The Film Street Journal

U.K. and U.S Box-Office (February 26 – 28 Weekend)

TFSJ — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:46:00 +0000

Comparative Figures In India

U.S. Box-Office (February 26 - 28 Weekend)

U.K. Box-Office (February 26 - 28 Weekend)

Issue dated March 7 – 13, 2010

Title, Promotion Matter – And How!

TFSJ — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:33:00 +0000

At least two films released this week have suffered on account of their titles and inappropriate or lack of promotion. The producers of Atithi Tum Kab Jaoge? spent heavily on promotion but the initial has generally been below the markNo doubt, collections on Friday were impressive in a few cinemas but they were not good enough in the rest of the cinemas. This was because of the title and publicity, both of which didn’t cater to the upmarket audience.

Today, if a producer wants his film to record impressive collections on the opening day, he has to woo the youth and the city audiences. But a title like Atithi Tum Kab Jaoge? could hardly have been expected to appeal to the youth or to the multiplex-going public. That is probably why collections of the comedy film in multiplexes were far lower than in single-screen cinemas on Friday.

The other film one is referring to is Thanks Maa. With a title like the aforementioned, the public was misled into believing that the film was an ode to a loving mother and that it would have family sentiments. Family films usually don’t open too well and pick up only if the word of mouth is good. But Thanks Maa is replete with four-letter words and if this fact had been publicised, it may have taken at least a decent start.

However, with a title like Thanks Maa on the one hand and with minimal publicity on the other, not many among the public were aware of what the film had to offer to the audience or even that the film was due for release on 5th March. Resultantly, the opening was dismal everywhere. Even otherwise, the release was so haphazard (hardly any shows in the multiplexes, and just a handful of cinemas in each city) that the opening was further affected adversely.

Issue dated March 7 – 13, 2010

Milengey…. Milengey… Milengey.. But When?

TFSJ — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:26:42 +0000

It’s no secret that Milengey Milengey has been in the making since long. Actually, it is more than a couple of years since the film has been completed and has been awaiting release.

Producer Boney Kapoor, after several false alarms, had finally announced its release on 2nd April. Call it a coincidence or whatever but on the same day as Milengey Milengey, another film titled Tum Milo Toh Sahi, had been announced for release.

It almost seemed as if someone (read director Kabir Sadanand) had gotten tired of the several release date declarations of Milengey Milengey and had actually made a film with the title, Tum Milo Toh Sahi. Well, the latest is that Milengey Milengey has once again been postponed to an unknown date. Hopefully, Tum Milo Toh Sahi will at least come on 2nd April.

Issue dated March 7 – 13, 2010

Sohail Khan Cries Foul

TFSJ — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:22:55 +0000

The trade may remember the time when Sohail Khan and UTV’s Main Aurr Mrs. Khanna was due for release. It was being mentioned in hushed tones that UTV was not promoting the film to the fullest.

At that time, of course, both, UTV and Sohail Khan, denied that there was anything wrong. But now that the film has been released and has bombed miserably, the problem is out in the open. Sohail Khan has complained to the IMPPA that out of the Rs. 3.5 crore UTV owed him, it has paid only Rs. 50 lakh.

The complaint of Sohail accuses UTV of “raising several false and frivolous issues which are of no relevance” with a view to avoid making him the balance payment of Rs. 3 crore. Sohail Khan has sought the IMPPA’s intervention in the matter. One doesn’t know UTV’s version of the story or its reply to the allegations made against it by Sohail Khan, but one thing is clear: when there’s a partnership in the production of a film, and accounts are not settled before the film’s release, there are bound to be disputes if the film flops. So, nothing that was unexpected has taken place in the case of Main Aurr Mrs. Khanna!

Issue dated March 7 – 13, 2010

Smile-Inducing Trailer

TFSJ — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:10:37 +0000

The first trailer of Housefull is on air and it is one that is bringing a smile on the viewer’s face. It shows Deepika Padukone, Lara Dutta and Jiah Khan one after the other, speaking fondly about the same man, Akshay Kumar.

And Akshay then talks about the three beauties, all of whom are his wives! The film co-stars Arjun Rampal, Ritesh Deshmukh and Boman Irani. After watching this promo, one thing can safely be concluded – it shouldn’t be a surprise if Housefull opens to full houses on 30th April. Seems Akshay Kumar is all set to strike back with a vengeance in this film directed by Sajid Khan for producers Sajid Nadiadwala and Eros.

Issue dated March 7 – 13, 2010

Review of Atithi Tum Kab Jaoge?

TFSJ — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:28:15 +0000

On the whole, Atithi Tum Kab Jaoge? is an ordinary fare and will not be able to make an impressive mark at the ticket windows. It may make a section of the audience (which frequents single-screen cinemas) laugh but that section would not be big enough to yield profits to the producers/ distributors.

Warner Bros. Pictures and Wide Frame Films’ Atithi Tum Kab Jaoge? is a comedy film about a guest who refuses to leave, much to the dismay of his hosts.

