In Chicago, Helen Lyle (Virginia Madsen) and her friend Bernadette Walsh (Kasi Lemmons) are researching for their thesis about urban legend in the University of Illinois, where Helen's husband Trevor Lyle (Xander Berkeley) gives classes. Helen becomes obsessed by the legend of the Candyman (Tony Todd), a son of slaves whose father became rich in 1890 after inventing a device for mass producing of shoes. The educated Candyman was an artist, but when the daughter of a powerful man got pregnant of him, her father hired some hooligans that saw off his right hand with a rusty blade, took him to an apiary with dozens of hives with hungry bees, smashed the hives and smeared honeycomb in his naked body. Candyman was stung to death by the bees, than his body was burnt in a giant pyre and the ashes scattered on Cabrini Green. Candyman stays alive in the legend that says that he would appear if his name is spoken five times in front of the mirror, and the skeptical Helen summons Candyman. Helen and Bernadette go to Cabrini Green, where two unsolved murders had happened, and the dwellers blame Candyman for the crimes. Helen's disbelief brings Candyman back; the dog of Cabrini Green's dweller Anne-Marie McCoy (Vanessa Williams) is slashed and her baby vanishes, and Helen is blamed. Later Candyman kills her friend Bernadette, and Helen is accused of first degree murder and arrested, while she unsuccessfully tries to prove that Candyman is the real killer.

"Candyman" is a gore and well-developed horror movie with a character visibly inspired in the urban legend of Bloody Mary. The screenplay sustains the ambiguity of Helen's sanity, and it is never clear if Candyman does really exist or the murders are committed by the disturbed and impressed Helen. Virginia Madsen is excellent in her performance of a woman in the edge of insanity and Tony Todd is amazing with his strong and dark voice. The great music score of Philip Glass fits perfectly to the movie and is another plus. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Mistério de Candyman" ("The Mystery of Candyman")


Candyman is one of my all-time favorite horror movies, and it seems to me that it is often underappreciated and misunderstood. It is a rarity in its genre, for it goes deeper than the standard formula horror movie, presenting a story under a story. While it contains plenty of frightening shocks and gore, that is only the suurface level, and the focus for watching it the first time. After the first time, pay careful attention to the dialogue and the interactions between Helen and the Candyman. The Candyman is not what he first appears to be.

<SPOILERS FROM THIS POINT ON...STOP HERE IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE!>

The biggest complaints I usually hear about this movie are of plot holes. People often ask, "Why does the Candyman haunt the black population instead of the descendents of those who killed him?" or, "Why does the hook make Helen come back when it is not what made Candyman come back?" or other similar questions. These are valid questions about the ghost story concerning Daniel Robetei, but they entirely miss the point of the movie. That point is that the incarnation we see of Candyman in the movie is NOT the ghost of Daniel Robetei. Forget what the pointless sequels lead you to believe, for in the first movie, as well as the original story "The Forbidden" by Clive Barker, the Candyman is an incarnation of the faith of those who tell stories about him. There is no ghost of Daniel Robetei, but rather an entity that is formed by rumor, faith, fear, and the story itself. It seems to me that almost everyone misses this point, but it is there, clear as day, if you listen closely to the dialogue. Of course, reading the original story helps shed a little light on this as well, and it can be found in Clive Barker's "In the Flesh," a collection of short stories. So, Candyman haunts the black population because they are the ones who tell the stories and believe in him. He is constantly asking Helen to "be his witness" in order to strengthen their belief, and his offer to her to live forever is literal. If she does become his witness, she will become a part of the story, and a part of the creative force that allows Candyman to exist. In the end, Helen returns because the population of Cabrini Green makes her a part of the story.

I hope this sheds a little light on the story for those of you stuck on the plot holes. This really is a fantastic, original story that is much more complex than that of any other horror movie I have seen. Not to mention that the performances are fantastic. Tony Todd and Virginia Madsen have a fantastic chemistry that is very convincing. The only gripe I have about this movie is the p***-poor actress they picked for Helen's husband's girlfriend. So, watch it first for the shocks, but watch it again for the deeper story buried within.

Definately a perfect 10/10.


Grad students Helen and Bernie are gathering information for their masters thesis concerning urban legends when Helen runs across the tale of Candyman, a demon who can be conjured by saying his name five times in front of a mirror. Further research leads Helen to Cabrini Green, a frightening ghetto project where everyone not only knows about Candyman but believe in him, and fear him. Helen does not believe in the legend of Candyman, until Candyman comes looking for her. When Bernie is brutally murdered and a baby goes missing from the projects, Helen is arrested, having been found at the scene of both crimes, covered in blood and wielding a weapon. No one believes her claims, that it was Candyman who committed the crimes. But Candyman offers her a bargain: her life in exchange for the baby's, who is still alive. Cruelly abandoned by her cheating jerk of a husband and pursued by the police, Helen returns to the projects for a final showdown with Candyman.

Based on Clive Barker's short story "The Forbidden," Candyman is a combination of the Bloody Mary legend, the Guy Fawkes celebration and The Phantom of the Opera. Virginia Madsen as Helen is beautiful and tragic and also damn scary when she wants to be. Tony Todd as Candyman is both horrific and tragic, evoking true, dark, Gothic horror whenever he appears on the screen. This is a stunningly original film, heavy with dread and never once going in for cheap scares. The acting is flawless, the musical score is creepy as hell, filled with ghostly organ music which sets just the right tone of sadness and fear. The setting of Cabrini Green is frighteningly convincing - it's a scary enough place without Candyman, filled with hopelessness and the constant threat of death. The violence is brutal and bloody, so be warned.

This is not your typical teenage slasher film. Anyone with an appreciation for urban myths and legends, and for Clive Barker's excellent morbid imagination should not miss this film. It is a genuinely dark, moving tale of love, blood and horror, boasting realistic, three-dimensional characters instead of the usual one dimensional meat puppets for the horror grinder.

See it at least once!


Clive Barker's "Candyman" is an excellent example of a good horror film. The movie is about Helen Lyle, a woman who is investigating urban legends and mythology. While doing research, she comes across the tale of the Candyman, an African-American artist who had his arm sawed off, and was attacked by a swarm of bees hundreds of years ago after having an affair with a white woman. Supposedly, if you say "Candyman" in the mirror five times, the Candyman will appear to you, with his big hook-hand, and brutally murder you. While investigating unsolved murders within the city that are suspected to be caused by the Candyman, Helen herself becomes entangled in the legend, and the Candyman begins appearing to her. Soon, Helen's life goes into a downward spiral as she is accused of murder, while the Candyman tries to make her one of his new victims.

Clive Barker must have a pretty good imagination, because this is quite a unique horror story. I don't think I've ever heard of a story like this, so the movie is definitely original. The plot is woven very neatly, with plenty of scary moments and artistic touches, making it a beautiful horror film. Virginia Madsen was excellent and convincing in this movie, the audience really sympathizes with her as her life is turned upside down by the Candyman, and in the end, she still turns out to be a hero. Tony Todd was seriously scary in his role of the Candyman himself, with his creepy stare and his low-key voice. There are some genuinely gruesome death scenes in this movie, and the sequences where the Candyman appears to Helen were extremely well-done and scary. Tony Todd was the perfect Candyman, his dead-serious facial expressions and low, menacing voice adds to the overall creepy effect of his character.

The film takes place in the inner-city area of Chicago, and the film includes undertones of racial issues that play in well with the setting and the characters in the movie, without going over-the-top. The music in this film is one of the most memorable things about it though. It's an eerie, haunting score that is used in the scenes very appropriately and makes things much more unsettling and spooky, as if things aren't creepy enough.

Overall, "Candyman" is a breath of fresh air in the horror genre. It's imaginative, it's morbid, it's artistic, and it's an all around good horror movie. If you are a fan of scary films or have the slightest interest in the genre, I highly recommend this. "Candyman" is undoubtedly one of the best horror films of the decade. 10/10.


Based on the story 'The Forbidden' by Hellraiser writer and director Clive Barker, Candyman is another tale of people delving into places where they shouldn't delve and otherworldly evil. Rather than a demon from hell, the antagonist of this tale is an urban legend going by the name of Candyman. The mythology behind the story is one of the film's major plus points, and director Bernard Rose does a good job of building it. The mythology combined with what can only be described as a fetid atmosphere bode well together, and ensures that this film is both a creepy and absorbing tale of horror. The film follows a pair of University students; Helen Lyle and Bernadette Walsh doing a thesis on urban legends. They decide to research the modern day myth of 'Candyman', a figure who appears complete with a hooked hand to savage whomever stupid enough to say his name five times in front of the mirror. However, one of the duo starts to put a bit too much effort into the work, and ends up coming a cropper when Candyman decides to have his wicked way with her.

The parts of the story that stand out the most are the relationship between the protagonist and Candyman, and the idea of a community of people believing in title character. However, this is where the film falls down to me. The scenes between Helen and Candyman put too much focus on the 'evil' dialogue, and the relationship is never really built upon. The urban legend theme is often touched upon, but we only meet a handful of characters that believe in the almighty Candyman, and they aren't in the film for long. The basis of the story follows Helen's bid for sanity, and while this provides an interesting backbone for the film - I really do think it could have been a lot better. The casting is largely good, with Tony Todd putting across an effective portrayal of Candyman, and Virginia Madsen delivering a believable performance as the film's victim. Xander Berkeley, who came to fame recently with a role in the first two series' of 24 rounds off the cast, which is under the direction of Bernard Rose. The only other film I've seen from him is Paperhouse, and Candyman is certainly a lot better than that. Although that isn't exactly difficult. Overall, this is a creepy and interesting film; but I can't say I'm a huge fan of it.


Managing to be both frightening and classy, this is a nerve-wracking experience. Masterfully written and directed by Bernard Rose, the film creates its own fascinating mythology, which, given the fact that it was based on a Clive Barker story, isn't much of a surprise. Much better than the resultant sequels, this is one not to be missed.


Candyman was a horror movie that required an open mind. It was a beautiful movie with what was, by far, the most fitting ending that such a movie can have. The premise was unique and creative, and the movie required some thought as to what really went on in the film, but I praise it as the greatest horror/slasher film since 79.


Candyman is an elegant little gem of a horror film, combining the best elements of the Clive Barker story it's drawn from with the imaginings of the director/writer of the film.

Starring Virginia Madsen, who is at her absolute best in this film, which is reason enough to see it in my opinion, Candyman tells a wonderfully dark tale of love, death and revenge. This is brilliantly set against mirrored worlds in Chicago, Virginia Madsen's character's posh upscale condo and its twin, the project Cabrini Green. There is much going on within this film, beyond just the surface tale of horror, as there is in any good horror film. It's a morality play, a story about how we deal, or rather don't deal, with race relations, and a really beautifully twisted love story as well, as all of Barker's works are.

If you've never had a chance to see this wonderful film, please give it a chance. Tony Todd's voice will tingle your spine, there's enough gore for slasher film addicts to keep interested, but don't let that blind you to the smart, elegantly crafted story underneath. This is one 'Candy' that only gets sweeter with each repeated viewing.


It's a real treat to see in the modern times the film as good as "Candyman".When I first saw this movie about six years ago it scared the hell out of me.It's a shame that most of the modern horror movies can't scare me like "Candyman" did.The mysterious killer Candyman is really frightening with his very deep voice that sends chills down your spine(Tony Todd-you are great!).The ending is a little bit anti-climatic,but who cares?Personally I love bad endings.Kudos also for Clive Barker.This guy can make a good,creepy horror movie("Hellraiser" and "Master of Illusion" are great as well).Highly recommended.The sequel is also worth checking out.


I love this film it is the greatest! Virginia was very sexy as the young unsuspecting student who investigates the murders of people of a murdered black slave who has a hook for a hand who lures his victims with candy but its really wrapped-up razors and then splits them wide open with his hook.I have said Candyman 5 times in the mirror and nothing happened! But it is a great film and the music is spooky but awesome and the setting is rather Silence of the Lambs like, remember Jodie in the garage well it Virginia in the wall of a ghetto building. Very Spooky! But Clever!

10/10


What we have here, as far as i'm concerned, is the best slasher movie ever made. Not just because it's genuinely scary, it's also intelligent (unlike 80% of all the slasher movies), it's extremely well acted, and it's serious which is always a plus in my book. I just don't ever get scared by movies that don't take themselves or their characters seriously. People making jokes or wise-cracking while they're being stalked by an unseen terror has always been a mood-killer for me. But besides that, the movie has got great production values. There has obviously been paid a lot of attention to the look and feel of the movie. The haunting, beautiful score by Philip Glass adds to the mood of the film. The photography has a realistic feel to it. It doesn't look glossy and smooth like most movies. The fact that the main character is framed by the killer is also pretty original for this type of movie. And the gore in this movie is really violent, and looks horrible, as it should. It should never be fun to watch people get butchered because it takes away any realism there may be. It's NOT fun to actually see people having their backs split open with a hook. What may be the best thing is that there is a certain tragedy about the Candyman character. This is not a mute mask wearing loser who was wronged and wants revenge, but you can't relate to. This is a character who was tortured and brutally murdered for doing nothing but love a woman. This character is not making jokes or being funny, and is therefor all the more realistic and even tragic. It's the combination of all it's qualities that make this one of the best thrillers / horrormovies of the 90s period!

(Too bad some producers couldn't help themselves and had to ruin a great new horror icon in the sequels).


Clive Barker's short story is successfully transported from a run-down British housing estate to a run-down Chicago housing estate... The Candyman himeslf could so easily have been made into another Freddy Kruger but instead has been given a certain dignity... you can almost feel sorry for him. Like many of Barker's "monsters" he can be bargained with but you may not quite get what you expected.

More slickly made than Hellraiser but lacking that films sense of decadence. Well worth seeing nevertheless... 8/10


This is definitely one of the scariest movies ever and also belongs to my top ten horror films! However, not everybody seems to like this movie as much as I do.

Candyman is almost flawless. Among all the horror movie villains Candyman is one of the most frightening and fascinating. Tony Todd does a terrific job. There is no point in the film where Candyman gets ridiculous. Luckily there were no scream-until-even-the-killer-himself-is-deaf teens. Instead we get Virginia Madsen who adds a psychological component to her role.

The plot is very solid too. The idea of a killer coming when you call him is very interesting because it is different from what we have seen before. Although the story of Candyman is somewhat surreal there is a solid motive for what he is doing. That's a point that many other films of the genre lack.

Another element that adds to the very moody atmosphere is the directing. There are some amazingly exciting shots, especially the aerial views of Chicago which are unique. The mood makes the film somehow disturbing and fascinating at the same time and that's why there isn't any other film like this one. There are some pretty gory scenes but the brutality here is never used to entertain. The soundtrack which is one of the best in horror films also helps to create the atmosphere mentioned above.

Candyman gets a lot of bad reviews although it is one of the best in the genre. Give it a try!

My rating: 9/10


Anyone who says this movie isn't terrifying is lying.

The story is eerie, the segments are frightening and everything about it is truly unique. This is a surprisingly great horror film--but don't bother with its disastrous straight to video sequels.

8/10


A great psychological thriller. Tony Todd is excellent as The Candyman, and his deep voice is great when he is talking, it is menacing and he just sounds evil. The story is great and their is a lot of suspense. The story is Helen and her friend are investigating urban legends for university. They investigate the legend of the Candyman. Say his name five times in the mirror and he'll turn up and make you sorry for even thinking his name. When the Candyman begins to stalk Helen, she almost breaks down because he continues to commit murders and frame her. It is truly terrifying. A truly great movie and a must see for people looking for a movie that makes you think and scares you at the same time.


Chilling. Absolutely chilling. One of those rare horror films that actually scared me. I saw this movie when I was about 9 and couldn't really sit through to the end because it scared me so. The character of the Candyman was so scary, not just because he killed people (though that had a lot to do with it), but because the person he was chasing was not believed (and actually framed for his murders). Believe me, if someone was popping up killing people unexpectedly like Candyman did, I would not stick around to see what was going on. I still won't go up to a mirror and test the Candyman theory out. Definitely one of the best slasher films of the 90s. Rent or buy it.


This was one of the best movies I've ever seen: It's horror, a bit of gruesome scenes mixed with the magic of the reality only Clive Barker can describe in his works.

While watching this movie, pay attention to all the scenes that relate to things previously said, watch the circle close itself.

And enjoy Clive Barker telling you that there is more in the world - more to see, more to feel and more than simply to "be".


Candyman won't go down as the greatest film ever, or even the greatest horror film ever. But in its genre, it's one of the superior films of its kind to have appeared recently.

Where the film scores is in its juxtaposition and contrast of two kinds of fear: fear of death by supernatural forces, and fear of death at the hands of other humans. The urban decay into which Helen wanders is as chilling and disturbing as the Candyman's own appearances. Like 'Seven', the film uses its urban setting not just as an unpleasant backdrop, but as an integral part of the film's fabric, strengthening its impact and relevance.

Virginia Madsen gives a fine performance (under the circumstances - no Oscars here). She looks older than her 29 years, which again helps the film to stand out since it's not about teenagers in peril but about mature characters about whom we might actually care. The supporting cast aren't bad, either, though this is really Madsen's show. She looks nothing like her brother, does she?

Intelligently scripted, and carefully crafted (others have drawn attention to Philip Glass's excellent score - another splendid move by the film makers), this is vastly superior to the Elm Street series. Only the ending disappoints. Otherwise, good work.


This is a great horror film. The story is solid, the performances are consistently good, and as usual, Bernard Rose directs with great visual flair. The soundtrack also adds immensely to the suspense. I recommend it highly to horror fans, along with the same director's earlier "Paperhouse".


This movie right here's gotta be one of the best horror films I've seen in a long time. At first it may seem a bit confusing and blurry but once you get into it, you really get into it. Like most truly good films some people won't get it, but if you understand the plot then trust me you'll enjoy it.


Not the greatest film I've ever seen, but the score by Philip Glass is wonderful & the cinematography of Chicago is also terrific!


The first two adaptations (Angels Fall and Montana Sky) were disappointing for someone who read the books. I was actually pleased by Blue Smoke.

They did a good job of adapting a complex book down to a short movie. The flashbacks were a great way of letting us understand Reena's history and her current emotional state. Of course, they changed some of the details, but those changes didn't bother me, and worked well for the movie. And I think they did a good job of casting for this one - Alicia Witt and Scott Bakula were very good.

The only complaint I have is that due to the short time constraint, they were not able to really focus as much on the relationship with Bo, so the chemistry wasn't as strong as it could have been. Matthew Settle is very cute, but we didn't really get to know his character.

That said, I enjoyed it.


I had my doubts, but was surprised and pleased that Blue Smoke was much better than my expectations.

Using flashbacks was a more effective way of presenting Reena's past and present in the movie. It helped create the picture of who she had become and why. I could understand many of the changes made to accommodate the transition from book to film. In some cases preferred the movie version (the book had a LOT of graphic violence).

Alica Witt did a very believable strong, fierce Reena, showing how she had grown to deal with the tragedies that had made her feel, understandably, vulnerable and fragile. Scott Bakula ... ah ... he just gets better and more seasoned with every new role he takes on: compassionate and kind, but stern and demanding when needed.

The relationships before she met Bo were as heartbreaking in the movie as in the book. Though I couldn't decide if the one she had with Hugh was even sadder than the original version. Was it worse that she was gun-shy and only on the brink of a new, deeper relationship as in the book, or taking the chance of accepting a marriage proposal as in the film?

I honestly didn't think I'd like Matthew Settle as Bo, but he convinced me with his scene in the backyard when he *finally* got to meet his dream girl.

The strong sense of family, and how their love and respect for each other also helped form Reena into such a determined, focused woman was carried through in both versions.

Personally, I thought how the movie dealt with the villain(s) was a nice twist and fitting ending.

Leaves me champing at the bit to see Carolina Moon.


I like Nora Roberts' books, but this movie was terrible. The main character is so very unrealistic, but since I didn't read the book, I don't know if this is just an awful book made into a movie or it's just the movie.

The story is very predictable. The main character is so cheesy, so depressed and brooding, suspicious of everything and then suddenly happy-go-lucky, not a care in the world. She refers to herself as a cop, but then plays the part of an arson investigator with the fire department.

In my opinion, this movie would be great for someone who loves to watch made-for-TV movies, or the typical Lifetime original movie. Otherwise, don't waste your time.


If you like pictures about fire fighters and the police who deal with arson and what sparks people into enjoying the flame and causing many people to die. The story deals with a young girl,(Alica Witt) who witnesses a fire that burned down her family restaurant which made a deep impression on her mind and stayed with her into adulthood. It is because of this incident that she becomes a policewoman and has to take a final test which is going into a burning building in an allot period of time. This story will surprise you with plenty of sudden surprises right to the very end. This well written story by Nora Roberts will keep you glued to your TV screen and keep you guessing just who is the FIRE BUG! Enjoy


Best of the Bunch, so far. (referring to the 4 Nora Roberts' adaptations Lifetime television is showing January to February 2007).

The chick got issues and I sat there wondering how the next person was going to die. All in all, that made for a good story. Even better, there was a great cast and a tightly crafted screenplay that moved along.

Even in the face of a big character/story flaw, I was able to enjoy the film. I can't remember it from the book, but the literary device they used to show us what happened in the past was effective as a literary device, but it also created a situation that was more than just trauma, it was full-blown PTSD and I don't think that she should have be allowed to go into fires after her performance on the test. It not only puts her life in danger, but puts the lives of her colleagues and the people they save in danger. This fact, however, didn't distract me too much from enjoying the movie.

I gotta say I was totally hooked by the guy who kept spotting her. He was cute and the entire thing was so romantic. I was hoping he wasn't going to die by fire or be a firebug himself. I love those tricks of fate.

Now, that FBI agent, he seemed like something out of the ABC Soap General Hospital - a cop who's portrayed as a bad guy. Thankfully, it was one short scene and things moved along (proving it was definitely not an ABC Daytime product).

Was it just me, or did the bad guy look like a bald Ben Affleck to anyone else? The rest, I really enjoyed. I'll be watching this film again. The only thing missing was something - a theme, an event, a person - that I could emotionally connect with. It was a good mystery. I give this film 8 out of 10 stars.


I think the movies might work better if you haven't read the books first. I'm not entirely displeased with the movies, particularly "Blue Smoke", but they are so limited in what they can do within the time constraints of the film. This was a complicated book, with the usual terrific characterizations.

I think the weakest part of "Blue Smoke" was the lack of time to develop the family dynamics.

Scott Bakula is wonderful in the part of the senior investigator. I've always loved him, but he shines in this part. Frankly, he's the guy I would go for.

Witt does an adequate job as the heroine. Overall, I would say that the movie would make a good afternoon's entertainment, but you would be better served by getting the original book and diving in.

Here's hoping this year's Nora Roberts selection of films will be even better.

And if the Eve Dallas books are ever filmed by owner Mel Gibson, I hope they consider Mariska Hargarty in mind for the lead role.


I guess if you like WE! or Oxygen, you'd probably like Blue Smoke. I am a fire investigator, so my wife thought I would probably like this movie. Appreciate the thought, but....

The movie starts with the newbie female arson investigator (a specialized police officer with fire investigation training) getting some fire suppression training by entering a live-fire smokehouse. Alone. In a smokehouse-maze with crazy trap doors, tunnels and ladders over fire pits. I understand movies are for entertainment, but at least a little realism would have been nice. The next 30 minutes is all relationships, flashbacks, idiots sleeping with curtains blowing across lit candles.

Couldn't finish it.


I watched this film with no expectations!!. That's the key to enjoying movie's like these. Really enjoyed it and so did my friends. It's a Bachelor Party Movie (no donkey snorting coke this time). So you would think it's in the same spirit as a National Lampoon Movie. If you want to watch a film where you don't have to think, just RELAX and Laugh this is the film for you!. Seem's to me a lot of people being hard on it, or did they expect it to be a documentary of Bachelor Parties?. Too much Reality Show's on already In my opinion. I would watch again and will purchase. I liked seeing some familiar face's and some new face's that did a good job.


I was able to guess the ending within the first half hour. This was just a very bad movie . The jokes were lame, the characters were not likable at all. The only welcome character in the movie was Vincent Pastore aka Big Pussy from Sopranos. Even the couple of scenes he was in could not save this movie. It was one of those movies where everything goes wrong. Like this has not been done to death . Very juvenile and watchable in the sense that you can not believe how bad a movie you are watching. Just when you think the movie can not get any worse it surprises and it does. In my opinion the best part of movie besides Mr. Pastores scenes were the clips that showed the Vegas strip or downtown Vegas.I did not expect much and thats exactly what I got. Kal Penn already has a slew of these movies with those White Castle flicks. I wonder if this guy has any acting range at all. Than again white castle burgers are small and evidently so is Kal Penns acting range. If you must watch this please watch it on cable already payed for.


A lot of people have made terrible reviews on this movie, but I think people have just watched the movie with their expectations low and have just watched it to criticise it and to pick out all the bad bits, but the things they missed were the good bits.

This movie is entertainment through and through, its quick paced, its got good actors and its got a good story. The only thing that let it down was the script, (which luckily enough was pepped up by the actors) and the other thing that let it down also was the over use of half naked women. I'm not saying there shouldn't have been any, I understood there was going to be quite a lot, it being a bachelor party and all, but you know it's gone too far when you begin to feel uncomfortable watching it by yourself. There seemed to be a hot girl round every corner and they kept popping up in the most bizarre places... but that's my only criticism

It's a fun movie, which takes you on an entertaining adventure with these five guys, all of whom have very good characters. Some jokes made by them did just pass by me, but I did smile and laugh at some others, which I think is a huge accomplishment for a movie, because I know there are some big Hollywood comedies out there, which people don't laugh at, yet they're big movies.

Also, the reason some of the jokes aren't so funny is not because they're bad jokes, it's because they just glaze over you. But when watching this movie look out for the character Eli, played by the talented actor Aaron Himelstein, he's the one that makes you laugh and the majority of the funny jokes come from him and his awesome nervous character.

I liked the ending, simply because as the movie was getting closer to the end they gave you enough clues to guess what was going to happen, so therefore it was less disappointing than it could have been. The ending was also well explained, rather than it being a simple, unexplained twist, it actually had a nice story behind it and it made you smile.

This is a movie that I would have probably enjoyed a lot more if I hadn't of read all of the terrible reviews, simple because no movie can be enjoyed when you know the bad bits that people have found. I'd say the only down fall was the over use of sex and gross out humour, which I don't particularly mind in a movie, but in this movie it just lasted a bit too long. Over all, I was entertained, I enjoyed it, which in the end, is all you want from a movie.

So ignore the bad reviews, and try and forget about them when you watch this movie, because it really isn't that bad, it makes you laugh and smile and has a good story and good actors, which is all I wanted from it.


This is a very funny film with the common theme of a group of guys going to Vegas for a bachelor party, where they have a series of hilarious misadvantures. There are a lot of funny jokes and the multi-cultural cast meshes very well. All of the actors give good performances & the main characters are well-developed.

True to other bachelor party films, the bachelor is constantly resisting temptation. Where this film gets interesting is that it takes a number of surprising turns, where they fear for their lives and end hot water with the law. There is a surpising twist at the end which is a nice change from other bachelor party films (although the original "Bachelor Party" always will be king).

I'm sure one of the reasons this movie did not make it to the theatres is because some of it is kind of raunchy and there are a lot of nudity and sex scenes. I'm surprised it didn't get a NC-17 rating. Still, despite all the raunchiness, there is a kind of innocence to the movie and the characters. It's definitely worth checking out for some laughs and a fun adventure.


I would've figured this to be just another lame joked Bachelor Party movie. Well it was pretty lame when it tried to be funny, but it actually had an excellent story if you can believe it. I wouldn't technically call this a comedy movie, because it didn't make me laugh at all. But this is a pretty decent adventure movie with a fantastic story to it. You may feel let down because the movie did pretty horrible, but if you watch the entire movie and follow the story you will find it to be a little better than the story of comedies that have made it big at the box office. I thought the movie was a little overboard with trying to be funny and all, but once again the story and plot is the only thing that can save it.

4/10


I'm not kidding. This was a really funny, surprisingly thought-provoking movie. I had to watch it for work (yeah, really), and I thought it was well-shot, well-written, well-acted, and hilarious. The only thing I didn't like was the title. It didn't convey the singularity of the film as being a completely unexpected take on the rite of the bachelor party. I guess people who hated it missed the message -- yes, message. And the fat jokes and elderly jokes et cetera were tongue-in-cheek. Superficial characteristics are easy targets, and that is exactly the point of this movie. I'm wondering if some of these reviewers stopped watching before the end. Somehow, I kept watching because I had a sense that wherever this movie was going, it was not going in your average mindless direction. And it was a fun ride. I'm going to watch Eric Bernt more closely now.


Although I practically live on IMDb, I've never written a review before. I have good taste but am not afraid to watch a good, tacky, prepubescent T&A flick. However, I feel I owe it to humanity to warn the rest of the world how awful this movie is.

I went to the video store to rent the original movie which I caught the last half of on cable not too long ago and loved (which shows I'm not some high-brow snob). Unfortunately, they don't carry it, so I decided to try this POS instead.

I'm not going to waste considerable time to write why this movie sucks so badly. Just take my word for it and do yourself a favor, forgo this movie, and rent the original 1984 "Bachelor Party".

I think someone should refund my money and pay damages for the pain and suffering I endured watching this movie.


I was watching this with my friends on a cold Christmas night, we were flipping through the channels and low an behold we stumbled upon this little gem.

For starters we are presented with an all-star cast. Kal Penn, Jonathan Bennett, Donald Faison and the fat kid from Angus brilliantly portray what it would be like to go through the ULTIMATE Vegas adventure. The plot starts off rather simple as we are told that a group of guys are going on a trip to Vegas and bought the "Ultimate Vegas Bachelor Party Package". Well if simple means complex then this movie is simple. And if this simple means simple then this movie is NOT simple.

The supporting cast is reminiscent of an Oceans 11 movie. We have Big Pussy, Chuck Liddell, Jaime Pressly, Daniel Stern and Kathy Griffin giving some very impressive performances. You are all wondering how what the heck are all these celebrities doing in this movie? Well if I told you then it would take all the fun out of the movie ;) The musical score in this movie treats you to a John Williams type experience as if you are listening to the Indian Jones theme for the first time. The way they incorporate the metal music with Chuck Liddells screen time was beautiful. Also I have to add there a twist at the end of the movie that even Rod Serling would have never guessed. Think Twilight Zone for Bachelor Parties 4 out of 4 stars


Oh, be honest. What do you expect when you watch a movie with a name like this. Well, that is what you get.

Sure there are lots of perfect and large boobs, some of the best I have ever seen, but that cannot keep you interest lone.

Kai Penn tried to make this funny. he was really worth watching, but there just weren't enough jokes to sustain it and what they did have was tired and a rehash of other movies.

I could not believe the bad luck they were having trying to get this party going, and I guessed the gag long before it was revealed. I could have done without the speech.


When I rented this movie from Blockbuster, I thought it was going to be a good one. I saw Kal Penn's picture on the cover of the DVD and thought it was going to be funny.... NOT. Although I do think that Kal Penn is hilarious in his other movies like Harold & Kumar and Van Wilder, I did not think he was that great in this one. I thought the acting sucked and the plot was cheesy. This is a total low budget B film. I cant believe I wasted my time watching this movie. I wish I could get a refund back from Blockbuster. Anyhow, there were some cool cameo appearances from Chuck Liddell and Vincent Pastore so I did vote this a 2.


Before I begin, let me remind you not to take all of the comments written above %100 seriously. This movie has a very special, very niche target audience. And I BELONG TO THAT GROUP. For all my life, very ezoteric people laughed at my jokes, and accepted me as a true friend. I, in turn, worked damn hard through all my life and have been eraning six figure income for 3 years now. Yes, I am alone, but I have the money. So I know what rich people laugh at. This magnificent piece of art is offering the audience such level of sophisticated material that only a niche group that I belong can appreciate. I menioned my income level before, and don't think that I am high or whatever and what I say don't make sense. I am one of the most important customers of #2(in revenue) casino in Vegas, so I can appreciate all the ironic messages and can get the insights communicated in this briiant masterpiece. This movie has love, this movie has fear, this movie has the what it takes to stimulate your most inner forces to move the world around. Just see it and your life will change. But first visit Vegas and work hard enough to earn a 6 figure annual income. and also don't forget to thank to God who give people courage and faith to shoot this movie.


I just finished watching this movie with my friends, and I am actually angry right now. I want to punch myself in the face because this movie was so incredibly horrible. I want my hour and a half back. Please, never see this movie. I do not understand how the actors of this movie could allow this to be released. They are successful actors, but this movie makes them all look money hungry and that they do not care about stealing time and money from the viewer. I hope I have saved someone the time. ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE! The plot is horrible, the acting is cheesy, and the jokes are not even original. You sit there in a stupor waiting for it to get entertaining, but it never does. I am ashamed of the actors/comedians for making this. The only real joke is the one that the producers/writers/actors played on the unsuspecting viewer!


The dregs. I rated this movie on the portion I watched--I turned this off before it was over. I'm scarred by the amount I watched. Stay away--this is the pits. I was passing through and caught this on Starz! and aside from paying for the monthly subscription fee for Starz!, I am certainly glad I didn't rent this or (God forbid!) pay to see this in the theater. I realize films (!) like this are made strictly for release on DVD and cater to a specific crowd, but this one was simply pathetic. I'm no high-brow--I enjoy goof-ball flicks (Dude, Where's My Car?) as much as the next person, but this just seemed lazy. I got the feeling the writers (!) pirated a do-it-yourself "teen movie" template from a website and just plugged in their own specifics. And they failed. This movie is tired and clichéd and populated with bad acting. My REAL rating is less than the 1 star I gave it...


This movie made me waste 1hour and something. It is a lousy movie and my opinion is that you shouldn't even be thinking of watching it. The screenplay sucks, the plot is like a big pile, adding stupid adventures. The movie tries to imitate the British action very sophisticated films like Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels by an unexpected ending and by the plot twist in favor of the main characters, but they obviously fail.The actors aren't real and they don't do a very convincing interpretation. If you really don't have anything to do at home, don't watch this movie, go see Pirates of the Carribbean 2 for the second time.


How does movies like this get made? I can understand the writer not being able to see the material for what it is, but how does ANYONE read this script and think it will make a good movie. It was about as far from funny as an alleged comedy can get. This sad attempt is a rehashing off all the old, older and oldest gags and bringing nothing new to the table.

I was going to go on, but I can't waste any more time with this. My request to the producers, director and writer - "You don't have a clue about film-making. Please seek alternate work rather than continue to disappoint those investing their time seeking entertainment!"


I really enjoyed this comedy. It started with an excellent cast of characters both main and supporting. I can't think of anyone that could have played any of the parts better. Everyone had a great connection and really made you believe they were best friends. Each of the main characters was distinctive in their own way making it easy to relate to at least one. You never know what to expect from scene to scene. All you can be sure of is that your going to laugh. The ending is a major surprise unlike a lot of comedies where you know how its going to end from the start of the movie. If you like crazy, wacky comedies then you'll love this one.


A funny movie! This movie is about five guys (Nathan,Ash,Johnny,Z Bob and Eli) who go in Las Vegas for a Bachelor Party. But when they get there, they will see the things are not like they wish! They will see is only a staging! And a bachelor party is about friendship! In the end, Mr. Kid tell they the peoples come there for a bachelor party believe a bachelor party weekend is mean to broke all limit of decency and violation of the morale values, actually is about friendship! A nice and funny movie,a trip whit many problems,five guys,five million dollars,many games,many girls,bandits,is only a staging! Is a movie you will surely enjoy, i hope you like it!


It's always fun making it to the first screening of a new film on the very day it opens. My film-crazy friends and I habitually did this in our college days. Long years later, the thrill has not worn off. This time, the film I lined up to watch at its first screening in town is "Eklavya  The Royal Bodyguard". Vidhu Vinod Chopra, the filmmaker who, in the capacity of either director or producer, gave us "Parinda", "Mission Kashmir", "Parineeta", and the two wonderful Munna Bhai movies, was unveiling his new directorial effort, and I was eager to see what lay in store.

"Eklavya" boasts a huge cast of eminent actors; how their services would be utilized has piqued my curiosity for some time. The glittering line-up features Amitabh Bachchan in the title role, along with Chopra regulars Saif Ali Khan, Sunjay Dutt, the exquisite Vidya Balan, Boman Irani, Parikshat Sahni, Jackie Shroff, Jimmy Sher Gill, Raima Sen, and an elegant cameo by Sharmila Tagore.

The film opens with the unmistakable voice of Amitabh Bachchan narrating the legend of Eklavya from the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata. Eklavya, a child of undistinguished antecedents yearns to study archery under the tutelage of Dronacharya, the instructor of kings. Contemptuous of his low birth, Dronacharya refuses to accept Eklavya as a student. Undeterred, Eklavya builds a clay effigy of Dronacharya and ceaselessly practices archery before it. Soon after, Dronacharya is taken aback by Eklavya's proficiency, which has outstripped that of his princely pupils. As it wouldn't do for this commoner's skills to rival those of the royalty, the crafty Dronacharya demands a "dakshina" or teacher's fee from Eklavya. Whatever you wish, the devoted lad replies. Your right thumb--that is what I want as my "dakshina", commands Dronacharya. Without hesitation, Eklavya slices off the thumb, knowing full well it would end his prowess in archery. The story is meant to illustrate the notion of "dharma" or the fulfillment of one's sacred duty in any circumstance, regardless of cost. Off screen, the child to whom Amitabh recounts the story protests this outcome, and his shrill tones are the voice of reason.

Amitabh, like his dutiful namesake Eklavya, is the loyal manservant and bodyguard of a line of minor royalty in Rajasthan. Despite the family's tyrannical ways, he unswervingly stands by them. The film unfolds in the present, but this particular royal family still resides in a fog of past glory, entitlement, and unquestioned power. Their continuing nastiness has made the natives restless, and the worm is about to turn.

The Queen Mother's (Sharmila Tagore) deathbed revelation sets the somewhat baroque, overwrought plot in motion. The heir apparent (Saif Ali Khan), who had earlier fled the principality in disgust at the profligate ways of his relatives, is summoned home for her funeral. Before breathing her last, the Queen pens a letter to her son spilling the proverbial beans. This confession causes a domino effect of cross and double cross, intrigue and counter-intrigue.

The film has the look and feel of a stately epic, but Vidhu Vinod Chopra is not interested in the luxuriant pace associated with epics. There is a business-like economy in his approach. There is no waxing philosophical about the misdeeds that have brought this family to its present ugly impasse. He appears to say that was then, in the past, there's no time for that; let's simply watch how their karmic debts are collected now. Voice-overs and numerous brisk flashbacks provide just enough expository detail to follow the events unfolding in the present. The pace is breathless, as though generations of past injustices can wait no longer for expiation. Every now and then, there is a moment of stillness, which one wishes would be held a few seconds longer for the mood to be savored. An effective scene on the palace ramparts is reminiscent of the ghostly visitation in "Hamlet", and the wraith, despite no lines to declaim, has similar impact.

Amitabh Bachchan's magisterial performance as a man programmed for blind duty, having to suddenly distinguish between obligation and reason transcends the silliness of the plot. Saif Ali Khan impresses yet again; there is maturity and depth in his performance as the conflicted prince with the populist conscience. Unlike "Parineeta", Vidya Balan doesn't have a whole lot to do here, but is dignified and graceful in her few scenes as the commoner in love with a prince. Boman Irani, an actor of sweeping range and intelligence, is a hoot with his hissy fits and sloe-eyed ambiguity, while Jackie Shroff and Jimmy Sher Gill, as the wicked uncle and cousin, handle the villainy with lip-smacking gusto. Sunjay Dutt, fresh off his Munnabhai success, is a welcome presence as the investigating police officer with little patience for the anachronisms of fiefdoms and effete royalty. What a pleasure it is to see Sharmila Tagore, who retains her looks and glamor despite the passage of the years.

"Eklavya" displays a most un-Indian efficiency (in film-making terms, at least) and speed (a mere 105 minutes) in telling its tale that had me longing for a little more of some of the characters. It would be interesting to see just how much of the film was left on the editing room floorperhaps the DVD will have the deleted scenes. Music is used appropriately: there is a lone song, of which only a judicious snatch is used on screen. The cinematography makes full use of the gorgeous Rajasthani terrain, with its pitiless crags and sun-scorched sands. Clearly, Vidhu Vinod Chopra has an eye on international audiences for his film, and glowing endorsements from the likes of Ralph Fiennes enhance his chances. Here's to you, Mr. Chopra, and more power to you.


At the surface, the idea behind Vidhu Vinod Chopra's Eklavya may seem terribly anachronistic. After all who talks about the outmoded concept of Dharma in this time and age? But that's precisely the point. The philosophy of Dharma is as relevant today as it was during the time of the mythical Eklavya. Only, its definition has changed. Through Eklavya, Vidhu Vinod Chopra tries to debunk the belief that Dharma is all about following the path of righteousness as defined by tradition; rather, he endorses the view that righteousness is not an absolute concept but has to be rooted in reason - Dharmah Matibhyah Utgritah.

Vidhu Vinod Chopra takes the idea from well known tale from the Mahabharata, gives it a distinctly Shakesperean flavour, and comes up with a fascinating multi-layered saga of duty, honour, loyalty and deceit - and above all, the true meaning of Dharma. He takes a potentially melodramatic content and presents it in a largely undramatic style. Well....that's not entirely true. Let me put it this way, he deliberately makes his actors be less theatrical so that the he can create drama through other means - music, camera, visuals, etc. At times he completely goes against popular conventions. Scenes that one would expect to be dramatic are laid out subtly, whereas melodrama finds centre stage in scenes that would otherwise be routine scenes. That's the most interesting part about Eklavya.

The protagonist, Eklavya (Amitabh Bachchan) is a man of unmistakable honour. He is a 'royal guard' who would do anything to protect his royal masters because that's his Dharma. He would sacrifice his emotions to guard a royal secret because that's his Dharma. In that respect, he is in some sort of a time warp - the world around him has moved on but he still lives by what tradition dictates. This contrast is brilliantly depicted in the film by the character of Pannalal Chauhar (Sanjay Dutt) - an untouchable who questions the traditions because in today's time he probably has more 'power' than the royal family and thus demands respect that his ancestors never got.

The beauty of Eklavya does not lie in its theme, rather it's the director's vision and actors' sincerity that make it stand out. The theme demands the visual opulence that Vidhu Vinod Chopra lends it, every frame of the movie being visually perfect. But it's not that either. The director pushes the envelope here and conjures some brilliant, sometimes even surrealistic and abstruse, imagery. Forget the travesty called Kareeb, with Eklavya Vidhu Vinod Chopra gets back his groove. Remember his first film, a documentary called An Encounter with Faces, was nominated for an Oscar (I don't think many people even know this fact).

It's clearly not the director's intention to make a crowd-pleasing film. His desire to do something out of the ordinary is evident all through the film, but he is particularly audacious when he chooses to blank out the screen completely for a full 90 second. Imagine watching an extremely 'visual' film in a dark theatre and the screen going completely blank for such a long time! The director pulls it off so well that this scene becomes the film's highpoint.

I have one problem with the film though. The ending seems to belong to an entirely different film. There's no place for a neat, crowd-pleasing wrap-up ending in this dark and grim tale. Why the director should succumb to pleasing the audiences in the last 5 minutes of the film, when he has defiantly stood against it in first 100 - I just don't understand. My other problem is that they're promoting the film as an "edge-of-the-seat dramatic action thriller" which is like doing gross injustice to this gem of a film - 'dramatic' is probably the only word in this phrase that applies to Eklavya. If people walk into the theatres expecting an action thriller, they'll be disappointed big time.

Eklavya is marked by some great performances. Amitabh Bachchan in the title roles comes up with a really Rolls Royce deserving performance. His character demands reticence, but he uses his expressive eyes so effectively that he's able to convey what even pages and pages of dialogue would fail to do. Saif Ali Khan seems to get better with each film, and has learnt the art of subtlety and underplaying for dramatic effect. In this film he is effectively restrained, even in the scene when the real twist in the tale comes in. If your attention flags even for a moment, you would miss the revelation because the drama is contained and there are no high-voltage theatrics here. That, in my opinion, is as much a credit to Saif Ali Khan's performance as it is to the director's conceptualization of the scene.

All through its 107 minutes, Eklavya kept reminding me of Vishal Bhardwaj's Omkara and Maqbool because of its Shakesperean quality. Any comparisons would be fallacious, for Chopra and Bhardwaj are two very different directors, with very different sensibilities. Vishal's approach is earthy and raw, while Vidhu Vinod Chopra goes for more polish and bigger scale. But they have one thing in common - whatever they serve is delicious and hugely satisfying!


Vidhu Vinod Chopra has always been the master stylist...repertoire is full of cinematic brilliance...whether it was Parinda where he showcased a underworld gangster with haunting memories...or 1947 a love story..a power house packed romantic film in the backdrop of Quit India movement...or it was Mission Kashmir where estranged son and father fought and valley burnt in their anguish...his narration has always been packed with a grip, sheer brilliance of dialog delivery, daunting back score music and use of lights and camera angles which reminds you of Guru Dutt's work...no doubt Vidhu has his traits in all his protégé, be it Sanjay Leela Bhansali, Hirani or Pardeep Sarkar... so when one hears it took him five years to pen the screenplay of Eklavya, the expectations had to be high.

But then Eklavya is no disappointment. a failing dynasty with frail rulers, a secret seeded deep in heart, and dilapidated royal guard trying to keep secret intact. There is heresy, treachery, pain, unrequited love all wrapped beautifully in four walls of a grandiose palace (..Heard its Maharani Gayatri Devi's. Palace).... shimmering chandeliers, royal swords, candle lit harem's...they are mesmerizing...and so are the actors who have slipped into their characters as if they are living them from ages.. Mr. Bachchan is powerhouse at its best...Saif is yet again reserved but impact full...Jackie and Jimmy are at their evil best. It's amazing to see Balan making her presence felt among all stalwarts. So does Raima impress. Sanjay is flawless in his rustic, vindictive demeanor. But its Boman with niceties of queen, which make you realize, he is one hell of an actor.

The narration is what makes it impeccably, nicely told, not a scene out of context. Good camera work during panoramic view of palace. The use of special effects adds gravity to story. It's another brilliance from master stylist and best story narrator in film industry.


VV Chopra takes on the director's baton after 7 years and unleashes a treat for your senses... your visual senses in particular. Eklavya is nothing less than poetry on celluloid. It's still a wonder why VV Chopra took so long to go behind the camera again, when he can produce such a masterstroke so effortlessly, so effectively.

Technically the film scores in almost all departments. Stunning cinematography is the highest point of the film after Chopra's direction of course. Visually the movie is so delightful with vivid colors of Rajasthan splashed all over the screen. The forts never looked so beautiful, so alive. You can actually feel the royal feel of the film in the costumes, art direction and the whole setup. There is an aura of class all over.

Director is able to extract solid performances from everyone in the cast. Amitabh, as expected excels once again in the title role. Sharmila Tagore could have been used better. Sanjay Dutt, the most enjoyable character, should have been given some more screen presence.

But the biggest drawback of Eklavya is in the most important part. The story. Despite being a rather short film, with only about 120 minutes of running time, the film seems dragging. The second half in particular is slow paced. You might start loosing interest by the end of 1st half itself. If it was not the brilliance in direction, you might even give leaving in the interval a thought. Even the Parineeta chemistry between Saif and Vidya Balan seems to be lost this time.

If only the script had been a bit stronger, a bit more gripping, we easily had a winner in hand. Eklavya is not a looser anyway.

Welcome back Vidhu Vinod Chopra, the director. Don't make us wait so long again.


The movie has excellent star casting. first time ever i have liked an Indian movie and i am confused to decide whether which character in the movie was played well. its not that there is no other Indian movie that has been created well, but watching Eklavya was just a different experience. while you are watching " Eklavya" , you feel no matter how many other movie this actors have done for v.v.c. before, they act completely different. in other words all of the character reminds you that they have a new and better ways of expressing the dialogues of the script. the is not too lengthy. and yet it wont seem like there is any cut off.

Every actor in EKLAVYA  THE ROYAL GUARD stands out for terrific portrayal. Sanjay Dutt has a brief role, but he's fantastic all through.Vidya Balan is superb yet again. There's no stopping this actress! Boman Irani is first-rate in a negative role. Watch him interact with Sharmila Tagore in the very first scene and with Jackie subsequently to know the range of this gifted actor. Jimmy Shergill introduces you to a hitherto unknown facet of his talent. He excels in a negative role. Jackie Shroff gets a meaty role yet again in a Vidhu Vinod Chopra film. He's wonderful. Raima Sen leaves a mark in a significant role. Sharmila Tagore exudes class in a cameo. Parikshit Sahni is efficient.

EKLAVYA  THE ROYAL GUARD is an opulent film, with a gargantuan cast, gripping story seeped in Indian emotions and values, striking visuals and topnotch making as its trump cards. Without a shred of doubt, it's one of the finest products to come out of the Hindi film industry.


A lot of critics recommended Eklavya if you liked Guru or Omkara. But I didn't like them at all and I rented Eklavya because there was no other film that looks good to watch. I thought that it would just turn out to be another disposable movie but it didn't.

The film had an amazing story told in a very neat way about a royal guard of a rich family who is also like a family member and is going to avenge the murder of his master. It had an excellent blend of emotional drama & thriller; the most emotional scene was when Eklavya met Saif Ali Khan for the first time.

The best scene of the whole film was when Eklavya was blindfolded and threw his knife at a flying dove with a bell tied to its foot and managed to cut off the bell without hurting the dove, later he caught the bell before it fell into the water. Also shows that he has poor eyesight but has really good hearing.

The casting was great and Amitabh Bachchan is simply the No 1 in Bollywood, he was the best throughout the whole film and he never fails to impress. Running length is small but it was better that way because it's like a story telling film that starts to get boring after 2 hours but it was 1 hour 40 minutes, which was better. Unlike Guru which was 2.5 hours and could of been cut down to half.

Overall it is an absolute beautiful film and a must see. Although it was flopped at box office but was critically acclaimed and might be nominated for an Oscar because it certainly does deserves it. I couldn't see a single mistake in the film also it doesn't have a single useless scene and the ending was perfect. There was only 1 song "Chanda Re" which was a very nice, light and heartfelt song.


Is it me or has Bollywood really stepped up to a new level these past two years. Performances, locations, directors, make-up and art direction are entering new heights of excellence. While this movie is not perfect, Kudos to Vinod Chopra and his production team in providing the cinema going public with a classy movie. Great locations, great back ground music and powerhouse yet subtle, nuanced performances make this a great watch in the cinema.

Bollywood actors seemed to have learned how to underplay and downplay the usual melodrama to give performances that leave a lasting impact. The Big B does not really have much dialogue but his protective and watchful presence can be felt throughout the movie even when he is not in the scene. Now for the Vinot Chopra regulars - After a good performance in the disappointing salaam namaste, saif has been cranking out great performance after performance ( being cyrus, omkara) and Eklavya is no different. He really holds his own against the big B. The supporting cast are all wonderful - Boman Irani was powerful, Jackie had a strong menacing role which was ably suppported by Jimmy Shergill, Vidya Balan mesmerizing as always. Raima Sen and Sharmila Tagore were effective and of course the always excellent Sanjay Dutt in a small role that lightens the mood somewhat.

Yes the movie does have a huge star cast but in my opinion the true stars of this movie are the director Mr. VV chopra and the astounding palace/fort location used for the film shoot.

This movie can be considered a novelty in Bollywood and I feel it deserves to be watched. It looks as if Yash Raj films, VC films and to a small extent RGV films seem to be at the forefront of Bollywood film making in terms of excellence, profitability and risk taking.


Two reasons why this movie is a good reason to watch: the first is the visuals. Rajastan is a beautiful place for sure, but dear god, does this movie make the most of it! There where times when I was actually holding my breath in awe of the sheer visual poetry that flashes across the screen.

The second reason: the acting. All the other commenters already cheered Big B's performance, and true, he really reaches unsurpassable form here. But be sure to also have an eye for Shroff, Irani, Sanjay Dutt and Saif Ali Khan: they also give an impresssive performance.

What's less good of the movie is the way the characters develop. VVD has a goldmine of a storyline here but he fails to mine it: we could have easily seen more of Big B's doubts about dharma, more of Saif Ali Khan's uneasy steps on the path of palace intrigue and treachery, more of Dutt's feeling as a scheduled caste DSP involved in outdated monarchical madness,more of Shroff's agitation as the king's younger brother - the story now is told in such a way that it leaves you guessing too much at what the characters would be going through, so that at the climax you recognize: this would have been a heart-breaking tragic scene of more then epic proportions, if only you would have felt more...

So,all in all, a good performance and a great visual tour of Rajastan - but not the brilliant movie you can easily understand it could have been.


Directed and written by: Vidhu Vinod Chopra. Starring: Amitabh Bachchan, Saif Ali Khan, Boman Irani.

Enter a royal mansion of Rajasthan, India that is filled with secrets. The royal guard Eklavya (Amitabh Bachchan) is humble, sincere and ruthless. He is guarding the king Rana Jayawardhan (Boman Irani). Like one of the characters Eklavya from the epic Mahabharata, who cut his thumb off as a gesture of respect when his Archery teacher asks him to as fees for the teaching, this royal guard is also determined to protect his king so as to consider this job as his only Religion. What secrets this mansion is hiding? What happens when one tries to blow off the lid off these secrets? Will Eklavya be able to follow his religion? Well the questions are answered, except for one which you will see at the end.

After giving Khamosh (1985), Parinda (1989) and 1942-A love story (1993) Vidhu Vinod Chopra comes back with his own screenplay and his own vision blended in a big screen art piece. Like those other films he still has his cutting knife as sharp as it was before. Little rugged tip though. Mr Chopra has created a dark sequence that can only be understood from voices in the background. He has created a scene where camera is panning over the entire entrance way towards the mansion that reminds Kubrick and Fincher's fluid-track camera. He has created a thrilling sequence involving a car standing close to a running train along with sprinting camels in one of the deserts of Rajasthan. He has created a dark and glooming atmosphere throughout the entire movie which will keep you glued to your seat. He has a vision and he has stick to it all the way almost till the last 10 minutes of the movie. Actually he did give a sign of a grand finale with Harshwardhan's (Saif Ali Khan) gesture which if Mr Chopra has stayed with then this tale would have made sense and fit to all of the character's intentions. But unfortunately Mr Chopra goes a little further which will steer away this car ride out on a gravel road where the scenery is hazy due to the dust. At this point perhaps he could not decide if he can still continue to be an artist or rather make money out of this? Its upto you how hard you take those 10 minutes. Personally Mr Chhopra was already impressive enough to give an exhilarating experience through his quality cinema.

Mr Bachchan as the royal guard has a style and attitude that would take his character where you believe him completely. When he stands next to the bed where queen Suhasini devi (Sharmila Tagore) is lying, he has the eyes that will negate the possibilities of any words from the screenplay. The sequence of chopping off the bells tied to a flying dove's feet is at first seems little cheesy but sometime later helps you understand how unique his talent is. Though his expressions are not new but still he performs with utter honesty.

Saif Ali Khan as the prince charming lights the screen with his persona. His performance is the second memorable followed by Boman Irani as the king and Vidya Balan as Harshwardhan's lover Rajjo. Jackie Shroff makes a comeback to commercial cinema after quite a while. Seems like Mr Chopra wanted to bring Shubhankar from 1942-A love story. He is little more older, tired and less believable. Sanjay Dutt and Raima Sen contribute a little to the story.

Cinematography by Nataraja Subramanian is quite stunning which requires an auditorium viewing. Eklavya asks a question that how far can you go to be RELIGIOUS? This movie is a great attempt which deserves applause.

My rating: 7/10.


Eklavya is about a Guard who must protect his master at the cost of his life if required. The purpose of his life is to protect the fort, the king. For generations Eklavya's family has protected the palace and the dynasty. But then the palace hides a lot of truth inside it. A truth that is shocking. And the truth is Prince Harshwardhan is the son of Rani Suhasinidevi and Eklavya. Eklavya has spent his life guarding the fort, the dynasty and everything else. But he is getting old and becomes blind too. Prince Harshwardhan choose to stay away in London. He comes back to the fort when Rani dies.

Prince's return brings back all the joys that were once lost. Princess Nandini and Rajjo are happy on his return. But then there are some peoples who are not too happy.

Who are those peoples ? Who kills the King ? How does the queen dies ? what happens thereafter. Will Prince Harshwardhan marry Rajjo his childhood sweetheart ? What role does Sanjay Dutt play ? The movie is a must watch as after a long long time Vidhu Vinad Chopra directs this film and looks like a typical Chopra film.


It's artfully shot like other V.V.Chopra movies. The male star cast has given stellar acting performances. Amitabh is brilliant (for a change), Boman is starkly poignant and Sanjay Dutt is rock-solid.

What then stops the film from being an engrossing entertainer or a classic art film? The reason, ladies and gentlemen, seems to be the director's confusion about whether he wanted an out and out commercial entertainer or a subtle artsy classic. The treatment goes from extremely spoofable (the screenplay is THAT mediocre) to intensely admirable between shots-and that is where the audience's attention wanes.

Set in the here and now, the film is about skeletons in royal cupboards and illegitimate royalty. King Rana Jaywardhan (Boman Irani)'s impotence results in Eklavya (Amitabh Bachchan)'s sleeping with Queen Suhasinidevi (Sharmila Tagore). While she's bed-ridden, the queen gets foolish enough to ask her husband to fetch her lover and gets strangled. It is then upto Prince Harshwardhan (Saif Ali Khan), Eklavya and Sanju the brash and witty cop to seek revenge and justice and a very sweet'n'syrupy family reunion.

- Amitabh has done great justice to this role of a lifetime. - Ditto with Boman. - Sanjay Dutt is refreshing. - Vidya Balan plays a very unconvincing Rajjo, Harshwardhan's childhood sweetheart. (Someone could do with a few hours in the gym there.) - Raima Sen turns in an unremarkable but just about OK performance as Harshwardhan's mentally challenged twin sister, Princess Nandini. - Sharmila Tagore disappoints greatly. - Jimmy Shergill and Jackie Shroff are surprisingly good. - Saif doesn't have all that much to do differently-given a rather conventional role and a more conventional approach to handling it. But he seems to have done whatever justice he could.

The music's nothing great, the romance lacks spark. But yes, it deserves a chance for sure.


I am quite mixed in my reaction to this movie - mainly because of the baggage that the director's name carries when it comes up on screen before the feature starts. VVC is a name to look forward to if you follow Indian Cinema, whether as Producer or as Director - and especially as director. After all, this is the man who gave us Kareeb , and before that 1942: A Love Story, and before that Parinda , and before that Khamosh! But if you notice the pattern, this man started on the highest note and has only declined. Although his latest is not his best, especially given to believe what he could have accomplished, it still rises over contemporary *Bollywood* cinema (I don't count Bharadwaj in that list and Santoshi is an exception).

The movie starts by telling us who Eklavya was in Hindu Mythology, and lays the question: Was Eklavya's sacrifice in the name of Dharma (Moral Duty) right? Eklavya ( AB) plays the royal guard of the present-day King (Boman Irani) of a small Rajashthani town. When his Moral Duty is called into question, he has to make the choice between blindly following his Moral Duty or redefining what Dharma is. His dilemma is created mainly due to the presence of Kunwar Saif Ali Khan (Prince) and Kunwar Jackie Shroff (King's younger Brother).

Even for a little less than 2hrs, the movie trudges at a slow pace. The breathtaking visuals help to not ever let boredom set in, coupled with another outstanding performance by Saif Ali Khan. His brooding self-justified Kunwar is anchored in his own interpretation of a *new-age* Dharma that he preaches to redefine for Eklavya.

Being a little gutless, VVC does slip in the make-believe factor during the climax in an otherwise realistic movie. Yet his technique builds up enough positives that the end-result is stays well above the satisfaction line. A grateful/thankful performance from Jackie Shroff does not help, but Sanjay Dutt chews that off by stealing scenes even off from AB. Boman Irani, Vidya Balan, Raima Sen, Parikshit Sahini are fill-ins.

Over time, the movie might be reduced to one of academic interest only in the Director's filmography, but could be just a little more for the major actors.

My Rating ---> 3.5 of 5

_________________________________________________

!!! SPOILER WARNING !!!

Gutless VVC ? Yes. He should have let AB kill Saif. And then, for the rest of his days, live in the eternal guilt of killing his son & in the Moral Dilemma of whether he FOLLOWED Dharma, or DEFIED Dharma. That would be a really awesome closing. I don't think it is for VVC to decide if Eklavya (of Myths) did the right or wrong thing.


Eklavya is a visual fest that is ruined by two things - a really shoddy plot and the Amitabh playing the goat. The film runs 105 minutes and yet you wonder why it took them so long to tell this thin thin tale.

The beginning was repetitious and dark - why do people think dark = art? However, the mystery did build up well and the final twist was quite unexpected. But as if to make up for this unexpected twist, Mr. Chopra gave us the expected and clichéd land donation to the poor in the end.

The film was obviously seen as a vehicle for Mr. Bachchan but he probably performed the worst of the lot. He had a hang dog expression the entire time and with his in-character beard looked more like an octogenarian goat than a man who commands respect. Boman Irani, Jacki Shroff, Jimmy Shergill had not much to do and were wasted. Sanjay Dutt got into his role and was fun to watch. Saif did his best with a role that was not written seriously or had much depth. Vidya was a mere decoration.

The film was beautifully shot and the locales were stunning. There was much abstraction and unusual camera angles, lots of color, and a few nice special effects. But can all this make up for a very thin plot and absence of a decent logical story? Not in my book. It took Mr. Chopra 5-7 years to think this one up. Next time why not go for a classic adaptation - at least the story will be good and the you can let your imagination fly.


Eklavya: The Royal Guard is certainly getting a lot of mixed reviews. Some people love it, others hate it and even more others don't know what to make of it. This is probably because the film has a lot of potential in its storyline, its cast, and its setting. My problem with it is that it doesn't live up to its entire potential.

In the director's haste to make the movie short, it actually takes away from "what could have been". There is not enough background information and display of the relationships between the characters. There are also some boring scenes and some parts become annoyingly repetitive. The best part about this movie is the acting. Amitabh and Saif especially show to the world once again why they are such great actors. The cinematography is also fantastic.

Again, the potential for this story is so much more than what is displayed. Nonetheless it is worth watching for some of the VERY gripping scenes. These few scenes make the movie what it is. If the whole movie was compiled with the same conviction that is in these scenes it would be good enough for an Oscar nomination! (You will know what scenes they are once you watch the film.)


WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOME of the most revered names in the Hindi movie industry come together on screen? Magic? Nahtry again. Explosion? Maybebut the word I am looking for is  class. The defining part of Vidhu Vinod Chopra's latest venture 'Eklavya' is just that  class.

OK so we have seen it all, you say. Several neat examples of well made decent and classy pictures does come to mind from the recent past  Khosla ka ghosla et al. But what makes 'Eklavya' a tad different is just one name  Amitabh Bachchan. Never have I seen an actor who said so much just by looking at you with those emotion filled eyes. Never have I been witness to a performance that relied so heavily on the magnitude of silence. Amitabh delivers this to a standing ovation.

'Eklavya' is proof, as if 'Black' wasn't a slap-in-the-face Amitabh is just getting warmed up after three decades example, that he is indeed a legend. When I saw Amit effortlessly slip into the role of an aging royal guard who has nothing left to guard this crumbling royal family from, I wondered about what a genius we have amongst us. I thanked the Almighty for having given us such a gifted talent who has stuck with our stereotypical masala fare for so many long years. Bravo  Mr. Director  for showing us Amitabh in a whole other frame.

So what is the movie about? The script relies heavily on the mystery that tends to revolve around every royal family in the world. The secrets, the lies, the deceits that hide behind the smiling regal chins who make their appearances in public with a fly swatter for company. We have the old royal guard Eklavya who is mourning the recent demise of the queen mother Suhasini Devi (Sharmila Tagore). She is married to a cynical, insecure and borderline insane king father, as it were, Rana Jaywardhan (Boman Irani). Mystery begins to creep its ugly head the moment the king willingly strangles the queen on her death bed. We begin to wonder  hmmI wonder why he did that. A few heartbeats later as Eklavya comes running to her aid we begin to connect the dots.

The relationships are unearthed in true Vidhu Chopra style during the next few frames as we look at one ugly facet after another of this royal bunch. Enter Harshwardhan (Saif Ali Khan) from London who is home to finish the final rites of his beloved mother's mortal remains. We also meet his childhood sweetheart Rajeshwari (Vidya Balan) whose soul aches for the prince's attention. Somewhere in this mix of players we have Mr. Unafraid-to-speak-to-royalty-with-an-attitude Pannalal Chohaar (Sanjay Dutt) who is the local DSP and supposedly law enforcer. We also get a glimpse of scheming royal cousin Udaywardhan (Jimmy Shergill) and his equally sadistic father and the king's brother Jyotiwardhan (Jackie Shroff).

My my! What an impressive line up, isn't it? And indeed they all do complete justice with the tight one hour and forty five minutes of total screen time for this feature. One neatly placed lullaby for a song and 'Eklavya' is completely focused on the unearthing the various good, bad and ugly sides to the castle and it's king.

I will save you the pain of glorifying the performances since it is to be seen. I will also save you the trouble to read through my rendition of the cinematography and lens work as it is to be experienced. I will definitely spare you the bane of having to wonder why 'Eklavya' confirms quality in Indian cinema as it is to be understood and more importantly appreciated.


Robert L. Friedman, the former President of Columbia Pictures and AMC Theaters applauded it as one of the great foreign films to have graced Hollywood in recent years. He further added, "The caring and most talented direction by Vidhu Vinod Chopra is worthy of maximum praise and awards. Mr. Chopra has created a masterpiece via this film, thanks to his genuine insight and love for his film vehicle. 'Eklavya' is a movie that transcends all geographical boundaries - a movie for all people, everywhere, it represents the very best that India's great film-making community has to offer."

Lionel Wigram, Producer of the Harry Potter films, said "It's a masterpiece and I can safely say that it stands an excellent chance of winning India a much awaited Oscar in the foreign film category."

Jeffery Silver, Producer of the film 300, found it to be "a thriller that elevates to the level of art."

The critics have also been unanimous in their praise:

"Vidhu Vinod Chopra's propulsive 'Eklavya: The Royal Guard' has epic sweep." - Los Angeles Times

"Maybe it's the trains. Maybe it's the camels. Maybe it's the intermission. No matter: Something about "Eklavya: The Royal Guard" suggests a lost film by David Lean." - Los Angeles Times

"...clearly has a heart for the classics" - New York Times

"A Shakespearean tragedy" - Variety Int'l

"Vidhu Vinod Chopra is a poet on celluloid" - The Times of India

"Eklavya unites the best of Bollywood past and present" - LA Weekly

"This is robust storytelling, with blood and thunder pumping through its veins, and real whiskers on its face." - LA Weekly

"Far from typical. Very strong and very Shakespearean" - The Sunday Telegraph, UK

"Polished and energetic" - The Sunday Times, UK

"It's strikingly shot, elegantly plotted Shakespearean drama of palace intrigue and revenge." - The Independent, UK

"robustly unassuming and entertaining" - The Guardian, UK

"... Gives any House of Flying Daggers set piece a run for its money." - Metro, UK

"Film-maker Vidhu Vinod Chopra's mature, confident pacing, gifted eye for composition and impressive talent for choreography raises the bar" - Metro, UK "Engaging Indian drama" - The Daily Telegraph, UK

"Put your hands together for one of the finest films to come out of the Hindi film industry!" - indiafm.com

"Masterpiece" - Rediff.com

"A Must-Watch" - Rediff.com, USA

"Eklavya is visually stunning. The performances are even more impressive. But the theme itself is the star." - Bombay Times, Times of India

"Eklavya indeed marks the revival of Indian cinema" - Business of Cinema

"Eklavya - The Royal Treat" - Glamsham.com

"The aesthetics - exemplary; the almost song-less grand illusion - world class." - Mumbai Mirror

"Brilliantly written scenes lift the script and enthrall your senses" - Mid-Day


On paper, this movie had all the makings of a classic...a hugely talented superstar cast, a unique and creative storyline and an artistic assortment of cinematic spices like emotion, tender romance, jealousy, greed, mystery and a lip smacking element of surprise in the end. Yet sadly on screen, the director fails to synchronize all these tools into a well oiled machine; in short, the movie fails to grip the audience.

going by its length, under two hours which is remarkably short for a Hindi movie, one would have expected the movie to unfold at breakneck pace...the kind of tempo that keeps your hips gyrating on the edge of the seat; however, the pace is sluggish for most parts.

set in a captivating palace of Rajasthan, it traces the emotional roller coaster ride of the royal palace guard Eklavya ( amitabh bachchan in a memorable performance ) who is put to the cruelest of altars in the end when he is faced with a choice between his loyalty and his son...

Saif ali khan as the son, Vidya balan and Sanjay Dutt all give beautiful performances, although the focus never really manages to shift out of the magnetic persona of Amitabh, who plays the role with such rigorous conviction that every crease in his face or every hint of a tear in his eyes more than makes up for the lack of dialogs in the movie..Eklavya is a movie of personal choices and the overly challenging task of choosing the lesser of the two wrongs, or for that matter, the better of the two rights...

barring the tortoise pace, which is not quite so bothersome as the screens blank under a couple of hours, the movie is quite worth watching for the sheer gravity of performances.


Now this film promos shouted classic from the top of the roof but sadly the film comes only half

The film starts off well, Sharmila's death scene is well handled and the drama thickens The film keeps you involved but sadly we expected much more The pigeons part was not well integrated in the plot and also the second half gets predictable and we know the actual killer

Even the Saif-Vidya romance track and the climax is half baked

Direction by VVC is excellent in parts only Camera-work deserves 5/5

Amongst actors Bachchan proves yet again he is an institution His body lang, dialogue delivery, expressions all are flawless even if he is just standing behind some lead actors he makes a maximum impact One of his best works Saif too does a great job,showing his growth as an actor Sanju is full of fun in his role and is brilliant in serious scenes His look and role is similar to THANEDAAR but he does a great job Vidya is mechanical Boman Irani excels in his part, Jimmy too excels in a negative role while Jackie is perfect


This movie begins very annoying. The name Eklavya is repeated again and again. It is so very annoying that you are gonna shout; "Yes! I know what the name of the movie is! Get over it!" Then the movie starts slowly to become a very original type of movies. The cast is great. Amitabh is on his best. He plays a guard of the king, but as a guard he is the father of the children of the king.

The movie goes on when even the king gets to know the guard is the father of his children. And then thing are getting very hot.

Story is very great. The plot twists are fenomable. You may not and cannot miss this movie. Highly recommended.


Bollywood has been churning up some impressive films recently,and improving the quality of their films.But they have yet to learn to master the art of film-making.Their films are not yet perfect or great; they still have a long way to go.But after having seen this film,I'm glad to say that they are getting close.Bollywood has the potential to make great movies and they are trying and improving and almost getting there.But they still fall short of spectacular results.

I would say EKLAVYA is by far the best of the very,very rare number of good films that Bollywood has made throughout their existence.Why,because it's more focused and well made than any of their minute number of good films.It's got rich atmosphere,intriguing setup,brilliant visuals,impressive sets,costumes and a different vision.But,overall,it is still a flawed epic.

The story revolves around a family,that is hiding secrets that once revealed,might have deadly consequences upon them.It is inspired by some of Shakespeare's works and it echoes throughout the film.It's about one aging guard(Bachchan),named Eklavya; who has served for the family all his life.Many generations of his family has served before him and he must continue to do so,carry on their legacy.The family of the Kindom of Devigarh itself has mysteries that keeps echoing throughout the film.Eklavya has sworn to protect the family no matter what.He also protects some of the secrets that can never be spread throughout the Kindom.Until,one night,the Queen of the Kindom dies,besides her is her mourning husband.This starts the doubts and accusations within the family.The Queen's Son,Prince Harshwardhan(Khan) arrives to take responsibility of the family.But there are other things going on in the palace.Slowly,one mystery after another pops up and secrets are revealed,and as the story progresses we see more and more people dying because of the secrets.Putting Eklavya into a painful position and come to terms with the happenings and the truths about this family's dark history.

EKLAVYA is an intriguing period piece.It blends ancient settings with modern lifestyle.Giving the film a unique look.The film functions like a thriller,but focusing more on melodrama and characters,that aren't well written.And it's a well made drama that borderlines on melodrama.But the film has flaws,especially in the second half and by the time it ends,it feels incomplete.It's a relatively short film by Bollywood standards and I was more than surprised.Not only did it manage to tell an engrossing story but also wrapped it up with style with its short length.And the best thing is that it's devoid of songs,only one song throughout the film.But,I guess,because the story is wrapped around an epic setting,it needed a longer running time to develop the plot and characters more.Some of the characters were weak and not well written,some of their back stories are never told and leaves a lot to be desired.

First half or so into the movie,you are hooked and quite entertained,but after the interval,the film slowly drags,since the plot becomes weak and it's going in one direction; so there isn't much to tell.Subplots are added to compensate the running time.In other words,it could've trimmed a little more of the length and finished it quickly.That would've made the film perfect.But it gets boring as it drags the story and adds subplot and makes the whole of second half contrived.But the third act,which is the big revelation of who is behind the whole scenario,somewhat pays off with satisfaction.

Praise the Director who manages to keep the story afloat,which could've been worse.The whole movie could've been worse if it were handled by someone else.But the Director impresses you with his visual presentation of the story and keep you entertained.His script might be flawed but he succeeds in good storytelling,which is rare in Bollywood. But what he should be thanking most is the film's Cinematography,which elevates the material and gives a bold and rich look to the film.And some impressive set design and costumes,with able score.

However,what really keeps this film afloat is the acting.Each and every actor deserves equal recognition.They all have a part to play and they all help in move the story forward.You can't just give out all the praises to Bachchan alone.He was terrific,but the other actors allowed him to emote the character well.But,of course,Mr.Bachchan's performance is the strength of the film.His silence and his eyes says more than his words.I've never liked this actor and thought he was yet another over-hyped Bollywood actor,like any other.But after watching him in this,I understand why people worship him.But I still thought he could've done a little better.Saif Ali Khan was quite competent and gives a good supporting performance,but his character doesn't allows him to do much.This guy has the looks and moves of a good actor.Sanjay Dutt was just great in his small part.Booman Irani's character was flawed as well,and his acting sometimes goes from over the top to annoying.But if that's what his character was supposed to be,than he succeeds.He manages to make his character dark enough to be impressed.Jackie Shroff , Jimmy Shergil as well as the beautiful Vidya Balan have little to do and wouldn't really comment on them.

On the whole,this is an ambitious piece of work that could've been better.But for what it is,it's a fine example that Bollywood is capable of making good movies,only if they try.And I hope they keep making films like these.I would like to see more of it in the future.This, with films like Black Friday, proves that Bollywood is learning, and improving but they have yet to learn a lot to be able to compete at a world class level. However,Indian audiences opt for mindless junks or poorly made films like Dhoom 2 or Guru than appreciating films like this one.Reducing the chances of making films like Eklavya .I wouldn't recommend this film to be sent as an entry to the Oscars,Black Friday deserves that position.But it wouldn't hurt if they send it.This film goes to my list of only a handful of Bollywood films that I've enjoyed.

B-, 3/5 , 7/10


Finally, an excellent movie utilizing the dark and brooding past and secrets of India, while blending them perfectly with the modern era...A Die-Hard Royal Guard who is willing to lay his life for his Rana...A Royal Heir with a guarded past...A powerless Rana who has turned murderous...An uncle with greedy motives...A cop with umpteen respect for the old royal guard, yet lots of anguish against the palace...all this sums up to a great story by a master story-teller, well defined characters, some well executed action shots, and great performances, and you have a modern-day masterpiece...A must watch...Glad to know Indian Film Industry can still churn out great cinema...If anyone is criticising this film, just avoid them...and see this movie...you'll be glad...India has made a mark in the International scene this time...


This film is indeed one of the best of 2007. The Director Vidhu Vinod Chopra has make this film a pure entertainment. Amitabh Bachan's performance is speechless , Sharmila Tagore's appearance in the film was quit intelligent. Vidya Balan returned after Pareenita with Vidhu. Saif Ali Khan'z role was one of the most questioning role of the film its deserves an two thumbs up ! And the song is more than great one song in the film and this film is great even with that song. Chanda Re was one of the most relaxing and peaceful song of the year with Sawanad Kirkire's lyrics. The moon song is just the best there is no one like this one and its really unique like wee say. Everyone's acting was really credible this film should get an nomination to the Oscars


I'm quite surprised that some have rated Eklavya so high. It is a below average film at best. The whole setup of the film evokes high promise but it fails to deliver by a big margin. There is royalty, magnificent forts and palaces, the intimidating backdrop of Rajasthan - dry and cruel. But that is all there is. I guess Vidhu Vinod Chopra believes that he has an intriguing storyline with a conspiracy trail running through and buried secrets dug bare open, but by the end the viewer almost cares a damn about who dies and who lives. The film fails because it does not engage the viewer in the upheaval in the lives of the characters. I would like to think that had the narration been different - with longer flashbacks interlaced to the proceedings - such that it lent some urgency to the flow, a stronger flavor of suspense and a definite hint of thrill, the film might have looked much better. Also, I'd have loved to see more of Amitabh and Saif's one on one sequences. Saving grace of the film, of course, is the performances. Everyone is good. It is sad though, that all of it does not add up to something better. Amitabh is intense, convincing and a sheer delight to watch, as always. Jackie just mumbles these days. I don't know why directors still cast him. All in all, a promise not kept.


It took Vidhu Vinod Chopra 5 years to write Eklavya and its worth all the 1825 days of ink, paper, sweat and brains!

Eklavya transports you to the vivid land of Rajasthan, where the Local Rana (Boman Irani, splendid) still considers himself the king even though democracy prevails. Eklavya, the royal guard (Amitabh Bachchan, however unbelievable it may sound this is his best performance till date. In some scenes, you can't look straight into his eyes! You deserve the Rolce Royce Mr. Bachchan!!) is endowed with the responsibility to protect and safeguard the so called king and his kingdom just like his previous 9 generations have been blindly abiding.

Jackie Shroff as the Rana's cunning brother and Jimmy Shergill as his over-confident son fit the bill with perfection. Sanjay Dutt as Inspector Chauvhan is superbly refreshing and brings in the required humour factor.

The film commences with a very unpredictable twist and climaxes with a very predictable one.

What lies in between forms the crux of this miniature masterpiece. The plot is genuinely original, cinematography breath-taking, editing is swift and the background score sharply contributes to the ongoings.

Where Eklavya loses its 2 stars is the slightly sloppy screenplay after the interval and the okie-dokie romance angle between Harshwardan (Saif Ali Khan, intensely controlled) and Rajjo (Vidya Balan, eye candy). You either make it piping hot or don't make them fall in love at all Mr.Chopra.

Eklavya will blow you away with its plot and the way it is executed and elaborated by the director's witty creativity. Specially, the scene where a thousand camels run along the train kicking up a virtual sandstorm or when Eklavya plunges the cinema hall into darkness with only his ears alert at work.

You will fall in Lav with Eklavya as soon as you take your first step out of the theater. Go catch this vibrantly entertaining Rajasthan Express which lasts only about 110 minutes and you won't come out unentertained. The message is clear and the medium of message couldn't be more entertaining. It certainly is Indian cinema at its best.