Q: Madhur Bhandarkar has given it all raw. But the best part is he hasn't forgotten to give the ingredients. It has come short and crisp to the viewer and it is the audience to make the choice now. Page 3 is a revelation of the naked truth irrespective of the crudeness attached to it.

Madhavi (Konkan Sharma) is a journalist and enjoys her work. A simple and peaceful life adores her with a caring boyfriend and a nice roommate Pearl. She covers the Page 3 (Celebrity Page) of Nation Today, where she has a very supportive editor Deepak Suri (Boman Irani.) But life takes turn for her as she hits the first bump and takes herself away from Page 3 and goes into Crime bit. Omigosh! a whole new world was waiting for her there. She is shocked, excited, stunned with the revelation. Her reaction has resulted in losing the job. At the end she is back to Page 3. Now when she meets any celebrity in a party, she knows the actual looks of each, hidden under the illusive face.

The movie has a message and it is crude. The audience needs to get it in their own color. The theme and the screenplay was fantastic. There are some very good thoughts applied to prepare the audiences. Like the foreplay-club is shown before the pedophiliac exhibition, the short suspense before gay-actions in bathroom. The dialogs are strong and the actors are really good at delivering it. Charu Mohanty's 2 words speaks volumes and he is very successful in uttering those two words with such ingenuity, it leaves an impact. The set selections could have been better. The songs don't stand anywhere; but they were needed in the background. Atul Kulkarni has a small role with high-impact. There were a few flaws visible. Atul Kulkarni explaining Konkan Sharma that honesty should be tagged along with intelligence. There could have been a better dialog as this sounds like a preach. The meeting between Thapar and his daughter doesn't call for acting. That scene looks very unprofessional.

Overall it is a must-watch movie with selective options before the pedophilia incident. That may spoil your mood.
A: positive
Q: MONSTER - He was great; I loved the special-effects which created this monster which looked like an updated version of "The Creature From the Black Lagoon." The scenes with this beast roaming the land and capturing people ranged from good to jaw-dropping.

SOCIAL COMMENTARY: Much of the story takes place in the quarantine area as the doctors (under orders from the government) state that SARS-like disease is out there. In a nutshell, we get the familiar government cover-up story. You know, I expect this Liberal paranoid mindset with Hollywood films always painting our government as corrupt, but it looks like the Koreans are copying the format, and it's very tedious. In here, it takes away from the excitement and suspense of this "monster." It just drags the film down. The main family featured in the film has to watch from a distance while the young girl in their family, presumed dead, was hauled off by the creature.

MORAL: A typical "don't pollute the water" message because this is what can happen - a horrible mutated monster. This used to be the anti-nuclear bomb message from the 1950 when radiation caused giants ants, spiders, fish or whatever in those schlocky sci-fi films. Now its "environmental issues" that are the focus.

THE HUMOR This was mostly stupid. I normally laugh at slapstick but this wasn't funny. I don't know if the Korean sense of humor is that pitiful, or the film was purposely trying to be ultra-corny with a take on the old "Godzilla" movies. Let's hope it's the latter.

TRANSFER - The video transfer was good. This was a sharp-looking picture and sound was decent with a lot rear-speaker crowd noise. I watched this in Korean with the English subtitles. That might have been a mistake as the Korean guttural voice sounds got annoying after a half hour.

OVERALL - This had a promise but turned out to be a big letdown and even boring in too many spots, which is inexcusable for a modern-day monster film. Two hours was WAY too long for this story. How this film drew record crowds in Korea I don't know. They must not have much in the way of films to enjoy and support.
A: negative
Q: I can enjoy a guilty pleasure vigilante flick, but this is just bad. And not bad in a way you might enjoy seeing MST3K make fun of it. It's just nauseatingly bad like you can't find anything to enjoy about this no matter how hard you try. I truly regret wasting 2 hours of precious life on this crap. You can tell by watching it that no one was asked to act and everyone in it knew this film would only bury their careers. Apparently "Walking Tall" has garnered enough income that someone decided they could make a buck off their investment. If it's not the worst film I've seen, it's so bad that it's blotted the worse films from my memory.
A: negative
Q: I dug out from my garage some old musicals and this is another one of my favorites. It was written by Jay Alan Lerner and directed by Vincent Minelli. It won two Academy Awards for Best Picture of 1951 and Best Screenplay. The story of an American painter in Paris who tries to make it big. Nina Foch is a sophisticated lady of means and is very interested in helping him, but soon finds she loves the guy. Meanwhile Gene Kelly falls for lovely damsel, Leslie Caron. His main dancing partner, and I must say they are fantastic together on the floor and otherwise. Famous French singer Georges Guietary sings, too. So if you like good smooth dancing and fun filled scenes filled with Oscar Levant's nimble piano fingers, the songs of George Gershwyn will live on forever in this colorful gem. 8/10
A: positive