Lambodar (Paresh Rawal) comes to Bombay from Gorakhpur and lands up at the house of Puneet (Ajay Devgan), his nephew. Puneet and his working wife, Munmun (Konkona Sen Sharma), had least expected the guest and were, in fact, not even aware that they had an uncle called Lambodar. Trying to be the ideal hosts, they conceal their annoyance and behave well with him and extend their hospitality to the fullest to make him feel comfortable. The crass Lambodar, on the other hand, irritates them with his crude acts and actions. However, he has his good side too – among other things, he brushes up their child’s Hindi, much to the joy of his teacher. Yet, Lambodar soon gets on the nerves of the hosts.
Puneet and Munmun begin to despair when Lambodar refuses to leave. Driven to their wits’ end, they use different tricks to make him leave but somehow, nothing works as the thick-skinned Lambodar refuses to budge. What happens thereafter is revealed in the climax.

The story (Ashwini Dhir) may be thin but it is one which every family can identify with. Therefore, by its very nature, the film is a fare for the family audience. However, the screen- play is replete with toilet humour (Lambodar keeps polluting the atmosphere by passing gas, and Munmun keeps spraying room freshner thereafter), which may not go down too well with the ladies and family audience. In that sense, the screenplay, penned by Robin Bhatt, Ashwini Dhir and Tushar Hiranandani, is enjoyable but it has its limitations. It must be mentioned here that the crude humour will find favour with a section of the mass audience which will enjoy the jokes.

One problem with the screenplay is that it becomes repetitive after a while. Similar jokes are cracked by the characters in the drama so that the viewer starts feeling bored. Some scenes also look too contrived to be true. Agreed, for instance, that the comedy in the film is exaggerated but even the exaggeration can’t explain why Puneet and Munmun are embarrassed when they are caught by the police in a raid on couples involved in a prostitution racket in the hotel they have checked into. Why they don’t try to convince the police that they are a married couple instead of hiding their faces behind veils (as if they were, in fact, indulging in prostitution) is not clearly explained. Had this scene been of a few seconds, it would’ve still been enjoyable but it goes on for a few minutes, making the audience hunt for an answer to the obvious question that crops up in their minds. Sadly, there are no answers offered by the writers.

Another mistake which the three writers have committed is to make the atithi (guest) appear like a noble soul rather than just a hanger-on, by making him very concerned for the good of the hosts. This confuses the audience and comes in the way of their full enjoyment of the comedy which pokes fun at the guest, because he is shown to be both, irritating and noble. The writers probably did not want to send the signal that guests are a bad species but, in doing so, they have diluted the comic impact of the drama. Even if they had wanted to present the goodness of the guest, they should’ve done it far more cleverly. However, the way they’ve incorporated the scenes showing Lambodar’s good qualities, it looks like they suddenly decided to convert a mass comic entertainer into a social film with a message. Unfortunately, the marriage doesn’t work too well if only because the comedy and the social message have not been juxtaposed very intelligently.

It is because of the aforementioned reasons that the comedy has limited appeal. Among the plus points are the opening commentary and the animated sketches of the characters to explain the film’s theme and the way in which Lambodar asks Munmun to cook food for him. Dialogues (Ashwini Dhir) are witty and funny. The domestic help’s arguments with Munmun and Lambodar are novel.

Perhaps, the biggest drawback of the film is that its conception and making are more suitable for a television serial. Rather than an all-encompassing and free-flowing story, the drama looks like an assemblage of comic episodes. Also, the film’s title and promotion are not too upmarket because of which the patronage of the youth and in the multiplexes will be limited and below the mark.

Ajay Devgan looks handsome in his clean-shaven avatar and acts well. Konkona Sen Sharma is wonderfully natural but she could do with a little more concentration on her costumes and glamour quotient. Paresh Rawal performs pretty naturally. Satish Kaushik leaves an impact as the film director. Akhilendra Mishra impresses with a fine performance. Sanjay Mishra gets limited scope but is good, all the same. Viju Khote provides decent support. The actress playing the domestic help entertains. The rest of the artistes lend good support.

Ashwini Dhir’s direction, like his script, is of the kind that will appeal to a section of the masses but will not find much favour with the youth and the classes. If he is to make his mark as a director, Dhir has to get over his television serial hangover. Pritam’s music is far from good. Except the parody of the ‘Beedi jalai le’ song from Omkara, the other songs lack appeal. Also, the bhajans look out of place in the film and will bore the audience. The title track, composed by Amit Mishra, is average. Choreography (Raju Khan, Ahmed Khan and Ravi Botalje) is routine. Aseem Bajaj’s camerawork is very nice. Editing (by Dharmendra Sharma) lacks the crispness. Jai Singh Nijjar’s action scenes are functional. Production and technical values are ordinary.

Released on 5-3-’10 at Eros (daily 3 shows), New Empire (daily 3 shows), Liberty (daily 2 shows), Maratha Mandir and 106 other cinemas of Bombay by Warner Bros. Pictures (India) Pvt. Ltd. Publicity: very good. Opening: from dull to average. …….Also released all over. Opening was ordinary at places and dull at others. It was better in a few single-screen cinemas only.

