Reviews written by registered user

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
11 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Bhaag... Milkha?, 12 August 2013

Here are some suggestions for alternate titles for this movie:

1. Farhan Akhtar's hard earned abs

2. Women who fell for Milkha Singh (aka Farhan Akhtar's abs)

3. How Farhan Akhtar built his abs

4. The LONGEST trip from Delhi to Chandighar

5. The true story of how Milkha Singh "broke the world record with an injured foot" (but couldn't win the f***ing Olympics)

6. 2 minutes of snot running from Farhan Akhtar's nose

7. Look at all the special effects!

8. There's kissing scenes!

9. The "true" story of how Milkha romped with all dem hotties (but actually met his wife in 1956 and married her in 1962)

10. We'll reference the title every third scene!(wait if this is the title then...)

11. Milkha vs Pakistan: The most important race EVARRR! (F*** the Olympics, nationalism ftw)

12. We make the "Relaxing... No Milkha Singh" joke!

Not much of this is really a true story (maybe 30% of this tripe has any substance). Rakeysh has twisted facts, manipulated events and completely bastardized the real story of one of our eternal sports legends, all to bring you one more mass-movie for the frothing and mindless millions who will lap this movie up like Pani Puris on the Mumbai streets. It is also FAR too long, with great depth given to the utterly false tales and legends springing from the director's imagination which was highly unnecessary. The mood and tempo of the film swings like a pendulum from serious to jovial with barely any connection and decides to eschew a realistic slow pace for a grandiose and testosterone pumping roller coaster with steep banks, long lulls and sudden loop-de-loops

Technically it is sound, directed well, acted well, shot well and with a good soundtrack. Is it enjoyable? If you're one of those people who simply want their dose of adrenaline and mindless action, heck, go for it. Frankly, if this movie hadn't the "inspired" card, it would have made absolutely no difference.

Total Recall (2012/I)
0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Expected far worse after all the reviews, 11 November 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Frankly, this movie has been getting a ton of flak for how it's not that great, especially because it had the original to live up to. But having not seen the original before watching this one here's how I felt about this.

There's a lot of good stuff in here. Forget the visuals (even though they're fantastic) the world looks like a very believable future. This vision of how 2 massive cities could be in the future, one a crowded, multi-storey slum, the other a high-tech utopia, both look and behave very realistically. The attention to details and the grounded imagination impressed me. The obvious inspirations from Bladerunner is a nice touch. The acting is pretty good with most of the lead cast playing their parts well enough with Jessica Biel being the only one who disappointed me a bit. Action is choreographed and filmed very well with minimal reliance on shakycam.

The bad parts are all within the plot being incoherences, weak science and almost zero signs of the first movie except for the names, the memory theme and the tri-mammaried hooker (I know enough about the movie to know what it was famous for). The intentions of the antagonist are weak; you don't really want to invade the only other country that exists just because you ran out of space. We are never shown enough of the good guys to actually care about whether they succeed and the flow of the plot seemed to certainly suggest they would win by the end which leaves us with no emotional bond with them. This also meant the awesome Bill Nighy was grievously underused. There were parts were the robots were taken down with ease and others where they would almost refuse to die.

I would have taken everything bad about the plot as a given since the possibility exists that the protagonist is simply creating this fantasy for himself but the reason people don't really want consider line of thought is because that confusion was never focused. A few scenes, one of them unnecessarily long and others unnecessarily brief, didn't lend much more thought to this issue. This was a crying shame because actually making the movie about his confusion and all those things meta would have made this gorgeous movie fantastic. As it stands, the movie is quite average though not as bad as people are making it out to be.

If you're watching a remake, base the movie on the strength of it's own merits instead of comparing it to the original. Far too many people want to compare these types of movies and end up being disappointed.

Ted (2012)
1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Funny but ends up being what it makes fun of, 9 November 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've not seen much of Family Guy and the episodes I have seen remind me mostly of Simpsons but of lower quality and an extreme reliance on stereotypes, racial humour and slapstick. Not to say that isn't funny but it gets old fast. When I watched the trailer for this movie and saw that Seth MacFarlane was directing it, I expected more Family Guy humour and lots of the same formula. I was right but I was both delighted and disappointed.

The movie has lots of great, crass and disgusting humour. I don't turn away from raunchy jokes IF done right and the first half has a ton of good jokes. I was laughing all through the first half and I was entertained. But it wasn't just the humour. There was a great quality to the story. It felt a bit more original. It was shaping up to be better than the clichéd story of choice between friend and lover and had much more to do with the relationship of Ted and John than the conflict. Even after the break-up the scene where Ted blames John for his poor choices rather than having to take the whole blame was nicely done and I felt this movie was going places.

