Rating:

Shot on location in San Francisco, London, and New Dehli as the main backdrops, what makes this movie *extremely* so special for me personally is that all the dating and relationships here are handled in quite an absolutely, ABSOLUTELY fresh and alive and splendidly convincing and rather strikingly mature manner indeed between the characters and what they are going through also, and even much more better is that we end up fully and genuinely with an amazing, non-stop rooting interest in those two main characters throughout, especially as well in the key point late in the film where we actually sense that Meera and Jai’s emotional, secretly attractive connection to each other is seriously at risk when they are in sudden jeopardy in their relationship! I am not gonna spill the beans on what happens at the very end here… but one thing is for certain: with fantastic pacing, excellent laughs, amazing non-stop energy, first-rate songs to lift the action so wonderfully, and an incredibly top-notch modern-day romance that spans two generations, Love Aaj Kal literally blows away all of the contrived, obnoxious, and most blatantly lifeless 2009 American theatrical romance comedies (i.e. The Ugly Truth, Love Happens, and All About Steve to name a few!) to kingdom come. PERIOD, final.

DO NOT MISS THIS ONE especially with your loved one as well, because this is your perfect date movie that you must, must see indeed… you will *not* be even disappointed whatsoever, and congratulations to Illuminati Films, Eros International, and especially to writer/director Imtias Ali as well on quite a watershed brilliance of a romance-comedy film well made!!!! (^-^)v !!

Rating:

When I hear people say LAND is “unoriginal”, it makes me chuckle. No other horror filmmaker can mix social commentary, humor, and gore like Romero, and if there is one out there, he’she probablly got the idea from Romero anyway!

I saw LAND last night, at a midnight show here in Chicago. From the opening old-school UNIVERSAL logo, to watching KAUFMAN say things like “We don’t negoitate with terrorists,” to watching a population of zombies appear from under the water in what, to me, is one of the creepiest moments I’ve felt in a looooong time, I not only thouroughly enjoyed this flick, I welcome it WHOLEHEARTEDLY as an instant classic.

The underlying story is a cautionary one – just like Night, Dawn, and Day. It’s shows a population that have locked themselves in, so much so that when it comes time to escape, they can’t. It tells of a ruthless leader that keeps the outside population occupied with drugs, sex and entertainment to keep their minds from coming together and storming Fiddler’s Green. The Green is a skyscraper-fortress that Kaufman and his cronies have turned into a new city, one that holds every memory of the former life – shopping malls, gyms, movies, etc. This film is about zombies, obviously. But like every Romero films before, it’s also about our post 9-11 world, living in fear, isolating ourselves in a big world, and so much more. The effects are UNMATCHED. I didn’t notice ANY CGI throughout the whole thing. There were a couple puppets, and they looked amazing.

Overall, this is one BIG ASS THUMBS up for a long awaited flick. The end caused pause initially. I felt it could have been better. However, I wake up this morning and rethink everything in my head and I’m satisfied. It wraps the microscopic story up like a lovely package, leaving the macroscopic problem wide open.

Loved it.

Peace!

Rating:

I guess I lean towards “Dawn” as the epitomy of zombie creepdom (and NOT the remake with its uber Nike sprinting zombies that could have just as well have been just an angry mob and not the creeping unsleeping nonresting everpresent shuffling undead–). The makeup in “Land” is far superior to the blue-makeup, squib packing of the dead in “Dawn”. But “Dawn” felt real–like it could happen–and that you were “f”‘ed if you didnt get your act together. But in “Land” you got your scares, your zombies, your apocalyptic wasteland Romero style and that alone is worthy of any zombie fans to check this one out.

Rating:

London today, and Jai’s opening gambit when hitting on de ladies goes something like this: “I don’t mean to pile on but…” This must be a colloquial Indian maneuver, since this phrase strikes me as a pretty odd flirting tool. Meera, lovely and outspoken, certainly isn’t impressed, and she calls Jai out on it. Still, they start a fun year-long romance, chronicled in the film’s first seven minutes in abrupt episodic moments. But then careers get in the way and – Jai and Meera being a sensible couple – there’s an amicable parting of ways (there’s even a break-up party).

Somewhere along here, Jai is befriended by coffee shop owner and old sikh Veer Singh (Rishi Kapoor) who goes on to give him advice and to recount his own long ago romance. Jai’s romantic plight strikes a chord with Veer and he begins to reminisce. And this is when the secondary story arc is introduced.

It’s 1965 in Delhi, India. Veer Singh is a sikh and something of a rough fella. But his ornery demeanor shifts once he sets his eyes on the very shy Harleen. It’s a long distance romance, really, as Veer and Harleen barely exchange any dialogue. Just tons of furtive longing glances, and Veer doing his best to woo her from afar. It seems to work, until he learns that Harleen’s family has arranged a marriage for her. And we wait to see just how far Veer will go for love (turns out, he goes pretty far).

On the surface, the cynical modern love story serves as a counterpoint against Bollywood’s traditional idealistic romance (in which a man may be so besotted that he travels hundreds of miles from Delhi to Calcutta on a rattling train just to catch a glimpse of his love). But a closer look gives us the film’s true message, that love may wear different fashions, that behavior may be reflected by the respective era, but love remains universally the same and confounds even obstacles such as cynicism and practicality. This is a really good movie from India. It mostly stays away from silly elements and the relatively understated tone goes a ways into lending believability to the plot. And it does feel like there’s a solid connection between the two generations of lovers onscreen.

The acting is terrific across the board. We’ve seen Saif Ali Khan take on roles like “Jai” before in SALAAM NAMASTE and in HUM TUM, you know, the charismatic fun-loving guy unwilling to settle down. His character’s journey to maturation is pretty predictable. Saif also plays the bearded and turban-coiffed Veer Singh of 1965, and Veer is a far cry from Jai, unabashedly romantic where Jai is flighty and dismissive. It’s a nod to Saif’s acting ability that you’re able to separate the two characters even as they share the same features.

Deepika Padukone, long-legged and stunning, is the revelation. She’s simply marvelous and adds surprising depth and warmth to Meera, and, c’mon, how can you not fall in love with her? She makes Meera a character you really root for, a girl perfectly aware of what’s going on every step of the way and hoping against hope that her guy would get wise and catch up. Harleen, the other lady in question, is played by 20-year-old Brazilian model Giselle Monteiro, who had initially auditioned for the role of Jai’s Caucasian girlfriend (yes, Jai does try to move on after Meera). However, the director’s wife pointed out that Giselle would make a better Harleen, since Director Imtiaz Ali had been getting frustrated finding the right actress for that part. Not exactly rocking the Hindi language, Giselle Monteiro doesn’t get a lot of dialogue, which is probably a wise thing. Giselle’s identity was kept under wraps until the movie’s theatrical release.

Besides the opening seven minutes of quick cuts, LOVE AAJ KAL throughout its running time is rife with transitional images which fall outside of chronological order. It’s a disjointed technique but there’s a sense of gratification as you do eventually see how these images fit within the framework of the story.

The production values on this film are top notch. Not only is the contemporary story arc set in the slick international backdrops of London, San Francisco and modern Delhi, but the 1965 setting is also nicely, convincingly evoked. Not that I’m a huge expert or anything, having only recently started watching old Bollywood classics from the ’60s and ’70s – but I least now know how much Rishi Kapoor and his wife Neetu impacted Indian cinema in the ’70s.

