What can you expect from a B-grade sequel to a movie that, in spite of Mira Sorvino and some nifty special f/x, still failed to deliver a minimum of excitement? Not a lot - so you will be somewhat pleasantly surprised watching Mimic 2. Having seen ARRIVAL II and SPECIES II, I was prepared for the absolute worst, and I could not believe my eyes when this sequel turned out to be... well... decent. While not as pervasive as in the first movie, the f/x seem really high quality, and definitely don't give you that dreadful 'cheap' feeling. The story is predictable, including many of the most common cliches of the horror genre, but the photography and lighting do provide a nice ambiance, and manage to sell the story. Bruno Campos is absolutely awful as he tries to transplant (lamely) his character from Jesse, but Alix Koromzay (the female heroine) who comes back from the first Mimic to provide an appearance of continuity does a pretty good job carrying the movie on her own. Sure, it is not a highlight of American cinema, but it's entertaining eyecandy.


This first movie "Mimic" already wasn't a brilliant movie but it was about as good as its concept allowed it to be. Plus it had Guillermo del Toro at the helm directing, which injected some quality into the movie. It also had a nice horror setting; the underground subway system.

This movie has one major problem; it doesn't know how to create any tension. It's build up is totally wrong. Things just happen in this movie and they happen way too quickly after each other. The movie always cuts right to the chase, which is also the reason why the movie itself is only 82 minutes short. The build up also certainly isn't helped by its at time weak editing and stupid camera positioning.

It's not like the concept of this movie is any less silly than that of the first movie but at least the first movie still somewhat worked out, since it was a fine, formulaic though fine, crafted simple piece of horror.

And no, of course having the movie set inside of a school at night is something totally different than a dark subway system. It's not the same horror atmosphere. Otherwise, the atmosphere within this movie is quite good. At least it does a decent job at re-creating the same dark atmosphere as within the first movie.

The acting is unfortunately also below par. Alix Koromzay is fine and she is also definitely helped by her looks but Bruno Campos is horrible as an extreme stereotyped New York cop. The movie also makes some odd choices with its characters. Having 2 kids walk around at the school, trying to escape the mutated cockroaches just wasn't a great idea because you just know that they are not going to get killed off for the obvious reasons.

The special effects and make-up effects on the other hand are real good. Especially when you consider that this is a straight-to-video flick. I remember that the first "Mimic" movie was quite fake looking in parts but I believe that also has to do with Guillermo del Toro's own unique style.

All in all I just can't believe that they actually made a third movie after this. Oh well, at least that one apparently has Lance Henriksen still in it.

4/10


Yes, after having read my fellow IMDb:ers comments I feel I have to set the story straight! I saw some people rating this movie as an eight - this must be against some constitution! This is a really crappy movie, even for a genre where a certain level crappiness is the standard.

It starts off poorly and predictably with the mandatory murder-introduction of the baddie. It's just that they didn't give it any effort which made it feel like it really really was just something to get over with. Do the stereo-typical smoking alleyway with something illusive moving just out of sight. Then suddenly the predator decides that now, unlike the past five minutes, is a really good time to strike. Slash-boom-bang!

Predictable and stereo-typical are key words for this movie. Anyone who can't see what's coming next must either be very naive or new to (at least) this genre. The actors just plow through the script, not doing a bad job, but I don't think they spent too much time on in-depth character-analysis. The only one who is a delight to see is the guy playing the leader of the bug-hunting-team(recognize him but don't know his name).

As for the ending (don't worry, I'm not gonna give this piece of art away) - that was the final yank that flushed the movie down - it was as if they didn't have enough time, money, energy or whatever left, and just fast-forwarded the whole thing. It was full of logical glitches, super-predictable and just mega sucking.

To sum it up - I don't think too much effort was put into this movie or that anyone pondered upon what the end product would actually convey. So why don't I rate this movie a one (1)? On this I'd like to quote my fellow country man and comment leaver Karl Hem "because I've actually seen worse, can you believe it!"


(2/10). Let me start by saying that I had low, I mean really low expectations on this movie and it was worse. With the expectations I had I didn't of course pay to see this crap. Now I wouldn't see it ever again unless I got payed at least 10$, maybe even more. A real stinker and why not 1/10, because I've actually seen worse, can you believe it!


For the most part, the movie was okay. Mimic 1 was much better, but for a sequel to a fairly cheezy horror flick, this was alright. The chick in it is fairly hot, and the director capitalizes on this several times. The science part of the film is pretty good for the most part.

My main problems come from the ending: 1) So the bug is in love with her? WTF? They spend so much time in the two Mimic films explaining how these are genetic super-insects, who are programmed by nature to hunt, blah-blah, and this bug falls in love with a teacher? When it approaches her, and the director is going for this all romantic it shot, I honestly sat straight up and checked to make sure that I hadn't drank too much and had passed out and dreamt up that ending.

2) And larvea can heal fatal wounds? Specifically, when a person has multiple impale wounds that go right through her torso? Absolutely retarded.


I toke it from local video rent on DVD and i wasted my money. The first one was better. It wasn't very good, but better than this one.

First of all the story was pretty unclear, the characters was flat, the picture was bad. Entire story is focused in one room, school and very small street. The dialog was flat (even worse than a soap opera). Same things i can say about acting to. It wasn't clear enough why those creatures chasing lead character (i forgot her name), why they killed all her past boyfriends, what did it want from her? Questions, questions and questions without answers.


Spoiler alert Compared to the original Mimic movie the second part is not a mimic of part one. The movie tells the story of a young teacher and expert in insects, who is looking for someone to love but can't find anybody suitable to her. All the men she meets just seem to be interested in sex then in love. Even her students seem to be more interested in her body than her teaching. Suddenly her persistent admirers are starting to die in gruesome ways and she finds out that there is another candidate, a huge insect, beginning to eliminate the competition and imitating their look an their behaviour to impress the woman.

In the final scene we see the insect (once again imitating a human admirer) knocking at her door, flowers in its "hands" and awaiting her to give in.

She first carefully touches the spellbound creatures imitated human face in a gently, respectful and hopeful way. Is the only real love she will ever find the love of an insect?

But as an expert in these creatures she knows that there is no difference between all the men trying to date with her and this insect - they were all driven by instinct caused by her scent, that there is no love at all - not even in a beauty-and-the-beast drama like this. Then she kills the beast. So the statement of this movie is: there is no love, there are only pheromones!

The beauty-and-the-beast-story is a strong movie theme here and compared to part one (which was more an "alien"-like horror-movie) a huge step in developing a mimic-chronic. Unfortunately there's almost no suspense and any situation the characters get in is predictable. The final meeting between the young woman and the creature is without doubt a climax. But these very strong five minutes cannot compare with the rest of a really boring an listless made movie.


ugh god, i was so annoyed by everything in this movie, all i can say is simply don't waste money on it. watch it for its incredible annoyance capacity, but don't actually pay for it.

there's nothing special about anything in this movie. the plot is dull and trite, the acting is horrible, the sound effects are frequently poorly timed and delivered, and the imagery isn't the least bit provoking. there's no message used in this movie at all; but it's a sequel to a movie which really didn't need one or leave much room to cause one, so what can be expected?

****** spoiler *******

the characters in this movie are so annoying, you wish they'd all die. i was especially happy to see remi get stabbed in the abdomen by one of the roaches. i swear, i've never seen a character so self-obsessed and ..broken by day to day life, as well as repulsively interested in arthropods. the satisfaction of seeing her betrayed by her gross interest was quickly dashed, as she winds up nursed back to health by the said roach, which seems to have chosen her for a mate. i won't even begin to list all the things just plain stupid about that.

the slashing end to the movie would have been fine; but it's too unbelievable an action coming from remi. i could see her easily castrating klaski, but never hurting one of her precious insect friends.

beyond that, i don't really remember much from the movie. that's how dull it is. i'm thinking of complaining to hollywood video so i can get a free rental of something worthwhile. i recommend you do the same if you should rent this. trust me, the staff will "understand".


I have never been a fan of "made for TV movies" or "mini series", but lately I've found myself looking more Canadian shows to watch. This movie certainly was that. If you don't know much about the Canadian (or British) Parliamentary democracy then you might be a little lost.

I'm not a movie "critic" by any means, but I found this show kept my interest over two nights and four hours. Well written, acted, and never predictable.

I would recommend this movie to any Canadian interested in Canadian/American politics, and even to anyone else curious about our political system. Maybe PBS will show it some day.


"H20" is a mini-series that keeps you on the edge of your seat. What Paul Gross and John Krizanc have written is a masterful addition to the political thriller genre, where the viewer never knows who is the villain and who is the good guy. Add to that a superb cast of actors (including Gross, Martha Henry, Peter MacNeill) and the cinematic eye of director Charles Biname, and you have a satisfying and intelligent piece of work. I recommend this highly: how often do you get an exciting drama that makes you think about our political system and how dependent we are on the benevolence of our neighbours to the south? Ten out of ten.


Pretty good, and equally unlikely and likely, but an interesting and fairly valid idea in any case. Misleading, but captivating throughout.

I thought it was most interesting because I live in Canada and that's probably the only Canadian Politics movie I've ever seen in my life.

Worth seeing if you're interested in politics and stories like it, but it tends to drag on sometimes, and much concentration is required to keep track of who's who and what's going on.

When I first started watching it sort of reminded me of Wag The Dog, which takes place in the United States and has Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman in it. It's very well done, perhaps more so than this movie, but it depends on what you like. As the movie progresses, of course, the similarities end, but Wag The Dog is worth seeing too.

Otherwise excellent.


I watched this mini-series because I had seen Paul Gross in Due South and Slings and Arrows. I don't have to be a "spoiler" to say that this was a truly inane mini-series. The issue of Canada withholding water from the USA was an interesting one that was quickly and completely drowned. There was good acting but only in scenes meant to show off good acting rather than to move the plot in any understandable direction (watch the interminable "mother of the prime minister" scenes). Dissecting this misconceived film is hardly worthwhile. Canada has a fine talent in Mr. Gross, but that talent doesn't extent to script writing. H20 does not hold water.


Seeing Paul Gross,after his role in Due South,is quite a change. This film H2O is a political thriller set in the near future. Water,not oil,is the main subject of this film. Our neighbour to the south,United States,is running out of it,so,they would love to get their hands on ours. In this film,the prime minister dies in a boating accident,which turns out to be murder. Slowly,the solicitor general discovers their is a plot,to merge Canada into the United States. He tries to prevent this happening,with tragic results. I sent a couple of DVD's to a couple of friends in the US of this film. One person did not care for it,the politics was to confusing. The other person did enjoy it,the political background of the film,confusing,so he goes to the library and gets a few books about Canada and it political setup. I am now waiting for the next film,H2O: Trojan horse.


A taut and topical political thriller that, unfortunately, goes off the rails.

In its defense, the basic premise is plausible, the writing is tense and dramatic, and the acting and direction are professional. Other posters have complained about implausibilities in the plot, and the wrong names used for things. A political thriller must have some unexpected twists or there would be no story, and we can assume that the "H2O" world has different names for things like the RCMP and War Measures Act.

The series, however, goes off the rails in the third hour. We can accept one or two extremely implausible events if the story requires it, but when near-impossible events happen again and again, with a new one each few minutes, credibility crumbles. Worse, earlier crises are left unresolved before the next one hits.

I'll give an example. An assassin is killing anyone, no matter how powerful or insignificant, who threatens the conspiracy. One of the major characters is a police detective who is about to unravel the plot. The assassin traps her, spills clues about the conspiracy, and then lets her go. This is an absurd Hollywoodism, like something from an old Flash Gordon serial. There are even bigger howlers in the series, and I know what happens later, but this is the one that made me want to throw something at the TV.

The series plays like it was written by a committee, and each member wanted to get their plot twist in whether it made sense or not. The ending is a disappointment too; there is yet another plot twist in the last few minutes and the story just stops. All the viewer is left with is a huge number of unresolved plot twists.


I don't know if this is a spoiler or not, but I have no doubt that if the extremely unlikely events depicted in this teleplay ever occurred, millions of us (literally) would be out in the streets, guns in hand (yes, we still have guns up here!).

H2O portrays Canadians as a bunch of supine, weak-willed, uncaring fools ruled by a secret clique manipulating a naive political class, but then again, lefties portray all nationalities that way.

You can tell some lefty wrote it to press all the lefty buttons: the Kennedy mythos, mass political apathy, water exports, American and corporate dominance, military skulduggery, etc. Way, way over the top. If they had dialled it down a kilotonne it could have been at least comparable to "A Very British Coup", which was also a lefty daydream but much more realistic.


After a few decent stabs at producing good Canadian movies, CBC has laboured mightily and brought forth a turkey this time. The scenario is absurd. The acting is overwrought. The production is pretentious. The facts are shaky. What is this "Canadian Federal Police?" Do they perhaps mean the RCMP? And what is this emergency power thing that this young whelp of a pm invokes. I thought it was called The War Measures Act. Nor does the office of "deputy prime minister" have any constitutional standing. He (or she) does not automatically take over as does the US vice president if the big guy dies in office. It would be a matter to be resolved by the Liberal party and/or the Governor-general. And a black US president??? Not in our lifetime! This is really a stupid movie that reflects our insecurity, our naivete and our incompetence at making movies. We're very good at snowmobiles. And beer. Not movies.


I loved this show, personally. However, it never caught on. And now, I'll never know what happens next. The tv show rocked. I thought it was one of the better shows FOX decided to give a whirl. In fact, I'd say its much better then the garbage they try to unload now (A show called 24 comes to mind). The premise was pretty cool. If i remember correctly, Hobbes is put into a computer/alternate reality (to test out a new training simulation) and is stuck in. The real reason he was put in is to get rid of this guy, Santiago, who is controlling the sim. Note: The song Climbatize by Prodigy is played numerous times.


Simply, Harsh Realm is overall a thoughtless show with a potentially good premise. But, it fails harshly in writing because of clichés and weak characters. The reasoning behind the main character is flawed which made m lose interest immediately.

Sorry, there are many more traps which Harsh Realm has seemingly stuck its head into that I could go on, and I should go on, but it is so bad I have no energy to even waste my time trying to communicate the details of finger painting with feces.

Trust your instinct and never watch or mention this film because it does not deserve any recognition.


I can understand why some people review this show here and call it "rubbish" because it is not easily watchable. It takes you out of your comfort zone and is not banal safe comedy that often seems to often thrive on television. The main character Jill is a savagely cruel person, when her husband is diagnosed with cancer she drops him off at the hospital and goes to a dating agency to find a new man. When a couple move in next door she thinks nothing of wearing the disabled woman down physically and emotionally to get at her husband. You get the idea. Many of the lines are superbly witty in an outrageous "she can't say that" type of way. Interestingly Julia Davies has both naturalistic supporting characters like Cath and Don the couple next door and exaggerated broad comedy characters that inhabit Jill's world without the mix of the two jarring in any way. It is easier to watch a second or third time if you give it the chance, then you seem to be able to concentrate on the savage humour without feeling too much pity for the put upon characters involved. Superb.


One has to categorise this show as as satirical comedy, and indeed the first season begins humorously and playfully enough. After just a short time however, the personality disorders portrayed must inevitably lead to a rather more uncomfortable experience. Jill is nothing other than a psychopath, blatantly unaware of the extremity of her behaviour. The other characters all incredibly tolerant and unbelievably sympathetic to Jill's activities. Whilst the humour is maintained throughout, it is hard not to feel that genuine personality disorders such as these surely do exist around us in the real world. Of course the events are all extremely exaggerated, and that forms the basis for the humour. Were the show a little more subtle, then it would probably be billed as a psycho-thriller. I personally enjoyed it very much, as I find extreme humour quite entertaining. However, I would not recommend it for the squeamish, or prudish, or the particularly emotional. The second season even surpasses the first in extremity, if not in humour. I have knocked off points for plot, repetition, and incredibility.


Nighty Night is a very unique comedy, combining dark humour, social observation and a large dash of discomfort. The show revolves around a self centred, manipulative female by the name of Jill. We follow Jill as she tries to convince her husband that he is dying and then proceeds to steal the heart of her neighbour. The only problem is his wife, a wheel chair bound, kind hearted lady by the name of Cath, who is more than an easy target for Jill's ways. With superb characters, such as the simpleton Linda, the sensual Sue, and the freakish Glen, and daring but hilarious antics (Jill goes to extremes from pretending to give 'afterlife workshops', to convincing her husband that he is dying, to being 11 months pregnant) Nighty Night is disturbingly funny. If you like shows such as The League of Gentlemen, Little Britian and Strangers With Candy, then i think you will enjoy this show.


Whether you like "Nighty Night" is dependent on whether you like this sort of thing. I will grant you this, it is not easy to watch at times, it is very dark, often unsubtle, heartless and extremely vicious. But there are some very funny parts too, thanks to the stellar performances and the deliberately over-the-top writing that is most likely to shock people with the amount of depth it goes into. Plus it is very unfliching at how cruel the characters can be to one another. There are times when we find the characters unsympathetic, with the exception of perhaps Cathy and Terry but I personally think that was intended.

The performances are stellar. Julia Davis throws herself into this, and gives a genius turn as Jill, an "evil" neighbour and an incompetent hair stylist. Angus Deayton is also superb as Don Cole, who is facing a very difficult situation, as is Rebecca Front as Cathy, a really sympathetic character that we constantly feel sorry for. Overall, clearly this isn't for everyone, but I for one find it entertaining. 8/10 Bethany Cox


What do you say about a female character who is utterly selfish and has absolutely no redeeming features? The Guardian newspaper described her as a "t*rd in leather trousers" which is along the right lines.

Julia Davis both as a writer and an actress has gone where many men would fear to tread and has brought us a comedy so black it's positively shiny. A hilariously politically incorrect comedy this series examines the winners and losers in life and suggests that those out for themselves can succeed over the decent and altruistic.

This series is definitely NOT for those of a nervous disposition or who do not wish to enter the belly of the beast that is modern society.

The rest of the cast are excellent and special mention must go to Angus Deayton for playing a doctor with a private life far less interesting than his own and to Ruth Jones for enthusiastically playing a character who is constantly humiliated.


I recently bought the 2nd series of Nighty Night and re watched the first series. I have never laughed so hard in such a long time! This is the darkest or darkest comedies and excellently performed by all cast.

Jill Tyrell is one of the nastiest characters ever brought to life and played so well be the amazingly talented Julia Davis. Rebecca Front gives such a great performance as the hapless, suffering neighbor Cath that you genuinely feel for her and then want her to actually stand up for herself against Jill!

I really hope that a 3rd series comes along soon and I also hope that the Americans when making their version do not miss the vital comic dark moments!


I love this series. I bought 1 and 2 on DVD and watch them over and over. It never fails to make me laugh. I think it gets funnier the more you watch it. I bought it over 6 months ago and Im still watching it. The character Linda is hilarious as is Glen Bulb and Jill goes without saying. Its not to everyones taste but if you like your humour black and politically incorrect with no canned laughter then you will like this. A few lines reminded a little of 'Kath an Kim' ( the funeral scene), perhaps Julia Davis was a little influenced by them. 1 was better than 2 but I still love both and hope they bring out a third one. The second series was a bit hard to stomach at first but was still brilliant. Many people don't 'get' this show, I think its partly due to the accents, I had to rewind many times to try and hear what they were saying.

"Shall we settle up now otherwise it just gets nasty" LOL


I tuned into the first episode of 'Nighty Night' and was bitterly disappointed, but then one of my friends said to me ''Watch the rest of the series, Danny, it does get better''. I watched the rest of the first series and became even more bored with the show than I had been before. Are we really supposed to be amused by the sight of an evil-hearted beautician bullying defenceless people and pursuing married men?

The cast cannot act to save themselves, and the scripts prove to be about as funny as stomach cancer. 'Night' follows the life of 'Jill' (Julia Davis), a woman so evil as to defy description. Her husband is dying of cancer so she sets her sights on her neighbour 'Don' (Angus Deayton), a doctor whose wife (Rebecca Front) is suffering from MS.

Don't get me wrong, I do like dark humour, 'Rab C. Nesbitt' being a prime example, but the difference between 'Rab' and 'Night' is that 'Rab' is funny, well written and well acted, whilst 'Night' is badly acted, badly written and is not in the slightest bit funny.


My favourite scene in series two has to be the last episode where Jill disguises Glenn as a sailor and brings him to the pub where Don and Sue are planning their getaway. Over the radio you can hear Glenn's description being read out as he has escaped from prison and Glenn tries hard to look like his hair isn't curly and his teeth aren't so prominent. Jill tells Glenn that he needs to go to the toilet, he says he doesn't need to but she replies that she can smell him from where she's sitting... she asks Don to go in with him because he wearing a nappy, Don goes in after him, both look awkwardly at each other. It cracks me up every time... I hope there's a third series.


Under details for this Television series it says that the location was Walton-on-Thames, however series 1 was mainly filmed in Hersham, Surrey. UK, The church scenes were filmed in St. Peters Church, Hersham, The hall was the Hersham Women's Institute Hall and outdoor scenes were filmed in Hersham. The restaurant scenes were filmed in Cobham Surrey, while Jill's hairdressers was filmed in Byfleet, Surrey. To my knowledge no scenes were actually filmed in Walton-on-Thames! The second series was filmed in Cornwall, UK where there is also a village called Hersham consisting of six houses while the main Hersham has population of some 18,000 people.


The expression "method" was coined by the acting teacher Lee Strasberg to describe his unique interpretation of the acting techniques of the Russian director Constantin Stanislavsky. In the 1950s, Strasberg was the guru of the famed Actors Studio of New York where many great film actors honed their craft with the master. Strasberg's authoritarian style was legendary as he watched the actors perform scenes and monologues and then proceeded to psychoanalyze the actors and their choices.

Mr. Strasberg would be truly appalled by the trite and cliché-ridden "Method." The film seeks to weave two stories in a "play-within-a-play" style. Unfortunately, neither one of the stories is interesting, and the main problem is the script. Much of the dialogue was laughable. Also, the production values of this film seemed amateurish with special effects and scenes of violence that were not credible. Sadly, the good premise of a story about an actress who loses touch with reality and "becomes the character" was not realized, despite the good efforts of the cast.

The classic film "A Double Life" (1947) was successful in developing this premise as the actor playing Othello is so enmeshed within his character that he commits a real-life murder. The screenwriters for "A Double Life" were the brilliant team of Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon, from whom the writers of "Method" could have learned a lesson worthy of the great teacher Lee Strasberg.


Here we have two movies for the price of one. Unfortunately one movie plus one other movie does not make even one good movie. Method is the story of a beautiful actress in the come-back role of a lifetime. So, Rebecca (the beautiful actress) portrays a serial killer in a supposedly true tale of Belle (the beautiful serial killer.) A major portion of Method is the movie Belle. Herein lies the problem--the movie in the movie is actually more interesting than the movie we are paying to see.

We are to believe that Rebecca(Elizabeth Hurley) is so mentally unstable that, spurred by her overbearing mother's interference, begins to associate completely with the murderous Belle, finally assuming her character. (Hence: "Method"). There is a predictable ending to "Belle", and a surprise ending to "Method", which is also predictable.

Two stars out of ten for "Belle", one star for "Method". An extra star for Elizabeth Hurley(sorry about the bias, I just think she's beautiful). Total = 4 stars out of 10.


Rebecca Fairbanks (Hurley) is finally returning to the silver screen, after a three year absence, in the role of serial murderess Belle Gunnes. Fairbanks is acting alongside her old flame, movie star hunk Jake Fields (Sisto). In order to totally immerse herself in the role and get the best performance she feels she can give, Fairbanks resides on set trying to live the life of Belle Gunnes. However, all becomes tragic when people begin to turn up dead and Jake is arrested as a suspect.

Method (or Dead Even as is titled on the UK DVD) is a very good thriller and is, at times, quite unnerving. The film Method features scenes from the film 'Belle' that Fairbanks and Fields are starring in. As such you get 'real action' mixed with the action for the pretend film. Iy has been said in at least one comment that it is hard to tell what is the 'real action' and what is the fake film action. I would have to disagree with this as I thought it was perfectly clear, but maybe I'm just more preceptive than some other people. The acting in this film is very, very good with the stand-out performance coming from Jeremy Sisto, brilliant actor. Elizabeth Hurley looks very good in this film, as does Jake Field's wife Bethany (Hannah Yelland). I feel sorry for Fields having to choose between these two, it's a tough call. Olivia du Sautoy is very good as Mona, the mother of actress Fairbanks, who controls her life and seems very over-protective of her daughter. I watched this last night for the first time and am left feeling the longing to watch it again tonight which is a sign of how much I liked this film. It really is a great thriller. 8/10

Cat Squire


**SPOILERS** Brain-numbing film that's a movie within a movie with a number of confusing dream sequences added on as well.

Beautiful but unstable motion picture actress Rebecca Fairbanks, Elizabeth Hurley,had been off the silver and big screen for three years. Rebecca is now attempting to make her big comeback in the movie role as turn of the century serial murderess Belle Gunness "known as the Black Widow of the the America Heartland" who killed 42 people in he early 1900's.

Determined to make her comeback in the movies a smashing success Rebecca trying to get into the role, using method acting techniques, lives on the set where the film's being made in off all places Romania! the home of serial blood-sucker Darcula. Later she even becomes a murderous fanatic to get the "feel" and "state of mind" of what Belle Gunness was in at the time she murdered her victims.

Pushed by her stage mother Mona, Carmen Du Sautoy, and having her co-star movie leading man and heart-throb Jake Fields,Jeremy Sisto,who had an affair with Rebecca three years ago that lead to her getting pregnant having an abortion. Jacks affair almost had him lose his wife Bethany, Hanna Yellard, because of it putting her, Rebecca, into such a deep depression over the whole mess that she hadn't made a movie since. Jake promising his wife Bethany who's there to make sure that he keeps he feeling, as well as pants on, for Rebecca in check and that he's only in love with her and no-one else. Bethany also wants to make sure that the hot and heavy work Jack's doing in his love scenes with Rebecca on the set are strictly professional and nothing more, ha ha ha.

On the set Rebecca is more then in her role as the psycho-killer Belle Gunness by overdoing some of the murder scenes that's she's, using axes and knives, in. Rebecca's method acting techniques cause a number of actors in them with her to get medical treatment. There's also a number of people in and around the movie set that end up getting brutally murdered including both Rebbeca's mom and Jake's wife. Rebecca early in the movie drives out to a nearby town and picks up the local bar/saloon stud who also ends up dead with his throat slashed, was this her way of perfecting her acting as a serial murderess?

With the exception of one of the actors in the movie, who Rebbeca smashed his head in with her new found method-acting skills, we don't know for sure if she's really responsible for all the murders off the set. Even when the movie is over her involvement in them is still up in the air and unexplained to the audience by the director and writer of the movie "Method".

We also see the ghost of the real Belle Gunness, Loana Prvelescu, pop up every now and then in the movie giving Rebecca tips and advice in killing off her cast members in the film. "Method" looks as if it wasn't finished and just slapped together to get it released as if it's some kind of abstract art-film that only those who are really "hip" and "with it" could understand what it's all about.

Even the scenes in the movie that Rebecca is staring in come across more convincing and realistic, then those that are supposed to be not before the camera, with Rebbecca and Jake having their affair rekindled after three years.In fact the love scenes that take place in the movie with Rebecca and Jake, playing their roles of Belle and her lover Ray, are far more hotter and convincing then the ones where their in bed and getting it on as Rebecca and Jake.

The movie ends with a really out-of-this-world dream sequence that gives you the impression that Rebecca either kills herself or Jake or both with the encouragement of the ghost of the evil Belle Gunness. It's then that it switches to Rebecca playing Belle as if that scene was put in by mistake with the film editors not knowing that she was either dead or imprisoned for what happened in the previous scene!


I saw this film today on DVD.. It was also known as DEAD EVEN.. I gotta hand it to you.. That movie bored the hell out of me.. Yeah! There may've been a plot.. but this was beginning to put me at a point where I wanted to press the stop button.

No wonder Elizabeth Hurley claimed that the movie METHOD was horrible. Horrible cast. Horrible crew. Horrible director. Horrible film.

It makes me want to think that has Elizabeth Hurley made up her mind on giving up acting in movies? The only movie I have of her is PASSENGER 57.. I liked it not because of Elizabeth Hurley.. but Wesley Snipes. He was one those 'action heroes' that kept me glued to the film.

Well, I know for a fact that Ms Hurley has been struggling to get her acting career back on track. ..and I think with this movie.. it seems that it's killed her acting career off.

Years ago, and I still got the newspaper 'cut-outs' of all the movies that Elizabeth Hurley have appeared in and they've all flopped as a result. Is there a curse going around Ms Hurley as we speak? I believe so..

Anyway, I'm bringing the DVD back tomorrow and I'm getting my refund. Sorry Ms Hurley.. that movie was horrible for me! Blame the director..!

0 out of 10!


Method is a thriller about Rebecca, an actress played by Elizabeth Hurley, who is starring in a movie about a non-fictional 19th century serial killer who lured rich men to her house and killed them for their money. Her co-star is Jake, Rebecca's ex-boyfriend whose wife, Bethany, is jealous of Rebecca and keeps a close eye on Jake.

Rebecca's mother/agent gets an idea to have Rebecca live on the set -- the house where the murders take place -- so that she can "get into character." While Rebecca is living on set, she begins to have hallucinations of the murderer. There's some implication that this is in part because she's not taking her medication. Most of the movie consists of the serial killer movie -- not as it's being filmed, but as it plays in finished form, which is odd because it keeps switching back and forth between the serial killer movie and "reality," when the movie isn't finished yet. Several people get killed, but in the end, it's so confusing that I don't know what's real and what's a hallucination/dream, who's really dead, and who really did the killing. (4/10)


This may be one that goes to television viewing when one has nothing to do in the evening.

The story is, as described by others, a story within a story which interchanges time to time - an actress back into the world of acting after a few year's hiatus (due to tragedies).

The Movie on a supposed female serial killer from early 20th Century USA is acted out by Liz Hurley and her co star. They still have feelings and an eventual affair ensues. Oh, I forget - the co-star has his wife on the set as well. :-) There's also a reporter on their tails with blackmail material and lets not forget the cold blooded agent/mum of Liz.

After 20 minutes it will become apparent that Liz eventually "merges" into her role so well (Method acting)that mysterious serial killings will occur on the set.

Ending is very predictable and quite cheesy too, I mean (Big Spoiler Ahead) ... we are made to believe the spirit of the dead serial killer possessed Liz all the time, a spirit that travels from the US to the sets in Romania? :-) It may be worth glancing at if you like to watch good IL pouty lipped Liz. Apart from that, get a decent movie or a book.

Cheers


A total waste of a rental fee. The story involves a method actress who believes in 'becoming the character'. She plays a serial killer and bodies start turning up. Did she or didn't she?

It's an interesting idea, but why-why, why, oh why--would producers spend so much money on period sets, fine actors, beautiful photography, and then use such an incoherent, cliché-ridden script. My mother and I watched it together, and together we couldn't figure out what was going on half the time. The movie jumps back and forth between the film and the film-within-the-film and the filming-of-the-film-within-the-film (still in period costume, so you don't know at first), and from reality to hallucination. At the end it's not really made clear who killed who, and some of the answers aren't really credible. Why waste a lovely woman like Elizabeth Hurley in such a piece of poo-poo?


POSSIBLE SPOILAGE!!!

METHOD is a fun "film within a film" story about a beautiful, glamorous actress who is trying to make a big comeback with her first leading role in 3 years. The cast is headed by Elizabeth Hurley, who after giving birth to a son, took some time away from her own films. In a way, this story of a modern day actress seems to mirror Hurley's own career. Although this film isn't too shabby, it is just the latest of Hurley's films to go straight to video. I'm not sure if this even got theatre play overseas. The reputation of the fictitious actress Rebecka Fairbanks is similar to Hurley in so many ways that I wonder if all the gossip surrounding the filming of METHOD was part of an attempt to get the public to be intensely interested in the film. Among the gossip was an alleged brawl between Hurley and director Duncan Roy in which some harsh things were said and then apologized for. The other big issue was Hurley's husband reportedly being jealous of Hurley's "love scenes". I thought I only saw one very hot love scene, not many.

Before I continue, I guess I need to try to dispel my own confusion and any potential confusion I may cause readers of my commentary. I can only keep my sanity by referring to METHOD in its two entities: the film BELLE, which is the movie Fairbanks is shooting, and the MAKING OF BELLE, which is the documentary-style element in which we get more than just a glimpse of Fairbanks' personal life. See what I mean when I say confusion can set in easily unless things are sorted out???

Hurley as Fairbanks, Fairbanks as notorious 19th century serial killer Belle Gunness. It is the role of a lifetime for Fairbanks, and she wants badly to do her very best to turn in a stellar performance. At least that's what we assume when we first meet her. On the set, her mother Mona (Carmen du Satoy) seems just a little hovery, just a little bossy and just a little domineering. She treats her daughter Rebecka like she's a 5 year old superstar rather than a 34 year old mildly successful actress. Mother's ambition and daughter's resentment become quite clear, and not only because Mona's a pushy "stage" mom.

There is also the matter of Rebecka's costar for the film, Jake Fields (Jeremy Sisto). He used to be Rebecka's boyfriend, and it's obvious he still has feelings for her, much to his wife Bethany's dismay. More reasons are revealed for why Rebecka resents her mother, and they are good, understandable reasons. Instead of the life she would have been overjoyed to have, Rebecka is living the life her mother chose for her. Jake is not as happy as he would have liked to be either, and before too long, the feelings he harbors for Rebecka ultimately drive his wife away.

Yet instead of happiness when they get back together, Rebecka and Jake face strange on-set violence, and off set murders begin happening. Although no suspects are named, certain people seem to have a motive for killing. Both Mona and Jake have been pestered by a sleazy little media mouth named Timothy, and Timothy is found with his throat cut. Jake was not in love with his wife, and Rebecka might have been jealous, and Bethany Fields is found with her throat cut.

The "film within the film" BELLE was fun to watch. I almost want to say that I wish they would have just made a movie about Belle Gunness and been done with it. It was done well. Hurley playing Fairbanks playing Gunness. Sisto playing Fields playing a farm hand named Ray Lamphere who falls under the spell of the beautiful widow and ends up helping her kill and dispose of over 40 men.

On the set, Mona notices that Rebecka is not taking medicines that have been prescribed to her (for bipolar disorder or schizophrenia is my guess, since Rebecka protests to her mother, "They make me tired. I'm forgetting my lines. I can't FEEL anything.") So the actress has stopped her medicine, in spite of Mona's worries, because she wants to capture the spirit of the role she is playing. A method actor, she is. A few days without her balancing meds, and Rebecka seems to be hallucinating the spirit of Belle Gunness, hearing the serial killer's voice telling her that Mona doesn't want her to be happy, that all men are evil. Thus the lines between pretend and reality are blurred.

I'm sure that METHOD will be a film that I will chew on for a while, trying to learn more about it, trying to figure out things that confused me, like: What happened to the little Romanian hottie that Rebecka picked up in the bar??? She took him home, but we don't know if she bedded him, or killed him, or both!!! That was most confusing. And whose was the burnt corpse in the morgue??? Did the Romania guy end up as one of the victims under the house???

As for the acting, well Jeremy Sisto was first rate as always. Hurley was better than usual. Du Satoy was great, and so was Oliver Tobias.

Not perfect, but definitely unusual and fun!!!


In the real world people learn from mistakes. Players in Hollywood apparently feel no need to learn from mistakes. Case in point: METHOD. This beautifully shot but badly edited film is eerily similar to the beautifully shot but badly edited film THE WEIGHT OF WATER. Producers of these films obviously spent a lot of money on stars, sets, costumes, locations, equipment, etc. Directors of these films actually had good story to work with. Yet, in the end, both films don't work. In an attempt to dazzle the audience by interweaving the past with the present using slick editing techniques, the directors weaken the credibility of the story as well as confuse the audience. Regarding the story lines, both employ some type of mysterious karmic influence between people of the past and people in the present. Although this is probably a good plot device, it has to be believable, which it isn't in these two movies. Once last point: Elizabeth Hurley happens to be in both of these movies. I would love to know if she tried to point out to the producer and director of METHOD that THE WEIGHT OF WATER was very similar and didn't really work. If she did, why didn't they listen? And if she didn't, I guess she only wants to collect a paycheck.


For me at least, alarm bells immediately start ringing if I learn that a recent action or horror film has been shot in an Eastern European location. Please note that is in no way whatsoever any disrespect to the utilised foreign crews, quite the contrary - they are entirely as competent as any other, rather my problem is that the recent trend to shoot genre flicks in said countries has invariably produced some of the most truly mundane and inane action and horror fodder there is going! The film in question only reaffirms my viewpoint in fact and proves to be a fairly lacklustre affair affair at best. Having said that, matters do at least get off to a cracking start with our hero, Gary Daniels having a great fight in a car park. Sadly, this is undoubtedly the highlight of the entire film and certainly the best action scene contained in its run time. To be fair, it's not a terrible film by any means and Daniels surprisingly gives a better acting performance than normal (no, really!) but I'd be hard pressed to recommend it to anyone other than die hard fans of Gary's work. A shame really.


Forget Jackie Chan,Jet Li,Steven Seagal and Van Damme.The star of this movie,Gary Daniels is the best martial artist working in movies today.This London born action star always gives 110% in his fight scenes and is constantly improving as an actor as CITY OF FEAR shows.This tightly plotted little movie is no masterpiece and its lack of a decent budget is evident from time to time but nevertheless is a worthy entry in Gary's impressive filmography. Set in Sofia,Bulgaria the action in this movie takes place in fresh locations and is enjoyable for every one of its 90 minutes;the supporting cast is nothing to write home about but you won't be watching them,you'll be watching Gary Daniels and if you consider yourself an afficionado of martial arts movies and don't recognise his name I suggest you hot foot it to your local video store and put matters right straight away.Soon you'll be saying:"Jackie Chan? Who he?"


I wish to preface these comments by saying that I don't usually like to criticise the efforts of other Directors. That being said however, this is positively the worst film I have ever seen in my life. I have had the misfortune of being witness to some absolute travesties of cinema in my time but this must be right up there with "Scorpio Rising" in my opinion as an example of the worst possible waste of time, money, effort, and attention I can ever claim to have been associated with. From the very moment the titles began, I was dubious. This was followed by a wave of disbelief, a hope that this was a spoof, then the fits of embarrassed laughter took over and I can honestly say that every film-making mistake and cliche that I could think of at the time was being paraded on screen before my very eyes. The acting was non-existent, the lead actor was tragically mannered, wooden, and frighteningly bad. So bad that i could only imagine he was there for the "Fight sequences" if you could call them that. They too were cliched, pointless and boring. I'm not even going to comment on the other 1 dimensional jokes of characters that are thrown in there. Every possible stereotype and cliche you could imagine. As soon as you thought that they were all used up, there would be one more you had forgotten about being thrust at you. The directing was woeful, the pace mind numbing, the writing abysmal. I had to wonder how the Director managed to decipher the bar napkins the script must have come off through the obvious state he must have been in to bother to make such drivel. The financiers mustn't have even read anything, and it is a insulting piece of garbage that quite frankly saddens me. To think that there are so many deserving film makers all around the world that struggle to even get the necessary equipment and film stock to make their pictures, and here we see it squandered on what any deranged monkey could see was a piece of rubbish. If i could give it minus stars I would. But for comedy value, or for a lesson on what not to do, it can have it's one star.


Since I am required to write minimum of 10 lines, and this garbage deserves not only a single one, I'll start with the following: 1. I voted AWFUL for this dreadful so called "movie".

2. Let me explain why these turkeys Mr. David Varod produces are shot mainly in my beautiful homeland, Bulgaria (just in BTW, for the illiterate people around - this country is IN EUROPE, based north to Greece and has absolutely nothing to do with Mexico and Uruguay) Some years ago, NU Image has invaded our country and started making crappy mostly direct-to-video releases. Why here? Because here they pay derisively low fees to the Bulgarian crew and to the Bulgarian actors (most of them distinguished ones) which are, in many ways, better than most of their American colleagues. Personally I am ashamed of that fact. The reason is, of course, the greediness of the Americans involved and their wish to get most, if not all of the profit. Actually it would't be so bad if only the production wasn't so filthy and pale. There hasn't been a good picture shot here for years. At present NU image is being sued here over the very questionably purchasing of our national cinema production centre called Boyana Films. No doubt about it there has been corruption, there has been deceit, there has been a lies in this recent purchase. The Bulgarian cinema is dead. Long live the Bulgarian cinema!


I'm not a Mormon now, nor ever have been but I sat down to watch this video out of curiosity. The run time isn't too bad at just under an hour but it is obviously a biased production. Supposedly, all the experts on the video whom they cite for evidence for their case are, of course, Mormon scholars (which I doubt). There is not even the smallest hint of another opinion other than that the producers are trying to make. Now I'm not Mormon so I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough about the BoM to make a good argument either way, but I've got to believe that there is/was an entire other side to this argument that wasn't given a second of airtime.

THe intro was good filling in and explaining some of the background of the Mormon movement and BoM history but the evidence for the whole DNA thing wasn't there, IMHO. Just feels like an hour of Mormon bashing...

Avoid this if you can.


I graduated from UT (Texas) with a degree in Biochemistry... I am familiar with DNA sequencing and testing (including forensics) and a couple of things bothered me about the premise of this movie: 1. DNA markers do not always transfer and may easily be lost over a few hundred years through interbreeding, (let alone thousands of years as they are testing in this film).

You may have Celtic blood, but may be lacking some of their recessive DNA markers and only have Anglo-Saxon DNA markers because you had relatives in what is now England from 800 years ago.

2. The film does not conform to the scientific method in the testing of their hypothesis (a group of peoples from the Eastern hemisphere traveling to the Americas and establishing a society)... in other words it is all opinion and proves only that there are Asian genetic markers found in what is left of the Native American population still surviving today.

Assuming there even was a tribe at some point containing markers that would verify the claims of the Mormons, the majority of pure-blooded Native American tribes have completely vanished or died off. It is impossible to prove or disprove their claims through limited samples of DNA testing trying to find one (or maybe even several) tribe(s) from a thousand years ago. To really disprove the claims of the Mormons, you would need to test every tribe's blood since before the time of Christ, with a sufficient number of random samples to generate reliable statistical measures.

Also... the movie is clearly biased based on the sponsor. Just because someone has a degree or is on T.V. doesn't make their claims holy writ.

Take this movie with a grain of salt... it may be INTERESTING, but it is NOT PROOF in the least in terms of supporting or disproving the beliefs of the Mormons.

If you want my personal opinion, it is a waste of time trying to disprove any religion. They are all unique and interesting and tell us all something about ourselves as a human race. It would do people well to learn more about the facts and beliefs of religions to further their own knowledge of the world and its many unique and wonderful cultures.


The review that was first posted for this video strikes one as a bit reactionary and defensive. While I've never been a Mormon, I do have a scientific background, and I found the science (and the scientific conclusions) very straightforward and solid, and yet it is done in such a way to make it accessible to the layperson. I didn't find it at all "bashing" or disrespectful; on the contrary, as a scientific documentary it is quite dispassionate, though there are some personal stories and struggles interwoven through it. Although I can understand how it might cause some discomfort for some LDS viewers, I would nonetheless recommend it to them. As a production it is simple and uncomplicated, but there are a lot of very interesting and challenging sound bites. Even if the subject matter doesn't pique your interest, you might give this one a try.


This video was terrible. The evidence presented was nothing more than circumstantial at best. No convincing evidence was presented and somehow the video comes to its conclusion a tad premature and lacking any semblance of evidence. This video is just another thing to create divisions in the religious community and into the whole We're right/You're wrong mindset. This movie demonstrates everything that's wrong with organized religion. The big groups attack the small groups with stuff like this when they should be working together, isn't that what their little scripture book tells them to? Horrible video! DO NOT WATCH THIS!


In Lille, Claire Gauthier (Isabelle Carré) is an ordinary married woman with a young daughter that works in an insurance company analyzing losses of insured properties. When the single veterinary Laurent Kessler (Benoît Poelvoorde) claims damage in his basement caused by a flooding due to water leakage, Claire resolves the situation favorably for him. The weird Laurent visits Claire in her office successively, inviting her for drinks and lunch, and they get close to each other. Meanwhile, a serial killer is terrorizing Lille, killing women with a scalpel. Claire feels a great attraction for Laurent, who has an unusual behavior in her apartment. When Claire sees a scalpel in the pocket of Laurent's jacket, she fears him, but still loves him.

"Entre Ses Mains" is a weird romance between a common but charming woman that seems to have a perfect marriage and a strange and lonely veterinary. Isabelle Carré and Benoît Poelvoorde have magnificent performances, slowly developing the relationship between Claire and Laurent, with some slight touches of eroticism and tension, but never falling in the easy way of the sadomasochism, as I expected that would happen based on the mixed feelings of fear and love of Claire. There is no explanation for the behavior of Claire, feeling attraction for a man with antagonistic attitudes but only things of love. However, the ambiguous conclusion is a little disappointing. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Em Suas Mãos" ("In Your Hands")


This French movie, written and directed by women (two different ones), falls squarely into the serial killer genre, or so it initially seems. It starts off rather typical, a mousy but beautiful blonde woman, Claire, who sports glasses (to show her extreme mousiness) and is often filmed wearing a tightly wrapped wool coat and painful-looking high heels, works as an insurance agent who examines people filing claims. She's a bit proper and a bit pushed around, as we come to see as her co-workers unload their work on her because they know she won't say no. She is married to a somewhat unambitious photographer husband, played by the yummy Jonathan Zaccai (I bought a ticket for this movie because of him, I'll admit it) and has a daughter, aged around 5 or 6, who is afraid of the dark. So far so good. We have a boring nuclear family.

Claire also has a "wild" friend Valerie. How do we know she's wild? She sleeps around a lot, dumps her boyfriends after one month, and in one particularly annoying scene, hears a song she likes on the radio, turns it up, and starts dancing wildly, much to Claire's bemusement. Yup, that slut has to die! She is essentially the opposite of Claire. Brunette whereas Claire is blonde, sexually and personally "liberated", while Claire is a slave to her family and job, wisecracking where Claire is austere.

Anyway, Claire investigates a vet's office, where the basement has flooded. We get an eerie scene, where the vet, Laurent, leaves Claire to walk around the dark, flooded basement, and from that moment on, the tension begins to build. To make a long story short, Laurent and Claire hit it off, Laurent initially doing more of the hitting until Claire falls in love with him, and he starts to back off. Why? Because he's got daddy issues and he feels the need to carve up slutty ladies and sees Claire as "different", someone he could actually love. For the first time in his life (cue the music).

This is where the film gets interesting. The audience knows Laurent is the killer, (at least I think we are supposed to) and as the story progresses, we start to actually like him. There's a key point here, up until late in the film we never see him kill anybody and that contributes greatly to our process of sympathizing. We see the Laurent that Claire sees. All until one scene, where we see a murder so graphic, so no-holds-barred, that we are shocked at our previous opinions. It's a brilliant cinematic move, arresting, indicting, grotesque.

However, Claire is not totally innocent either, as news reports of a man killing women with a scalpel arise, Claire begins to question what Laurent might be moonlighting as. Yes, she knows it and she can't bring herself to leave him alone, because she starts to feel- alive, which begs the question, does she like him for him or because he's a serial killer? She loses the glasses (isn't it interesting how actors never actually need the glasses they wear?), starts to wear makeup, leaves her home late at night to meet up with Laurent at seedy bars- we're very close to S&M territory here, but Fontaine never takes that route. We learn small things about Claire, such as when she was a child, she was forgotten at the beach by her family, or that when she was an adolescent, she used to cut herself to remind herself that she was living. Laurent just listens, passing no judgment, knowing his levels of craziness far outweigh hers.

I don't know which aspect of the movie is starker, the fact that Claire sympathizes with a serial killer, or that we do. Laurent is essentially like the sleeping lion? tiger? that we see him treat, potentially ferocious but sweet when asleep.

The film ends with a beautiful but ambiguous shot of Claire alone, walking towards the ferris wheel that she and Laurent rode together previously in the film. Ferris wheels seem to me to be emblematic of youth, innocence, first dates, first kisses, all of course from previous cinematic treatments of them, and I think one of the film's themes is innocence, the innocence of not knowing, of love, of hoping, of children, of animals, and the inevitable corruption of that innocence.

cococravescinema.blogspot.com


Anne Fontaine's movies always have some kind of strange relationships. In this particular one, a nice sweet girl, an insurance company employee, meets a strange vet who is quite mysterious ans fascinating, while a serial killer with a scalpel kills women in the area : we are just like Isabelle Carré (perfect as usual), because Benoît Poelvoorde is a pure magnet. We have always known him as a very funny comedian and it's quite a revelation to see him play this obscure character. Apparently, he was quite traumatized to play this part and he says in magazines he never will play that kind of thing again : that would be a shame !


Ann Fontaine doesn't like to repeat herself. This is as different from Nathalie as that was from How I Killed My Father and equally good. It would be easy to describe this as a cross between Brief Encounter and Le Boucher because it displays elements of both, the former inasmuch as it features a young, fairly unremarkable wife and mother who enjoys - if that's the right word - an unconsummated affair with an equally unremarkable medico, the latter because there's a serial killer on the loose and Claire (Isabelle Carre) slowly comes around to suspecting her medical friend. There are, of course, concessions to the modern world, unlike Laura Jesson, who was a full-time housewife and mother Claire has a job and for that matter her passion is kindled by a vet as opposed to a doctor, albeit one who treats lions rather than hamsters. It's a real delight to see Isabelle Carre building on the success of her breakthrough role in Se Souvenir des Belles Choses and earning co-star (Holy Lola) and now sole star billing which she more than justifies. This is a real gem and should not be missed.


As a thriller, this movie must be one of the most "laid-back" kind of psychological 'who-done- it' criminal survey of the human potential for understanding and/or entropy of the freckled- mind ... Both main actors are just "plainly" superb and truth-worthy... Isabele Care is so natural and Poolvoorde so much "evil"...without "pathos"...The general feel or attitude rendition by the actors is just right to the point, with a naive witness and an faulted main character, whom reveals witness' ambivalent attitude and feelings toward the same perceived sick or morally tainted "main" character"...All subtle and slightly perceived, apparently superficiality felt by main "witness" character... Just incredibly well understood and acted by both main characters !


It is a purely french movie, with a subtle character analysis , a clever and calculated progression . But with a hint of dark and anguishing 30's movie . Two main characters : a pretty young woman, a wife and a mother with a normal life. Girl meets boy. Classic... But there is a twist, the man is a duplicitous, attractive and repellent persona . The end is too delectable to be revealed. But, as the young woman, the spectator is drawn to the Machiavellic character , and the more we sense its dangerous personality, the more we want to get close to him. Until the last minute , lulled by the intense music, we are hypnotized by the relationship , by the love and death link between Isabelle Carré and Benoit Poolvoerde (both INCREDIBLE). A must see.


this is by far the best Hindi movie i've ever seen. OK maybe a BIt exaggerated but HECK!!! this movie made my DAY!! HECK it made My LIFE....so well thats that...

what wasn't in it to make it excellent? acting,dialogs,story,direction,song everything well managed. Never before have i seen SUCH Perfect placement of SONGS and background scores....Shankhar-Eshan-Loy have just created some of the best tunes ever.....every time the background theme started playing my heart started to melt....

This is a movie Bollywood had been long waiting for.... a perfect ROmantic movie with Comedy and Family values... Great ENough to entertain the entire family... Not just the American-Indians but also the Gujratis, Panjabis, Christian-Indians and all the Indian population and the Indian movie lovers.....

Kal ho na ho is a MASSIVE entertainer... i know its 3 hours long but still every minute of it is PUT to correct use.... this movie proves in every way that it is better for Hindi movies to stay Hindi with u know reasonable drama comedy songs dance and all that.I am not saying that Hindi movies should not make movies like Maqbool and other serious movies... I am just saying that Movies like KAl ho na ho, Dilwale Dulhaniya are the PRIDE of Indian cinema...So the industry should not forget that...

and the even more BETTER thing about this movie is that You can watch this movie like GAZZILION times... every time i see it i love it... its funny and superbly written... Karan Johar is more of a BETTER Writer...... his dialogs are so FUNNY....... like the reference to Preety as MAA-mother.... and the emotional scenes..........how well written.......no matter how FIlmy...there were tears in my eyes so thats the BIG thing.......

the leading lady PREETY ZINTA proves herself as a BETTER actress... this is a ROLE she was born for...She is JUST way toooooo BRILLIANT... no one could have been better......and i mean NO-One...Thanks GOD kareena Refused this film... Shah Rukh Khan is PRobably the SUPERSTAR of Indian Cinema...i bet there will be a Shah Rukh Khan day in India in the future.... and as for his Perfromace....... i guess he is being himself.... u know..people say he is being over the TOP...well he is..because his Character indeed is Over the Top so why not.... Shah RUkh is a KEY to this movie.... HE is absolutely Fantastic...i wont stand a word against him... now comes SAIF....... God for some years we did think his days in Bollywood was over.. NOW see how brilliant actor he has become......... he is just Magnificent...such a superb comedic timing...he is really talented this man... JAYA Bachan..... SHe is PERFECT..... she puts life and SOul to this character... she plays the IDIOL mother to such Perefection that i bet every viewer were going like "why don't i have such a understanding mother" in their heads..... and the rest of the cast is totally fabulous.... they are so good that i for times believe that this movie could have been totally different if one of them weren't their... like JIYA for instance....she made me cry... Dadi she made me angry... Sweetu and her SIS mad me laugh.........

all in all this is a Perfect Romantic Comedy for the WHOLE FAMILY(really hard to find in this generation)..........I wouldn't change a thing about this movie.... 10/10 I hope you feel the same....


Well, it is always a bit difficult in Western countries to get to see Bollywood movies with English subtitles, and though I have made a bit of an effort to spot them in the last few years I wouldn't call myself a Bollywood expert - and of course I've grown up with Western rather than Indian aesthetic standards ingrained. Although as a fan of Baroque Opera, I don't really have much difficulty with the basic premises of the Bollywood style!

Having said that, this was possibly the most interesting Bollywood movie I've seen to date - especially in its attempt to incorporate elements of Western pop culture, including several blatant references to American movies, from Grease and a spoofed James Bond to Brad Silberling's City of Angels, which evidently contributed a lot to the way Shahruk Khan's character is handled (including him starting to see things in black and white when he is near dying - that one goes back all the way to Wim Wenders!).

The soundtrack is stunning, and again it's great to see the way the New York setting gives opportunity to mix in some Western elements in an intelligent way. The dance and song numbers are a true joy, and it doesn't hurt that they are better integrated into the plot than in most Indian movies I've seen.

Shahruk Khan is nicely parodying himself - at least, I thought he was... maybe I'm wrong??? :-o - I also particularly enjoyed the running joke about Aman and Rohit being a homosexual couple - one could indeed ask oneself who is really in love with who here? And why exactly does Aman prefer to love vicariously rather than going for the girl himself? It's also perhaps significant that it is Rohit rather than Naina who stays with Aman to the last. I am sure the filmmakers are intelligent enough to be aware of these undercurrents, even if perhaps most audiences aren't!

In any case, watching this movie (with a very sympathetic audience at a foreign film showcase here in Wellington, people who actually laughed in most of the *right* places!) was a pure joy and it makes me happy to see how Indian cinema is finally beginning to be perceived as a legitimate part of international film culture even by Western audiences, rather than just an exotic oddity - something that Chinese and Japanese movies, for instance, have already achieved to a much greater degree!

And now I'm off to buy the soundtrack...


I just can believe that I had opportunity to enjoy this. Kal Ho Naa Ho (If Tomorrow Never Comes) is an energetic tale about love, love and LOVE! The plot somewhat predictable (and I better not to rehash it) but Nikil Adhvani as a director made it with a sense of love and that make this as a warm, subtle and deeply moving, a great entertainer indeed.

The chemistry between Shahrukh, Preity Zinta and Saif-Ali Khan is so strong. What a fun-tastic acting fiesta. The songs are ear-catchy and added a plus point, not a waste like many Bollywood's movies.

I know KHNH is a good movie when I first read the premise, but I don't realize that this is a very good movie. Just can't believe that this is Nikil Adhvani directorial debut. Okay, enough comment, just watch it and experience the wonderful journey of life and LOVE.

10/10


Believe me what i said above is really true. Kal Ho Naa Ho is really the finest movie of 2003 yet. Before watching this movie there was a thing in my mind that produced by Karan Johar and acted by Shahrukh Khan this movie will really going to rock. And the same thing happened. This movie is without any hole. A perfect direction by Nikhil Adavani. This movie is proof of Shahrukh's emotional acting and that he still rocks. One more thing that this movie is a bit funny too Saif Ali Khan looking great in this field as look in the 2001's movie of the year "Dil Chahta Hai" by large number of critics. However the music of the movie is not so good as Karan Johar's previous movies Kuch Kuch Hota Hai and Kabhi Kushi Kabhi Gham but the story of the movie is great. A perfect family movie. I give it 10/10.


Karan Johar has done it again. This movie is absolutely wonderful. It has it all--comedy, romance, and deep emotions. You have been warned: this is a tearjerker. Don't bother watching it if you hate sensitive films. Shahrukh, of course, is the show stealer. Nobody can ever replace this brilliant star who can transform perfectly into his character. Saif , the underestimated star, is great with comic timing as he was in Dil Chahta Hai, Na Tum Jaano Na Hum, etc. Preity Zinta was good but wasn't as great as she was in Koi Mil Gaya. Jaya has a nice role. Songs are excellent and, in my opinion, the best soundtrack of the year. The portion of "6 din, ladki in" in the second half was a bit of a drag, however. The best part of this movie, though, is its theme. Carpe diem! People are so concerned with their futures that they forget to live the present. God only knows where we'll be tomorrow. Enjoy today before it's too late.


*Story*

Naina Catherine Kapur (Preity Zinta) lives in New York with her half-Punjabi, half-Catholic family. Her life is burdened with financial problems, bickering among family members, and memories of a dead father. She is a almost always grumpy and cynical, finding nothing to smile about. The only part of her life she likes is her friend Rohit (Saif Ali Khan) who is a fellow student in an MBA program.

Into this drab life of Naina's comes a waft of fresh air in the guise of Aman Mathur (Shah Rukh Khan). Aman, the eternal optimist is the anti-Naina. He invites himself into the homes and hearts of the residents of the cozy Indian neighborhood and eventually, into Naina's life as well. What they don't know is that Aman is harboring a painful secret.

The rest of the movie is about Aman, Naina and Rohit finding love, hope, happiness and ultimately the joy of living.

*Review*

The feeling I had as I left the theater can be best described as the feel of a woolly blanket on a chilly night. The woolly blanket in this case was around my heart. Kal Ho Naa Ho is by no means perfect. It has its share of illogical moments and cliched scenes. But while watching Indian films, one must get over such hurdles to appreciate them. Or like Naina, we'll be left criticizing everything in sight and forgetting to enjoy the moment. Also we must remember that although its important for the film industry to grow and evolve, its equally as important not to lose what is inherently our Indian identity which is apparent in the songs and the emotional quotient of hindi movies.

That said, for me Kal Ho Naa Ho will go down as one of my all time favorite movies. The performances were wonderful. Shah Rukh Khan gives another performance that will be remembered. He may not be the greatest actor who ever came out of Bombay, but he is one of the few who manages to create characters who seem so friendly and lovable, you would think of him as your own. No one else in the industry has this knack of creating an atmosphere of 'apnapan'. Preity Zinta as Naina is wonderful and a perfect choice for the role. I have no idea how Dharma productions even considered Kareena Kapoor for the role of Naina. Saif Ali Khan is also incredible. Rohit is very similar to Sameer in Dil Chahta Hai but with a lot more emotional depth. I don't care how many times Saif plays that character, I still love him for it and I don't think I'll ever tire of seeing it. Jaya Bachchan who plays Jenny, Naina's mother is incredible in this small role. This character is very real and you can really sympathize with her because of Mrs. Bachchan.

