<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Deface By C4Parana (HACKED) "Turkish HackeR"</title>
	<link>http://www.cinophile.com</link>
	<description>Deface By C4Parana (HACKED) "Turkish HackeR"   Contact Me : C-4Parana@hotmail.com</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:19:47 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Deface By C4Parana (HACKED) &#8220;Turkish HackeR&#8221;   Contact Me : C-4Parana@hotmail.com</title>
		<link>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/12/28/bollywood-2007-cinophiles-picks-for-the-year-part-i/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/12/28/bollywood-2007-cinophiles-picks-for-the-year-part-i/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:24:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cinophile</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Cinophile Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinophile.com/2007/12/28/bollywood-2007-cinophiles-picks-for-the-year-part-i/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[2007 was a good year for Hindi Cinema &#38; just as i was about to make up my mind as my favorite movies this year comes aamir khan with Taare Zameen Pe. This has really been an year when bollywood explored a lot of avenues and broke new ground , there were debutants who came [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>2007 was a good year for Hindi Cinema &amp; just as i was about to make up my mind as my favorite movies this year comes aamir khan with Taare Zameen Pe. This has really been an year when bollywood explored a lot of avenues and broke new ground , there were debutants who came up with amazing movies while the old masters failed to recreate the fire. The year in whole belongs to the debutants.</p>
<p>I probably watched more movies this year in cinema halls than i have done ever before (and it burns the pockets.. damn those multiplexes) It is very hard for me to put one movie as my favourite movie out of the lot for the year as we really had some amazing releases.</p>
<p>But i have made up my mind , its a movie by a debutant director and in a genre where very few movies have been made which genuinely work with me on a viewer level - Bheja Fry by 	Sagar Ballary. Comedy movies are an absolute rarity, particularly contemporary comedy which is genuinely funny without the need of loud music , outlandish clothes and over the top dialogues. Bheja Fry had me in splits throughout , and i found the movie very in with the times , the dialogue writing was very good,  the acting was top notch as well &amp; vinay pathak is one the most brilliant actors we have in the industry. There was simply nothing wrong with the movie &amp; i expect they bring out a sequel or at least another movie with the same cast &amp; crew.</p>
<p>Besides the obvious choices , there were some really good movies which went unnoticed either due to lack of publicity or due to the fact that they carried no star value.<br />
One of such movies is 1971 , another movie by a debutant Amrit Sagar. Movies with patriotic theme are probably more bastardized into nothing more than jingoistic anti pak pieces which have no points to prove. 1971 not only had nothing of that but it also has been one of the most realistic representations of army personnel , the whole movie looked real , there was nothing that went over the top or looked unbelievable and the whole cast here was spectacular with special honours to Manoj Bajpai &amp; Piyush Mishra (Another actor who has never got his due, I have watched Black Friday&#8217;s Extra&#8217;s DVD innumerable times only to see his role as thapa which was unfortunately cut in the final cut of the movie) 1971 went unnoticed &amp; unappreciated by the Indian audiences for the most part.</p>
<p>Manorama Six Feet Under - Another debutante director Navdeep Singh , movie was layered, the mystery was intriguing &amp; and the movie was a amazing blend of style &amp; substance. Bollywood&#8217;s first noir flick , it earned a lot of praise from all quarters &amp; a place on my dvd rack.</p>
<p>Cheeni Kum - Another debutante R. Balki , Being a fan of  Mr Bacchan , I was looking forward to him doing something good &#8230; almost to the extent of redeeming himself after the dismayal over the top BLACK , and here he is in all his suaveness. The movie was again funny where it wanted to be &amp; serious when it had to, there were a few things that could have been done away with and probably the second half wasnt as good as the first half but overall i would give the movie a thumbs up in terms of performances of the leads &amp; the chemistry between them, Balki really had no worries in terms of performances all he had to do was work on the script &amp; dialogue writing wherein he was more or less successfull.</p>
<p>Johnny Gaddar - The slickest movie this year , I was wondering where Raghavan had disappeared after <em>Ek Hasina Thi</em> , Johnny Gaddar was pretty good, it had a lot of trivia pertaining to the 70&#8217;s in it , gotta love that. Well made film , fast paced thriller , thoroughly enjoyable , cant wait for raghavan&#8217;s next.</p>
<p>PART II comming up soon &#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/12/28/bollywood-2007-cinophiles-picks-for-the-year-part-i/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Review: No Smoking (2007)</title>
		<link>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/10/30/review-no-smoking-2007/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/10/30/review-no-smoking-2007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:36:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cinophile</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Cult]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Cinophile Picks]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Bollywood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinophile.com/2007/10/30/review-no-smoking-2007/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Another movie that goes straight into &#8216;cinophile&#8217;s pick&#8217;. This movie has been really getting some bad press &#38; reviews, and naturally so , for those reviewers who have grown on a steady diet of subhash ghai &#38; karan johar ,this movie goes way beyond their comprehensions. For those who might have preferred a mayapuri over [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another movie that goes straight into &#8216;cinophile&#8217;s pick&#8217;. This movie has been really getting some bad press &amp; reviews, and naturally so , for those reviewers who have grown on a steady diet of subhash ghai &amp; karan johar ,this movie goes way beyond their comprehensions. For those who might have preferred a mayapuri over a kafka , this is surely not for them.<br />
This is not your average bollywood movie. It is dark, atmospheric, surreal, dreamy, in a nutshell exactly opposite of what anurag did with black friday which was as real &amp; stark as it gets.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
More lynchian than anything else , no smoking is visually compelling to the extent of being unnerving to watch. It is an involving peice &amp; requires a dedicated watch, possible even multiple viewings to get to the soul of the movie. Infact the whole movie felt like a unexplainable nighmare , confusing, scary. We are absolutely in lynch terriory here.<br />
I belive the dwarf in the underground room was a soft tribute to david lynch&#8217;s infamous twin peaks red room dward dream sequence of agent cooper. Even the scene where 14yr old john &amp; ranvir are smoking is shown as a tv sequence with a laughter track playing, absolutely reminded me of the bunny scene in inland empire, perhaps a soft tribute there as well to the master.And No it is nothing like quitters inc , the short story by Stephen King, Quitters Inc (also made as a short segment in Cats eye) was more or less a commercial fare.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
The basic premise if of a guy trying to quit smoking only because his wife threatens to leave him , he goes to a bangali baba on the recommendation of a friend &#038; then the nightmares begins. The movie stays true to its genre throughout, assisted with some really gripping camerawork creates a very haunting  experience.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
John Abraham is surprisingly good here, he has been wooden, expressionless for most of his career, but here as &#8216;K&#8217; one can really not picture anyone else. He has that suaveness, that arrogance that K had , something like what he did in Taxi 911 , and also in the scenes where he breaks up, he has really done an exceptional job. Paresh rawal is easily one of the best actors in the industry &amp; be it any role he has done it exceptionally well. Ayesha Takia looks like she needs to lose about a 100 pounds or more before coming back on screen again. Ranvir shourey is good again in a character role , he has really been experimenting with his getup &amp; look, i loved what he did in &#8216;Bheja Fry&#8217; &amp; here again as &#8216;K&#8217;&#8217;s squint eyed friend.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
More power to Mr Kashyap, may his tribe increase.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/10/30/review-no-smoking-2007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Johnny Gaddar - Review</title>
		<link>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/10/07/johnny-gaddar-review/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/10/07/johnny-gaddar-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:42:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cinophile</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Bollywood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinophile.com/2007/10/07/johnny-gaddar-review/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ I had absolutely enjoyed every bit of &#8220;Ek Hasina Thi&#8221; it was slick, stylish &#038; fast paced thriller , the best part was the storytelling. It didnt work in the conventional suspense movie mould , held the tension throughout &#038; the viewer was kept on the edge of his seat compelled to think about [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://img166.imageshack.us/my.php?image=13023qx1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/893/13023qx1.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a> I had absolutely enjoyed every bit of &#8220;Ek Hasina Thi&#8221; it was slick, stylish &#038; fast paced thriller , the best part was the storytelling. It didnt work in the conventional suspense movie mould , held the tension throughout &#038; the viewer was kept on the edge of his seat compelled to think about what would happen next. Johnny Gaddar is all that and a whole lot more. The movie is definitely for a cinema audience and not for the popcorn crowd , its a clever film for an thinking breathing audience.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
