Reviews

The songs "Gulabi Aankhe" and "Kis Liye Maine Pyar Kiya" along with Rajesh Khanna are the only good things about this movie. It's not very common to see Rajesh Khanna playing a cop, this is one of the fewest films where he plays a cop and does his part very well. Speaking of the movie, it's one of those "inspired by James Bond" movies of the 70s mixed with the most cliched storylines of the early 70s. The story is predictable from the beginning to the end. It doesn't work on the storytelling part so much to make the experience exciting, it's just another 70s movie that hasn't aged well. Even in the retrospect, the movie is cheesy by all means. Rajendra Nath is a fine comic relief and bonds perfectly with Rajesh Khanna. But, it doesn't make watching things (that we already have predicted correctly) any fun. The movie doesn't even feel like a crime thriller, rather feels like a cheesy and cliched 70s melodrama wearing a cape of crime thriller. There's really nothing much to talk about it. Obviously, it's one of the 17 consecutive hits Rajesh Khanna delivered during 1969-72. But it might easily be the worst of the bunch. Too stretched and boring at times. You can watch it if you want but you won't miss anything if you skip it.

Rating : 4.1/10.

My favorite game of all times! May be Doom or Ultimate Doom would've been my favorite of all times, but it just happened that I played this before the original Doom. It was the first ever FPS game, first ever action game and first ever horror/demonic game I ever played, so I may be quite biased towards this game. Yeah, maybe games like Call of Duty and all are "better" than these games. But had it not been for Doom, none of such games would've existed at all. So, you may not like it, but you can never deny it's legacy.

There are new monsters, a very cool Super Shotgun (which is my favorite gun in an FPS game, together with the BFG) and some improvements in gameplay experience. I personally liked the continuous gameplay rather than the episodic approach of the original. The levels look better in terms of design and some levels (Map 13: Downtown in particular) do become a great experience after playing a number of times, even if they are too tedious in the beginning. Also, it has less number of mazes compared to the original Doom. Since I hate mazes, I take that as an improvement. Arch-Viles are perhaps my favorite enemy in classic Doom, which first appears in this game. Some levels require a well-planned strategy to get through it properly. Not really the primary element of the game, but it's also a strategic game sometimes. The strategic part of the game is often overlooked. One major issue people bring up is the lack of storyline. Yes, it doesn't have a whole lot of cutscenes and scrolling and reading. And considering it to be one of the earliest games of its kind, it might have been horrible to look at the cutscenes in retrospect. So, it puts gameplay above the storytelling but it doesn't mean that the game has no storyline at all. It has very minimal storylines and setups and buildups. The minimality adds to the charm of the game. Even though they're in minimal amount, they're sufficient for the players to make some sense out of the gameplay experience they get. That's some weird brilliance. The continuous gameplay makes things a little easier than compared to Doom/Ultimate Doom - especially Episode 4 of Ultimate Doom (Thy Flesh Consumed). But, playing each level from a pistol start will make some of the levels ten times more difficult.

My favorite levels - Entryway (1), Dead Simple (7), Tricks and Traps (8), 'O' of Destruction (11), Inmost Dens (14), Suburbs (16), Tenements (17), The Courtyard (18), The Citadel (19), Barrels o' Fun (23), Bloodfalls (25), Monster Condo (27), The Spirit World (28), The Living End (29). These are my favorite levels out of any classic Doom games and the millions of other wads created by the people who loved and played these classics.

My least favorite levels - The Pit (9), Refueling Base (10), The Chasm (24). Not at all the worst levels out there in the original ones or the customized versions. But, it's either their gimmick and the lack of ammo which made me like these levels less.

Score : absolute 10/10 Grade : golden A+

I had only seen CID, Shaktimaan and some Indian children fantasy and horror series prior to this, if you don't those horrendous Ekta Kapoor daily soaps. CID started getting rotten as time progressed and serials like Shaktimaan and Sshhh Koi Hai had ended a long time back. I still regard 2015's version of CID to be better than daily soaps, but it definitely was insanity by that time. Newer shows (suspense, mythology or horror) looked insanely fake. So I had no hope that an Indian series would ever impress me. After seeing Asur, I changed my mind. It's the first Indian web series I saw, and so far, it's the only Indian web series I have seen. I won't say it's absolutely original. But it's definitely worth your time.

It has a theme similar to that of The Dark Knight, a vibe relatable to that of Se7en and a template reminiscent to that of Saw. And I mean all of that in a good way. The series blends all of them to give one of the best crime thrillers of all times. It has Nolan's non linear storytelling structure, and Fincher's suspense. Had it been told in the linear manner, it would've never worked so perfectly. The first episode is worthy of being a complete short film. All episodes that follow take the suspense to some another level. The last episode gives an anticlimactic and jaw dropping conclusion. My favorite episodes would be the first and the last one. I haven't seen any of the works of the other actors (they are awesome here, including the child actor), but Arshad Warsi does an incredible job, perhaps his best work ever. I liked him as Circuit, but rest of the times, I always took him as a mediocre actor. I was waiting for him to ham up his performance but he was totally different here.

Rating : 10/10 (golden).