The musical numbers are alternately hip and charmingly old-fashioned. “Dooriyan” is a contemplative, soulful song about distances and separation. “Twist” is toe-tapping stuff and showcases Saif’s unexpectedly smooth dance moves (even Saif’s admitted to being a stiff at dancing). “Ajj Din Chadheya” is sweetly done and frames Veer and Harleen’s courtship at a distance. “Thoda Thoda Pyar” is the old-school courtyard number featuring a dancing Giselle (according to the commentary, Giselle drove the dance choreographers up the wall because, well, as someone new to the culture, she couldn’t quite grasp the moves). “Chor Bazaari” is fun and serenades Jai and Meera as they hang out on the sly in Delhi.

2 discs for this one. Disc 1 has the feature presentation, an option to check out the film’s musical numbers, and the film commentary in English by Saif Ali Khan & Director Imtiaz Ali. Disc 2 has the following special features: the Making Of the film segment; the Making of the songs; LOVE AAJ KAL Journey – which is even more behind-the-scenes stuff (although one does get tired of a segment that keeps popping up, the one about the crew going on and on about the hassle of shooting in horrible Delhi traffic); deleted scenes and quick shots with director’s commentary (including a sequence in a sweet’s shop featuring Jai and Meera and the now aged Veer and Harleen); the promotional press conference with the lead actors & crew; a remix video of “Twist”; the audio release function – basically, another press conference this time focusing on the music in the film; and the original theatrical trailer.

Rating:

I’ll grant that I was a lot easier to scare in those days and didn’t watch films with the critical eye that I do now as a reasonably intelligent adult. So I expected to be somewhat disillusioned with a movie I’d last seen 27 years earlier. But upon viewing Amity again, I am amazed that adults were ever scared by this film when it was released much less able to sit through it in its entirety.

With apologies to those who revere this film as a classic, The Amityville Horror is just a complete disaster as a film. Just because it was made in the 70’s does not qualify it as a classic. One must keep in mind that Amityville WAS NOT a B-budget chop job that simply grew a cult following. This was a major motion picture with big name actors. It does not get a break for being cheesy or camp because the cheese/camp is completely unintentional on the director’s part. The screenplay is often nonsensical, overly cryptic and repetitive in its attempt to convince us that evil is afoot. It is clear that the director was trying to achieve a subdued atmosphere of unseen evil as was done successfully in The Excorcist. But The Excorcist succeeded in achieving this atmosphere because a great deal of care went into preserving the authenticity of the characters and their world through the script and sets. We believe that the characters we see on the screen in The Excorcist could in fact exist in the real world. Further, the evil is actually defined in The Excorcist, even if it is not seen in its natural form. In Amity, the evil is never truly defined in this way. And the characters, through poor scripting just do not shine through effectively as people we might know in everyday life. These characters just walk around in a stupor hoping that will be enough to get the idea across that something isn’t right.

To say that the pacing of the film is wrought would be an understatement. Amity jumps around from scene to scene completely oblivious to any semblance of a compelling story arc and the editing is awful. Amityville is just a series of flat, understated scenes depicting a spectre of impending doom that never really manifests itself in any meaningful or frightening way (unless of course you consider disappearing wedding money and James Brolin brooding about for two hours with a bad perm as meaningful and frightening.)

There’s nothing wrong with watching an old movie as a walk down memory lane. I do it all the time. But an old movie doesn’t necessarily make a good movie. Good old movies, while reminding one of the era in which they take place, do not allow that era to become so distracting that one can’t still immerse himself in the story and characters. The Excorcist is the perfect example of a good older movie. I can sit down to watch that film and am immediately aware of the decade in which it takes place. But the sets and characters are so well written and depicted that I soon forget and stop caring about what year it takes place in. All I could think about as I watched Amity was how it REALLY looked like it was made 30 years ago. It relied entirely too much on cheap, now horribly dated antics like slamming doors and windows and the like to supply the horror. The horror never got to the psycholigical level as it did in The Excorcist. Perhaps it’s unfair to compare Amity to The Excorcist, but they are often mentioned in the same breath as being two of the better horror films of the 70’s. Amity just does not earn its place in that rare air. Amityville is just a dog with no teeth and bad breath when it gets right down to it.