I was very disappointed with the music when it was first released. But the songs grew on me after watching them on screen. The title song is especially good as are Pretty Woman and Mahi Ve. Kuch To Hua hai is also much better on screen. Cinematography is wonderful, another aspect that makes this movie magical. Direction by Nikhil Advani is surprising to say the least. He did an excellent job bringing the story to life. And I will look forward to his next movie. It must have been hard for Karan Johar to give away his story, but Nikhil justified Karan's confidence in him and possibly made a better film than Karan might have. One of the many things I loved about the movie was that it was quite funny. Even during the dramatic moments, I was either laughing or smiling. The screenplay and the dialogues were excellent. Nikhil Advani must have a real talent for comic scenes because they were terrific.

And finally I'd like to commend Karan Johar for writing such a wonderful story with characters that are very down to earth and real. Even though I loved his previous films (Kuch Kuch Hota Hai & Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham), Kal Ho Naa Ho is definitely my favorite. I hope we get to experience many more of his wonderful stories that are hopefully made with SRK :) because they are the dream team. If I ever meet Karan Johar, I will shake his hand and give him a hug for creating such a heart warming film.


This is one of the best films ever made! I watched it a few days ago and i still have the movie running through my head. It is so amazing that it has a lasting impression.

Once again, Shah Rukh Khan steals the spotlight and does a magnificent performance as the beautiful and sweet Aman Mathur.

By the way, i was thinking "What a funny movie" until the end...it just gets sad. And me being a really sensitive person, wow...it just blows you away. Shah Rukh Khan's brilliant performance will stay with you forever.

I was up at 2.30 in the morning, tissues strewn all around me with tears just pouring down my face. The moment you try to stop crying, another scene comes on and you start again. Seriously, i'm really sensitive so no surprise but i reckon this film was the first film that actually made me cry that much. I just couldn't stop!! This is a must for everyone..including you sensitive people out there! Everyone must watch this film! It's just beautiful and it was actually an eye-opener for me! You've got to cherish whatever you have because who knows...tomorrow may never come.


Watching Indian movies outside of India is something very impossible, everybody speaks about "the famous bollywood movies", but nobody want to release this jewels in Europe. I am so lucky I could see this supermasterpiece at the oriental cinema festival in Barcelon, I couldn't believe what I was watching. The script is stunning, the choreography crazy, the actors are superlative, the music is impressive, the plot turns you on...you can keep inside the characters as I never did. The sound is also impressive. It was like watching Mary Poppins when I was 6 yeras old, during 3 hours I lost the total terms of reality!!!! As the movie has never been exhibited in Spain and there is not copy on DVD we are so "lucky" We could find a pirate copy in a Pakistan supermarket in Barcelon, with perfect sound and image!!!! Well, I hope this message will amaze you to get this movie from....where?


Okay I will not give a summary of the film. Enough of that already. Straight to the point: Kal Ho Naa Ho is a fantastic film....definitely worth seeing, and worth seeing over again.

Shah Rukh Khan does a great job...as usual. I guess nobody else does emotional scenes AND comedy as well as he does. Saif Ali Khan is great. Again as usual, since he plays that role in many of his films, but he holds the story together....!! And Preity...well, it's her year. She rules Bollywood this year. After Koi mil gaya, she comes back in KHNH, with a much stronger role, probably her strongest role since Kya Kehna....and she excels in it. Yes, why was Kareena Kapoor even considered for this role??? Jaya Bacchan is also worth a mention. Nobody else could have played this role. She is fantastic!!! The special appearances make the film...well...special!!!Some of us would go see any film for 5 seconds of Kajol....especially next to Shah Rukh!!! And all credits to Karan Johar and Nikhil Advani. To Karan for coming up with the film, trusting Nikhil and making it happen, and to Nikhil for a first-class job in his first direction... And the music is wonderful...Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy definitely establishing themselves further in Bollywoodland. And Farah Khan plays her usual magic with the choreography, especially for the song Kuch to Hua Hai, which will keep you giggling in your seat...

Now the loopholes: Why do all Caucasian looking people in America speak Hindi (with an awful accent as well), especially when some of the Indians sometimes afford to speak English!!??!! Why could they not spend some more time and effort to make Shah Rukh mime his rap words well in the Pretty Woman song?? Why, when Saif and Preity find out about Shah Rukh, they both seem more worried about their love lives than their friend's....well...LIFE!!! Why did I leave the cinema feeling that if Shah Rukh was given a dialogue full of hope before then end of the film, I'd have felt better...coz surely that was the point of the film: hope. I felt that the last 20 minutes were not well-explored enough...and too sketchy. One second SRK and Preity love each other, and the next she's still getting married...Why are we not shown the process that goes in between. It would have been good, emotional, and more realistic...

But maybe I'm just moaning about details. Maybe I am being a bit of a Naina Catherine Kapoor....So, I'll end on this note rather...

Seen in the broader context of Indian Cinema, this film is a proper landmark....It's a perfect blend of the East and the West. After rather unsuccessful attempts at copying American Pie-style comedy in Indian films, SOMEBODY finally showed us what it takes to make a success of this kind: A modern comedy (hilarious jokes) with modern direction (cool style of story-telling, I thought) in a true Indian setting. Modern music, but perfectly blended with Indian melody and lyrics. This film will take Indian comedy to new heights. And takes the East-West blend to new heights. And it takes a great film to do that...

And it will leave u, not just proud of being Indian, but of being a Western Indian. Perfect blend....


For all those who want to know whether Kal Ho Naa Ho is a remake of Hrishikesh Mukherjee's Anand, the answer is yes. And no.

Shah Rukh Khan's character (Aman) is largely inspired by Rajesh Khanna's happy-go-lucky charmer in Anand. But on the whole, Kal Ho Naa Ho is as different as they come.

The film kicks off with Manhattan resident Naina Catherine Kapur (Preity Zinta) narrating the story of her life over her daily morning jog.

Don't Miss!

The characters in Naina's life are introduced with the same energy that Naina puts into her jog. There is her mom Jennifer (Jaya Bachchan in jeans), who shares a love-hate relationship with her mother-in-law Sushma Seth (at her loudest Punjabi best).

Mommy runs a flop restaurant. Grandmother is a flop singer. Together they are chaos.

Enough reason for Naina to turn into a boring, bespectacled spinster type who takes life too seriously.

The only interesting person in Naina's life is buddy Rohit Patel (Saif Ali Khan). He is uncool with women but thinks he is cool. He is also a typical Gujarati, whose father (Satish Shah) runs a business called Dial A Dhokla.

Enter funny guy Aman, who turns out to be the proverbial angel in Naina's life. He is Dale Carnegie-Jim Carrey-Richard Gere-Deepak Chopra all rolled into one. He zooms into Naina's neighbourhood singing Pretty woman and woos everyone in sight, including uppity Naina.

Naina hates him at first sight, but can't help being overwhelmed by Aman's charm.

Even Rohit takes tips from Aman on how to be cool and influence people. Life is a song and dance till the interval.

And After that everything is mystery, lol what?

This is indeed a breathtaking movie! Go and watch instead of watching silly bollywood movies!


Despites of all denials from Karan Johar, the movie does have a quite a resemblance to Indian classic Anand. Srk playing Rajesh Khanna's role, Priety playing Amitabh Bachchan role, Saif Playing the lady who was the love interest of Bachchan. I repeat it has quite an resemblance. The Performances were great, maybe sharukh get the praises but I personally appreaciated 2 performances. One of Priety and Saif's. Saif is really funny, and the best thing about him is he doesn't overact to make people laugh. I am just wondering how long does he have to wait till people start giving him credit for what he deserves, Saif carries his role wonderfully. Priety is like Julia Roberts of Bollywood, Preety woman. She could act, she proves yet again that she is not just a cute girl with a dimple on her cheek. The highlight of the movie is the funny moments of the movie, and it is filled with them. Shahrukh was good, yet again but Saif is the surprise. The movie was specially interesting with glimpse of all the stars; Sonali Bendre and Sanjay Kapoor, Rani and Kajol, Uday Chopra, Farah Khan. The supporting cast was very good too. Jaya Bachchan proving as her husband Bachchan that despite of her she still one of the best actresses. Lillete Dubey is a M.I.LF. Rajpal Yadav should overtake Johnny Lever any time in Bollywood top comedian slot. Sushma Seth, Dara Singh, the eternal macho man. Reema is nice. Satish Shah and Katki Dave are delight to watch as Gujus. Harry Potter look alike kid and her baby sitter were cute and ofcourse THE KANTABEN, homophobic maid was very funny. It was nice entertainer, nice fun, more funny then emotional. 7/10


A friend recommended this movie to me. I was skeptical at first..I'm a Chinese and i haven't really watched a Hindi Movie seriously. BUt i didn't regret watching Kal ho Naa Ho. Heart warming, funny and touching...

The songs and Choreography are great! My favourites are Pretty Woman and Kal Ho Naa Ho. The storyline is very similar to Koran dramas, except that the dialogues were much more intense!

it really kept my eyes glued to the screen. The acting was very intense as well, feelings were expressed very well. The energy Level was explosive especially during the dance scenes!

A must watch!!


No wonder so many people think Kal Ho Naa Ho is directed by Karan Johar himself though in reality KJ only scripts and produces , his former assistant Nikhil Advani is actually at the helm . It's because the film talks of love , hope and goodwill and the characters and packaging is very much KJ-style . If KKHH was a usual college romance developed into an adult romance later and K3G was all about "loving your parents" , KHNH talks of loving life itself .

Where Advani improves over KJ is that the overall emotional quotient is toned down and KHNH is a lot more colourful than KKHH and K3G . Also the characters' introductions aren't so "filmy" as in the first two .

Preity Zinta's character Naina narrates the story . She lives in New York with her widowed Catholic mother Catherine Kapur (Jaya Bachchan) , Punjabi grandmother Lajjo (Sushma Seth) , brother and an adopted sister . Rohit Patel is her best friend (Saif Ali Khan) . Naina is too serious , too boring . She misses her father who committed suicide for reasons explained later in the movie . At home her grandma constantly bickers with her mom on trivial issues .

A new neighbour Aman (Shahrukh Khan) comes to reside next-door . Aman charms the entire neighbourhood , brings all Indians together and solves their problems . Naina resents him at first but cannot help falling in love with him .

But there's a twist .. Aman suffers from an incurable heart ailment and has little time . So he lies to Naina that he is already married . Naina is heartbroken but now Aman embarks on a noble mission of bringing Naina and Rohit together .. because Rohit loves Naina and Aman wants to make her happy .

The introductions of characters through Naina's POV is very different and funny and striking at the start . The first half is laced with witty humour and the second half is tinged with sadness . And yes the movie leaves a message as Aman says, "live every moment of your life fully , because there may be no tomorrow" .

GOOFS : Aman's surname is Mathur , so how could his uncle have the surname "Chaddha" ? And the scene where Aman takes off his life support and runs through New York's streets to meet Naina is a clear exercise in OTT melodrama .. wasn't needed .

Shahrukh is the driving force behind KHNH and as always does justice to his part . Preity has never looked more beautiful . She acts like a pro , though over-expressive in a few scenes . Saif Ali Khan continues where he left in Dil Chahta Hai and looks great . Jaya Bachchan had disappointed me in K3G , here she gets all her old greatness back . Sulabha Arya (who plays "Kantaben") cracked me up , and so did Lilette Dubey and Satish Shah .

Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy's music is not high on melody yet the title track and "Pretty Woman" are very hummable though I didn't dig "It's The Time To Disco" .

Kal Ho Naa Ho might be resented by some for its rather high-pitched EQ but overall it's great to watch once .


W0w, This movie is great, I watched just bit of it when it released, It was real sad, that I couldn't finish it, but now after about 1 year I determined to watch it no matter what, and I really loved it. Its a great awesome heart touching movie!. Loved Kal Ho Naa Ho.!! both its story and the songs are good. All the songs rocked. Its a perfect movie for a family to watch. Except some scenes which might be disturbing for some people, in one of the scene which Saif Ali Khan's home keeper maid thinks that Saif Ali Khan and Shahrukh Khan are gay. It was real funny tough. I'd vote it as 10/10. It's worth watching! I don't understand that why people didn't like Kal ho Naa Ho as much as Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham and Khuch Khuch Hota Hai...


This is by far one of the best Hindi movies ever made, in my opinion. The acting is superb, and this is probably one of Preity's better movies. All the actors give a very moving performance. This movie can make you laugh and cry all at the same time, and the storyline isn't the same old things you see in Bollywood films. The main reason I like this film is because it contains modern elements in it. Its set in NY, and its has Western culture blended into it also. Being a teenager living in the US, I personally enjoy being able to relate to the movies I watch and I don't really like movies that are too traditional. I think if you like modernized Hindi movies you'll love this movie. Even if you don't, its most definitely worth watching.


I am NOT a sap for sad movies...maybe I will cry a tear or two. I didn't even lose ONE tear during Titanic that so many raved about as a "great love story". THIS movie? I cried for 45 minutes straight! It is like an Indian soap opera...but better. Shah Rukh Khan portrayed the sacrifice of this man with a certain nobility that really got to me. I know he is often said to be "overacting" but his portrayal of this character and the pain and sacrifices he went through really swept me up into an emotional state. There may be times when you are in the mood for a story about someone without the modern "I,Me,Mine" attitude, about someone who knows that the real meaning of love often carries with it the need for making sacrifices and may mean caring more about the other person's needs than your own.


When I first saw "Kal Ho Naa Ho", I was surprised by the extremely modern way that was used to illustrate the film. I liked to see the Indian actors walking through New York's streets, and having an ordinary life of American, or at least Indian-American people. The film was a wonderful comedy/drama about NRIs, which makes it very special, because none of the Indian films about NRIs in the past have done it as convincingly as this one. It portrays the life of New Yorkers in a rather satirical, but realistic way.

The first part of the film was very nice, funny and entertaining. I liked the well-written characters. Naina (Zinta) is an angry insecure and square girl who has no life. Her friend Rohit (Saif) is a cool guy with a gold heart, but without self confidence. Jennifer is a weary working woman, while her mother in-law Lajjo is a typical Punjabi mother in-law. The film is interesting and flows well, and then suddenly from nowhere comes Aman (Shahrukh), a happy-go-lucky guy who seems to have no problems in life, but he does want to solve the problems in Naina's family when he meets the rather complicated girl, whom he falls in love with the first moment he sees her. The character of Aman adds a lot of comedy and humour to the film. Aman tries to get close to her and then, when she finally understands she is in love with him, he rejects her! It is weird, but then we get the real secret disclosed. Aman knows he cannot be with Naina so he tries to serve as a matchmaker between Naina and... Rohit, who also fell in love with her! A typical "Karan Johar love triangle" indeed. But it is not, it is done in a very different and charming way.

Up until that point I really loved the film. The really big problem comes in the fourth quarter of the film: It is so so slow! This is a realistic, but overly cheesy and probably the longest sequence of its sort to have been made in recent years in Bollywood.

Anyway, the direction of Advani is very good. The music is out of this world and every song contributes to the film in its own way. The dialogues are nice, intelligent and never go over the top, which is great. Cinematography is terrific, editing is good, sound is superb (mainly because it's live sound), and acting is natural throughout.

Shahrukh Khan is OK. His comic timing is fantastic, but in some moments he overacts. Saif Ali Khan is the film's biggest surprise. After Dil Chahta Hai, he makes it big one more time with a terrific performance. Note the scene when Naina tells Rohit about loving Aman and his expressions. Preity was brilliant, and delivers a great performance. It goes without saying that she is the best choice for this role. She had given better performances than this one before, but she comes with a very credible performance all through, especially toward the end. Jaya Bachchan shows how much this industry missed her and what a wonderful actress it lost during the two past decades. She is natural, and slips into her character in an extremely convincing way.

There were undoubtedly too many emotions, but Kal Ho Naa Ho works wonderfully as a complete entertainer. It has a nice, quite innovative script in terms of writing style and the background of the characters. The makers paid attention to the American style and environment of the film, and I found the contradiction between the bright, free of worry New York and the tear-jerking proceedings of the story toward the end very interesting.


Fantastic cinema - thats what truly describes Kal Ho Naa Ho. The film probably signals the arrival of Nikhil Advani, a new member of direction fraternity. The film is a well-balanced blend of typical Karan Johar bonhomie and the modern hip-hop culture and the result is a delightful treat-to-watch.

The USP of KHNH is its brilliant star-cast and trendy music. Thats where the film signs off in style. The film is good enough to go down as one of the best ever ( probably the 6th in SRK's kitty)

ACTING: SRK (shah rukh Khan) shows that he is getting better with age. After delivering some of Bollywood's biggest blockbusters like DDLJ, KKHH, DTPH and Baazigar, King Khan makes another significant contribution with KHNH. His portrayal of Aman, is poignantly done and weighs romance, style and flair on an equal footing. If SRK is the king of the film ,Preity Zinta is the undisputed queen. The dimpled darling's increasing demand in Bollywood is natural after she delivers such good performances. Her role as the central character in the story- Neha Katherine Kapoor, is strong and likable. Zinta shows all the variants of acting - from poignancy during death hours to rocking vibes in the song Its the time to Disco. Saif too has a great role in the film as compliments the King Khan beautifully.

MUSIC : Rocking, youthful and yet melodious. Watch out for the moving title track.

A must see , specially for all SRK-Preity fans


I have to say that I agree with most of the comments of the previous reviewer. It is one of the most emotional Bollywood films I've ever seen. I wept like a small child and even felt compelled to write this review, my first.

Kal Ho Naa Ho is really Shah Rukh at his finest. I notice that Kareena Kapoor was originally offered the role of Naina and I must say that I am glad she asked for too much money because Preity Zinta completely changed my impression of her with this film. She displayed much acting talent in a complex role and is no longer "the annoying girl from the Liril ads" to me.

This is very much like an Indian remake of "Autumn in New York", though, and despite knowing this I was not prepared for the conclusion. If you just like singing, dancing and happy Bollywood I'm not sure this one is for you. But, if you are looking for a plot and character-driven Indian film, I completely recommend this one. Get a nice warm blanket and a box of tissues ready though.


WOW

Nikhil Advani, Karan Johar and the amazing cast of this movie have come together to make only the second flawless Bollywood movie of this generation.

What can I saw about Shah Rukh Khan, an actor who even today manages to mesmerise and captivate his audience. In the majority of his movies, even I (a die-hard) find that he over-acts, but in this movie, his is at the pinnacle of his craft. His control is admirable, and I fell in love with him all over again.

Saif Ali Khan, who started his career as a callow youngster shows that he has finally come of age, and his heartbreaking performance in this movie is astoundingly mature.

Preity Zinta is wholly believable as the woman they both fall in love with-- I almost fell in love with her myself (except my heart belongs to SRK!!)

The supporting cast, full of stars in their own right, gave exquisitely balanced performances, with not a gesture or moment of screen time wasted.

Nikhil Advani, I salute you. You have managed to create what I didn't think was possible in todays world-- a Bollywood film that makes you laugh, cry, feel sad and yet happy at the same time, and also doesn't make you ashamed to take your non-indian friends to. The only other movie that has accomplished that recently was DDLJ (and even that had one scene too far).

The songs, which were disappointing on first listen, fit into the film so well that I will cry every time I hear them. They now make perfect sense (in the same way that the songs of KKHH also improved after watching the movie)

The look of the film, the humour, the choreography, the set direction, the cinematography, the everything of this movie are outstanding.

In years to come, I will watch this movie with my kids (I hope), and hope that they will learn what I have today-- that the Bollywood movie is not dead, indeed it is alive and kicking, and Kal Ho Naa Ho, this movie will be a perfect monument to 2003 Bollywood cinema.

Anyone who doesn't like this movie must truly have a heart of stone.

WOW