It's the meta-cinematic idea and the fact that "Freddy Krueger" was now a pure evil - more sadistic than he has ever been is what makes this movie good. The meta-cinematic idea is well done in Scream. To be honest, Scream is my most favorite slasher film ever. Here, the meta stuff is a bit raw, and creates some loop holes that are absurd. The fact that it's not really a Freddy movie, but a meta movie that's based on the first movie also makes it feel detached from the series. I think it's flawless story-wise and to a certain extent, writing-wise. The actors have done a great job. Also, it has many things taken from the original one. That's not a bad thing and have different implications here. The stakes are also high, but we don't feel the stakes are high or the urgency that the story demands. It's there, but we don't feel it. There's something lacking in the movie that doesn't compel us to get connected. So, it's not the story at all, not the writing, it's a well-directed movie with a perfect haunting tone, it has really terrifying moments that it's supposed to have. Except for some loop holes due to the meta style, it's a solid film. But still something went wrong and I couldn't feel it in the way I am supposed to and in the way it wants me to. Something definitely went wrong.

According to my personal experience, it's characters which hold the movie down. Even though they're supposed to be "real" Heather Langenkamp and Robert Englund, they are characters in the movie. We barely know them as characters, and the movie basically assumes that we should care about them just because they're the stars of the original movie. So, they're not the same characters in the first one and they're also not the characters we can care about. That's what went wrong. We don't know them personally. Had we known the actors personally, there would've been no problem at all. It would be more terrifying than it was supposed to be. But we don't know them. They should've been introduced as characters in the movie interestingly. They're not Nancy and Freddy. They're Heather and Robert. Heather and Robert are stars of the first one. What else do we know about them? Nothing much. So, why should we care? I am not saying that thry should've shown us stuffs about their real personal life, in fact, I don't care about that at all. But, if they're characters of a movie, treat them like characters. Make a completely fictional story depicting their real life, but at least let us know them properly as movie characters so that we can care about them. The reason Scream worked isn't only the great storytelling, gripping storyline and thrills. It had really great characters. This movie is a perfect example that characters are needed in a movie, no matter how good the storyline is and no matter how excellent the storytelling is.

It's actually a very well made and a very well written movie. I don't hate the movie. I like it for what it is. I appreciate the effort. But it's not the best movie ever. It should have been though.

Rating : 6.6/10.

Unlike most of the people, I didn't find this anthology to be cringe-worthy. But, it was completely purposeless. Rather than reviewing this as a whole, I would like to say things about the four disjointed short films in it.

First one. It was the only one which justified the title of the anthology. There were some tropes that we have seen before and they have been played out in a better way and in a better context. It told the story very well, except that the ending was vague. I would've wanted to see more of it. Score : 6.9/10.

Second one. The usual looping of time and stuff. It was nothing exciting and was really predictable. We have seen the thing being played out very well in "Predestination" and many other movies. Here, it's just terrible acting and expositionary dialogues. It didn't make any sense. It felt like a small scene from a movie. Within itself, it had no story. Score : 0/10.

Third one. It was the best one among the four. The way things unfold are told visually rather than through expositions. This would've served as a good short film, if it wasn't a part of this anthology. The telling of the story is very good. The performances are okay. Due to its runtime, it doesn't explain the backstory properly. That's the only major drawback. It just wasn't so fitting to call it "Time Jumping" or so. Score : 8/10. Grade : A-.

Fourth one. This was one of the weirdest things I have ever seen. Mere mentioning of a time leap doesn't justify a "time jump", it will just be lame. It wasn't a horror or a sci-fi stuff. Just some lame video clip. It was shortest and stupidest among all. Score : 0/10 (cringe).

This anthology gave me two watchable short films and two which don't make any sense. I still think that it's a terrible idea to put all these short films in a collection which would make every one of them feel as inferior shorts.

Rating for the entire anthology : 4.1/10.

I call the second film an unnecessary sequel. Not saying it was all bad, in fact, I liked it. But the first was complete in and of itself. I feel kind of same about this movie as well. The story would have been better if it wasn't extended after the first film. But if an extension was necessary and if this was meant to be a closure, then it is okay. So, once again, I don't hate this movie, but I don't like it so much either.

It's definitely below the first two films. The first had the suspense surrounding the boy and every moment was unsettling and tension filled. The second one had a lot of it diminished because the first film had introduced us to the boy really well and a lot of things were predictable. Now that the boy is an adult, it's even more diminished. This is got to be the lightest of all the sequels. It doesn't have any brutal kills like in the first two and had it been there, it would have been just a filler.

The storyline resembles more of a fantasy movie than that of a horror movie. Not saying this in a bad way. I don't even mind the biblical implications and on your nose Satan vs Christ. The storyline has some really insane stuff suitable for a horror film. But it does feel a little soft. Honestly, it has an early 2000s superhero film vibe to it. The ending is quite reminiscent of the early superhero films. This might be a let down who expect something like the second film. The major thing that holds it back is that it's predictable. The first one was a classic. It's one of the greatest of all times. It had mystery unfolding in the most interesting manner. The second one was predictable too, but the way the story was told made sure that it didn't matter. Here, we can see a lot of things from a mile ahead and the way they execute it makes it less interesting. That's a major drawback of the movie.

Performances are great. The actor playing Damien did a really great job. He looked absolutely creepy, invulnerable and like a devil that he should've looked like. It's one of my most favorite horror performances.

Rating: 6.3/10.

People : You weren't planning to watch it but still you did. Why did you watch the movie?

Me : I don't know .... May be THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT.

It's a lot better than the Annabelle 1 and 3, The Nun and La Llorona. But it's easy to be better than them. I think the story (just the story) was quite good (if you're supposed to narrate it). It's kinda great to see the Lorraine Warren and Ed Warren's love story, but it took over the actual story of the movie. It was cheesy at times and felt like a grown up version of "Twilight". Some sequences were nice. But they were just nice sequences and didn't really serve a huge purpose for the story it was supposed to tell. If you take them out, the movie is still complete.

