IN: Review: Disappearance is about a couple who take their family on vacation in New Mexico and find themselves in deep trouble after taking a detour off the main highway to visit a town that was seemingly abandoned in 1948 for unknown reasons. The town of Weaver seems harmless at first and has tourist appeal until the family is stranded there overnight and they begin to have good reason to suspect that others have experienced their same predicament with fatal outcomes. The Henleys watch a Blair-Witch-Project-esquire video diary left by the town's last victim, which ironically demonstrates the best performance of anyone in this movie. Although Hamlin and Dey's performances are much better than the supporting casts', their emotional affect seems "flat" to me throughout the movie.

Disappearance has appeal for most of the movie as there is much suspense and good direction. However, the plot takes unexpected and implausible turns that seemingly make no sense. Worse yet it that there really is no understanding of what exactly is going on in the movie, which makes the bizarre ending less tolerable. It appeared to me that the movie makers were so focused on making a stream of suspenseful scenes, that they threw away all the elements of good story making: plot development, gradual explanation of themes and symbols that lead to a cohesive solution/outcome.

The most difficult aspect of the movie for me was that the first three-quarter of it was spent building up tension and curiosity about certain aspects of the plot that were then suddenly disposed of as if we didn't deserve an explanation:

What was the significance of the Indian symbols on the walls? What happened to the original people of Weaver? What was the connection with the people at the dinner? What did the Sheriff know? What did the missing boy discover if anything?

This was, I believe, a bad move, since it engendered some resentment. I had invested quite a bit of brainpower into hypothesizing some plausible explanations for some of these plot turns and strange events, only to have the movie makers simply end it without giving an answer to any of these things. These are some nice cliffhangers for the ending of a miniseries that is about to pickup again next week, but a totally frustrating and inappropriate ending for a stand-alone movie.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Shame on Yash Raj films and Aditya Chopra who seems to have lost their intelligence over the years and providing steady fare of tripe in this piece of cinematic crap thats not even worth You Tube standards. I was gritting my teeth throughout the whole flick start to finish with the schizophrenic direction, plot line that never quite materialized and on the last scene I just felt ashamed that my country and its crorepati film makers can "THROW AWAY" crores on such stupidity. Shame on the actors for taking this work and even commenting on it as some piece of work they can own up to. Saif Ali Khan -completely disappointed in your choice of film. Kareen shows enough skin for the puberty stricken and Akshay comes up as the dim-wit. Anil another retard with a pubescent fascination for English. His cronies were commendable in their acting and with the bizarre cinematography scattered in the last 15 minutes, it was enough to pop a blood vessel. DON'T WASTe any brain cells, energy or your money to go see this- Go SEE / Rent AMU -with Konkana Sensharma instead- a beautiful piece of independent film thats ever come out of India.Intelligent, poignant and a wonderful story-tale that will touch everyone with intelligent actors and gave me hope that all is not lost in Indian cinema making.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Not that I dislike childrens movies, but this was a tearjerker with few redeeming qualities. M.J. Fox was the perfect voice for Stuart and the rest of the talent was wasted. Hugh Laurie can be amazingly funny, but is not given the chance in this movie. It's sugar-coated sugar and would hardly appeal to anyone over 7 years of age. See Toy Story, Monsters Inc. or Shrek instead. 3/10
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Kate Beckinsale is excellent as the manipulative and yet irresistibly charming Emma in this TV-adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. When I read that novel I was sometimes quite doubtful whether the protagonist really deserved to be considered the heroine of the story: for honestly, she is so terribly self-righteous and scheming that one is tempted to dislike her seriously. Kate Beckinsale's interpretation, however, saves Emma from herself so to speak: she is portrayed with all the innocence and generosity of her character in full view, and one can't help but give in and like (not to say love) her in spite of her less amiable qualities. Kate Beckinsale is the main, but not the only, reason why this TV-series is so delightful; Raymond Coulthard is perfect as Mr. Frank Churchill, expressing this character's personal magnetism to the full (which is all the more conspicuous because of this role being not very well handled by Ewan McGregor in the 1996-screen adaptation of Emma), and Mark Strong, Samantha Morton, Bernard Hepton, and Olivia Williams are all as they should be in their respective roles. This production is, in short, a great achievement and one to view many times with increasing pleasure.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive