input: It took 9 years to complete this film. I would think that within those 9 years someone would have said,hey, this film is terrible. I've seen better acting in porn movies. The story is tired and played. Abused child turns into serial killer. How about something new for a change. How about abused child turns into a florist? At least that would have been a new twist. Why is it that everyone with a camera and a movie idea (especially unoriginal movie ideas) thinks that they can be a director? I do admire the fact that they stuck with this film for 9 years to get it completed. That shows tenacity and spirit. With this kind of drive hopefully next time they can focus it on a better script. If you want to see a failed experiment in indie film making from a writer/director from Michigan see Hatred of A Minute. If you want a good movie from a Michigan writer/director stick with Evil Dead.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Seeing this movie was the most fun I've had at the cinema in a long time. However, I am not able to say whether this is a good or a bad film, because such simple qualifications simply cannot be applied. This picture has everything any movie could ever have. It has characteristics of a romantic comedy, a political commentary, a thriller, a drama, an action movie, a musical, and an absurdist self-conscious art film. It's all in there, adding up to a myth.

The basic premise is about an Indian couple, Nandini (Karishma Kapoor) and Shekhar (Sanjay Kapoor), happily living in Canada, who rush to India to visit the husband's parents after a disturbing news report. The rest of the story takes place in India, where the couple find themselves in the midst of a plot of fratricidal violence. At one point, the story borrows from "Not without my baby," but to call Shakti a remake of anything would be an injustice.

The ostensible story line takes a backseat to a number of astonishing interruptions, including Shah Rukh Khan's dream of Aishwarya Rai which comes as if out of another movie. In fact, the two stars are on all the posters, but they appear really late in the film, and only Shah Rukh ends up being a real character. Yet he makes up for it with a spirited and truly unexpected performance.

Karishma Kapoor is the one with most work to do in this film, and she does an admirable job, having to link up the film's twists and turns with a show of believable emotion. Another notable presence is Nana Patekar, who plays Narsimha, the tyrannical father of the husband Shekhar. Nana Patekar dominates every scene he's in with a scary but nuanced character.

The movie is not without its share of realism. Violence is rampant, but truly disturbing in the abuse received by most of the female characters, with Karishma getting soundly beaten on a number of occasions. At times, this violence is clearly disturbing but ultimately it becomes surreal as every dramatic sequence is usually followed by such comic and spectacular turns that the overall effect is nothing but cathartic.

I have seen a share of Bollywood releases, and the mixing of genres and incredible plot resolutions are certainly their norm. But "Shakti" raises the bar by absorbing an even greater masala without becoming ridiculous. It is a film that achieves the grandeur of a Shakespearian tragedy, where the audience of the rabble and royalty is equally entertained. It is pure, gratuitous cinema, and the director Krishna Vamsi must have had a dream of a good time by throwing in every trick in the book. Perhaps, the all-important message of violence begetting violence and the inspiring extents of motherly love were not the thoughts on my mind, but I came out of watching "Shakti" exhilarated. Making movies can be the most fun in the world!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Since I first saw this in the theater it has been my favorite. Since then I've seen it countless times and I never get tired of it. The setting has a lot to do with it (the Colorado I know would be jealous), but the storyline is original and I liked how it used small town mountain folk as the heroes. There has not been a movie I can compare this too. John Lithgow plays a smart villain, but I love how he is completely out of his element--he has to follow Tucker around and that's what keeps it interesting. This is an action movie at it's BEST. I don't think I'll see another that is so entertaining.

You don't need 50,000 rounds fired to qualify as an action movie. It just has to keep you captivated, not shell-shocked.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I am really surprised that this movie get a ranking like this! I haven't seen such a bad movie for years.Omg this was a really bad movie. Splatter, is not enough to describe the unnecessary (nearly funny) blood scenes). If you didn't like hostel2 or Wolf Creek or Halloween (2007) ..well this is 10 time worse. The story remind me RL Stine goosebumps.!

I can't tell about the acting since the script was so terrible.Cliche all the time. (why i must write 10lines? i never understood this.)

==Here comes spoilers==

The story is about a butcher killing people all the time in metro. We are talking about thousands of killings and no one gets notice. Actually those people are just missing. And There is the good guy that tries to solve the mystery (well there is no mystery for us because we know from the beginning the bad guy) and as usual no one believes him! what a surprise! In the end he puts butcher clothes and fights to death with the killer butcher!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative