elsterusa Reviews

Chand Bujh Gaya (2005)

dear lord, no

[3/10 · 31 May 2007]

As of May 31, 2005, 13 people have voted for "Chand Bujh Gaya." It has a weighted average of 9.9 and an arithmetic mean of 7.4. Nine people have given this a 10/10, two a 2/10 and another two a 1/10. I'm on the side of the nay-sayers for this movie. I hated it.

It had potential to be something special, at least in the early stages of pre-production. A film about the Godhra train burning was just what needed to come out of Bollywood, especially with the ever-increasing Western interest in Indian movies. Director Shariq Minhaj really messed up that opportunity with this film.

The story is average, especially for a Bollywood film. The popular themes one would find in Indian films (culture-clashes, tradition, star-crossed love) are all here. Minhaj thought that s/he would spice things up a little by making the main character an extremely annoying joker. S/he also put in this really weird part about these two twin brothers who have to tell their family's history because it's SO funny. (It's not.) Also, where there should have been serene silence, s/he either put in a boring and overlong musical number, or loud and cheesy music. Where there should have been little dialogue, s/he put too much.

This example is based on an actual exchange that occurred in the film:

(Two people are rushing to get to a car in order to find someone)

Person #1: "We must hurry."

Person #2: "I know, we don't have much time."

#1: "Come on."

#2: "Let's go."

(They finally leave.)

As if that weren't enough, the real problems start during production. Faisal Khan plays the annoying joker, a Hindu man-child who falls in love with a Muslim woman. He looks lost playing the joker, and only gets a real opportunity to display his apparently limited acting skills after the train firebombing. Shama Sikander doesn't ruin her performance, but that's because her character isn't that deep. Frankly, nobody's character is that deep. God bless him, they try as hard as they can, but their performances are either not enough or are overshadowed by the bad ones. Also, sometimes the characters aren't given enough time to be developed, such as some guy who was called "CM." Apparently, his in an important character, but it is introduced in the last twenty minutes of the movie. Oy ve.

The four musical numbers are not good. The first one is too long, although the dancing is decent. The other three consist of characters moving around in slow-motion as someone sings in the background. For all of these scenes, the music sucks. (Some of you may be thinking that I have something against Bollywood dance music. I don't. I happened to enjoy a lot of the song-and-dance numbers in "Sharabi" and "Ek Mahal Ho Sapno Ka.")

The cinematography is horrible. For about half the movie, important characters are left out of the shots. Sometimes, the man behind the camera tries to fix this by slowly moving the camera, but this just puts other people out of the shot. Again, oy ve.

Also, the last two minutes have to be the most drawn-out moments I've ever seen in a movie.

So, what don't I hate about the movie? The second unit scenes, particularly the train firebombing and the resultant riots. Sure, sometimes you can clearly see the protective gear that the stuntperson is wearing when s/he is set on fire. Sure, sometimes the extras who are running away from the rioters are smiling and look like they're having the time of their lives. But, this is a low-budget picture. The producers probably couldn't afford to do re-shoots, so they had to work with what they had. For the most part, the second unit director knew what s/he was doing, and most of his/her scenes worked.

Still, the vast majority of this movie was awful. I don't know what these nine voters who gave it a 10/10 were smoking, but it must've been pretty powerful. If you're like me and enjoy watching movies while you're sober, stay away from this one.

Ek Mahal Ho Sapno Ka (1975)

decent

[7/10 · 29 May 2007]

This is the second Bollywood movie I've seen (the first being "Sharabi"), and I enjoyed this a lot more. The following plot points were given in Netflix's summary, and thereby cannot be considered spoilers. Vishal (Dharmendra) and Aruna (Sharmila Tagore) are very much in love. However, when Aruna finds out that she is going blind, she marries her elderly employer (Ashok Kumar) so that she won't be a burden to Vichal, who already has to take care of his handicapped mother (Achala Sachdev). Deven Verma provides comic relief.

The first act of this film is a bit overly melodramatic. It takes a western viewer a while to get used to the in-your-face close-ups and other staples of old-school Bollywood cinema. However, the acting is very good. Dharmendra and Sharmila Tagore are good as two young lovers. Ashok Kumar is quite good as a magazine executive with a heart of gold. However, the best actor does not show up until the beginning of the second act: Leena Chandavarkar as Kumar's daughter. She acts evenly with her whole body, and the fact that she's easy on the eyes doesn't hurt her performance. She simply has the best chemistry with all of her co- stars, especially with Sharmila Tagore. In their scenes together, the unique chemistry that develops when two women the same age take on the roles of mother and daughter is captured brilliantly. Chandavarkar's scenes with Dharmendra are also very good. Even when the script becomes overly misogynistic, Chandavarkar's presence is stronger than her male counterparts. Also, the woman who plays the friend of Aruna in a small role is very good and sexy, but I couldn't find her name.

