Archive for the ‘Film Review’ Category

The Muppets: movie review by bally chohan

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012

The Muppets (© Rex)

The Muppets: movie review

Jason Segel takes The Muppets back to their roots in this delightful comedy that’ll have you grinning from ear to ear.
Release date: 10 February 2012
Certificate: U
Starring: Jason Segel, Amy Adams, Kermit the Frog, Miss Piggy
Director: James Bobin
What’s the story? Gary (Segel) heads off to Los Angeles with his girlfriend Mary (Adams) and his puppet brother Walter (voice: Peter Linz). Huge Muppet fans, Gary and Walter discover an oil baron’s evil plot to destroy the Muppet studio. They persuade Kermit to get the gang back together for a fund-raising performance.
What did we think? Adorable. We loved seeing all the old characters from the TV show – from the memorable Miss Piggy (now doing an Anna Wintour in Paris) to hilarious supporting characters we’d forgotten (Sam the Eagle, anyone?).
It’s with some trepidation we approached this film: it could have been a cheap update littered with dodgy celebrity cameos. But as soon as we saw little Walter, literally trembling with excitement while watching old videos of The Muppet Show, we knew we were in for a slice of nostalgia. Much of the show’s irreverent, character-based humour is still intact, both on and off the stage they set for a televised fundraiser.
Tracking down the old crew is a fun business: Fozzie’s in a tribute band called The Moppets, Gonzo’s a toilet tycoon, Animal’s in anger management with Jack Black… There are poignant touches, too, as Kermit wistfully recalls the days of old.
Only a few celebrity cameos feel shoehorned in: mostly those on the Disney payroll like Selina Gomez. The Muppets feels better than that: the real stars of the show are the cute old-fashioned muppets, whose crumpled little faces are still full of expression. Segel handles the music and dance numbers well and while Adams’ character is a bit sidelined, she’s still got the right kind of innocent charm. As ever, it’s not the humans but the muppets who are the naughty ones – and that’s just how we like it.

Release date: 10 February 2012Certificate: UStarring: Jason Segel, Amy Adams, Kermit the Frog, Miss PiggyDirector: James Bobin
What’s the story? Gary (Segel) heads off to Los Angeles with his girlfriend Mary (Adams) and his puppet brother Walter (voice: Peter Linz). Huge Muppet fans, Gary and Walter discover an oil baron’s evil plot to destroy the Muppet studio. They persuade Kermit to get the gang back together for a fund-raising performance.
What did we think? Adorable. We loved seeing all the old characters from the TV show – from the memorable Miss Piggy (now doing an Anna Wintour in Paris) to hilarious supporting characters we’d forgotten (Sam the Eagle, anyone?).

It’s with some trepidation we approached this film: it could have been a cheap update littered with dodgy celebrity cameos. But as soon as we saw little Walter, literally trembling with excitement while watching old videos of The Muppet Show, we knew we were in for a slice of nostalgia. Much of the show’s irreverent, character-based humour is still intact, both on and off the stage they set for a televised fundraiser.Tracking down the old crew is a fun business: Fozzie’s in a tribute band called The Moppets, Gonzo’s a toilet tycoon, Animal’s in anger management with Jack Black… There are poignant touches, too, as Kermit wistfully recalls the days of old.
Only a few celebrity cameos feel shoehorned in: mostly those on the Disney payroll like Selina Gomez. The Muppets feels better than that: the real stars of the show are the cute old-fashioned muppets, whose crumpled little faces are still full of expression. Segel handles the music and dance numbers well and while Adams’ character is a bit sidelined, she’s still got the right kind of innocent charm. As ever, it’s not the humans but the muppets who are the naughty ones – and that’s just how we like it.

A Dangerous Method movie review by bally chohan

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012
A Dangerous Method (© Rex)

bally chohan moves reviews

Keira Knightley comes between Freud and Jung in David Cronenberg’s incisive look at the early days of psychoanalysis.

Release date: 10 February 2012

Certificate: 15
Director: David Cronenberg
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Keira Knightley, Viggo Mortensen
What’s the story? In 1900s Europe, Austrian psychiatrist Sigmund Freud (Mortensen) falls out with his Swiss protégé Carl Jung (Fassbender) over the latter’s affair with an hysterical young woman he is treating (Knightley).
What did we think? Adapted from a play by Christopher Hampton, this wordy period drama demands the viewer’s full attention as it addresses mental illness, the human psyche and the ethics of doctor-patient relationships. Yet it rewards our patience with terrific performances, fine dialogue and the arresting sight of Keira Knightley’s bottom being spanked.
Extreme gore and explicit sexuality have long been the trademarks of Canadian film-maker David Cronenberg. Recently, however, his work has taken on a more cerebral bent, as displayed by this fascinating study of how the founding fathers of psychiatry came to be divided over a beautiful patient.
Even when dealing with Freud and Jung, however, Cronenberg can be relied upon to introduce an element of perverse otherness, represented here by the sado-masochistic urges that have turned Knightley’s tortured Sabina Spielrein into a convulsing wreck.It’s a big ask for Keira to believably convey the wrenching physical symptoms of her character’s mental imbalance. Get past her disconcerting opening scenes, though, and A Dangerous Method becomes a thoroughly engrossing exploration of the contrasting schools of head-shrinking its early champions championed.
What that boils down to is an intriguing battle of words and wits between Mortensen’s urbane, cigar-chomping Freud and Fassbender’s restless, headstrong Jung, intellectual heavy-weights motivated as much by their personal ambitions and desires as complex theories. If all that sounds highbrow, that’s probably because it is. Yet it’s not without humour, largely supplied by Vincent Cassel as a sex-obsessed hedonist who persuades Carl to give free rein to his innermost impulses.

Release date: 10 February 2012Certificate: 15Director: David CronenbergStarring: Michael Fassbender, Keira Knightley, Viggo Mortensen
What’s the story? In 1900s Europe, Austrian psychiatrist Sigmund Freud (Mortensen) falls out with his Swiss protégé Carl Jung (Fassbender) over the latter’s affair with an hysterical young woman he is treating (Knightley).
What did we think? Adapted from a play by Christopher Hampton, this wordy period drama demands the viewer’s full attention as it addresses mental illness, the human psyche and the ethics of doctor-patient relationships. Yet it rewards our patience with terrific performances, fine dialogue and the arresting sight of Keira Knightley’s bottom being spanked.

Extreme gore and explicit sexuality have long been the trademarks of Canadian film-maker David Cronenberg. Recently, however, his work has taken on a more cerebral bent, as displayed by this fascinating study of how the founding fathers of psychiatry came to be divided over a beautiful patient.
Even when dealing with Freud and Jung, however, Cronenberg can be relied upon to introduce an element of perverse otherness, represented here by the sado-masochistic urges that have turned Knightley’s tortured Sabina Spielrein into a convulsing wreck.It’s a big ask for Keira to believably convey the wrenching physical symptoms of her character’s mental imbalance. Get past her disconcerting opening scenes, though, and A Dangerous Method becomes a thoroughly engrossing exploration of the contrasting schools of head-shrinking its early champions championed.
What that boils down to is an intriguing battle of words and wits between Mortensen’s urbane, cigar-chomping Freud and Fassbender’s restless, headstrong Jung, intellectual heavy-weights motivated as much by their personal ambitions and desires as complex theories. If all that sounds highbrow, that’s probably because it is. Yet it’s not without humour, largely supplied by Vincent Cassel as a sex-obsessed hedonist who persuades Carl to give free rein to his innermost impulses.

Movie review by bally chohan Shame

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012
Shame movie review

bally chohan moves reviews

A handsome New York professional going through the motions of casual sex and masturbation to limitless supplies of internet porn, Brandon (Michael Fassbender) finds his carefully constructed routine interrupted by the unexpected arrival of his sister, Sissy (Carey Mulligan), who needs a place to stay.
She takes up residence on his couch as his world slowly begins to crumble around him: he tries dating a friendly coworker (Nicole Beharie) with mixed results; he awaits his fate when his office computer (filled to the brim with porn) is taken away for a routine repair. When it all gets too much for him he goes for long, bleak jogs around New York. When that gets too much for him, he hires a prostitute or has a wank in a bathroom stall.
Sissy has less success keeping her shattering life under wraps: she drinks hard, sleeps with Brandon’s boss (James Badge Dale); she’s flailing. She has “a gig” at a cocktail bar and sings a mournful New York, New York, the bulk of which is shot in an unflinching, extended close-up. It makes Brandon cry; you may react similarly. It might seem too convenient a narrative device to turn that anthem of possibility on its head, but somehow, soundtracking these two disintegrating aliens (they are from Ireland via Jersey), it works.
Eventually there are some hints as to why Sissy and Brandon have ended up the way they have, but they’re really only that, hints, and maybe not even that at all. The film ends as it begins, sorrowful and detached.
Shot in a New York that looks nothing like the tidy, post-Giuliani Big Apple of today, Shame plants Brandon in miserable-looking subway cars, grimy alleys and cold, sterile architecture; a sort of cold, 21st century Saturday Night Fever (another depress-a-rama New York meditation that has somehow been misremembered as a camp disco flick).
The use of Blondie’s ‘Rapture’ and Chic’s glamorously harrowing ‘I Want Your Love’ only adds to the mournful throwback mood. It’s certainly no mistake that it’s the Chic song that is blaring from Brandon’s record player when he discovers Sissy has arrived:
Sometime, don’t you feel like you
Never really had a love that’s real
Well, here I am, and who’s to say
A better love you won’t find today
Just one chance and I will show you love
Like no other, two steps above
On your ladder
I’ll be a peg
I want your loving
Please don’t make me beg
Director Steve McQueen approaches filmmaking like installation art: Shame is less a narrative than a meditation, a series of moments, but it’s no less effective for that. In fact I think it would be decidedly less powerful were we to be given the standard Hollywood addiction/redemption arc.
Fassbender and Mulligan are equally excellent; Sissy is unhinged and passionate while Brandon slowly, sadly collapses in on himself.
Is Brandon a “sex-addict”? It doesn’t really matter (the concept is contentious anyway); rather, Shame is a portrait of a person desperately trying to find – or, perhaps, escape – meaning in the compulsive pursuit of climax. Buzzcocks’ merrily cathartic Orgasm Addict it isn’t.
The level of gag-making that surrounds discussion of the film – “Fassmember!” “Assbender!” – suggests that people are deeply uncomfortable with either the notion of sex addiction, or with the level of honesty that Fassbender (and Mulligan) brings to the film, or with intimacy, or god knows what. Much commentary also centres on how “brave” a performance it is, but isn’t this what actors are supposed to do? Shouldn’t we expect this sort of commitment in every role, whether they involve nudity or not?
It’s all beside the point, really.
In the end, it isn’t the raw sex scenes that make Shame a difficult film to watch, but the raw emotion.

Shame – Movie reviewA handsome New York professional going through the motions of casual sex and masturbation to limitless supplies of internet porn, Brandon (Michael Fassbender) finds his carefully constructed routine interrupted by the unexpected arrival of his sister, Sissy (Carey Mulligan), who needs a place to stay.
She takes up residence on his couch as his world slowly begins to crumble around him: he tries dating a friendly coworker (Nicole Beharie) with mixed results; he awaits his fate when his office computer (filled to the brim with porn) is taken away for a routine repair. When it all gets too much for him he goes for long, bleak jogs around New York. When that gets too much for him, he hires a prostitute or has a wank in a bathroom stall.
Sissy has less success keeping her shattering life under wraps: she drinks hard, sleeps with Brandon’s boss (James Badge Dale); she’s flailing. She has “a gig” at a cocktail bar and sings a mournful New York, New York, the bulk of which is shot in an unflinching, extended close-up. It makes Brandon cry; you may react similarly. It might seem too convenient a narrative device to turn that anthem of possibility on its head, but somehow, soundtracking these two disintegrating aliens (they are from Ireland via Jersey), it works.
Eventually there are some hints as to why Sissy and Brandon have ended up the way they have, but they’re really only that, hints, and maybe not even that at all. The film ends as it begins, sorrowful and detached.
Shot in a New York that looks nothing like the tidy, post-Giuliani Big Apple of today, Shame plants Brandon in miserable-looking subway cars, grimy alleys and cold, sterile architecture; a sort of cold, 21st century Saturday Night Fever (another depress-a-rama New York meditation that has somehow been misremembered as a camp disco flick).
The use of Blondie’s ‘Rapture’ and Chic’s glamorously harrowing ‘I Want Your Love’ only adds to the mournful throwback mood. It’s certainly no mistake that it’s the Chic song that is blaring from Brandon’s record player when he discovers Sissy has arrived:
Sometime, don’t you feel like youNever really had a love that’s realWell, here I am, and who’s to sayA better love you won’t find todayJust one chance and I will show you loveLike no other, two steps aboveOn your ladderI’ll be a pegI want your lovingPlease don’t make me beg
Director Steve McQueen approaches filmmaking like installation art: Shame is less a narrative than a meditation, a series of moments, but it’s no less effective for that. In fact I think it would be decidedly less powerful were we to be given the standard Hollywood addiction/redemption arc.
Fassbender and Mulligan are equally excellent; Sissy is unhinged and passionate while Brandon slowly, sadly collapses in on himself.
Is Brandon a “sex-addict”? It doesn’t really matter (the concept is contentious anyway); rather, Shame is a portrait of a person desperately trying to find – or, perhaps, escape – meaning in the compulsive pursuit of climax. Buzzcocks’ merrily cathartic Orgasm Addict it isn’t.
The level of gag-making that surrounds discussion of the film – “Fassmember!” “Assbender!” – suggests that people are deeply uncomfortable with either the notion of sex addiction, or with the level of honesty that Fassbender (and Mulligan) brings to the film, or with intimacy, or god knows what. Much commentary also centres on how “brave” a performance it is, but isn’t this what actors are supposed to do? Shouldn’t we expect this sort of commitment in every role, whether they involve nudity or not?
It’s all beside the point, really.
In the end, it isn’t the raw sex scenes that make Shame a difficult film to watch, but the raw emotion.

ball chohan he is expert in move review if you want to know more information than contact mr. bally chohan

“The Woman in Black”Movie Review by bally chohan.

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012

review by bally chohan

The film revolves around loss and throughout the entire movie this is set with the darkness of every scene. The colors, the setting, the use of black crows and the play on superstition all combine to form a sadness the movie focuses on.
The horror did not come from shocking images of blood or gore like many horror movies lately, it came from the darkness.
At last, a scary movie has been made without the use of the “found footage” technique and I praise “The Woman in Black” for going back to good cinematography.
The noises in the night and the question of what stood just around the corner built suspense and thrill. The movie actually showed what caused the noises unlike “Paranormal Activity,” where audiences are expected to just jump at the sound.
“The Woman in Black” caused me to jump a few times, but it did not leave me jumping out of my seat with how scary it was either. I, however, felt that the scare was not the main purpose of the movie.
The story and the characters had depth to them, making the audience care about what happened in the end.
“The Woman in Black” also brought much anticipation about finally seeing Daniel Radcliffe act on the big screen in a movie other than the “Harry Potter” series.
I am not a big fan of Radcliffe as Potter. His acting in the first movie was not the best, but I do admit he has improved throughout the series.
Radcliffe in “The Woman in Black” proved that he could move on to other films without having to be stuck as the face of Harry Potter. It might be hard to imagine him as anyone else at first, but he did a stellar job at portraying his character and made me forget the idea of him as Potter.
“The Woman in Black” had a good story that sets a dark mood, but if you are looking for a scare, it might not be the movie to see. I still think the movie is worthy watching, but I would suggest waiting until it comes out on DVD.

The film revolves around loss and throughout the entire movie this is set with the darkness of every scene. The colors, the setting, the use of black crows and the play on superstition all combine to form a sadness the movie focuses on.The horror did not come from shocking images of blood or gore like many horror movies lately, it came from the darkness.At last, a scary movie has been made without the use of the “found footage” technique and I praise “The Woman in Black” for going back to good cinematography.The noises in the night and the question of what stood just around the corner built suspense and thrill. The movie actually showed what caused the noises unlike “Paranormal Activity,” where audiences are expected to just jump at the sound.”The Woman in Black” caused me to jump a few times, but it did not leave me jumping out of my seat with how scary it was either. I, however, felt that the scare was not the main purpose of the movie.The story and the characters had depth to them, making the audience care about what happened in the end.”The Woman in Black” also brought much anticipation about finally seeing Daniel Radcliffe act on the big screen in a movie other than the “Harry Potter” series.I am not a big fan of Radcliffe as Potter. His acting in the first movie was not the best, but I do admit he has improved throughout the series.Radcliffe in “The Woman in Black” proved that he could move on to other films without having to be stuck as the face of Harry Potter. It might be hard to imagine him as anyone else at first, but he did a stellar job at portraying his character and made me forget the idea of him as Potter.”The Woman in Black” had a good story that sets a dark mood, but if you are looking for a scare, it might not be the movie to see. I still think the movie is worthy watching, but I would suggest waiting until it comes out on DVD.

bally chohan he is best review expert this review by bally chohan on move The Woman in Black,

Movie Reviews with Bally chohan

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012

bally chohan moves reviews

I’ve been waiting for Daniel Radcliffe. He’s had a mostly flat and easy character; as a friend recently told me, Harry Potter is only interesting because everyone else around him is. But I believe Radcliffe’s got it in him to work with a complex character, and I’ve been hoping he gets his chance.
“The Woman in Black” isn’t that chance. Radcliffe plays Arthur Kipps, a widower and lawyer who’s last chance to keep his job lies with settling the affairs of Alice Drablow, who recently died alone in her house. The town is hushed and hostile, and Arthur unravels the mystery around him, where children disappear and a black figure screams from the shadows.
Radcliffe isn’t working with a complex character here, but that’s because this well-directed film has beautiful production design, from locations to the costuming, and the real star of the film is the haunted house itself. Filled with the right shades of black and purple, blue and gray, and hellish wind-up toys, the house chills you. You leave the theater feeling as if you’ve spent one too many moments yourself in its creepy hallways.
Radcliffe is one element of a bigger set piece that, combined with foggy landscapes (and a slightly pestering score), establishes the perfect haunted atmosphere. There’s a great scene where he wields an axe in one hand, and a candle in the other, breathing tightly to slowly peak behind a door…Radcliffe may not be that memorable in this film, but it may be a good start, because it shows he’s able to really shed Harry Potter and slip into someone somewhere else.
New in the redbox: “Drive”
Nicholas Winding Refn directed Tom Hardy’s performance in “Bronson,” which informed Christopher Nolan’s decision to cast Hardy first in “Inception,” then as Bane in “The Dark Knight Rises.” In “Drive,” Refn directs Ryan Gosling in another seminal performance. He’s simply incredible, and unmissable.
Gosling plays a quiet heartthrob in a scorpion jacket known only as the Driver. By day he’s a stunt driver, and by night, a getaway driver. His character recalls the Zen heroes of 1960s Westerns like Clint Eastwood, noir heroes like Alain Delon in “Le Samourai,” and 1970s existential car movies such as “Vanishing Point.” He doesn’t seem to have much of a past, and his present is empty of almost all desire, except to drive — until a young woman (Carey Mulligan, “Pride And Prejudice”) and her son come into his life. The film switches from suspenseful thriller to an 80s teen romance filled with sunlight and synth music…and then there is another man in her life, and violence begins to enter their world, and the Driver has some choices to make and skulls to break.
Each actor, including Ron Perlman from HBO’s “Breaking Bad,” does a marvelous job, but in the end it is Gosling who convinces us, through subtlety, of a monstrous intensity lying within him.
The chases are good, the story is heartbreaking and the soundtrack is perfect. If the first five minutes and opening titles do not grip you, maybe the only car movies for you star Vin Diesel. But “Drive” is connected to the only great car movies, and Gosling’s performance will be remembered among his best. Those two factors alone make it worth some of your attention.
Also worth watching: “Easy Rider” (1969)
“Easy Rider” was produced at the end of the 1960s, and it shows. As the film progresses, you witness how the optimism in American culture began to take its dark turn at the dawn of the 1970s. Remembered as one of the finest road movies ever made, although it’s not very well made, Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda star as two motorcycle buddies headed for New Orleans and looking for the dream.
The film is worth watching for many reasons, but among them would be to see Jack Nicholson give an early performance, the first of many. Here, there’s not much of the depth he gains over the course of the ‘70s, but you see he had a good beginning; he plays a “square” who tags along for much of the ride, representing some of the American innocence that died after 1969.

I’ve been waiting for Daniel Radcliffe. He’s had a mostly flat and easy character; as a friend recently told me, Harry Potter is only interesting because everyone else around him is. But I believe Radcliffe’s got it in him to work with a complex character, and I’ve been hoping he gets his chance. “The Woman in Black” isn’t that chance. Radcliffe plays Arthur Kipps, a widower and lawyer who’s last chance to keep his job lies with settling the affairs of Alice Drablow, who recently died alone in her house. The town is hushed and hostile, and Arthur unravels the mystery around him, where children disappear and a black figure screams from the shadows. Radcliffe isn’t working with a complex character here, but that’s because this well-directed film has beautiful production design, from locations to the costuming, and the real star of the film is the haunted house itself. Filled with the right shades of black and purple, blue and gray, and hellish wind-up toys, the house chills you. You leave the theater feeling as if you’ve spent one too many moments yourself in its creepy hallways. Radcliffe is one element of a bigger set piece that, combined with foggy landscapes (and a slightly pestering score), establishes the perfect haunted atmosphere. There’s a great scene where he wields an axe in one hand, and a candle in the other, breathing tightly to slowly peak behind a door…Radcliffe may not be that memorable in this film, but it may be a good start, because it shows he’s able to really shed Harry Potter and slip into someone somewhere else.  New in the redbox: “Drive” Nicholas Winding Refn directed Tom Hardy’s performance in “Bronson,” which informed Christopher Nolan’s decision to cast Hardy first in “Inception,” then as Bane in “The Dark Knight Rises.” In “Drive,” Refn directs Ryan Gosling in another seminal performance. He’s simply incredible, and unmissable. Gosling plays a quiet heartthrob in a scorpion jacket known only as the Driver. By day he’s a stunt driver, and by night, a getaway driver. His character recalls the Zen heroes of 1960s Westerns like Clint Eastwood, noir heroes like Alain Delon in “Le Samourai,” and 1970s existential car movies such as “Vanishing Point.” He doesn’t seem to have much of a past, and his present is empty of almost all desire, except to drive — until a young woman (Carey Mulligan, “Pride And Prejudice”) and her son come into his life. The film switches from suspenseful thriller to an 80s teen romance filled with sunlight and synth music…and then there is another man in her life, and violence begins to enter their world, and the Driver has some choices to make and skulls to break. Each actor, including Ron Perlman from HBO’s “Breaking Bad,” does a marvelous job, but in the end it is Gosling who convinces us, through subtlety, of a monstrous intensity lying within him. The chases are good, the story is heartbreaking and the soundtrack is perfect. If the first five minutes and opening titles do not grip you, maybe the only car movies for you star Vin Diesel. But “Drive” is connected to the only great car movies, and Gosling’s performance will be remembered among his best. Those two factors alone make it worth some of your attention.  Also worth watching: “Easy Rider” (1969) “Easy Rider” was produced at the end of the 1960s, and it shows. As the film progresses, you witness how the optimism in American culture began to take its dark turn at the dawn of the 1970s. Remembered as one of the finest road movies ever made, although it’s not very well made, Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda star as two motorcycle buddies headed for New Orleans and looking for the dream. The film is worth watching for many reasons, but among them would be to see Jack Nicholson give an early performance, the first of many. Here, there’s not much of the depth he gains over the course of the ‘70s, but you see he had a good beginning; he plays a “square” who tags along for much of the ride, representing some of the American innocence that died after 1969.
Bally chohan he is expert on move review If you want get information Than tell to me bally chohan,

Movie Review by bally chohan : The Devil Inside

Wednesday, January 18th, 2012

“The Devil Inside” is an awful movie. Everything about it is cringe-worthy … except for the parts that are supposed to be. Those are just lame. You would think that in a movie designed to scare people they could at least accidently make one scary moment, but they don’t. This film fails on every level.