The basic premise of the movie is how a conman double crosses his partners. The direction by Sriram Raghavan is top notch , technically the film is brilliant. I loved the movie references throughout the movie, particularly the 70s references , even a little bit of the seventies background scores used. I felt thoroughly entertained throughout the movie , there arent any major plotholes as such , if anything the movie was a little long , although didnt feel long.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
 The lead in this one is Neil Nitin Mukesh (looking suave, got damn suave) , surely an actor to look out for in the future. The rest of the cast is Vinay Pathak (again spectacular actor) , Zakir Hussain (yet another good performance this year) , Daya (From Sony&#8217;s CID) &#038; a surprisingly restrained Dharmendra. Rimmi sen is more or less passable , looks hot though.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
It might be on its last leg in the Cinema Halls , Highly Recommended Watch !!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/10/07/johnny-gaddar-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Manorama Six Feet Under (2007) - Got damn good !!</title>
		<link>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/30/manorama-six-feet-under-2007-got-damn-good/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/30/manorama-six-feet-under-2007-got-damn-good/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:29:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cinophile</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Film Noir]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Bollywood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/30/manorama-six-feet-under-2007-got-damn-good/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Layerd , Complex, Involving Noir flick , oh yes im talking of a hindi film , belive it. Manorama Six Feet Under has to be in the top three flicks out of bollywood this year. A dark murder mystery with a suspense element beyond the usual &#38; something which makes one try to piece [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/30/manorama-six-feet-under-2007-got-damn-good/manorama-six-feet-under-2007/" rel="attachment wp-att-17" title="Manorama Six Feet Under (2007)"><img src="http://www.cinophile.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/manorama-six-feet-under.thumbnail.jpg" alt="Manorama Six Feet Under (2007)" /></a> Layerd , Complex, Involving Noir flick , oh yes im talking of a hindi film , belive it. Manorama Six Feet Under has to be in the top three flicks out of bollywood this year. A dark murder mystery with a suspense element beyond the usual &amp; something which makes one try to piece the puzzle together as the movie progresses.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
The suspense element is really good &amp; the way it is unravelled is even better, the leisurely pace at which is progresses adds to the small town in a desert slowness feel to it which was very essential to create the atmosphere the film needed. Technically the film looks brilliant as as can be. It was very essential for the movie to retain a lot of the local element to give the film the authenticity it needs &amp; there is enough rajasthan everywhere in the movie without going  over the top.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
The film borrows heavily from real life , explores &amp; goes beneath the lives of people exposing the dark underbelly of the society. Every character has some grey shades to them just like everyone has in their lives. The events &amp; characters  look very much true to life. The acting is very natural by all of the cast.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
This year one actor has really stood out for me &amp; he is vinay pathak , if he was rip roaringly hilarious in bheja fry , here he might have a small role but he gets to mouth the best dialogues &amp; leaves an impression yet again. Abhay deol too does a much better job than his earlier movies , raima sen is always a natural in front of the camera , gul panag as the nagging &amp; loving housewife has again given a good performance after dor. Everyone just felt right for their roles including the two chaps who play the role of goons who rough him up.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Hindi cinema is truly getting better &amp; better in the last few years with some amazing directors , debutant director Navdeep Singh surely has to be one of the most talented ones around. He is surely the guy to watch out for in the future.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Highly Recommended - Watch it at the theaters before it gets out or BUY the DVD when it gets out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/30/manorama-six-feet-under-2007-got-damn-good/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Die Hard 4.0 (2007)</title>
		<link>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/25/die-hard-40-2007/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/25/die-hard-40-2007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:04:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cinophile</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Action]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/25/die-hard-40-2007/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
 I didnt expect much from this movie as soon as i learnt it was hacking based , i mean boring. There isnt anything left there to see already. Havent we all watched too much of 24 already. After 24 everything seems more or less been there seen that.  But still  Die Hard [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="float: left"><iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=dscansnet-20&#038;o=1&#038;p=8&#038;l=as1&#038;asins=B000VNMMRA&#038;fc1=000000&#038;IS2=1&#038;lt1=_blank&#038;lc1=0000FF&#038;bc1=000000&#038;bg1=FFFFFF&#038;f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p> I didnt expect much from this movie as soon as i learnt it was hacking based , i mean boring. There isnt anything left there to see already. Havent we all watched too much of 24 already. After 24 everything seems more or less been there seen that.  But still  Die Hard is easily my favourite all time action series &#038; i just had to see the latest installment of the series.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
And well it doesnt disappoint, while it might not be the best movie from the series (personally i loved Die Hard 3 the most , it had action , humor &#038; well .. samuel L jackson ) there is lot of action here &#038; ample use of technology by the mtv genx director wiseman. There hasnt been a good action movie in a long time now specially this year &#038; die hard 4.0 more than adequately fills that void. The film is fast paced , its keeps one hooked throughout &#038; very much in the classic action movie mould.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Bruce Willis is as always kickass as Det. John McClane , Timothy Olyphant might not be the scariest nemisis of McClane but he plays his part. Justin Long adds in the humour element a little more &#038; is good in it too. Maggie Q does catch the eyes more often &#038; really wished there was more of her in it. The only actor who was wasted thoroughy here was Cyril Raffaelli.<br />
Considering most people would recognize him after Banlieue 13 aka District 13 &#038; will expect a lot of action from him specially against McClane , but it doesnt quite happen as much as we want it to be.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Overall Die Hard 4.0 doesnt disappoint at all &#038; is easily one of the best summer blockbusters out this year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/25/die-hard-40-2007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Blue Velvet (1986) - Cinophile&#8217;s Pick</title>
		<link>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/20/blue-velvet-1986-cinophiles-pick/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/20/blue-velvet-1986-cinophiles-pick/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:58:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cinophile</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Cult]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Cinophile Picks]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/20/blue-velvet-1986-cinophiles-pick/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Blue Velvet is not your average rental which you can just pickup watch &#38; forget about it a few days down the line. Few movies can stay as vivid in memory as Blue Velvet, it really does stick with you for life. I for one have seen this movie as many times possible &#38; each [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="float: left"><iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=dscansnet-20&amp;o=1&amp;p=8&amp;l=as1&amp;asins=B000063JDE&amp;fc1=000000&amp;IS2=1&amp;lt1=_blank&amp;lc1=0000FF&amp;bc1=000000&amp;bg1=FFFFFF&amp;f=ifr" style="width: 120px; height: 240px" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></p>
<p>Blue Velvet is not your average rental which you can just pickup watch &amp; forget about it a few days down the line. Few movies can stay as vivid in memory as Blue Velvet, it really does stick with you for life. I for one have seen this movie as many times possible &amp; each time deriving  a cinematically orgasmic enriching experience from each viewing. And each time there was something new to see in it , some new viewpoint to look at the movie.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Its impossible to classify this movie in one genre. It works as a drama, mystery, psychological thriller , it can mean a lot of things to lot of people depending on the person one can interpret it in many ways as well which is true hallmark of any good art film. The atmosphere it creates be it via the music or the visuals which every frame looks like a picture. The reds look the reddest , the blue hues , the shadows all give a very unqiue noir feel to this unlike any noir film you have seen. The movie is all about symbolisms .. about metaphors , It is a bizzare , sick, frightening,  visually &amp; audibly superlative surrealistic masterpiece by one of the greatest directors of the world.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
The performances are superlative MacLachlan, Dern, Rosellini, ..Hopper well is simply mindblowing, frank booth is easily the scariest character potryaed on the screen.<br />
The picture of rosellini singing &#8216;blue velvet&#8217; in the nightclub will stay with you for quite some time. And so will be the seemingly grotesque scenes of violence , sexual &#038; otherwise.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
If you havent seen blue velvet you have quite missed a cinematic experience like no other. It&#8217;s definitely a buy it now DVD.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/20/blue-velvet-1986-cinophiles-pick/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>1408 (2007) - Movie Review</title>
		<link>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/18/1408-2007-movie-review/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/18/1408-2007-movie-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:15:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cinophile</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Horror]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/18/1408-2007-movie-review/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Im big on horror movies, specially anything from stephen king &#38; usually i am disappointed with movie adaptations of his work.  1408 is short story from king&#8217;s 14 Dark Tales (and a very fine one at that) With most horror movies going in for too much CGI or too much blood / gore to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="float: left"><iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=dscansnet-20&amp;o=1&amp;p=8&amp;l=as1&amp;asins=B000UNYJLS&amp;fc1=000000&amp;IS2=1&amp;lt1=_blank&amp;lc1=0000FF&amp;bc1=000000&amp;bg1=FFFFFF&amp;f=ifr" style="width: 120px; height: 240px" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></p>
<p>Im big on horror movies, specially anything from stephen king &amp; usually i am disappointed with movie adaptations of his work.  1408 is short story from king&#8217;s 14 Dark Tales (and a very fine one at that) With most horror movies going in for too much CGI or too much blood / gore to hook the viewers in , 1408 is a breath of fresh (albeit very evil) air. It creates a tense sunspenseful eerie atmosphere to hook us in &#038; keeps us hooked in till the very end.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
The plot is simple enough of a cynical non-fiction writer who stumbles upon a real haunted house. 1408 is essentially a psychological horror movie &amp; it does make one feel just as confused &amp; scared like the lead &amp; yes ..it will scare you. Its an absolute edge of the seat atmospheric  surreal cerebral thriller will all the chills associated with a king movie. This though is very much a edgar allen poeish movie in terms of a stories we associate with rather than an out &amp; out stephen king movie.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
One thing this movie did lack in terms of plot was the lack of any background on why the room was haunted. There shouldve been some history behind it. The shining had a picture in the end which showed jack in it &amp; there were a lot of conclusions one could derive from it. However in this the cause of the haunt is unexplained. But ofcourse this is no Shining. There were a few things that needed to either be explained or were unnecessary for the outcome of the movie like the writer earlier book or his meeting &amp; relationship with his father. Perhaps they couldve been chopped off for a little insight into the room&#8217;s past.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Its a one man show , its all cusack &amp; he is brilliant. The supporting cast mainly comprising of Samuel L Jackson who is almost always fantastic in what he does inspite of being onscreen hardly for 10 minutes.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Do watch this one if you are into horror although the movie isnt without its limitations, but definitely worth the rental.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/18/1408-2007-movie-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dhamaal (2007) - First Rate Piece Of Thrash</title>
		<link>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/17/dhamaal-2007-first-rate-piece-of-thrash/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/17/dhamaal-2007-first-rate-piece-of-thrash/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2007 06:19:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cinophile</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Comedy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Bollywood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/17/dhamaal-2007-first-rate-piece-of-thrash/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ There has been a spate of multiple leads comedies lately, some worked, most didnt &#038; almost all were equally bad. Dhamaal is actually no exception. There are bad movies , there are movies that are so bad that they are good but dhamaal is absolutely on another level of bad. And the worst part [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href='http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/17/dhamaal-2007-first-rate-piece-of-thrash/dhamaal-sanjay-dutt-ritesh-deshmukh-ashish-chowdhary-asrani-arshad-warsi-javed-jaffri/' rel='attachment wp-att-12' title='Dhamaal - Sanjay Dutt, Ritesh Deshmukh, Ashish Chowdhary, Asrani, Arshad Warsi, Javed Jaffri'><img src='http://www.cinophile.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/dhamaal.thumbnail.jpg' alt='Dhamaal - Sanjay Dutt, Ritesh Deshmukh, Ashish Chowdhary, Asrani, Arshad Warsi, Javed Jaffri' /></a> There has been a spate of multiple leads comedies lately, some worked, most didnt &#038; almost all were equally bad. Dhamaal is actually no exception. There are bad movies , there are movies that are so bad that they are good but dhamaal is absolutely on another level of bad. And the worst part is it has got &#8216;watchable&#8217; rating from almost every reviewer out there.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Indra Kumar is over , his last movie pyaare mohan was a equally horrendous effort but atleast it had some eye candy to go for. But Dhamaal falls down lower than anything he has done.<br />
For starters the cast is odd , ritesh &#038; ashish might pass off as slackers but arshad &#038; javed are too over the hill for it. I am not even going to go into the development of characters part considering this is a indra kumar movie. The jokes/ gags are unfunny , old, repetitive, i mean get this how hard is it to google up a bunch of good jokes &#038; use them in your movie. Some of the gags leave you on your seat wondering that the director actually found you stupid enough to laugh at this one. The jokes are cliched, the characters caricatures , the acting is horrendous, the plot line is terrible. There is absolutely nothing redeemable about this movie.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
As for the cast, everyone is wasted inspite of having such comedic talent at hand - ritesh, arshad, asrani, javed the director fails to utlise them. Picture this , javed jaffri hardly mouths a dialogue, most of the &#8216;comedy&#8217; around him is induced via music or some stupid expression. Javed jaffri is an amazingly funny guy as we have seen in his stint with channel v or boogie woogie, it is sad indeed to see such a comic genuis in such a role. Special points to ashish chowdhary who has crossed all the limits of hamming &#038; overacting. He has been in the industry for a long long time without the slightest of success ..and this probably explains why.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
This movie is absolutely unbearable unwatchable piece of third rate thrash. The only laugh you shall get out of this movie will be on yourself for watching this piece of thrash. Rather stay home and watch those comedy shows on tv which are actually better than this.</p>
<p>And yes it is &#8216;inspired&#8217; from <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057193/">It&#8217;s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/17/dhamaal-2007-first-rate-piece-of-thrash/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ocean&#8217;s Thirteen (2007) - Movie Review</title>
		<link>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/16/oceans-thirteen-2007-movie-review/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/16/oceans-thirteen-2007-movie-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:41:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cinophile</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Heist / Con]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Comedy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/16/oceans-thirteen-2007-movie-review/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Ocean&#8217;s thirteen might just be the ocean&#8217;s triology&#8217;s best movie yet. Everyone loved Ocean&#8217;s Eleven, it was quircky, fast paced &#038; very slick , something which are much used to for a Soderbergh movie. Oceans&#8217;s twelve had a sort of a mixed response , though it did really well at the box office setting up [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="float: left"><iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=dscansnet-20&#038;o=1&#038;p=8&#038;l=as1&#038;asins=B00005JPQP&#038;fc1=000000&#038;IS2=1&#038;lt1=_blank&#038;lc1=0000FF&#038;bc1=000000&#038;bg1=FFFFFF&#038;f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Ocean&#8217;s thirteen might just be the ocean&#8217;s triology&#8217;s best movie yet. Everyone loved Ocean&#8217;s Eleven, it was quircky, fast paced &#038; very slick , something which are much used to for a Soderbergh movie. Oceans&#8217;s twelve had a sort of a mixed response , though it did really well at the box office setting up for another sequel in the ocean&#8217;s franchise.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
We assume everyone who walks into this movie has seen the earlier ones , atleast an ocean&#8217;s eleven watch is a must to get the feel of the charachters , the subtle humour which does comprise of a lot of in-jokes, probably ocean&#8217;s twelve too since vincet cassel makes an appearance here which does have its own angle to it.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Besides the ocean&#8217;s regulars, we have al pacino here as well who just adds in to more fun in this ocean&#8217;s franchise. Andy garcia was a great nemisis &#038; he makes an appearnce here as well , but pacino&#8217;s indimidating glare &#038; menace is something no other actor can match.<br />
The chemistry between pitt &#038; clooney is amazing again &#038; so is the rest of the cast. What&#8217;s missing here are the female leads julia roberts &#038; catherine zeta jones. Ellen Barkin as the nasty aide of Al Pacino is the only female in this cast. Matt damon has his moments though it does seem like he couldve been used a lot more.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
The plotline in this one isnt as complicated as ocean&#8217;s eleven but thoroughly enjoyable at that.<br />
The casino rig is played out to perfection here. Many people do accuse soderbergh of overstylising the movie, some even go to the extent of calling it more style over substance. But the syllizing is essential for a con/hiest movie where one always feels like been there seen that. This year&#8217;s hyped up CGI infested blockbusters failed to deliver their promise &#038; almost killed their franchises, Ocean keeps it very much alive.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
All in all its a must watch if you have been following the franchise &#038; even if you havent , you&#8217;d still love this fast paced con movie (although a very light one at that)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/16/oceans-thirteen-2007-movie-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Knocked Up - Totally Hilarious</title>
		<link>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/15/knocked-up-totally-hilarious/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/15/knocked-up-totally-hilarious/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2007 08:33:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cinophile</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Comedy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/15/knocked-up-totally-hilarious/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
 Knocked up did sound to me like just another standard american comedy movie with a few crude jokes here there but it was directed by Judd Apatow whose &#8220;The 40 Year Old Virgin&#8221; was howlarious.
&#160;
Knocked up works because the situations  are absolutely something one can totally relate to. The jokes range from ribticklingly [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="float: left"><iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=dscansnet-20&#038;o=1&#038;p=8&#038;l=as1&#038;asins=B000TZJBQ0&#038;fc1=000000&#038;IS2=1&#038;lt1=_blank&#038;lc1=0000FF&#038;bc1=000000&#038;bg1=FFFFFF&#038;f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p> Knocked up did sound to me like just another standard american comedy movie with a few crude jokes here there but it was directed by Judd Apatow whose &#8220;The 40 Year Old Virgin&#8221; was howlarious.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Knocked up works because the situations  are absolutely something one can totally relate to. The jokes range from ribticklingly funny to crazily hilarious. I&#8217;ve never laughed out so hard during sex scenes in any movie. Judd has taken a simple story &#038; absolutely turned it into a hilarious comedy. But inspite of having fart jokes &#038; its likes the movie is very sweet &#038; romantic as well.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Some of the side stories are absolutely hilarious , specially the bearded guy one. And any movie with a reference to Back to the future gets a point up for me. At 132 minutes the movie might sound a little long but it sure does&#8217;nt feel that way. One is entertained throughout the movie , there isnt a dull moment anywhere.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
My only complaint here would be that the romantic angle between ben &#038; alison wasnt really explored in further which should&#8217;ve happened. The change in ben should&#8217;ve been shown more &#038; there should&#8217;ve been more scenes of them together to drive in the point.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
But ofcourse this movie aint for everyone , mostly would appeal to the under 30 demographic. But there is genius in this movie &#038; is totally worth the rental if you really want to have lots of laughs &#038; spend those lazy sunday afternoons.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cinophile.com/2007/09/15/knocked-up-totally-hilarious/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