Even though I'm praising the acting, why am I only calling the movie decent? The story. For starters, characters have a habit of appearing out of nowhere in scenes, particularly Kumar's character. Also, a lot of times the plot is like a soap opera. Sometimes the action depends on events so nonsensical that they ruin the mood. All of this would be tolerable, however, if it wasn't for the dénouement. Without giving anything away, this movie's dénouement breaks the original mood of the film so severely that the last fifteen minutes just become annoying. Everything else about the movie was very good, but the dénouement was so awful that it almost ruined the movie for me.

Sharabi (1964)

disappointing

[4/10 · 21 May 2007]

***Mild spoilers alert***

I received a summer-long Netflix membership as a high school graduation present from my aunt. I saw this as a great opportunity to catch up on the Bollywood movies, since it is supposedly bigger than Hollywood.

After a little research, I discovered Madhubala and peoples' comments saying she was the Indian Marilyn Monroe (or at least the Indian Doris Day). I decided to check out some of her movies. Unfortunately, Netflix did not have "Bahut Din Hue," so I chose (what was supposed to be) the next best thing as a start to my expedition in Bollywood: "Sharabi," a tale of a man's plunge into alcoholism and its negative effects on everyone he knows. I figured I couldn't go wrong with a movie that starred Dev Anand and Madhubala, and had a IMDb score of 10/10 as of 5-21-07.

I saw it today. The eleven people who voted for this movie must have seen a different copy than mine, because I was greatly disappointed. Let me start with the good: The first forty- five minutes are excellent. Dev Anand's portrayal of a happy drunk is pretty good, and he is best when performing with his female counterpart, Madhubala. Madhubala was stunning. She was downright beautiful, and gave the best and most energetic performance. She was the life of the movie. Her performance was easily one of the great ones I have seen in any movie.

However, for the next hour or so, the focus is put on Dev Anand. He just did not do it for me. I can take classic melodrama because I'm a fan of old-school Japanese flicks, but Anand took the melodrama to a whole new level. God bless him, the man tried, but he just did not succeed.

The story is okay. Some might find it hard to believe a family putting up so much with such awful conduct from one their own, but that part of the movie is realistic. What angered me most about the story is the final act in the coal mine. Anand's character commits a horrible act, but is let off easy. Maybe the realistic resolution was one of the many scenes missing from the copy that Netflix has. I hope so. Because this was the most unrealistic ending I've seen since "Jaws: The Revenge."

Anyway, the beginning of this expedition into Bollywood has been extremely disappointing to say the least. I should be getting "Ek Mahal Ho Sapno Ka" next. I hope that is much better.

Why Man Creates (1968)

very funny, very interesting

[10/10 · 27 July 2006]

This is a very unconventional film.

I saw this during a lecture at Cornerstone University's Journalism Institute. Honestly, I'm having a hard time understanding the film's application to journalism. Still, I enjoyed it very much.

I love how the introduction seemed like it was copying off of Monty Python's animation style, while, in fact, this was released before "Flying Circua." The sixth episode, with the high-jumping ball, provides an interesting comment on deviating from the norm.

The seventh episode was very uplifting piece on human perseverance. All in all, this is a great compilation of tales that prove that even the most bizarre goals have a chance of succeeding.

The Village (2004)

good movie

[8/10 · 6 August 2004]

******************* SPOILERS HEREIN *****************

I saw this movie with pretty low expectations. I was, once again,

pleasantly surprised. In other reviews, I constantly saw

complaints about the story being weak. i disagree. I found the

story to be genuinely scary and extremely thought-provoking. One

question that I found Shymalan asking us is if it is right to try to live

in an utopian world by means of fear and bribery. I also saw

complaints about the monsters looking cheap. Although I did not

find the monster to be thoroughly convincing, it worked. Besides,

the costume was made by humans who, most likely, had no skill

in creating bone-chilling monsters. I had issues with the "twist

ending" since I was expecting something scary instead of

revealing. I also had a hard time accepting that the founders of the

village would make a decision to start again so drastically. But

then again, I've never been in the type of situation. Unlike most

people, I had no trouble understanding and accepting the

dialogue. I give the story 7.5/10

The acting is what makes the film so good. Joaquin Phoenix, who

plays the most important character (since he is our hero and is

first billed), dishes out his usually excellent performance. I

wouldn't say he was better than he was in Signs, but he was better

than he was in Gladiator. Adrien Brody, with a complex role, is

also excellent. William Hurt deals with the most dialogue in the

film and talks as if he were meant to talk this way. Sigourney

Weaver was also good, even though I had a tough time accepting

her as a character other than Ripley. I also had a tough time

accepting Brendan Gleeson as an American character, but he

gave a fine performance nonetheless. And Judy Greer, as one of

the Walker daughters, is very good and was, thankfully, able to

show off her acting skills by being something other than comic

relief. Last, but most definitely not least, is Bryce Howard. As the

main character, she carries the tremendous weight of the movie

almost with ease. Hers is one of the best performances I've ever

seen. None of her lines sound wooden or forced and all of her

movements (which are very important since she plays a blind

woman) are convincing and appear 100% genuine. As you can

guess, I give the acting 10/10.

Overall: 9/10

A Bridge Too Far (1977)

highly recommended

[9/10 · 29 July 2004]

When I rented this movie I didn't have the highest expectations

since it only has a 6.9 on this site. However, I was pleasantly

surprised by the movie and it is one of my favorites. Richard

Attenborough put together a fine cast and crew.

The ups: Most of the cast (that is, Dirk Bogarde, Michael Caine,

Sean Connery, Edward Fox, Elliott Gould, Gene Hackman, Anthony

Hopkins, Hardy Kruger, Laurence Olivier, Robert Redford,

Maximilian Schell, and Liv Ullman) do a very good job in their roles.

I was especially pleased by Anthony Hopkins, Michael Caine, and

Sean Connery. Also good was Robert Redford in a role that was

only meant to attract a bigger American audience (since he

appears two hours into the film). John Addison's score is very

good; it brought back memories of classic scores like The Bridge

On the River Kwai's and The Great Escape's. I could go on and on

about the sensational production, but I don't feel like it right now.

The downs: Besides Robert Redford's pointless casting, there are

other problems with the actors. Ryan O'Neal just wasn't very

convincing at all in his role, with some of his lines sounding

almost purposely artificial. Also, James Caan must have gotten a

face lift after The Godfather, because his facial expression is pretty

much the same throughout the movie. His role at first seems

pointless, but then the story of the little guy had to have been told.

Also, man probably argue that the movie dragged on too long.

Since I am interested in WWII history, I realized that Operation

Market-Garden was an epic mission with great importance, but I

would've been just as happy with the movie if it was about fifteen

minutes shorter.

In the end, I was very pleased by the movie and I highly

recommend it. 9/10

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

a classic and really good film

[8/10 · 28 April 2004]

In my review for Matrix Revolutions, I told people to pay attention to the action, but I did not back that up. Since I believe this movie is just as good as its sequel, I will back up my statement. The first Matrix put brand new ideas (at least to me) into the world as we used to know it. There were ideas that were so convincingly shown in the first one, you see, like us being used as a battery and also humanity would bring armaggedon. Now, many people I know were disappointed that the sequels did not put any new ideas into their heads. They were disappointed that all the answers were not given to them. My question for them was: "why?" Wasn't the original idea enough to delve on in the first place? And besides, since when did humans ever get the entire idea of something. Why don't we just "choose" what we think is behind all these ideas? After all, our free will gives us "purpose," right? So, my theory is that the Wachowski brothers decided to replace a lot of the philosophical elements with pure and hard-core action (some of the best I've ever seen). This element works almost perfectly in the sequels. So, you see, die-hard fans of the Matrix trilogy, just because you aren't given the same amount of philosophy that there was in the first one, there's more than enough that's left-over from the first one. I love this movie. 9/10

Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie (1997)

in my bottom five

[1/10 · 22 April 2004]

Like I said in my previous review of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie, this movie is horrid. However, unlike the original, I could not find a single thing worth laughing about in this movie. This movie is a disgrace. It hurt my eyes. In the middle of the movie I turned on my CD player and listened to Lucinda Williams. LUCINDA WILLIAMS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! I LISTENED TO "RIGHTEOUSLY". RIGHTEOUSLY, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! I started asking myself what had happened to the spunk, the interest of the bad guys that was with Ivan Ooze in the original. Why am I closing my ears whenever the Power Rangers speak? Why don't I just chop the film up and scatter its pieces into the wind in defiance of the piece of crap I rented? (Well, actually that's the reason I didn't harm it.) I wish I could forget this experience. But you don't forget a headache like that any time soon, do you?

Mr. Magoo (1997)

not that bad

[5/10 · 22 April 2004]

Now, I don't think this is a good movie. There are more bad parts in this movie than good, most definitely. I just don't understand why everybody is giving this movie a 1. I laughed once in a while. (Nothing big, mind you, just short giggles.) I did not expect anything good out of this movie at all, so I didn't walk out of the theater that disappointed. I guess if I can love Escanaba in da Moonlight, I can tolerate Mr. Magoo. The two movies have similar types of humor, it's just that, well, Leslie Nielsen was not born to be in movies. It seems that goes for most of the other people in this movie's cast (except Malcolm McDowell and, perhaps, Jennifer Garner. 5/10

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (1995)

pretty bad, indeed

[7/10 · 22 April 2004]

This is a horrid movie. Completely dumb in every aspect that it delves in. An insult to movies, and art itself. You know what I think they did wrong with this movie? They didn't make it a comedy. Certainly, there were scenes in the movie that were meant to be humorous, but they failed and there weren't enough attempts anyway. The way I see it, this movie is a joke. I laugh at failed scene after failed scene filled with drama that would be excusable in a bad, colorless, fuzzy, and altogether terrible soap opera. This has some of the most cheezy special effects I've ever seen. The music is okay, but usually just plain stupid (not as bad is in Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie). Suspense that, well, just plain bored me. Everything is a joke. There is one thing in this movie that is not horrible. That is Paul Freeman's performance as Ivan Ooze. I believe he realizes that the movie he is in is terrible. Instead of being dramatic, in every scene he strives to find some sort of punchline so that the audience will have a harder time dozing off. I respect that. Unfortunately, this movie was made about five teenagers who look like thirty year-olds and have nothing better to do than save the world and do pointless karate moves with some very fake sound effects. Yep, a real shame. 3/10

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)

real shame

[6/10 · 22 April 2004]

You, know what? This used to be one of my favorites. I was not yet mature in judging films. I paid attention to the action and just ignored the bad dialogue. I mean, the movie does have some nice shots of guns, I admit. But later on, I realized that this movie is not art. I paid more attention to its poor cinematography, drama, character development, music, and suspense. It was much too Hollywoodish (if that's a word, which it probably isn't.) Stallone, although the best choice for Rambo, has wasted his name with two bad sequals to a thought-provoking original. Everything in this movie is a big disappointment. I've lost my respect for this movie, thank goodness. 5/10

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

an excellent film with this generation's "Man With No Name"

[10/10 · 21 April 2004]

This film is a treasure. Quentin Tarantino has a skill as a director that few have been lucky enough to acquire. He, just like the Coen Brothers, know exactly how to mix brutal action, suspense, drama, anime and, perhaps most important, comedy in an excellent timeless classic (hopefully), while adding a message about humanity. Of course, Quentin Tarantino can't make an excellent movie without an excellent cast. I have to admit, I've seen more bad movies with Thurman than good, so I didn't think that she would be any good at all. Same goes for Vivica and Lucy. Matter of fact, the only people I knew would be good were Michael and David. Boy, was I wrong. There is not a single major character in the movie that I believe is flawed in any way. Although some were stereotypical, they still showed human aspects that we were not used to seeing in action movies. Notice how some characters plead for their lives, some embrace death because they deserve it, some are almost sympathetic to their enemy. Interesting. This movie also has excellent cinematography, top-notch editing, and a score to die for. Put in these five ingredients together and you not only get some memorable major scenes (the enormous and over-the-top sword-fight in the restaurant) but some minor ones as well (Daryl Hannah whistling "Twisted Nerve" and goons comparing a waiter to Charlie Brown). 10/10

28 Days Later (2002)

EXCELLENT

[10/10 · 16 December 2003]

Everything in this movie is captivating

Xtra blood and guts for gory people

Cinematography that would impress anybody

Endless action and scares

Love story is not corny

London never saw such horror

Extraordinarily suspenseful

Not for the faint of heart

Transfixes you immediately

Escanaba in da Moonlight (2001)

my chevy took a sh*t

[10/10 · 16 December 2003]

For all you haters out there who didn't give this movie a 10 out of 10, I have one thing to say to you. I'd like to put your face on Jimmer's butt and have him rip one twice. Seriously, this is THE funniest movie ever made. I suppose that you had to go to the Upper Peninsula in order to like this movie. So, everyone, pack up your things and drive to the UP. Once you leave, rent this movie and laugh your *ss of. This movie is funny beyond the limits of human comprehension. The mixture of moose testicles and porcupine p*ss is a powerful concoction that both destroys and builds up this movie at the same time. Beware of possessed Detroit park rangers, incoherent and gassy small bearded men, and the all powerful bearwalks, for they all lurk in the darkness of ESCANABA!!!

Shrek (2001)

Surprising

[8/10 · 16 December 2003]

Eddie Murphy is notorious for his horrible movies. His base acting, humor, and overall style has smeared the face of movies with shame (see "Pluto Nash" for an example. However, this movie is surprisingly and refreshingly different from all other movies with Murphy in it. This movie compines plesant animation with a crisp and silly story line with a voice-over cast that is simply perfect for the movie. Even though it is ultimately a child's movie, it gives excitement and pleasure to whomever sees it and is solidly recommended to anyone who asks.

The Shining (1980)

In one word: MAGNIFICENT

[10/10 · 16 December 2003]

This is the most MAGNIFICENT movie ever made. I shall tell you why. Besides it being the scariest movie ever made (it is SO scarier than "Psycho"), it has one of the most MAGNIFICENT casts in movie history. I congratulate James Laggat. (There are a few movies with better casting: the "Lord of the Rings" films, "The Seven Samurai", the first three "Star Wars" films, and "Blade Runner".) It has MAGNIFICENT music from Wendy Carlos, Rachel Ellkind, and Bola Bartok. The cinematography from John Alcott is just MAGNIFICENT. It has also been directed by the most MAGNIFICENT director (in my opinion). I want all of you to see this MAGNIFICENT movie. 10/10

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

really good movie

[7/10 · 15 December 2003]

One thing that's bad about people is that they expect the sequel to be as good as, if not better than, the original. That rarely happens. That has only happened for the first Star Wars made, Star Wars Episode II, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Then, once the sequel is not as good as the original (the sequel is also one of my favorites), almost everyone has high hopes for the last one. Unlike most people, I was not expecting this movie to blow the first two away. I thought it was going to be pretty bad. (See...I have low expectations of sequels.)

Then, when I saw this movie I was like, "Wow. This movie saved the franchise." Let me explain why I made this comment. The Matrix is an action movie, correct? The Matrix Reloaded is an action movie, correct? So, in an action movie, I look to be entertained by action. I don't really want to think that much. (That's what I expect when I watch a thriller.) The Matrix Revolutions is another action movie, correct? Then PAY ATTENTION TO THE ACTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's the action that makes this movie so good. I rest my case.

Hot Shots! Part Deux (1993)

funniest silly movie

[8/10 · 13 November 2003]

I know that some of you think that Charlie Sheen is only good at playing young, depressing, FNGs in Vietnam War movies. That is not so. Although he is definitely better at playing one of those, he has a very healthy sense of humor stored somewhere. The First Hot Shots! was good, but this was so much better. Sure, some of the jokes get kind of old and unoriginal, but forget those. Look deeper into the movie. See?!? The rest of the jokes are hilarious! I'm so glad you agree with me. If you haven't seen this movie, get off of your butt and at least rent it. You'll at least like it.

Impostor (2001)

this movie is good

[6/10 · 12 November 2003]

This review is for the Director's Cut

Look, forget about the horrible visual effects. Just focus on everything else about this movie. The acting is good (Gary Sinise rocks), the drama is good, the music is good, the suspense is good, the drama is good, the art direction/set decoration is good...Look, if you're looking for a gore-fest, action-packed movie, this might not be the one for you. But if you like psychological action you should definitely check this out. Trust me.

The Rock (1996)

this rocks

[8/10 · 12 November 2003]

If you like action, see this movie. It's as simple as that. Don't keep away from this movie just because Nicolas Cage can't act. This role doesn't require him to act, so he's actually not bad in it. Sean Connery looks a worn out in every seen of the movie, but I think that's an intentional joke. Michael Biehn is the best in this movie. (He should've had a bigger role. Seriously.) SEE THIS MOVIE, ACTION FANS! 10/10

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

Polanski's work of art

[10/10 · 12 November 2003]

I love horror movies. I love this film. Maybe you love horror movies. You will love this film. First off, this isn't "The Shining", "28 Days Later", "An American Werewolf in London", or "The Omen" scary. The frights are much deeper, but not as good. But, you won't care. Because you'll still be scared to death. This movie is so scary, it's fun. Watch it, love it. Pure and simple.