The storytelling reminded me of The Ring, except the reveals and the twists weren't interesting and were just "bleh". The scenes are quite reminiscent of The Exorcist in many ways, except that in The Exorcist everything theyshowed was within the context of a horrifying story and here, it was merely a stock scene for a film like this. And like every other movie of this kind it has those on your face jumpscares and loud noises. The tropes of The Exorcist work for The Exorcist because it is itself a great movie, and they weren't done to death when during the early 70s. It's a cliché today. You gotta make it work properly. You need to have a proper storytelling. Loud bass and cheap jumpscares aren't horror. The first two Conjuring films used similar tropes but told a great story and had a great storytelling. The scares and bass were used only for enhancing the storytelling aspect. That's why those films worked, and that's why every other movie in the horror universe kick-started by James Wan and not directed by him don't really work.

So, it's a watered down version of The Exorcist, The Ring and some stupid generic voodoo movie. That's what it is. Movies like these make me feel like it's James Wan, Mike Flanagan and John Krazinski who are the only ones who know how to do a horror movie properly these days.

Rating: 4/10, Grade: D+

It is just another goofy and boring teenage romance story that we have seen too many times. To make it worse, it takes itself way too seriously. The first problem was casting. Swastima Khadka doesn't look like she is a teenager. Not at all. But the movie tries really hard to make her look like one. Had she performed in a bit better way, I would've bought some part of it. She is your typical young romance film heroine who doesn't care about your hero because he doesn't look so good and finally falls in love with him. It was so stale of a trope that I literally said "how many times do I have to see it again?".

What's wrong with most of the people who make teenage romance films in Nepal and Bollywood? Why do they portray teens as stupid nerds who think money and good looks are everything, have an obsessive fanboyish crush on an overrated popular celebrity? Why is that a must? Teens are quite rebellious and some can be totally foolish, arrogant and a self-destructive all at the same time. But, except for few, none of them are dumb enough to be like the characters in these type of stupid movies.

This movie embraces being dumb to its core. The character arcs and plot devices used in this movie are just the most obvious ones and predictable. All that differs is a much more ridiculous premise and the locations where they film it. To add more foolishness, it deviates from the main plot to give us some pseudo social awareness. That's how it was supposed to be likable? There are movies which are meant to give social messages. And they do it in a much better than this movie did, and if you want to do so, make it within the context.

There are some of the most boring and clichéd daddy's issues which felt cringy even in the 90s Bollywood films. And the songs are terrible and serve merely as a filler because this movie wasn't long enough for the garbage it was throwing on us. Then, the final moments were seemingly familiar to me. Yeah, it was a watered down version of the ending of "Pashupati Prasad". Then, I realized that it was written and directed by the same man who wrote and directed "Pashupati Prasad". It worked for Pashupati Prasad because you used the generic ideas in a totally different way there. Plus, Pashupati Prasad had a genuinely interesting story to be told. Not everything works everywhere. Just think of the twist ending like that of "The Sixth Sense" being shoehorned in "A Walk to Remember", or the themes of "Anand" being shoehorned in "Dil Toh Paagal Hai", or Mr. Bean's comedy being a theme of "Shutter Island". I just start feeling that Nepalese filmmakers have no sense and whatever good they do are merely coincidences, when I see two movies of the same person being comparable in a ridiculous manner like this.

After watching the performance of the male lead, I am just felt braindead. If you have seen films like Bachna Ae Haseeno, Yeh Jawani Hai Deewani, Anjaana Anjaani, Student of the Year, just mix them with the ending of Pashupati Prasad. You'll get this movie. Not saying they have been exactly copied but have a lot of similar cheesy stuff in the cheesier way.

I didn't get a chance to see this in theatres. I was quite upset. Then it finally released on YouTube, and I watched it. Then, I felt that I was lucky to not get a chance to see it in the theatres.

Score : 0/10, Grade : F.

Rather than being a genuine movie, I would like to call this a homage to Bachchan's movies during his prime. And in that part, it is quite incredible. Bachchan even breaks the fourth wall, delivering some of his iconic lines from his prime (Kaalia, in particular) and even sings (raps) a lot of his popular songs in a way that mocks the morons like Honey Singh. At some point, he also acknowledges his legacy and the fact that many of the stars of present day (by which, I mean the ones during 2011) were merely his copycats. He does this quite innocently and being totally sarcastic. This trope of the film reminds us of Bachchan's characters in earlier movies, typically those made by Manmohan Desai. And at the same time, he plays the over the top and exaggerated version of his public persona which fits in the movie.

It's not just that he recites his iconic lines, many of his one liners from this movie are also great. No one from his time or the ones popular during 2011 or at present could've delivered those lines as Bachchan did. If you're a huge Bachchan fan like me, you're in for a treat whenever he appears on screen. This is really his movie. A tribute to Bachchan. This might have been the easiest role for Bachchan in his entire career. He is likeable, sarcastic and cool in this movie. He really owns the movie. Even the title clearly indicates Bachchan saying "I might be old and technically, belong to a bygone era ..... but I am way better than all of the ones who came with me and after me". Most of his costars are either no more in this world, or they aren't consistent like him. They're referred to as the heroes of the bygone era, no matter how great they are or were. The movie is clearly written keeping Bachchan in mind. That's pretty much of a summary of what I had to say about Bachchan in relation to this movie.

The first half of the movie is to the point, Bachchan is in one of his coolest avatars, and well paced with a twist that I never saw coming. It diverts a very little. In short, we get all that we want from this movie in the first half. But, right after the twist, we still get the "Bachchan part" and that's pretty cool. We get a backstory of Bachchan and that's okay. But the main problem is it slows down right after the twist. And it diverts a lot from the main plot. We get a really sluggish love story of Sonu Sood with that out dated out of place humor for the majority of the second half. That was something I would've never wanted to see. And the moments within that are cringe-worthy. It really holds the movie really really down. Since the movie had time for that nonsense to go on, couldn't they just show Bachchan's backstory rather than giving an exposition dump for that? That would've made it better than it is.

Honestly, the way it is written and directed, for the ones who don't know Bachchan from his earlier movies, it would just be a typical masala film - with an old man beating people up. Some of the action scenes are mere copies of "Wanted" (2008), which is a ridiculously stupid film in its own right. Even though Bachchan makes it really enjoyable seeing the stuffs that he does, the action feels very over the top and unbelievable - though quite entertaining when you see it.

Prakash Raj plays his comedic gangster role in the way he does. Nothing bad from him. Hema Malini doesn't have much to do. But reminds a lot of films they did together. Raveena Tondon is one of my most favorite Bollywood actresses of the 90s. Her role indicates the fact that she never had a chance to play opposite Bachchan in her days. She played his sister in "Bade Miya Chhote Miya" (1998) but not opposite to him. She also starred with Bachchan in "Insaniyat" (1994) but that movie doesn't really count or matter. But she did a lot of unnecessary overacting in this movie. So is with Charmi Kaur. Sonu Sood and his girl in this movie, felt like they were braindead when it was time to do some acting.

Score : 8/10, Grade : A-

I don't know why DC movies are terrible, when they're not supposed to be so. A direct to video movie like this being better than the major big budget live action films like Batman v Superman, Suicide Squad and Justice League amuses me a lot.

Here, we get to see a bit more realistic and less of a "fish out of water" version of Diana unlike in the 2017 live action movie. We don't get that incredibly unnecessarily naive Diana Prince in this movie. She feels a lot more mature, compared to the version of Gal Gadot. That characterization made Gal Gadot's version more charming, but this version makes a lot more sense. I loved Chris Pine's version of Steve Trevor a lot more than liked I this version, though. Here he is a pervert. As a villain, Ares has a menacing presence - which is a good thing, because he was simply a one dimensional villain otherwise. The story was engaging. Diana growing up and wanting to become the best warrior and thinking that men are no good creatures to loving a man, embracing humanity of the "outside world" whilst still remaining the same warrior who would fight for good - we get a complete satisfaction. Plus, there are some twists which I didn't see coming. Particularly, there was one female character, who I didn't care much about in the beginning. All I acknowledged her was being a notable part of the story. But her final dialogue made me like her and made me realize that it wasn't all about stupid feminism. The actions and fights were mostly fine.

There are very few negatives. First, Ares is your clichéd villain. Rather than the menacing presence, he lacks what makes a villain good. You know what he is doing but you don't know the motivations behind it. We do not get to know him well. Also, in the third act, he does things and exhibit powers which are convenient to the plot. Don't get me wrong, they were cool. But at least we could've known about those earlier. The third act is a little too clichéd for a superhero movie.

It's something we have probably seen by now. I admit, it was 8 years prior to the 2017 movie. But, very few people might have watched it. A lot more have already watched 2017 movie. What I am trying to say is, except for some little differences here and there, it is very much similar to the 2017 movie. If you've already seen the 2017 movie, you might not feel like watching it. I went to it fingers crossed, hoping that it might be exactly like the live action version. Also, it was older and probably adapted from the same source. So, I kept my experience of Gal Gadot starrer aside while watching this movie. If you fail to do so, you may not like it. The movie has some good writing here and there. The direction is good. Is it unnecessarily dead serious and gritty which seems inappropriate? Not at all.

Score : 7.8/10, Grade : A-

This particular movie is my most favorite movie of all times. I don't even know where to start with. I have definitely watched over 600 movies in my life, and this happens to be the only movie which was able to have a positive impact in my life. Long story short, I have been in the place of each of Rancho, Fahran and Raju in my life. And I have always applied the principles this movie introduced whenever I have been in a tough situation. I have learned to follow after excellence rather than success. I have learned to follow my passion and care less about what society thinks about my decision.

Rajkumar Hirani has always addressed a certain issue and/or has boldly hit many lame principles and ethics of the society with a perfect satire. In this movie, it's about the cliched belief that if you're a science student, then it has to be either medical science or engineering if you want to get successful. In the real world, many people have been a victim of this belief and have wasted their life. Had they not been brainwashed by the society, they would've had a better life. That's what the movie justifies and as per my experience, it makes a whole lot of sense. Another thing is, you need to worry about excellence. If you are excellent, the good grades are almost obvious. And in the end it's your excellence that matters, not the grades.

Hirani tells the story in his own unique way. Just like in every single one of his movies so far, he crancks up everything to 11 to make sure that his point has reached to the audiences' mind. Many of those cranck ups do not make sense in real life, but that does not even matter because the movie doesn't want that particular cranck up to be relatable. But it does want whatever that cranck up tries to tell to be relatable. And it succeeds in that. And whether or not it makes sense or not, you'll get the point and a great dose of laughter. And there are some of the sequences which are just hilarious and over the top, and are meant just for the sake of laughter. The characters are very likable and quite different from one another. Each of them are a representative of the kind of people there are in the society and in the academic field.

