IN: Review: I saw two movies over the weekend, One was "kaal" and the other "Waqt". Both movies are made in "Bollywood" but they are worlds apart. The fundamental difference is the Story and the Director. Vipul Shaw made his indelible mark with "Ankhen", one of the best Comedy Hindi movies. His Casting of the Charecteres is perfect. The story apparently taken from a Gujerati Play is awesome,the treatment is superb with some exceptions. In Bollywood when a movie is put together the first thing a Bollywood Director is prone to do is sign up a music director and this guy (mediocre Malik in this instance)is obligated to drum up six songs to fulfill his contract. So even a good Director like Vipul Shah has to use them to appease the Finacier and the Grandma's who just cant get enough of these numbers. No Music director can churn out good songs relentlessly as clearly evident in this movie. None of the songs have any melody and they are clearly intrusive to the narration of the story except the background music and the westernized version of the Bharat-Natyam. The duelling and role playing the Father and Son is good acting by Bachachan and Akshay Kumar. His stunt scenes are clearly outstanding. A good director surrounds himself with good actors and he is willing to wait till a good story comes along as in this super movie. Then we have a cheap classless tasteless Producer like Sharukh Khan who will stoop low as to shamelessly plug and promote a trash like "Kaal" to enrich himself at the cost of the betterment of Art, and they surround themselves with borderline talent, and they recoup the investment before the word gets around. These are the Bollywood locusts who prey on the unsuspected audience to garner "Film Farce" awards given by Bollywood Chamcha's and most of them are in the Media.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: There is a scene near the beginning after a shootout where horses are running. If something red catches your eye it is because a white van is parked behind a bush by the trail. I thought I had seen bad but this is it. A white van in a western. Did they not catch this? Oh well, and I paid top dollar at the rental. It will make you want to grab your buddies and have them all put in 10 grand and make a better movie. The talking was so so slow, the acting was mostly OK but couldn't be taken seriously due to the poor nature of the filming. There is a door at the sheriffs that looks like a door today with the particular trimming. I say watch this movie, and move Cabin boy into #2 on the worst of all time.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: This may be the only film that actually comes close to capturing on film the essentially uncapturable world of the American college experience of the late 60s-early 70s. Go ahead, name another movie that even approaches this one: "Getting Straight"? "RPM"? These are caricatures. "Return of the Secaucus Seven" has its moments, but that's a retrospective film about (self-obsessed) individuals more than a film about a time and a place depicted *in* that time and place. "Drive, He Said" portrays-- with subtlety and nuance where it should, and a swift kick in the shorts where that's the only appropriate way-- the anti-draft movement, the ambiguity of big-time college sports (especially when there's a war on), the sexual revolution of the period, and the general unreality of the day. Believe me, it was like that.

The whole cast deserves commendation (as does the director, of course) but particular praise should be reserved for Bruce Dern, as the basketball coach, and Karen Black, the hero's very unusual-- except for that time-- love interest. William Tepper, as the lead, also rates a real round of applause both for his perfect capturing of the student-athlete of the period and for actually playing real college basketball in the film (remember Anthony Perkins in "Tall Story"? Yikes!).

All in all, a classic of a kind-- and the last film someone currently in 6th grade should be writing comments on ("boring", "repellent"-- um, right, sonny, please go back to your Arnold movies). Why isn't this film available from imdb?
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: An expedition led by hunky Captain Storm (Mark Dana) travels to the Valley of the Kings in Cairo to find out what happened to an earlier expedition. They meet beautiful mysterious Simira (Ziva Rodann) who joins them. They soon find themselves faced with a blood drinking mummy...and only Simira seems to know what's going on.

A real snoozer. I caught this on late night TV when I was about 10. It put me to sleep! Seeing it again all these years later I can see why. It's slow-moving, the mummy doesn't even show up until 40 minutes in (and this is only 66 minutes long!), the acting ranges from bad (Dana) to REAL bad (George N. Neise) and there's no violence or blood to be found. This movie concentrates more on second rate dramatics (involving a silly love triangle) than horror.

This rates three stars because it actually looks pretty good, everyone plays it straight, there's some good acting from Diane Brewster, it's short and the mummy attack scenes (all three of them) aren't bad. They're not scary just mildly creepy. Still, this movie is pretty bad. A sure fire cure for insomnia.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative