technomania

Reviews:-

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.

REVIEW:-

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

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.

8/10

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.

REVIEW:-

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.

REVIEW:-

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.

REVIEW:-

From the intense opening scene to the stellar and shocking finale, Sam Raimi has officially returned to the horror genre with vigor and spark in the year's best horror film so far. Starring Alison Lohman in the leading role (Ellen Page was originally cast as the lead but dropped out of the project early in production), Drag Me to Hell feels like much more than your average, predictable horror popcorn flick. It's filled with plenty of twists and turns and, like any good ride, a satisfying conclusion. And the PG-13 rating? Forget about it! You hardly notice that little factor because of how immersed you become in the story. Also starring are Justin Long, David Paymer, and Lorna Raver.

Christine (Lohman), a loan officer at a bank with a lovely boyfriend (Long), is being considered for a promotion. Jumping at the opportunity, she comes across an old gypsy woman (Raver) who requests a third extension on her house. Her boss (Paymer) tells her it's a tough decision, and its her call, so she refuses the woman's payment. Absolutely infuriated, the woman stalks Christine after work and bestows her with a supernatural curse, one which she has only three days to overcome before the spirits drag her to hell.

Lucky enough to have won tickets to a pre-screening of the film, I had heard nothing but great things about it. I was hoping for the best, but I wasn't sure how the comedy and horror would mix together. Much to my surprise, the horror and comedy in Drag Me to Hell are that rare perfect mix of perfection that one craves in horror movies. If too funny, they can go overboard, but not this one. In fact, I don't think I've seen quite a proper mixture since Raimi's own Evil Dead II.

Perhaps the most shocking thing about the movie is how well it's made technically. It had all sorts of interesting shots and the real work of a master filmmaker. Having both written and directed the film, Sam Raimi more than proves his worth to the horror genre despite his long absence since Army of Darkness. In ways, this is also a sort of revival of what people with think of PG-13 horror movies. Drag Me to Hell is one of the most intense, scary horror films in quite some time, despite the PG-13 rating which many tag as already crap.

Drag Me to Hell is full of its epic shocks, and the less you go in knowing about it the better. I could go on for hours about the movie and spoil everything there is to know, but that would truly ruin some of its appeal. Which is certainly not to say that it is lost after a first viewing, just that it's an experience unlike any other going into this movie watching virtually no clips and reading very little about it. It becomes a truly rewarding experience.

Mrs. Ganush is one truly phenomenal villain that provides plenty of scares. Lorna Raver infuses the role with an enthusiasm - an terror - that is rarely seen in big-screen baddies. She has more personality than The Ring's Samara for sure. Clay's character provides a much-needed balance between the goofy and the horrific, and helps make the film's heroine, Christine, all the more believable. It was an interesting twist to see Justin Long in a horror film, despite the nature of his role. I believed his performance and the sincerity of his character. Lohman had a lot resting on her shoulders with this movie, and she totally pulled it off with flying colors. Nobody plays the terrified, but headstrong and determined female lead better than Lohman, and she proves her worth over and over again in this movie. She totally has a career ahead of her.

Overall, Drag Me to Hell did more than just impress me nonstop. It was a masterpiece of a horror movie, with unrivaled intensity, scares, and one killer of an ending. More often now, horror directors/writers seem to have such a difficult time ending their movies properly. This one has an ending which snugly solidifies the movie as an early contender for best horror film of the year. Don't miss Drag Me to Hell... you will never look at handkerchiefs the same way!

REVIEW:-

Mamma Mia! Does the mention of anything Abba-ish send you cringing to a corner? Or are you already joining in and dancing on the tabletops? Maybe another few drinks . . .

In short, if you are not allergic to Abba, book your tickets now. If you are, why would you be reading this? At a pinch, it is worth seeing for Meryl Streep alone, who not only throws herself headlong into every refrain with unashamed gusto, but adds a touch of class and nuance to what otherwise could be a one-dimensional adaptation. Streep vacillates engagingly between playing herself and not taking herself too seriously. Pierce Brosnan just about keeps up, and manages more expressions than he ever did as James Bond. Colin Firth and Julie Waters trail behind somewhat. Yet Mama Mia! is a roller coaster of emotion, careering colourfully from the blue waters of the Adriatic, bursting 'like Aphrodite's Fountain' into the lives of Donna (Meryl) , her lovers and friends, and her soon-to-be-wed daughter. It is the party spirit that says kick your shoes off and sing silly cheesy songs. Altogether now.

And yes – there's a story. Donna's daughter Sophie is getting married. To the buff-looking Sky. Only – where's her dad? She's never met him. A sneak-peek at Mom's diary shows Mom had three lovers before Sophie was born and Sophie secretly invites all of them. This is a film of threesomes. Three past lovers (Sam, Bill and Harry). Three close friends (Donna and two best pals). And, not to be outdone, Sophie meets up with two other young girls at the start of the film.

The breakneck pace still allows for brilliantly put together shots. Like Streep doing a 'Titanic' with drapes blowing in the wind. Or a pier-load of young hunky stag night crew doing a dance in trunks and deep-dive flippers. Moonlit boats and beaches to "I Have a Dream." Filmed on location, the views won't disappoint. And like a favourite song whose ending we know, the drama is in the details and execution.

As with many adapted-from-stage musicals, two young leads are played by talented singers, and the older parts by serious actors can sing well enough. Streep manages extremely well. Her performance is so professional and assured it leaves others standing. Fortunately, it is perhaps easy to paper over any cracks in musical comedy. Sweeney Todd relied heavily on Depp's charisma and stunning cinematography. Across the Universe, too heavily on the songs. Mamma Mia!, on the other hand, simply tailors everything to its joyous headlong rush. The songs fit naturally to the action. Streep even manages to sing them with her tongue firmly in cheek. She confesses to having been a "stupid reckless little slut" but then says she "grew up". (To which her pals chime in, "Well grow back down again!") The film is not without faults. There is a notable lack of chemistry between the people that throw themselves rapturously against each others' faces. Even Streep looks less than convincing in a brief lips-mash. And the men are a bit croaky in the singing department (Hugh Grant might even have been a preferable casting choice). And some of the time-line is wobbly. For instance, strange as it may seem, music from more than twenty years ago does not all come from the same era. So reminiscing about flower power (early sixties) in the same breath as a Johnny Rotten t-shirt (Sex Pistols, mid-late seventies) is either anachronistic or wishful thinking.

Sadly, I am of a generation that can remember Abba-mania. The records would shoot to number one. Yet even then few people would admit to buying them. I used to manage a night club, and Abba was great music to ask a girl up to dance. My entire chat-up repertoire at that time consisted of, "Would you like to dance?" and "Do you want to come back for a coffee?" But girls would be so happy dancing to Mamma Mia they'd say yes anyway. I'd fall in love with a new girl each week. Ah, those were the days! Now there's a new generation of Abba fans who have no need to 'come out of a closet'. Abba is retro-chique. Even Madonna segued an Abba riff into one of her songs. From karaoke to hen nights. From '70s' nights to gay dance-floors. Dress up. Camp it up. Sing it up. Get sassy and cheesy. Or, if you're old enough to remember, fly back in time to wonderful memories.

Mamma Mia!, whatever detractors might say, has been one of the most successful stage shows of recent times. Supported by the same director and original band members, the movie may well reach the similar fan bases. Or just the party spirit in all of us.

REVIEW:-

A little known fact about me is that I'm a big fan of fluffy romantic comedies. Why wouldn't you want to spend 90 minutes or so watching a film; laughing and ultimately feeling good at the end of it? I don't consider fluffy romance films to be at the absolute top of cinema, but they're good fun, and therefore get a thumbs up from me. The Wedding Singer, however, gets not one thumb up; but both thumbs, firmly, up. So, why does The Wedding Singer succeed more than most films in it's sub genre? Is it the jokes? The beautiful female lead? The gratuitous helping of 80's pop songs? No, it's that this movie has a lot of heart; that's what makes it a winner.

Adam Sandler stars as the quintessential 'loser'. He's a wedding singer, and not a very good one either. He specialises in doing terrible covers of 80's songs. It's not the sort of act that I would want at my wedding. His life gets worse one day, his wedding day, to be exact, when someone doesn't turn up. The bride, that is. Now in a deep spiral of depression, our hero doesn't see any way forward. His next gig is a washout and there's love all around him; even his newfound friend, the cute little waitress that works at the same place as him is getting married. And to a man who doesn't deserve her, I might add. I don't think I really need to tell you what comes next, but even though it's a predictable ride; trust me, it's a ride you want to be on.

Adam Sandler tends to be a very annoying actor; and for that reason he is almost universally disliked, but it is undeniable that he is good in this movie. Nobody else could have given the character what Sandler gave him; his performance is both entertaining and believable, and therefore is just right for the movie. Drew Barrymore was also perfectly cast. She is the perfect girl in this movie; all smiles and sunshine, and it's impossible not to fall in love with her. The movie also features great little turn from Steve Buscemi, who provides the film with one of it's funniest moments towards the start.

As mentioned; The Wedding Singer has a lot of heart. From the way that the characters interact with each other, particularly Sandler and Barrymore, it is obvious that they are in love. The movie also has some points to make on the subject of love; The Wedding Singer portrays that being in love is overall better than being a 'Fonz' type, womanising character. The message at the movie's centre is also a worthwhile one; the movie professes that it isn't important who you fall in love with; it doesn't matter whether or not he's merely a wedding singer, all that matters is the love between two people. The movie says that love is all you need; and that is a worthwhile message in any movie. The movie's message is lost somewhat under the barrage of jokes; but it's most certainly there and I for one think that it's a shame that a movie that is entertaining and funny can't be considered in the same league as other, more serious movies with a similar message.

Overall, The Wedding Singer is at the very top of the romantic comedy genre. It will make you laugh, and you will ultimately feel for the characters. The fact that this movie has something to say is only another reason to recommend it; especially as it says it with a great big smile on it's face. The Wedding Singer is not a film that you will want to miss; it's feel-good at it's best.

REVIEW:-

The atmosphere that James Cameron and Stan Winston had created for the first 2 films in the franchise is what really hit me and still does to this day. I think that was the key component along with consistency and approach that gave the Terminator film it's unique style and attractiveness. It's metallic-blue overlay, infused with creepy whines of music and heart pounding edge of your seat suspense was what really created this secondary reality if not for only an hour long. It made us have a connection to these characters. A sense of believability in what was really going on. But it was those elements that were able to harness the inner workings of this dark dreamland. In essence the first two Terminators were projected nightmares in a sense, as if you were running and running, but no how fast you ran, the shadowy figure on your toes just keeps closing in. THAT is what made those films so captivating.

Now these elements in one way or another were tried in this newest installment of the franchise. I see it as I've heard before as a "hit and miss" movie in which it got some key features to play out in the film, but lacked that essential tone T1 and T2 romantically portrayed.

I have talked in lengths with individuals on why this film didn't quite hit all of it's projected(we hope) targets and I haven't really heard a clear and analyzed answer. Some say it was the amount of sub-plots that were involved, the lack of plot, the empty character development, the slight cheesy factor, and or the overall weak story and unnecessary additions to the Terminator franchise. Although these all valid arguments to say the least and I would agree on them full heartily, I don't see it as the culprit of the problem here of why this film did not life up to it's expectations.

I think, like I said above in the first paragraph, that it was the direction the film was taken in perspective to it's overall tone and mood. God bless his soul, Stan Winston. For if he were alive I think we would have seen a more polished version of what we have now witnessed. I also think it was a bad part on McG for giving the O.K on the revised Terminator theme by veteran composer Danny Elfman. I don't know why in the hell the screened audiences gave the thumbs up on that one. Another issue of course is that most of the scenes were in broad day-light. I understand that McG wanted to get a different take on the war, but I don't think this was pulled off in any respects to what James Cameron had in mind for the war.(Shouldn't the sky be filled with pollution and dark particle manner from the nuclear explosions creating an ever-dark wasteland?) This was CRUCIAL and they blew it. I don't see why they didn't go with more night scenes. It is one of the strongest representative thematic elements portrayed in the Terminator 1 & 2.(I am not even going to mention T3 because of the ridiculous amount of mistakes made)

The Rating: A main point that needs to be addressed for sure is the film's PG-13 rating. Of course they did this to appeal to a larger demographic of movie-goers, but they did it in expense of the true grit and bones that T1 and T2 had. I don't see why a Terminator film should be even considered for a PG-13 rating. Anything lower than an "R" rating does not do the title justice. The series is called Terminator for a reason...They are killing machines. THAT'S IT. I think that this is one of the biggest insults to the die-hard community of Terminator fans everywhere.

There is no room for Mediocrity in trying to follow up after T2: Judgment Day. Lets hope and pray that us as an online community hold the next bunch of crazies accountable for their creative actions for the next installment of the franchise.

REVIEW:-

This is one of the best movies i hav seen ! Anurag kashyap has proved his brilliance in story-telling one more time! For all those who r planning to see the movie, get ready to get ur jaws drop !

The plot everyone knows - a mordern take on the classical novel Devdas, and it does work well ! Though the movie is based on the text, but it is so very original ! This movie contains many things, thats very rare in a Hindi movie! This movie is dark, yet will mak u smile!

And what actually makes this movie work is the music, and the way they have used it! Its very rare to hav a movie with a narrative-soundtrack (by amit trivedi) which actually adds on to the film narration! and satirical too, where u hav a breakup song in actually a wedding-song backdrop !

This movie has certain things u wudnt normally hav in a Hindi movie - Reference to sex, abusive language, a narrative soundtrack, amazing narration, and an aim to actually mak a genuine, original, and remarkable film than to mak a super-hit clichéd Hindi movie! The cinematography (Rajeev Ravi) is superb ! The visuals add on to the darkness of the story !

All the performances are great, except for one possible drawback which is the dialogue delivery of kalki ( chanda )!

Mahie Gill has given a remarkable performance. All the emotions - anger, embarrassment, love, lust, is brought out well by her!

Abhay Doel acts perfectly well portraying an egoistic, broken man helplessly in love with a married woman.

The climax is great, but a little abrupt ! This movie was simply an awesome experience! A very rare piece of Hindi cinema! Go watch Dev D. Step out of the hall. And then, go watch it again.

REVIEW:-

When it was first announced that Shahrukh Khan's next film would be this one, many were under the impression that this would be a historical film but it isn't at all. Sometimes we remember our childhood and in particular our friends and the times and various moments at the time. The problem is that we can only remember them once they have gone and they cannot be recreated .This is a simple story which has been portrayed in a most simplistic manner by the makers and the actors. . A Simple man, who owes a lot of money to many and yet people in the village don't want to know him or want to go to his shop has his life turned upside down, when a film company comes to make a film.

Starring Irrfan Khan, Lara Dutta, Shahrukh Khan, Asrani, Om Puri, Rajpal Yadav and Manoj Joshi, this is directed by Priyadarshan while Preetam provides the music score. Priyanka Chopra, Kareena Kapoor and Deepika Padukone make special appearances.

Even though it stars Shahrukh Khan and has been produced by him and his wife, this is not a typical Shahrukh Khan film but Irrfan Khan instead, as he has done a very good job in his role and it suits him. Lara Dutta has also done a good job in this film as has "King Khan" himself. The special appearances by Priyanka Chopra, Kareena Kapoor and Deepika Padukone add glamour to the story and its worth while watching and listening to the songs that they perform to – the music and the songs are worth listening to. Being a person who has had some experience in photography, the cinematography is worth a mention and must say that this is good and more so where the interior is concerned and also the hills. Regarding certain aspects of movie making, there is also some good comedy and comic situations. The choreography direction includes Shahrukh Khan's friend and director of movies such as "Mein Hoo Na" and "Om Shanti Om," Farah Khan.

REVIEW:-

Kate Winslet, I absolutely adore her, she's my favorite actress of all time. I still can't believe that she hadn't won an Oscar, her first nomination was in 1995 with Sense and Sensibility. Finally after 14 long years, she finally won the coveted award with the movie The Reader. I finally was able to see this movie the other day and it blew me away, I'm still debating if this really was my favorite Kate Winslet performance, but once again with a strong cast telling a powerful story, The Reader was definitely one of the best films out of 2008. So many holocaust films have been made, it's hard to make another that stands out, but we really haven't had a story where the Nazi guards were on trial. A lot of people debate if this movie is trying too hard to push sympathy on Kate Winslet's character, but my love for this film is to just show that they were human as well, hard to believe, but that our mothers, sisters, friends, whoever could have done something so shameful.

Michael Berg in 1995 Berlin watches an S-Bahn pass by, flashing back to a tram in 1958 Neustadt. A teenage Michael gets off because he is feeling sick and wanders around the streets afterwards, finally pausing in the entryway of a nearby apartment building where he vomits. Hanna Schmitz, the tram conductor, comes in and assists him in returning home. The 36 year old Hanna seduces and begins an affair with the 15 year old boy. During their liaisons, at her apartment, he reads to her literary works he is studying. After a bicycling trip, Hanna learns she is being promoted to a clerical job at the tram company. She abruptly moves without leaving a trace. The adult Michael, a lawyer, at Heidelberg University law school in 1966. As part of a special seminar taught by Professor Rohl, a camp survivor, he observes a trial of several women who were accused of letting 300 Jewish women die in a burning church when they were SS guards on the death march following the 1944 evacuation of Auschwitz. Hanna is one of the defendants. Stunned, Michael visits a former camp himself. The trial divides the seminar, with one student angrily saying there is nothing to be learned from it other than that evil acts occurred and that the older generation of Germans should kill themselves for their failure to act then. But Michael is conflicted on what to do, if to speak out on Hannah's behalf on some of her innocence in the murders or keep quiet.

This is one of the most powerful movies I have ever seen, it was so incredible and just heart breaking. One of the things I respected about the film was the way they handled the awkward "love story" between Michael and Hannah, she's older, he's younger, but it's not even a perverted thing, so strange to say that. I don't know how to put it exactly, but their connection was real and in some sense they both needed each other. If you have the chance to see this movie, I seriously suggest that you take it, the powerful performances really make this film captivating. The story is so heart wrenching and painful, but was told so well. Kate now finally has the award she's deserved for so long and pulls in a terrific performance with The Reader.

10/10

REVIEW:-

First off, it was nice to see a film where the director had complete creative control to execute his vision. This film does not suffer the fate of marketers or no talent Hollywood producers who think they are artist or visionaries.

If you liked Cinema Paradiso and the Princess Bride then you will also love this film. Tarsem's lavish imagery and fantastic locations create the atmosphere for an epic adventure, while the acting of Lee Pace, Justine Waddell and especially, Cantinca Untaru provide the drama and laughter.

First, Cantinca Untaru as Alexandria is superb. I normally avoid films with children as they are usually cheesy or groan worthy. Cantinca, however, is much like the little boy in Cinema Paradiso, a natural child. When Alexandria says things we believe her, when she does things it is her child like nature we are watching come out. There is nothing stiff or unnatural about this young actress and it is a great credit to Tarsem as a director that he was able to pull this level of acting from a child. While watching the movie, I was amazed at how Tarsem and Cantinca were able to move the audience from laughter to tears and back to laughter so fluidly. Lee Pace puts in an excellent show and does a great job as a suicidal patient in the hospital, but Cantinca is definitely the star of this show.

Tarsem has a great eye for location and he exhibits it well in this movie. It truly was shot all over the world. Along with all the great locations are the beautifully colorful costumes of fashion designer Eiko Ishioka. The costumes are larger than life and beautiful in their symbolism.

So having said all that, I would highly recommend this movie. This is one of those rare films that actually does have a bit of something for everyone yet keeps its integrity.

REVIEW:-

Christopher Nolan's "Memento" is truly a rare and exceptional achievement in modern filmmaking in that it manages to be new, fresh, hip, and exciting without ever tiring its audience out - unless you're walking into this film without the desire to participate and actively analyze the mysterious details.

If that's the case, then this is DEFINITELY not a movie you should see. If, on the other hand, you are open-minded, creative, and alert, you'll definitely appreciate and get a kick out of this one. "Memento" is an old-fashioned "film noir"-type mystery thriller with an intriguing, ingenious twist: outfitting the entire film with a style that mirrors the protagonist's own mental condition while giving the poor viewer(s) his own perspective as well. It is masterfully filmed and edited in such a way that it is chronologically presented backwards (with two initially separate, parallel storylines - the main one, shot in colour, is the chronologically-backwards story with scenes that intercut with those of the other story, which is filmed more like a documentary, shot in black & white, and mostly takes place inside a motel room with the main character narrating, talking about the effects of his condition, etc.) While the average viewer may already be put off by such a complicated, confusing format, it is a very original premise that is well worth the struggle to figure out.

Acting is solid across the board, as is the writing, directing, etc., but special kudos must be extended to the very talented editor Dody Dorn, who successfully managed to put all of these fragments together and help them flow in a smooth, healthy manner that is not easy to pull off.

One of the most "memorable" (sorry, couldn't help slipping in the bad joke) films you're likely to ever see, "Memento" is an instant classic due to its groundbreaking narrative style and impressive dramatic undertones. For those jaded moviegoers who seek something to keep them awake, interested, and constantly thinking, there couldn't be a better choice than this film.

REVIEW:-

I like movies based on real people in history. Because of the Oscar buzz surrounding Forest Whitaker now, I knew this movie is about Idi Amin. This is of course a familiar name in my childhood (asked in General Information contests), but I don't really know much about him, except that he was a dictator.

This film has a documentary feel to it. It is really very realistic, even if upon reading background info that the Dr. Garrigan character is fictional. Even though granted that the Idi Amin regime was compressed into a coherent Hollywood storyline, it does not feel contrived. The final sequence of events at the Entebbe Airport was very suspenseful indeed.

Idi Amin was not really the lead character in this movie. It is actually Dr. Nicholas Garrigan. Being a physician, I could not help but be able to identify with his situation and dilemmas. Would you accept to be the personal physician of a country's president upon his personal request? It seems to be an offer and career opportunity you could not refuse.

There is sex and violence in this movie. I could not agree though with Dr. Garrigan's rashness regarding his love affairs, particularly his morals of hooking up with wives of his supposed friends. But considering that this movie is set in the 1970s, that was a totally different world pre-HIV. The violence, what can I say? After watching one violent film after the other, you get sort of anesthetized already. That said, the scene with hooks at the airport was still something else! The acting is very good. Forest Whitaker has channeled the Idi Amin persona very effectively. I could feel the scary and suffocating craziness whenever he is on screen. There's something about this performance being based on a real character though. I think it would be harder to essay a totally fictional character since you have to create this new character from scratch. And I feel James McAvoy (who was actually Mr. Tumnus in "Narnia"!) did so very well as Dr. Garrigan. You dislike him, yet you can empathize the stickiness of his situation.

Before I end this review, I have to mention that I was very happy to see the luminous Ms. Gillian Anderson again. I totally did not know she was in this film and it was a welcome surprise. She handled her few scenes as the wife of a volunteer doctor very well indeed. I hope she gets meatier movie roles in the future.