The movie doesn't make all kind of sense if you look at it quite literally. Even I would say it's quite nonsensical if I am to look at it literally. But it's meant to be looked at literally. Many scenes are mere representation of something else that the story wants us to know. With that regards, it's pretty good. Even if you watch it at the face value, you won't be bored at all. There will be a build up to something, and the final result will be exactly the opposite of what you expected and that will make you laugh a lot.

The songs are pretty good. They aren't the strongest part of the movie by a long shot, but are still popular than many recent Bollywood songs. It's strange that a late 2000s movie had songs which are still popular. Every single actor have given their best performance till date.

Rating : absolute 10/10, Grade : golden A+

Considering the era, the technology they had back then and the goofy treatment of the genre, it's somewhat watchable. Also, as much as I remember, it was the first ever DC film and second superhero film. So, in a way, it also showed the possibility of a whole new genre. You might loathe it for many genuine reasons but you must acknowledge the objective reality that if these movies were never made, none of the great films in the genre would have ever existed (probably).

Now, coming to the story. It is an era specific movie. It's really cheesy and goofy. I don't if Mole Men were there in DC material, and I don't even know whether Lex Luthor was there in the sources during the time, and I could care less. But had they had Lex Luthor, he could've been used as a villain. But probably that would've never served the purpose since they had to make it goofy back then. And the mole men served all the purpose of goofiness.

Superman, in this movie, does what he does. He cares about people, he helps them, he saves them .... but why? Only he knows. And he doesn't feel like a humane character like that from Man of Steel or Superman/Doomsday. He is just a fish out of water who is super strong and shows his abilities. He is completely generic. The special effects are hilarious and awful, if you see them now. But it was in the 50s. So, I must say it was amazing that they even bothered using one. The direction it takes is really childish and kids are more likely enjoy it if they can turn their brains off.

Surprisingly, it is coherent and insanely better than Superman 3, Superman 4 and the two mockeries of Batman by Joel Schumacher. It doesn't aim to be the greatest film but does hit some level, though not to high. George Reeves is okay as Superman. At least people remember him as Superman. The acting was below par and over the top to say the least.

I am not going to bash it because it's an age old movie. At the same time, during the 40s and 50s, Hollywood had given a LOT of excellent films. So, it's not that it can get away with all the excuses of being an age old movie.

Rating : 5.2/10, Grade : C-

This movie is a culmination of why I love Nightmare series and why I hate Friday the 13th series. As a Friday the 13th film, it's easily the best movie. As a Nightmare movie, it's good enough. They set the timeline in such a way that we have spent some time after The Final Nightmare and a little after the events of Final Friday. Thank God it doesn't acknowledge Jason X at all. And the biggest positive of the film would be Robert Englund in his (supposedly) final portrayal of Freddy Krueger. We get to see the creepiness of the character in the first few minutes of the montage, which has been absent in every portrayal or characterization of Jason Voorhees so far. Again, the guy is a super strong zombie who kills people. We have had enough character depth for Freddy from the previous movies, and we can easily get behind the character. The concept of the entire film is quite good. The first kill is just awesome. That's my favorite kill in the movie. There are many other kills which are quite awesome. Freddy and Jason squaring off against each other is one heck of a thing. No matter if the fight between Jason and Freddy appeared at an awkward moment, they still are incredibly fun to see. The characters are better than those in most of the Friday movies, and are often well acted. There are some reveals regarding Freddy's "activities" in the past, which made sense. But above all, getting to see a version of Freddy I loved for a last time was the biggest impact that this movie had on me. Robert Englund has done his most notable role so good that it's impossible to find a proper substitute.

I can understand that Freddy died in Final Nightmare, got banished to hell and nobody remembered him, so that he couldn't get resurrected. Also, the tadpoles powering him uptil that movie stopped doing so. But the way Jason gets resurrected after the events of Final Friday is just a complete ignorance of continuity. Don't get me wrong, the way he gets resurrected is awesome, but it doesn't really make any sense at all. And I appreciate Freddy's plans to start tormenting people, but that sequence is extremely rushed so that they could get to the final fight. There are some elements similar to Nightmare 2, which annoyed me. There are some plot devices used as weakness of Jason, which quite resembles Jason in Manhattan, which is the worst Friday film and one of the worst films in the genre. The plot device is contradictory to every other Friday film. At least they could've done something that was used in a better Friday film. Even though I like Freddy in this movie, there are some moments which are hilariously goofy and resemble the parody of Freddy from Final Nightmare. I "love" Final Nightmare, but those ideas are suitable only for stupid movies. Freddy doesn't get any kill, except one. Freddy's kills are more disturbing than Jason's kills. We could've got some horrifying kills from Freddy, but we get just one. Towards the end, there's a confusing direction regarding Jason. Is he the hero? Because he is treated like one which makes zero sense.

But, the most disappointing thing - Jason is STILL a big guy in a hockey mask who kills people. That's the main thing that never allowed me to connect with the Friday the 13th films. We don't get anything that makes the character more likable. This movie was my last hope to make me like Jason. And, it failed to make me like Jason. This movie had me interested in Jason, but that's all because of the support it gets from the character of Freddy.

If you are a fan of either of the franchises, this will most surely succeed in entertaining you, and just entertain you. It's an awkward villain vs villain movie, which sounds incredibly stupid but is a fun watch. If you are not a fan of the genre, it may just be some usual killings and nothing else.

Rating : 6.3/10, Grade : B-

If I am to speak about the goods in this movie, I can easily end it by saying "the entire film". The character introductions in this film are some of the best character introductions of all times. Especially those of "Harmonica" and Frank. The intros don't have a dialogue or an exposition to introduce them. All the movie does is that they show you some characters, clearly indicating that they're up to something. Even what they do is quite interesting. Had they been the main characters of this film - that would've never been a problem. Then they introduce one of the characters. A brief set of dialogues between them, and that's all. We get the characterization of one of them, in a brief time. The script might probably indicate some filler characters doing some random stuff, and the character gets introduced with some dialogues. What makes it so interesting? Leone uses the ridiculously great score by Morricone and silences (by which I don't mean completely void of sound) throughout the sequence. But within that silence, there's a feeling of something about to explode. That particular thing is one of Leone's greatest tropes when it comes to his Spaghetti Westerns. And, everything that was supposed to explode, explodes with the loudest of sounds. Even the character that got introduced in the scene has a particular tune associated with him, which gives a perception of there's something that's about that character, we still don't know about. In short, Leone says indirectly that "You don't know all about him. Wait. I will tell you. You're gonna be satisfied." and he keeps up with his promise and in the final act, we get the answer to that. Leone builds up the suspense without a single confusing word that needs our thought, and that has worked almost everytime. With all the silences indicating the upcoming explosion, he introduces the other character - in a same and quite a bit different way. One of those characters was played by Charles Bronson and the other by the great Henry Fonda. I was convinced that even if I am watching a Spaghetti Western where the protagonist can be someone like The Man with no Name, who is characterized as someone slightly better than the villains, a character like the one portrayed by Fonda can never be a protagonist.

The characters are very interesting in their own right - every main character - Jill, Frank, Harmonica and Cheyenne. Harmonica has that mysterious origin sort of a vibe, just like that of Eastwood's character in Dollars films. The only exception was that Harmonica was not so mysterious but is still a Man with no Name. He resembles a lot to Eastwood's iconic character, but is quite a lot different at the same time. Cheyenne is a sort of a comedic anti hero, who will do some crazy things and will also make you laugh. Jill - probably the most complex character of them all. When I watched it for the first time, I thought that she was getting mood swings for no reason and was kind of selfish at times. Watching it again, it's very clear why she has so much of apparent mood swings while talking to people she knows and she is getting genuinely helped by. And the part that I thought was portraying her selfishness was actually her sorrow. I don't know what mood I was in, when I first watched this film. It feels so obvious the second time. Anyway, my point is the character of Jill is realistic and - I won't say it's relatable, but is very reasonable and understandable. Frank, on paper, is just a bad guy who wants money and property and luxury and whatever that a generic bad guy in a movie wants. But he has a menacing presence. He is calm and focused. He does the generic things that a bad guy does in a movie, but Fonda and Leone make it too iconic to resist. Even the secondary character - Morton - is good.

Coming to the story aspect, I admit that there's not much a complexity to the story or a shocking twist in the end. But, that doesn't even seem necessary. It has some kind of mystery in it. As the movie progresses, the mystery unfolds slowly and in a very interesting way. Leone builds the anticipation, and when he delivers the scene the anticipation leads up to, it comes with a great satisfaction. Nothing seems like "mehh" or something like that, which happens a lot in the "modern" movies. There are three major plotlines going on, forming a complete plot of this movie. And even though they feel really connected, each of them have their own focus, and they never divert from that. In the end, you will get what you were supposedly promised in the beginning.

Leone is a master of visual storytelling. Whatever we need to know about the story is told to us by the non-expositionary dialogues, the expressions of characters and their portrayal. There may be some three or four minutes of exposition in the film, which are just the backstories. Some scenes are introduced vaguely, but are addressed in a satisfactory manner, later on. Ennio Morricone's scores are epic. It fits the situation perfectly. And, they are the reason why Leone's films are so intense. Apart from these, there are very witty dialogues here and there. There are some great character interactions. Cheyenne and Harmonica's interactions are the best ones. The way they get along, and the dynamic the characters share with each other literally puts a smile on your face. Charles Bronson has never given such an intense performance, either. One of Jason Robard's best works till date. Definitely the most memorable performance by Claudia Cardinale. She was perfect for the role of Jill.

Some words about Fonda's performance. I haven't seen too many films starring Henry Fonda, but the ones I have seen suggest that he can be a really good "messiah"-ish character on the screen (Check out "12 Angry Men" if you don't believe me). But this role proved that not only he was a great actor, but a versatile one too. One of his greatest performance I have ever seen. I don't know if this was the first time Fonda played such a character, but I was blown away by seeing him in a role like that. Right after Fonda appeared, it felt like this man is gonna be some kind of messiah, he always is so. So, I thought, isn't the man he's playing a bit too notorious? He is everyone's hero right? And a few seconds later I got terrified by Fonda (for the first time). Fonda being cast against type in this movie is perhaps the most mind blowing example of casting against type. And Fonda doesn't even remind me of his "messiah" characters at all.

I highly recommend you to watch this film. You're missing one great film if you haven't seen it.

Rating : absolute 10/10, Grade : golden A+

Apparently, people looked at this movie for it was NOT. Many critics said it had nothing and relied on grotesque and gruesome imagery. Producers probably thought that people were so dumb that they liked a pointless gore movie. And the latter resulted in a franchise which many people didn't want. I certainly didn't.

James Wan is my favorite director/storyteller when it comes to modern horror movies. I liked his work ever since his debut. And his first movie happens to be my most favorite of all of his works, even to this date. Yes, there are a lot of gruesome and grotesque stuff on screen. But it's absolutely not what the movie relies on. It's basically a suspense thriller, which happens to have a lot of gore. And all that gory stuff is within the context of the story. They are a part of storytelling. And, unlike in many later films in the franchise, it's NOT about some clever kills and all. There are clever kills, don't get me wrong and perhaps, the best kills of the franchise. But none of those stand out like a sore thumb. All of them have been backed up by the story the movie tries to tell.

Speaking of the movie itself, it is one of the best low budget horror-ish suspense thrillers of all times. In general, one of the best movies of this kind. You really get hooked up with whatever that is on the screen and as the movie progresses, you will be invested in the story more and more. The ending is not something incredibly new. But the way the story is told makes it so unexpected and thrilling that you'll end up liking it.

The storytelling is what many of the Saw films that came later on lacked. They tried to top the gore aspect which made the story aspect weaker and weaker. Audiences want a story on screen, and to tell it appropriately, show whatever you want. That's okay. This movie, unlike its sequels understood it very well. That's why the franchise (like every other horror franchise that began with a James Wan movie) lacked the magic of the first movie.

Rating : 10/10, Grade : A+

This movie is a counter to the statement "a direct to video animated movie can never be compared to a big budget live action blockbuster of the same type". If you want Superman in a darker story than that of the original 1978 film, this might be the best one. It has many parallels with the divisive "Man of Steel" (2013) but is quite better than that. No I don't hate Man of Steel (and I passionately hate BvS, but that's a different story). This is a dark Superman movie. Man of Steel is a dark Superman movie too, but it is clear that Snyder tried to make it a dark movie with Superman in it, rather than a dark Superman movie. This has a smaller scope than that of Man of Steel along with being a standalone movie, but tries to tell a story which could've worked as a part of live action, big budget and interconnected movies. Funny thing is that it worked to a considerable extent. Superman's voiceover was fine along with those of the others and the overall animation. Lois Lane and Superman's romance didn't come out as cheesy as I expected and was okay. The story it tried to tell is, on the whole, very good. There are certain scenes in which Superman does something quite different than what he did during his intro, though, his motives were almost the same. Those two varying characterizations help to establish the character very well and clearly explained what made him "Superman" (saying more than this will be a spoiler). This is something Snyder couldn't understand properly. Batman v Superman was the proof. The scene I just described and the black suit of Superman won me over. They made me like this movie.

Had they been in a live action film with this little justification, it would turn out to be cartoony. There are a lot of things which worked only because it was an animated movie. Lex Luthor and his motives against Superman were undercooked. As much as I understood his doings, in this particular movie, he was basically a generic villain who wanted to bring down an extremely powerful hero by any means. That's all I have to whine about this (otherwise) excellent film.

DC can definitely produce great movies. It has given The Dark Knight trilogy, the original Superman movies, a whole lot of other Batman movies and quite recently, Justice League (Snyder Cut). If people still think DC cannot produce good films, you can show them this movie as a small example. Highly recommended. If you don't know anything about Superman, you might want to check out the Superman live action films to have a gist of knowledge about what Superman is as a character. It's not that you won't get it, but you'll enjoy it more if you do so (imo).

Rating : 8.8/10, Grade : A.

This is what you call a classic 70s Bollywood crime drama. No Bollywood movie in the genre had neither the might nor the ability to be as great as this one. I definitely don't think that everything was purely original, some chase scenes and action scenes do feel like as if they were influenced by some Hollywood movies of that era. But whatever the case might be, I don't think there's a doubt regarding the fact it's one hell of a movie.

First and foremost - Amitabh Bachchan - that too in his prime - perfect choice for the role. Years later, even SRK tried it and didn't really give a performance par that of Bachchan. Bachchan is incredible as both Don and Vijay. Not only he portrays both the characters in the most accurate way possible, we can clearly see his versatility as an actor through these roles. Don is a heartless and a subtle criminal with every sort of negative vibe to him. Vijay is a goof who tries to act like Don. Both of these contrasting characters have been played by Bachchan with an ease. Pran as JJ was equally great. Whenever Bachchan and him meet in this movie, something quite exciting happens. They are one of the most dynamic duos of the era, and in general, of entire Bollywood.

Om Shiv Puri does a nice job as officer Mallik. Rest of the cast were fine on the whole. Coming to the story, there are two or three major plotlines which form the entire plot of the movie. One of my major concern was about Pran's plotline and felt it would not mesh with the rest of the plot. But it never happened. It wasn't messed up at all. The twists and turns are quite unpredictable and really entertaining when they come.

Except for Bachchan being forced to act in a comedic way just for the sake of some unwanted laugh, nothing is bad about this movie. It's an amazingly entertaining film that'll give you thrills and make you laugh at the same time. I have probably seen it over 100 times since the first time I watched it 16 years ago, and I am still entertained by the movie in the same way like I was when I watched it for the first time (may be even more). It's an absolutely well made film with several memorable scenes, dialogues and sequences. One of the greatest movies from the 70s, and of Amitabh Bachchan's career.

Rating : absolute 10/10, Grade : golden A+

Pure brilliance! That's what this movie is. Not only it's a modern day classic, it's almost a perfect film. It serves as a slasher flick, a perfect blend of slasher and whodunit, an excellent thriller and an extremely exciting rollercoaster ride. In my opinion, Scream and Scream 2 are better than his most popular movie, A Nightmare on Elm Street. No, I don't hate original Freddy movie, I consider it to be one of the bests of the genre but that doesn't change the fact that I find Scream to be Wes Craven's greatest work.

There are a lot of goods I have say about this movie, and I won't be spoiling anything. All these stuffs aren't probably things that have not been already said prior to my review. But these are the reasons why I love it so much. First, it's extremely well-paced. It has a definitive tone it goes for, any doesn't miss a bit at all. It is almost two hours long, it begins to end at around 1:30:00 mark. The last 30 minutes doesn't even feel like 30 minutes. It's almost like 5 or 6 minutes, and I am not even exaggerating. There's not a single moment in the movie which doesn't give an uneasy feeling. That uneasy feeling lasts throughout the movie, until things start getting revealed. And after that, what follows is an intense, action packed finale that the movie absolutely deserves. And I almost forgot. The opening of this movie is perhaps the best opening of all the slasher films since the late 70s.

Even if it wasn't a meta film, except for a few interesting pop culture references, it would've worked equally well. That's because it has a story of it's own. You are constantly gripped by the whodunit aspect of the movie. It completely understands that it's actually the intensity, the tension and the characterizations you give in the film that makes it work, not some pointless gory scenes. The gore and kills are mere aftermath and payoff of what we had just witnessed in the story. Gore doesn't equal a great horror, and in particular, a great slasher. Seems like this film understood it really well. And there's something that this movie does, which none of the slashers before it and (except for a little extent in Scream 2) none of its sequels do. That is getting the uncertainty factor absolutely right. Definitely, I would say none of the endings of the Scream movies (1 to 4, at the time of this review) were quite predictable to me. But, even in the beloved classics, except for a possible few dodges, we get to know who the main lead is and who's going to be the victim. It's not that with Scream. At many moments, even though we recognize the main lead (who's awesome, btw) we feel like she might not make it. And, definitely a lot of people are sliced. But, we do not, or should I say, cannot expect a character to die or not to die because it plays the trope of "everyone is a suspect" extremely well.

This movie has the best batch of characters in any slasher movie. All the characters are so memorable and the characterizations are brilliant. You cannot exchange one character with the other. There are no stock characters for extra kills or something like that. Every kill happens for a purpose, may it have a motive or may it be an act of a pure psychopath. And in that line, I would also like to mention that Neve Campbell is my most favorite actress (and Sidney Prescott is my favorite slasher lead character) when it comes to the ones who've been the lead of a slasher movie. Unlike a lot of such leads, she doesn't feel like a "typically written to survive" lead. She has more depth to her character than many of the leads from many different franchises combined! She does a lot of stuff that kinda reminds me of John McClane. She definitely does whole lot less of over the top things that McClane does, but she does have some great one liners, fantastic fight/action scenes and the vulnerability that makes us feel that she's one of us, and not a movie character. That being said, the performances are extremely great. Neve Campbell as Sidney Prescott, Courtney Cox as Gale Weathers, David Arquette as Dewey, Shaggy (Matthew Lillard) as Stu, and Skeet Ulrich as Billy Loomis and all the others have given a fantastic performance.

It's a movie which doesn't use its meta nature as an excuse for being lame, in fact, it's everything but lame. Being a meta movie, it serves as a celebration of almost two decades of slasher films by taking jabs on cliches while using that cliche in a much more grounded way. It gives a well written story and a whole bunch of well written characters and an intensely exciting storytelling. That's what makes it so great. If you haven't checked it out, don't waste any time. Please, see this movie. It's a highly underappreciated (though insanely popular) and a criminally underrated gem of a movie. . .

Rating : absolute 10/10, Grade : golden A+

This wasn't exactly what I wanted out of a Justice League movie. It was made over 10 years ago, but still, some of the stuffs were pretty flat - even by the standards of the genre over 10 years ago. The movie called "The Dark Knight" which came out a couple of months later did set the bars way too high for the genre in general, so if you watch it today it seems to be way below the line it actually is.

There is little to no dynamics between any of the characters. All of them seem to be in a different movie of their own, forcefully crammed into this single movie. All the characters are introduced, except for Wonder Woman, by showing the most generic things they do. The best part of this movie was Hal Jordan becoming Green Lantern and his origins was, for me, the best part of the movie. Although it was the best part, it did feel incredibly shoehorned into this. The Flash has his own plotline, that was quite good too, but it felt that this storyline was shoehorned into this movie as well. Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman - THE TRINITY - don't have much to do in this, Superman is just shown to be too strong (which we already know), I barely remember what Batman did and Wonder Woman was just doing nothing in the movie. Aquaman literally has a few seconds of appearance in the movie.

It wasn't a Justice League movie but a Green Lantern Origins + a Flash movie with the cameos of the other popular characters. But on the whole, whatever they did, was passable and entertaining enough for a single viewing. My main problem was with the villain. He felt like he belonged to the list of generic MCU villains. He was undercooked and didn't feel like much of a threat. But he was supposed to. There are scenes which show what he can do. But all we know is that he wants some apocalyptic stuff to take place. So, we know what he can do, but not exactly why he is doing what he is doing. He is just a blant and dumb supervillain wanting the world to end, quite comparable to Apocalypse from "X-Men: Apocalypse" (2016). None of the plotlines meshed together to form one coherent storyline for the movie. I like it more than DCEU's live action Justice League movie (not the Snyder Cut), but that's just because it wasn't so ill conceived and rushed.

One more thing, Batman's voice sounds kind of weird. I don't want everyone to be Kevin Conroy but this is one of the oddest Batman voices ever.

Rating : 6.3/10, Grade : B.