Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is a pretty OK film... yes some parts are lame and exceptionally convenient, and the movie doesn't really justify the large star cast (AB, SD, Tanuja). However, the actor that really impressed me here was Kay Kay Menon (not to be confused with the singer KK). In the scene where he first meets Amitabh's character, I thought that a man who can just look at AB, keep staring and not say a word, and still look strong, is definitely a good actor. In fact, he has proved himself worthy again in Sarkar, alongside AB for a second time. This guy should get more roles, he's brilliant.

If you've read any of the other reviews here on IMDb, you already know the plot, and I do agree that Akshaye Khanna's entry into Pakistan was a little too easy. And the little love angle he shared with "what's-her-face" was completely unnecessary. But he is a fairly good actor (as seen in DCH), Sunjay Dutt is cool to watch, always. and AB... what can I say. I don't know if I'm his biggest fan in the world, but I know I can definitely compete for the spot.

An interesting watch, considering it's Bollywood, although a bit inspired by Hollywood oldies like "the Great Escape" and "Bridge on the River Kwai".

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: A featherweight plot and dubious characterizations don't make any difference when a movie is as fun to watch as this one is. Lively action and spectacular stunts - for their day - give this movie some real zip. And there's some actual comedy from the ripping chemistry between the two leads. Quinn makes a good villain also, although his role is completely overshadowed.

But don't be fooled by Maureen O'Hara's tough broad role, this is as sexist as any Hollywood movie of this era. You might be able to forgive that because of the time in which it was made, but it's still hard to get past. For all the heroism and gruesomely adult off-screen situations, this is still little more than an adolescent good time.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I'd have given this film a few stars, simply because it was a "Lifetime" presentation actually filmed in the location represented in the story - here, New York City. Most on this channel, whether "set" there, in rural Iowa, Oregon, Virginia, L.A. etc., are filmed in Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto or some other Canadian locale.

But if there ever were one deserving the top rating - 10* on this site, it's this movie. Certainly not for originality, for this story has been done many times, in many variations, with several very similar to this specific one. It's also been done pretty often on the big screen, with mega-stars, past and present, from Cary Grant, James Garner, Harrison Ford, Tom Hanks, et al - and Deborah Kerr, Doris Day, Meg Ryan, and many more. I can think of at least 10-12 more, just as prominent, past to present, off the top of my head, who could be added now, and there are probably many others which could be brought to mind.

Not to drone on, but my point is that, in my opinion, this is by far one of the best of this genre I've seen. I caught it by chance on a mid-day Friday, at a time when I had the TV on only because I was taking a couple of hours following a particularly hectic week. I'd never run across this flick in the 8 years since it was made. And, while the two leads have done enough to be known to most, they were completely unknown to me. The only two actors I knew were Phyllis Newman (Anna's mother) whom I'd seen in some things from her younger days, and Michael Rispoli (Henry, Charlie's best friend) who was outstanding as "Gramma," the menacing juice loan, tough, street guy from "Rounders."

The chance meeting and coupling between both leads' best friends, as a sub-story romance, with the correlation of their being such to Anna and Charlie being only revealed to all later, is an oft-done plot contrivance within the genre, but makes no difference to the enjoyment here (in fact, it enhances it).

Checking some other comments, I agree completely with those which are the most positive. The primary word describing this film is ENGAGING, in caps. This adjective describes the performers; the characters; the chemistry between and among all of the characters, in whatever combination presented, and all of the supporting and even minor roles.

I love films with a "harder edge:" "Rounders;" the escapist Schwarzenegger/Stallone fare; "Goodfellows;" even the classics like "Casablanca," "Gone With the Wind," "Citizen Kane." But for pure, uncomplicated enjoyment, this one was outstanding. With a bare fraction of their budgets, it was equal to the results achieved by "You've Got Mail" and "Sleepless in Seattle." And Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan couldn't have done better than Natasha Henstridge and Michael Vartan here; the co-stars and support personnel here were equivalent to those in these mega-films, as well.