Then the second half happened and I was disappointed. MacFarlane proved he didn't have much material apart from his rigid humour and the story fell into the dumb formula it was making fun of in the first half. Jokes here were bad and emotional scenes really fell flat. This guy doesn't have the imagination and the variety that Matt Stone and Trey Parker have or the broad political satire of the Simpsons writers. He sticks to the tried and tested and that gets very old very fast.

Disappointed by the second half but I'll recommend the first half to any fan of the wacky humour present in all of MacFarlane's works or anyone who enjoys these sort of raunchy comedies.

6 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Not really that great, 8 November 2012

When I looked at the IMDb reviews for this title, I saw the weirdest bunch of reviews of any title I had seen. Most people had heaped praises on the show and those who didn't, I could safely classify as prudes. I decided to watch the show and as a non-prude, I was not completely impressed.

The good things first of course. Everyone cast here is amazing. They lend great depth to their characters and pull off great performances. Don Cheadle is given the meatiest role here and he pulls off humorous cynic and depressed egotist with panache. His scenes with the breaking of the 4th wall are done really well. It was only in the pilot episode that I felt it was a tad overdone. Certain scenes when he holds a conversation and slips in single words to the viewer keep you interested amidst all the business jargon and keep you entertained. The business lingo is still kept to a reasonable level with most of the dialogue being banter or 4th wall shattering stuff. This is good since we can't have all those numbers clouding the experience for the uneducated.

Now the not-so-good things. People have rebuked the amount of sex in this which is incredibly foolish considering this is a Showtime feature. But I did feel that the sex, though few and far between, is sometimes stretched beyond the comic threshold. And at these times, it's not pretty. Sex jokes only get you so far. The show also treats most other businessmen either like complete morons or shrewd underhanded jackals. The show bathes in the stereotypes set by the populace and doesn't ever seem to want to show some of the truth in how people actually do business. They mostly seem to want to concentrate on humour and Marty Kahn's character but using clichéd business as a backdrop. This in itself is clichéd and this disappointed me greatly.

But on the whole, going simply by the intelligent humour, this is a great watch though taking this show seriously would not be recommended.

Some may enjoy though I sure didn't!, 8 November 2012

I have absolutely nothing against any amount of gratuitous violence, swearing or sex in the movies I watch. I'm not one of those prudes or cultured snobs who proclaims that movies that feature buckets of blood are not acceptable and are a blot on the art. No, I enjoy that which is art, and that which is most assuredly entertainment. I enjoyed the last Expendables as such a piece of entertainment and it was fun. Watching a movie about the propagation of the American dream with bundles of ammo flung at foreigners tickled the neurons in my brain that enjoy such a movie that decidedly does not take itself seriously. But here's the thing. The sequel SUCKED for me.

It obviously wasn't the violence as I have already stated. And it definitely wasn't the playfully xenophobic and misogynistic tone of the movie. Those were expected as the target audience is a bunch of testosterone fuelled males looking for some blood-spurtin' action. It was the fact that it really wasn't done that well.

Firstly, what everyone's talking about; the cameos by the immortal Chuck Norris, the Guvernator Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis and Jean Claude Van Damme. Many people here are raving about how awesome Chuck Norris and Arnie are in this movie. Really? All I saw was how the director decided to put the badasses of the 80s and put them in their clichéd roles they embodied at their prime, which though sounds amazing in paper, was done incredibly badly. If it was used to good effect, it would have been a great part of the movie. Instead we get one-liners and other done-to-death jokes pushed into the movie just for the sake of being humorous. The punchlines were jammed and slammed into the dialogue and brought up at awkward places where they don't really work. Other movies have done this before and the way it worked for them was they did it SUBTLY. It makes it far more enjoyable than getting it hurled at you.

Secondly, I'm sure I'm not the only guy who noticed that these dudes are OLD. This was aptly pointed out at the end by Arnie's little joke but it was not a pretty sight to see. The first movie didn't make me feel this too bad but this time I can see the tons of effort put into making Stallone a little younger. I can see Van Damme's wrinkled skin and pouchy eyes. Schwarzenegger looks almost pitiful here and I felt a little sorry for him. Only Bruce Willis actually pulled off the fresh and ready look. I didn't enjoy looking at their aged faces trying their best to pull this off and I felt a bit embarrassed.

Finally, the plot in this movie was crap. I didn't expect a Dark Knight or a Black Swan or anything really. But when they tried to pull of a death and revenge plot line, I felt they did it really badly. To be able to do a successful death scene, there needs to be enough character developed for us to care when they die. That simply can't happen when you're gleefully mowing down scores of villains with no regrets. This movie tried to be more than that and it fails.

What it does good is be a throwback to the 80s. The stereotypical villain, named Jean Villain in a fit of awesomeness, even sports a Satan tattoo. He does bad, bad things, has a much more skilled sidekick who is killed by the hero's worthy sidekick as the hero himself sets out to vanquish him. The formula offers some hilarity, some nostalgia and much fun through its shortcomings. The villains miss every shot when the Americans rarely ever miss, corporations and their evil abounds and epic shootouts and fights happen all the time.

Personally, I didn't enjoy the movie much. Hence the sorta low rating. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't recommend to fans of such movies. If you think you will go ahead, then do so by all means. I hope you enjoy it more than I did.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
The "Not so" Amazing Spiderman, 28 October 2012

Yeah the title of the review has most definitely been thought of by somebody before me but I just couldn't resist.

After such incredible superhero movies such as Christopher Nolan's Batman and The Avengers, what could be remembered of Spiderman needed to be rebooted. It was obviously not conceived this year but the massive influx of superhero movies, and the fact that Toby McGuire probably wasn't available for further sequels, spurred Sony to try and resurrect this web-slinging hero. Giving the helm to an inexperienced director (much in the vein of Joss Whedon) we were set to be delivered the darker, more realistic and gritty version of Spiderman (much in the vein of Batman). We were deceived and the web pulled over our eyes.

Let's start with the good news. The performances were excellent. Andrew Garfield as an awkward high school student was much better than the "emo" and depressed Toby McGuire. As Peter Parker, or better yet when we could see his face, pulled off quite the act. We expected great things from him after "the Social Network" and he performed well. Emma Stone is a talented woman and she acts well. Rhys Ifans as the anguished Curt Connors and Martin Sheen as the immortal Uncle Ben were great though not enough was given to these characters, the camera focusing mostly on the eponymous hero, his dashing damsel and the CGI villain. Speaking of which, the CGI too was excellent though for a movie of this budget, if it wasn't, it would be deplorable. Unfortunately that's all I can scrounge to label good news. Now comes the flood of bad.

The plot is ridiculous and stupid. Chock-full of clichés, holes, unexplainable behaviour and topped off unabashedly with a thick, greasy layer of cheese. There was so much cheese, this movie rivals the monstrosities Epic Meal Time conjures up in their disgusting videos. Alternate plot lines are vaguely mentioned and never resolved, people do stupid things with no motivation (eg. Spiderman taking his mask off every other scene), nonsensical and irrelevant scenes stretch on to the end of time. This brings me to the length of the movie; there was absolutely NO REASON this movie had to be as long as it was. We were never given enough of Spiderman actually doing his thing, being the friendly neighbour and all that jazz.

Cinematography was average. This is not what needs to happen in an action superhero movie. We need excellently filmed action sequences which are satisfying. And the score, oh MY GOD the score was hellish. This was the WORST score for an action movie, evoking emotions in the wrong places, at the wrong times and sounding exactly like any other orchestral piece. Except I've heard some good orchestra and this was poor. The Director, who is completely inexperienced, has done a bad job of bringing this movie back from it's beleaguered past. We suffered through 2 bad sequels. Now we suffer through a bad remake. The worst part is we must go through this again if Mark Webb hasn't learned his lesson. And in all probability, owing to the fact that this garbage earned millions of greens, he hasn't. Thank God this isn't part of the Avengers Initiative or I would be crying blood.

One more gripe, what was the point of Irrfan Khan's character anyway? What is up with Hollywood hiring great Bollywood actors for 2-bit roles? They did this by straddling Anil Kapoor with a nauseating role in MI4 and now Irrfan Khan with this completely forgettable part. These are great actors Hollywood! We expect more respect from you!

"Homeland" (2011)
6 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Deserving of all the accolades, 9 October 2012

If you ask me why I love this show I would not know where to begin. But because of the large number of parallels to its polar opposite, the show "24", let me clear the air on how Homeland is everything "24" never was.

Homeland is the mature older sister to the hyperactive, immature and schizophrenic brother that was "24". "24" was a farce, posing as a realistic representation of espionage and tension when clearly, all it wanted to be was a showcase of how excellently America's reputed counter-terrorism forces can fumble a plan and how one man comes to the rescue. It was about this man, running about on a single day, trying to protect an immaculate and inconscientious President and the devastation and rampage he left in his wake. It was about how all foreign countries are the devil and are constantly plotting to turn the "great US and A" into a smoking crater and how this one man cuts a swathe of bodies in his adventure to stop said crater from happening. It was a massive ego boost to right-wing propagandists about how right they are to advocate the massacre of foreign lands and their evil, maniacal peoples. It was about how no person ever needs to visit the bathroom in a day and how they survive on 0 calories and how nothing seems to happen at three points every hour in their action-packed days, these peaceful periods lasting exactly 5 minutes. Just enough for us to be reminded of capitalism and its delights.

Homeland is no such buffoonery. It deals with very real subjects such as PTSD, inner conflict, terrorism and why they do it, imprisonment, true espionage and finally, the quest of a flawed and desperate woman trying to find answers. Terrorists are humans who have grievances and want to be heard but go about the wrong means of doing it. The man who returns home after 8 years of imprisonment has real problems one of which is connecting with his family who thought him dead. Spies do research, communicate and don't spout meaningless jargon to look intelligent.

Don't compare this to something as worthless as "24". Homeland is a serious that deserves recognition for its intelligence and originality and anyone who is a fan of television needs to watch this.

2 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
An Excellent Conclusion, 20 July 2012

This will be a movie that gains cult status. This series will be talked about 20 years from now and people will be enthralled by the beauty, the grit and the emotion that was invested in this film for years. This I confidently say because a saga needs a good beginning, middle and end, and this movie gave the beginning and middle a perfect end.

One cannot go for a Christopher Nolan movie without some expectations. Every movie of his has been phenomenal with amazing plots and deep characters. Therefore when I sat down for the movie, I couldn't help but feel apprehensive about how it would turn out. Rest assured, I will not spoil this masterpiece for anyone. My review will be split into 3 categories each reviewed out of 3 stars and 1 star for special mention -

1. Cast: Every single character was portrayed masterfully by the actors. The eponymous Dark Knight was played to perfection by Christian Bale. Here, he wasn't the greenhorn who was slowly learning the ropes of vigilante-ism in Batman Begins. He wasn't the experienced and seasoned Dark Knight. He was broken, chipped and dented by the events of the last movie. He was beaten and he had to "rise" again to the occasion and give Gotham the hero it deserved and needed. Anne Hathaway was well cast as Catwoman and the other characters played by Michael Cain, Joseph Gordon- Levitt, Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard were very good. Tom Hardy needs special mention as Bane because as a villain, he blew me away. He was not the determined mentor or the crazed psychopath. He was a monster, intelligent, cold and calculated, and was probably the one person who could challenge Batman physically, mentally and psychologically. A deadly combination and a worthy adversary. 3/3 stars for Cast

2. Camera (and everything behind): The direction was nothing short epic. Nolan really knows how to tell a tale and in this movie he has gone the extra mile to make it menacing, dark and full of despair. I should say that making a movie like this with the minimum of special effects is really an achievement and the fact that he did not stoop to making this in 3D shows the caliber and will of this man. Editing in certain sequences I felt was not done properly and though does not happen often, when it happens it is jarring. This may be fixed in the Directors Cut when the movie comes out on DVD so I will not gripe about this. The fights were choreographed brilliantly and I really felt the punches thrown by the actors. The atmosphere was portrayed by controlled and skilled use of the music composed by Hans Zimmerman which I will talk about later. 3/3 for Camera

3. Content: The plot is brilliant. The emotion, the despair, the bubbling volcano of revolution that exploded and burnt everything, it was all written masterfully. Though some scenes and plot points seemed forced to achieve some end, it did not detract from what was the leading arc of the story i.e. the arrival of Bane to destroy Gotham City. I cannot find many holes in the plot even though I have tried to. That is not to say they aren't there but they will not be apparent until after the movie and you sit down to think about them. No scenes were really unnecessary and they all built up to a very satisfying finale. 3/3 for Content

Special Mention: The score really helped give the feel of despair and darkness for the movie and the orchestral pieces were well used with silences at the right moments to give suspense and apprehension. In fact, at one such moment of silence, the entire audience just sat with not one sound from a single person. The silence literally shocked us into silence.

Adding the above, I give this movie a full 10/10. The target audience is anyone who appreciates movies AND has seen the first 2 parts. If you have not seen them, I recommend you do before you watch this.

Prometheus (2012/I)
5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
What a disappointment!, 10 June 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Let me start by saying I am a huge fan of Scott. His Robin Hood, though not a great movie itself, made for an excellent prequel with well- fleshed characters and plot. His Blade Runner and Alien are classics and most of his movies except Body of Lies and American Gangster are incredible. That being said, I cannot believe he let this travesty pass his eyes, let alone direct the whole thing. With such hype, such amazing marketing strategies designed to bring the whole film to life, he could have made something to be remembered for ages. Instead, ridiculous plot, stupid (there is no other description) characters, plot holes and an unsatisfactory ending ruined it completely. The following review is split into 3 parts:

Cast: Cast was amazing. Charlize Theron, already filling a role for a ruthless queen in Snow White fit the role of an "Ice Queen" brilliantly. Michael Fassbender was a great choice to play an android. Noomi Rapace also pulled off the naiveté of a religious scientist with grace. The problem was none of these characters was given any substance other than Shaw's nonsensical dream which revealed nothing (which by the way had perfect cinematography instead of being first person which is what every dream is). I simply didn't give a damn what they did or if they died. And the things they did were so stupid they might have left their brains behind in cryostasis. And other than the triumvirate, nobody else was any good with Guy Pierce being woefully underused and Edris Elba given almost no role.

Camera (and all the things behind and in front of): Visuals were stunning. This was CG at one of its greatest heights with seamless integration of live-action footage. Direction and screenplay were not noteworthy and this being a Ridley freaking Scott movie I expected much more. This was a big disappointment but the biggest disappointment was-

Content: Or total lack thereof. Plot was supposed to give twists and turns but instead lacked any iota of sense or logic. Sci-fi movies usually require the viewer to leave some amount of sense at the gate but this was so woefully devoid of any semblance of intelligence I laughed at the sheer stupidity of what was happening. People freak out for no reason but have no qualms about touching unknown alien lifeforms, experimenting with NO quarantine procedures AT ALL, acting super calm when stuff happens all around, being conveniently absent when stuff actually happens and finally Shaw who didn't say a word about GIVING BIRTH TO A SQUID! If this was supposed to be a horror movie (which is what IMDb says it is), it has failed spec-TAC-ularly. Tension was non-existent with cheap thrills from shock moments which failed at shocking anyone. Plot holes abound and they have already been listed by fellow reviewers on this site.

All-in-all this was so underwhelming I left the theatre with sadness at how something which was given so much money which could have achieved so much was dealt with so poorly. Lindelof, you suck.

2 star for incredible visuals 1 stars for Charlize Theron and Michael Fassbender

"24" (2001)
8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Unrealistic, unimaginative, unwatchable, 12 May 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have trusted IMDb to give me a usually dependable rating for anything I plan to watch. Only two disappointments have I faced when coming here. The first disappointment was "Tree of Life", the only movie in my 10- year movie-watching history to actually make me angry it was ever made. The other has been this show which has been rated 8.5 for goodness- knows-what making this hellhole the only TV show to make me angry it was made AND continued. I have watched 2 and a half seasons and I have no interest in going any further.

The first point I will make is Kim Bauer needed to have died anytime in the first episode. Aside from being a very pretty face, no other singular character has made me mad to the point of wanting to literally broil them or fry them in olive oil. She is the stupidest, most irresponsible character of her age I have seen and when I saw her as CTU in season 3, I nearly tore my hair off. This was probably the biggest reason for quitting this horrible slug-fest.

Other reasons are as obvious as the sun rising in the east. Poor, ridiculous plot which takes Bauer (Jack) from impossibility to impossibility and in transition, not suffering any grievous harm which might impair his superhuman capabilities. He could have replaced Superman with his stamina, ability to take on A WHOLE HOUR OF TORTURE and leaving to go save the world on other stupid ways. This also brings me to how horribly the show has glorified torture and the misrepresentation of the rest of the world in the quest to find the Paranoid States new enemies and support their ridiculous foreign policies.

The real-time mechanic is a gimmick with everything happening in the exact one-hour interval and 20 minutes of magical plot silence for the ads. I would have accepted less action with more realistic spy-work but trying to expand that little plot into 24 hours is just ridiculous. Watching increasingly stupid twists in the last 5 minutes of the show just to drag it on really gets tedious.

The operatives are the biggest disappointments I have ever seen in any show. They just keep failing on so many levels it's laughable. In the third season when Chase initiates radio silence to run off and stop Jack, I just had to give up on this. Also with all this tomfoolery going on in CTU it's not a surprise US keeps getting attacked but how do they conjure up all the information about the case when suddenly needed?

This is the worst television I have seen coming out of the US. I thought Nikita was bad. If you want micro-thin plot, unbelievably air-headed characters, gimmicks and a world of NO humour AT ALL, go ahead and absorb the bull***t.

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]