Raj Malhotra (Raju) (Govinda), a detective, goes on a European trip to help his friend Sanjay Khanna (Nirmal Pandey) prove that his wife is having an extramarital affair. Khanna and his wife Anjali (Ritu Shivpuri) think that their counterpart is cheating on their relationship and each of them want proof to easily file for divorce. They stop living in the same house and believe their spouse has gone to Europe with their boyfriend/girlfriend. Anjali sends her friend (Rani Mukerji), who shares the same name, on this trip to get information regarding her husband. In a mix-up of different identities, Raju and Anjali fall in love and then, eventually, solve their misunderstandings.
Anjali Khanna had always suspected her husband, Sanjay, of cheating on her, and flirting with other women. In order to keep an eye on him and his activities, she asks her friend, who is ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
A Z (it) wrote: Expecting more from July, but an interesting film nonetheless. Takes some thought.
Grant W (gb) wrote: Great start. This could have been one of the best and most effective horror films I've seen in a long time. As soon as the boyfriend got involved, however, it degenerated into the same trite and expected nonsense we see over and over again.
Nana A (de) wrote: not a date-movie. Miles Teller's first movie-- and he's already spectacular.
Alex T (fr) wrote: Kinda slow, kinda dumb, kinda predictable, but I still liked it... it had it's charm. Not something I ever need to see ever again, though. Kinda similar to Zombies Anonymous which was a bit more funny and better paced.
Jesus H (mx) wrote: so so. old ladies movie
lion o (ca) wrote: good film 7.5 out of 10
Heather M (us) wrote: I couldn't make it past the first 15 minutes. It was just to cheesy and the special effects were awful.
Nancy B (us) wrote: The movie is Ok , it leaves you wanting more though like is she going to make it in new York? Will Estella have her own line of dresses ? Will she get married? I thought it was a nice but incomplete story we never even got to see the beautiful red dress on ferrera!!
mike h (de) wrote: Probably Melanie Griffith & Dorff's best work, who doesn't like a movie that takes a stab and hollywood movies. Movie dick over and out
Ted W (jp) wrote: Bad pig movie and disney movie. I expected better but love the singers and the song. Give a pig a company and so much money. Stupid.
David F (fr) wrote: This is a fantastic movie about a death in the family of a callous, greedy businessman in Los Angeles who returns to the midwest to discover unknown truths about his family. He goes on a road trip with an autistic brother he never knew he had and discovers an ability to connect he never before experienced. Such wonderful actors and a great group of settings stretching from Cincinnati, Ohio down Route 66 through motor court motels and Las Vegas to end in Los Angeles. It is an unforgettable cinematic experience.
Josh E (kr) wrote: (I submitted this as an English essay)Gregory Doran(TM)s adaptation of Shakespeare(TM)s Hamlet was very well done. I enjoyed both Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation and Gregory Doran(TM)s adaptation equally. However, I felt like this adaptation did the better job of staying true to the play. While it does put a big modern spin on the play, it maintained the story(TM)s original dark and grim atmosphere.This movie was much better casted than the other adaptation. Having a younger actor (David Tennant) play Hamlet seemed to better fit the character(TM)s childish mannerisms. He acted with a great range of emotions. While Kenneth Branagh acted the part psychotically most of the time, David Tennant(TM)s acting ranged from psychotic to tranquil, from joyful to depressed, from hateful to loving. This great range of emotions portrayed in a very off-putting way helped show the character(TM)s emotionally-contradictive personality, which is what Shakespeare likely intended.The minor characters were also very well casted. Gertrude was portrayed as emotionally troubled as opposed to old and bitter, which I felt added more dynamic to the film. Claudius seemed more intimidating and antagonistic in his polite manners, in a devil in disguise? sort of way. The Ghost of Hamlet was acted antagonistically as well. While reading the play, most often the reader(TM)s first impression of the ghost wouldn(TM)t be that of an antagonist. But the way the part was acted was very tour de force, and aggressive in a kind of Raging Bull? demeanor. The portrayal of the Ghost reflects Hamlet(TM)s fluctuating emotions, but also foils his lack of anger and confidence. Also, it was very smart to portray King Hamlet as more directly antagonistic than King Claudius, because it helps the audience focus more on Hamlet(TM)s inner conflict and less on his family affairs. I also thought it was very clever to make Patrick Stewart play both Claudius and the Ghost of Hamlet, because they were physically the same person, but almost polar opposites in their demeanor.This movie had less production value than Kenneth Branagh(TM)s version. However, I liked the lesser production value of this version. It creates a whole different atmosphere. Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation had Victorian, well lit settings that seemed almost too lively and grand. The setting of this version is much colder?. The rooms are smaller and the halls are narrower, giving the movie more tension. It also makes less use of lighting, for a dark and gloomy feel. It also gives the movie more ambiguity and suspense, while only focusing on what(TM)s important (example: the ghost? scenes at night sometimes kept the actors in the dark while lighting the ghost when it makes its appearance, then uses lighting to capture the actor(TM)s reactions). All of this helps to capture the play(TM)s true heart of darkness, which I really appreciated.There was a difference in this version(TM)s sequence of the play(TM)s scenes. Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation was very paint-by-numbers?, in that it reflected the original text in its entirety. But this adaptation(TM)s removal and rearrangement of scenes made it seem more movie-like?, so that the plot is more easily comprehensible and entertaining.What I appreciated the most of this movie is its well thought out use of different types of shots, which all had different purposes. The type of shot that I considered most cleverly executed was the found-footage shot. In this movie, it is in the form of security camera footage. I felt that the use of this type of shot helped to increase feelings of paranoia. My favorite example of this is during Hamlet(TM)s to be or not to be? monologue, where Polonius and Claudius watch him via the security cameras. This scene also made a good use of long shots (shots that last longer than a minute without cuts) and close-ups, which help the audience appreciate the acting more as well as create more intensity. A lot of long shots were used during monologues. The long close-ups in the to be or not to be? scene, matched with the found footage shots, created a really intense and paranoid tone that I really enjoyed and did not expect.Another type of shot that the director implemented that I really enjoyed was jump-edited shots. This is when two sequential shots don(TM)t differ in camera angle, and the subject remains on camera but in a slightly different position. Jump-edited shots were cleverly used during Hamlet(TM)s soliloquies to show sudden shifts of emotions. In one shot he(TM)d be maniacal in his expressions, and it will cut immediately to a shot of him in a sad and melancholy trance. This makes it seem like these two emotionally-polar sides of him coexist, and the intention of this was likely to mess with the viewer psychologically, which I really enjoyed.I also really enjoyed the varied use of static shots and moving shots. In Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation, most shots were moving, making the movie seem much livelier. However, this adaptation consisted of mostly static shots to create a better gloomy atmosphere. The moving shots are only used when something is going wrong. This helps guides the viewer(TM)s emotions. Overall, I really enjoyed this film. The varied acting, the gloomier production atmosphere, the clever execution of different shots, and the more coherent plot sequence all helped to create a wonderful adaptation that is unique in that it stays true to the play not literally, but through artistic elements. This is a wonderful adaptation that deserves more recognition than Kenneth Branagh(TM)s, so that moviegoers can be exposed to the play(TM)s true raw heart of darkness, rather than given blockbuster eye-candy that only captures Hamlet(TM)s words and not its spirit.
Davis P (ru) wrote: Love this movie, absolute classic. The 2 stars make this movie what is is. They are a fantastic pair when it comes to comedy tv and film.
Steven K (nl) wrote: best movie I've ever seen
Sierra W (jp) wrote: Dumb movie, but charmingly unapologetic in its stupidity.
Niwakase H (ca) wrote: the dark has taken the light, debates end.