The film centers on Isabella Rossi. She is the daughter of Maria Rossi, a woman who, 20 years earlier, murdered three members of the Catholic Church while they were performing an exorcism on her.

Isabella decides to go visit her mother at the psychiatric hospital where she is being held. While in Rome, she wants to learn more about exorcism so she sits in on a class being taught by the Catholic Church.

Accompanying Isabella is Michael, a documentary filmmaker capturing all of the events. They eventually meet up with two priests who perform exorcisms and try to figure out whether Isabella’s mother is crazy or still possessed.

This is the type of movie the public should be glad to have movie reviewers for to warn others not to waste their money. When this movie eventually comes out on DVD and is available at a local Redbox, the $1.06 to rent it would still be a monumental waste of money. Therefore, I’ve made a list of things that $1.06 would be better used on.

- Your local McDonald’s Dollar Menu: Even if you hate McDonald’s, you would still feel better about yourself eating a calorie-loaded McChicken than you would after viewing this film.

- Penny beers at Hawk’s Nest: You could drink 106 beers and still have enough brain cells left to realize just how bad this movie is. (Note, I do not endorse drinking over 100 beers in one night. However, spread out over several nights would be acceptable as long as you’re 21 and not driving.) Side note: These safety notes are still more interesting than the movie. It actually makes safety look fun in comparison.

- An on-campus movie: This week, ironically for me, “Tower Heist” is playing. I gave this film two out of five stars in a review a few months back. Yet, it’s still twice as good as “The Devil Inside.”

I could make a whole other list of things you would be better off spending your money on than seeing this film.

The film is shot in a “faux-documentary” style just like the “Paranormal Activity” films. Even though I’m a fan of the style, this movie manages to completely misuse it.

When done correctly, such as in “Paranormal Activity,” it can have a powerful effect and terrify you. When done the way “The Devil Inside” does it, a mixture of boredom and frustration will make you want to leave the theater. I’ve only been to three movies that actually made me want to walk out of the theater, and this is one of them. I stuck it out to the end though and was able to witness one of the worst endings ever. This is no exaggeration. The ending is terrible.I hope by me writing this you’re not intrigued to go see the movie whatsoever. The ending alone is reason enough to stay home. Don’t waste your time, and more importantly, your money.

Bally chohan he is expert in movie review and he is master in sports if you want any news and do you  have any query then contact Mr. Bally chohan

Loosies: Film Reviewed by Bally chohan

Tuesday, January 17th, 2012

Loosies Peter Facinelli Running – H 2012

The Bottom Line

Appealingly seedy genre elements drown beneath bland and unconvincing romance.

Cast:

Peter Facinelli, Jaimie Alexander, Vincent Gallo, Michael Madsen, Joe Pantoliano, William Forsythe

Director:

Michael Corrente

Peter Facinelli’s pickpocket reconciles a life of crime with impending fatherhood.

Playing like a Knocked Up for the penny-ante underworld (minus the jokes), Michael Corrente’s Loosies is a vanity project that might have stayed afloat had star/writer Peter Facinelli only tried to sell himself as a none-too-bright crook on the run from bad luck. Making romance a big part of the mix dooms a movie already saddled with one of the worst titles in recent memory.

A “loosie” is a cigarette sold individually instead of by-the-pack; it’s also a homophone for Lucy (Jaimie Alexander), a bartender whose one-night-stand with Bobby (Facinelli) resulted in an unwanted pregnancy. Bobby, a pickpocket who told Lucy he was a stockbroker, would know about the pregnancy if the cad hadn’t given her a fake phone number the next morning; he doesn’t find out until the two accidentally meet three months later.

By that point, Bobby has other problems: He lifted a cop’s badge a while back and dumbly used it to get a free cab ride, igniting a scandal that has the cop (Michael Madsen) on the warpath; he’s trying to pay off his dead dad’s $500 thousand gambling debt with the watches and cell phones he steals for an edgy, karate-obsessed fence (Vincent Gallo); and his mom is sleeping with Joe Pantoliano.

Corrente is at a disadvantage here, with every interesting face in the cast stuck in a supporting role. Scenes between Facinelli and Alexander go nowhere, and are rarely more believable than the forced coincidence of their three-months-later reunion.

The movie’s crime-flick elements are hardly more credible than the pregnancy plot (we’re meant to believe, for instance, that Madsen’s couldn’t-care-less flatfoot was on track to become Chief of Police), but they have a grindhouse quality that makes Loosies almost fun in flashes. But flashes are all they are — pleasures even more fleeting than an off-brand smoke bummed from strangers in an alley.

Opened January 11, 2011 (IFC)Production Company: Verdi ProductionsCast: Peter Facinelli, Jaimie Alexander, Vincent Gallo, Michael Madsen, Joe Pantoliano, William Forsythe

Director: Michael Corrente

Screenwriter: Peter Facinelli

Producers: Glenn Ciano, Peter Facinelli, Noah Kraft, Chad A. Verdi

Executive producers: Michael Corso, Robert DeFranco, Anthony Gudas, Gino Pereira, John Santilli, Robert Tarini, Michelle Verdi

Director of photography: Sam Fleischner

Production designer: Robert Rotondo Jr.

Music: Chad Fischer

Costume designer: Caroline Errington

Editor: Daniel Boneville

PG-13, 89 minutes

Bally chohan he is expert in movie review and he is master in sports if you want any news and do you  have any query then contact Mr. Bally chohan

Movie Review by bally chohan Vettai

Monday, January 16th, 2012

Bally chohan describe all about this movie :  N Lingusamy has adapted a tried and test formula for his latest movie Vettai. The director, in his usual way, has blended all the elements that make a movie entertaining. In fact, he takes to the era of 80s-90s film, where good having the last laugh against the evil. The filmmaker has also ensured to bring out the best from his actors – Aarya, Madhavan, Sameera Reddy and Amala Paul.

We have seen many movies before, which shows an elder sibling bailing out his younger one from troubles but in Vettai it is vice-versa. The introduction to the characters begin with the early days of Tirumurthi (Madhavan) and Gurumurthi (Aarya), where the former gets beaten-up by his acquaintance while flying a kite. In return, Tirumurthi, who leaves the place crying, makes his junior to seek revenge .

Having given enough hints about the nature of the siblings, the story then moves forward when Tirumurthi, by chance or may be by force, turns a cop. Lacking courage and strength, he manages to face the hurdles with the help of his brother. Being a kind of body double to his elder sibling, Guru successfully makes baddies Annachi (Ashutosh Rana) trembling in fear.

At this juncture, Tirumurthi ties the knot with Vasanthi (Sameera Reddy) and Gurumurthi falls in love with Jayanthi (Amala Paul). However, the villain discovers the truth and the situation changes drastically. The remaining part should be seen on-screen.

The story drives you on a familiar territory and one cannot expect too many surprises in the tale. But Lingusamy, who has mastered in this genre, does not allow the audience to lose their attention rather he makes them to watch the close-to-three hour film without getting bored. The film has each and every ingredient, which audience love to see on-screen. Good story, fights, comedies and songs that make the movie an interesting affair.

Aarya and Madhavan steal the complete show with their excellent performances. Here, we should praise Maddy for putting on some kilos and developing a paunch for his role of a laid-back cop. In fact, he amazingly brings the life to his role and makes the viewers that his role is dozy in front of Aarya’s character, which shines almost in every scene. Sameera Reddy and Amala Paul are good and they have justified their roles. However, Ashutosh Rana, despite getting enough scenes, fails to create fearsome atmosphere in the role of a villain. Rest others are okay. Technically, Nirav Shah’s cinematography is good, Yuvan Shankar Raja’s music is okay and Silva’s action stunts are commendable. Lingusamy has complete control over the subject and from his writing team, especially from the dialogue writer Brinda Sarathy, he has taken out best.

On the flip side, Lingusamy has committed a mistake by changing the attitude of Madhavan’s character in the second half. It looks logic-less and not convincible for many. Putting aside this, there are quite a few minor errors, which go unnoticed.

Verdict: While Nanban has the elements to attract the urbanites and the youths, Vettai is a material,   which will be liked by family and mass audience. It is a paisa-vasool movie, go for it.

Cast: Madhavan, Aarya, Sameera Reddy, Amala Paul, Ashutosh Rana and others.

Director: N Lingusamy

Music: Yuvan Shankar Raja

Cinematography: Nirav Shah

Producers: N Subash Chandra Bose and Ronnie Screwvala.

Released on: January 14

This reviewed by bally chohan he is expert in movie review an sports review he provide us a dynamic review than we can get right information if you want to more information than contact bally chohan

Reviewed by bally chohan Hands off British film, Mr Cameron

Thursday, January 12th, 2012

Bally chohan  say that in politics, if you’re in a hole, you should stop digging. And yet there’s something about the subject of British cinema that gets the prime minister repeatedly reaching for his spade. Perhaps it’s something to do with Meryl Streep’s Maggie gazing down from every bus, and maybe that film’s sentimentalisation of a Tory leader has emboldened David Cameron to believe this is solid ground for him. He will keep on making these eye-catching and brazen announcements about British film – a topic on which, as Harold Wilson once said to Harold Laski, a period of silence on his part would be most welcome.

On Radio 4’s Today programme, Evan Davis cheekily asked him to comment on a listener’s view that in a Cameron biopic, Malcolm McDowell should play the lead (having famously played the public-school cad Flashman). Cameron opined that If … was a good film of McDowell’s. Huh? Did Mr Cameron fully understand that Lindsay Anderson’s If … was a searing attack on the public school system from a socialist director? Well, he was responding to a question, and he was caught on the hop.

But now he has made a calm and considered visit to the set of the new 007 film at Pinewood Studios and, on the occasion of a report into film-funding from Lord (Chris) Smith, that Blair-era figure who once wrote a solemn study titled Creative Britain, commented publicly that lottery money now needs to be targeted at “mainstream” films. Yes, of course, those commercial blockbusters and box-office sizzlers, as opposed to lefty chin-stroking arty-liberal fare (like, presumably, Lindsay Anderson’s If …) Really, prime minister? What a bold new idea!

The sheer audacity is staggering. He says he wants to “build on the incredible success of recent years”, but one of his administration’s most sensational acts of party political grandstanding and spite was to cancel the UK Film Council – a creation of the Labour years – just when it was delivering not merely critically admired work but precisely those commercial hits of the kind Cameron professes to yearn for.

Could there be any better example of the classy, Brit-heritage smash than The King’s Speech, a film which would not have existed without the UK Film Council’s support? And yet just when this movie’s producers were taking their Oscars away in a wheelbarrow, the Film Council was in the process of being wound up. It was the equivalent of David Cameron rushing on to the field at the final whistle of 2003 Rugby World Cup, calling for silence, and announcing that the coaching system was all wrong, and Clive Woodward and Jonny Wilkinson should be given their P45s right away.

I suspect Cameron now realises the UK Film Council move was one of his government’s silliest blunders. It wasn’t broke – so he broke it. Now he’s returning to the fray, with some choice rhetoric about getting our British movie industry to up its game to rival Hollywood, a rhetoric he has learned from the Blair-Brown administration which, in fact, really did care about boosting cinema.

But it’s not just a case of taking the “commercial”-looking projects and throwing money at them for higher returns. It doesn’t work like that. Producing movies – any kind of movies – is a gamble. As the great screenwriter William Goldman said: nobody knows anything. The UK Film Council got it pretty wrong in the early years of its existence in chasing, and being seen to chase, commercial hits. It resulted in some embarrassing dross, chiefly about mockney gangsters.

Are we destined to go through this again? The UK Film Council was not perfect, and it certainly had its critics, but its successes were coming through the pipeline because it was always keen on self-scrutiny and research, always trying to get the balance between supporting crowd-pleasers and critical darlings. Because these go together, and the distinction is never clear in any case.

The challenge is to make good films, and to make as many as possible and to raise the statistical likelihood of success as high as possible. It may sound naive, but not as naive as this implied image of hearty commercial films starved of cash by lefty arthouse conspirators.

Cameron says he is against big government. Perhaps politicians like him will now resolve to leave the world of film alone for a bit.

It is posted by bally chohan he is expert in movie review if you want to know more information than join bally chohan

Movie Review by bally chohan : War Horse

Wednesday, January 11th, 2012

Bally chohan : May be it was the epic, old-fashioned storytelling, or the touching bond depicted between man and animal. Whatever the reason, Steven Spielberg’s War Horse worked its way into my heart and I enjoyed it purely as a simple, fulfilling story. Thinking back on it, I smile because this is the type of film many people of various ages and backgrounds can enjoy together. It has a universal appeal because it’s about universal feelings and themes, like caring for a child or pet you’ve nurtured and watched grow; seeing promises all the way through; and basic survival. You can categorize it as a war picture, sure, but it doesn’t necessarily takes sides and label one country good and another evil, nor does it see things from a single point of view. War in this case serves as a mechanism for us to see how any human being – English, French, German, man, woman, adult, child – can be linked to others through his or her humanity. In this case, their humanity stems from the way they care for and react to the title character.

The story has the kind of classic tone that resonated in films of the 1930s, free of cynicism and filled to the brim with underlying hope. In Devon, Ireland, just before World War I, a poor farmer named Ted Narracott (Peter Mullan) hastily (and drunkenly) bids on a horse in a local auction to spite his smug landlord (David Thewlis). But the horse is too skinny and jumpy to pull a plow, which is what Narracott needs it for, and so he ends up with a seemingly useless animal and an even greater line of debt. His wife (Emily Watson) gives him one month to train it; otherwise she vows to return the horse herself and beseech the landlord for forgiveness. But their son, Albert (Jeremy Irvine), who saw the young thoroughbred come into the world, sees a golden opportunity to raise it as his own.

Bally chohan expert in movie review bally chohan review on blogs Bally chohan expert in sports review