good and funny first half but pales and drags in the second, the comedy is still over the top and silly but will still make you laugh, there is not much romance in the movie but the on screen chemistry lives up for that. So overall i would say despite its flaws this was a very entertaining and good movie and one of the better bollywood movies to come out this year.
REVIEW:- "The International" is about an evil bank and begs the question; do these fricken things come in any other way? It's a fairly interesting story that got a major boost from current events last September once we learned that banks actually do have shadier dealings than expected. Only the ironic part now is will people be willing or even able to pay to see this movie. My recommendation would be wait for the DVD. Director Tim Tykwer ("Run Lola Run") does a decent directing job and for a while "The International" crackles with suspense but soon the interesting idea posed by the script, by Eric Singer, just fizzles out.
Clive Owen plays Louis Salinger, an Interpol agent whose been trailing the business practices of one of the biggest banks in the world, the IBBC, for what seems like years. Just when he manages to find witnesses, they either end up dead or manipulated into silence. He teams up with Manhattan District Attorney Eleanor Whitman (Naomi Watts) to bring the bank to justice but she's getting added pressure to shut this whole investigation down because the two are coming up with next to no evidence. The bank's trail of money, used for everything from arms deals to murder, sends Salinger and Whitman globe-trotting from Berlin to Milan to New York to Istanbul but one dead end could shut the case down for good.
I'm usually not very cognizant of camera shots so the fact that i'm saying Tykwer really makes you think about perfect camera movement and angles really says a lot for what he does here. Not only does he start the suspense up early with strong verbal encounters/hard stares between characters but the way he frames and pans along the beautiful design of places like the Guggenheim Museum and the IBBC headquarters or the ancient buildings, narrow, bustling streets, and rooftops of Instanbul is fantastic. Nearly every scene has a lively visual quality. His one mistake actually comes with the movie's one big action sequence. It's a bloody shootout inside the Guggenheim but it just seems messy and hard to make out, a Paul Greengrass imitation without the exciting energy of a "Bourne" movie.
The screenplay by Singer is more than partly to blame. His story starts out well, catching our attention with the bank's deceptive and shady practices and building up a healthy dose of paranoia as well. The problem is the screenplay then lets itself off far too easily. Instead of focusing on how the bank creates slaves-to-debt and how the whole process works, the movie just vaguely and complicatedly brushes over those issues in favor of lazy, generic plotting. Salinger and Whitman soon find that their best option is pinning a murder on IBBC, just you would think a major bank could do better than hiring such an easily track-able killer. And where the movie really goes wrong is the conclusion, which doesn't go into how the bank is actually taken down as much as it just satisfies the audience's need for bloodlust. You can tell that no one knew how to end this thing.
Casting Clive Owen is a good idea. He brings a determined, serious demeanor to Salinger though with the type of roles he has played recently, you wonder why this guy turned down James Bond. He seems like a natural for it. The rest of the cast struggles with poor character development. Naomi Watts gets a role so useless that it could have easily been played by my grandma. Armin Mueller Stahl shows up as a former communist whose lost his way and now works with the bank as a consultant or something. He gets one well written scene, going man-o-e-man-o with Owen but otherwise not that many impressions are made by the cast. Unfortunately for the movie, try as Tykwer and Owen might, it also fails to make much of an impression as well.
I went to the this most recent remake of Pelham 1-2-3 (most don't even recall the made-for-TV version filmed in Toronto - with good reason) with an open mind. I was weened on Godey's book when 8, and saw the original film when it was released a few years later. I've committed practically every line and scene to memory. I'll admit.... I'm biased. I felt the original could not be successfully remade... the gritty feel, the outstanding David Shire soundtrack, the believable performances of the ensemble cast..... and I was right. I did not go into the theater hoping to hate the remake, but instead to like it. I REALLY wanted to like it. I have always enjoyed both Denzel Washington and John Travolta in their various endeavors and thought the chemistry might work fine here. While entertaining, it became almost tiresome after a while. I felt no tension, no "edge of the seat" sensation that the original brought, I found myself disliking most of the characters and really not caring what happened to them. It passed the time, had some thrills, but that was about it for me.
The '09 version is entertaining, with some excellent action scenes and more than a few decent dialog exchanges between characters, but it is nothing more than a Tony Scott action movie dressed up as "The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3". While starting off liking Washington's character (now disgraced MTA administrator-turned dispatcher Walter Garber, as opposed to Detective Zachary Garber in the book and original screen incarnation), I found, as the movie progressed, that he went from believable to just another two-dimensional action movie hero who, if he was what as he really started out as being, would not have ended up doing what he did in the film. Sorry, no spoilers here gang. You'll have to go judge for yourselves.
Travolta was dynamic, putting in a great performance, but I found his manic characterization not befitting as the supposed master-mind of the criminal plot involved. Remarkably, there were three other hijackers in the movie. I don't know why Scott even bothered including them. They were not only ineffectual characters with lackluster performances, but totally lacked the dynamic presence and interplay between the hijackers of the original film so much so that you barely even noticed them - or cared. Oh well, I guess it would not have been practical with only one hijacker....
The dizzy camera-work and stylized production were tedious at times and distracting. The soundtrack was, IMHO pure garbage.
Like I said, I found it entertaining, but despite some opinions that the "updated" and "freshened" plot was exhilarating and an improvement on the '74 incarnation, I honestly don't think the Matthau/Shaw/Balsam version need worry about being eclipsed by this remake. Go see it though, as it is fun summer fare and if you have no ties to the original, you'll probably find it relevant. Afterward, do yourself a favor and rent the original. You'll see the way the story was meant to be done.
Take a little "Memento," Add a generous helping of "Groundhog Day," and even a little of "Sommersby" and you have "50 First Dates". Drew Barrymore and Adam Sandler create a synergy that neither has been able to capture with anyone else. Together, they produce a romantic team comparable to Gere and Roberts, Day and Hudson, Grant and Loren and Tracy and Hepburn. My wife and I watch "The Wedding Singer" at least once a year. While "50 First Dates" is a superior movie, I don't know if I can take the melancholy ending again.
For once I'm grateful for the Khamakazee antics of Sandler's acting ensemble, particulary Sean Astin and Rob Schneider. If Schneider wasn't playing such a farcial role, he would be a natural for an Oscar. Certainly the animals add a lot to the farce. The goofy humor makes the basically tragic scenario not only bearable but almost pleasant. It's also genuinely funny.
Sandler convincingly plays a marine biologist(!!!)in Hawaii who enjoys "entertaining" the "mainlanders." Sandler doesn't date "locals". He wants nothing to interfere with his dream of studying walruses. He discovers Barrymore having breakfast in a local bar and grill. What captures Sandler's attention, even more than her beauty, is Barrymore's creativity. What Sandler doesn't know is that Barrymore has brain damage. The brain cells which move short term memory to long term storage are destroyed. She forgots everything she's learned during the day while she sleeps. So, Sandler, the lothario who forgots his relationships with mainlanders after one week finds himself in love with a woman who forgets hers in 24 hours. That's writing genius, something you don't see very often, and Sandler, Barrymore, and Sandler's acting troupe handle it perfectly.
Though my wife is physically handicapped, my mother has severe short term memory loss. So, I really related to the trajedy so expertly portrayed in "50 First Dates". It's not often I give a movie that leaves me this sad a "10". The last time, I believe, was "Sommersby". Nonetheless, "50 First Dates" is a "10," since there is nothing about it I can suggest that make it better.
P.S. Looking forward to the NEXT Sandler/Barrymore collaboration.