Issue dated March 7 – 13, 2010

Review of Road,Movie

TFSJ — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:06:27 +0000

Studio 18 and August Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.’s Road, Movie (UA) is a road movie about the journey of Vishnu (Abhay Deol) who travels miles in a very old truck which often breaks down along the way. Driving through the desert state of Rajasthan, he first befriends a young boy (Mohammed Faizal) who works as a helper in a roadside tea stall. The boy hitches a ride with him as he wants to go to another village to hunt for a new job. When the truck breaks down for the first time, the boy walks a long distance in the barren land to hunt for a mechanic. He finally gets one, Om (Satish Kaushik), who agrees to repair the truck on the condition that he would then hitch a ride to the village where a fair is being held.

Along the way, the three meet a gypsy woman (Tannishtha Chatterjee) who is walking in the scorching heat and has a small pouch of water. She shares the water with the thirsty threesome and also joins them in the truck.

The truck, which doesn’t belong to Vishnu, has a touring cinema inside. Vishnu uses the touring cinema in the truck to show movies to the villagers when he is in a tight spot. Om helps him in starting the dilapidated projector and, in the process of showing movies in the villages, they also make money. Vishnu is first confronted by a difficult policeman (Virendra Saxena) and later, by the water mafia (Yashpal Sharma and group) along the way, but he manages to save himself, his truck and his travelling friends, thanks to the touring talkies and to the hair-oil bottles he is carrying in cartons to sell at his destination. He finds himself attracted towards his woman passenger and they even get physical. At one stop, Om passes away while enjoying a movie.

Finally, it is time for Vishnu to bid the woman and the boy goodbye.

The story (Dev Benegal) offers hardly anything to the audience in India which is not used to watching such road films. Even the screenplay, penned by Dev Benegal himself, is so slow-moving that it actually tests the audience’s patience. But, perhaps, the biggest problem is that none of the ingredients of a masala film seems to exist in this fare: there is no romance although there is some hint of sex between Vishnu and the woman; drama is minimal; emotions are missing; comedy is of a very different kind, which would be appreciated by a thin minority of the audience; action is conspicuous by its absence. Even a climax in the traditional sense of the word is missing. Frankly, since the hero doesn’t set out on a great mission in the first place, the audience does not experience a feeling of fulfilment in the end, something the public in India is so used to experiencing in every film. In the same sense, there is no heroism of the hero, Vishnu.

The only audience which will find the film worth a watch is the one which likes films of the festival circuit. Even fans of Abhay Deol and his kind of films would feel let down by the fare on offer. Dialogues (Dev Benegal) are natural and witty, but only at places.

Abhay Deol does a fine job and gets into the skin of his character. He is completely in synch with the mood of the film. Satish Kaushik is also just too natural. He endears himself to the audience with his raw audacity. Tannishtha Chatterjee gets limited scope and is good. Mohammed Faizal is cute and supremely confident. Yashpal Sharma leaves a mark. Virendra Saxena is effective.

Director Dev Benegal’s narrative style is just like his script – it holds appeal only for a thin section of the elite audience. Michael Brook’s music and background score are okay. Michel Amathieu’s cinematography and Yaniv Dabach’s editing are nice.

On the whole, Road, Movie is too dull and dry to make an impact among the audience in India. It will meet with a disastrous fate at the box-office. It will probably find some patronage among the festival circuit audience abroad.
Released on 5-3-’10 at Inox (daily 4 shows) and 40 other cinemas of Bombay by Studio 18. Publicity: so-so. Opening: very poor. …….Also released all over. Opening was weak everywhere.

Issue dated March 7 – 13, 2010

Review of Rokkk

TFSJ — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:02:21 +0000

On the whole, Rokkk is an ordinary fare which suffers on account of a confused screenplay. It will not be able to scare the audience enough to make the distributors smile. Business in single-screen cinemas will be okay but it will be poor in multiplexes.

Ikkon Films’ Rokkk (A) is a horror film about the spirit of a dead girl and the calamity which befalls anyone who crosses the path of that spirit.

Anushka (Tanushree Dutta) is charged with the murder of her husband, Ravi (Sachin Khedekar), and sister-in-law, Nishita (Preeti). Anushka is sent to a mental asylum but the fact is that she is possessed by the spirit of the dead girl, which resides in the new bungalow into which she, her husband and sister-in-law had moved on their first wedding anniversary. Her husband had there- after given in to her plea to leave the haunted house as she was being hounded by a ghost there. But the ghost did not leave Anushka even in their old bungalow to which they had shifted.

Ahana (Udita Goswami), the younger sister of Anushka, comes to Goa from Delhi to be by her sister’s side in her hour of need. She can’t locate her sister who has run away from the mental asylum. On probing, Ahana soon realises that it is a case of spirits and ghosts in which Anushka had got involved. Unable to trace her sister, Ahana sets out to solve the mystery in a bid to clear her sister’s name. She seeks the help of CBI officer Ranveer (Shaad Randhawa) and the two even meet a tantrik, Vishwatma (Arif Zakaria), who knows the entire story about the haunted house.

Vishwatma reveals the past of the haunted house to Ahana and Ranveer. This leads Ahana to Yashoda (Ashwini Kalsekar) who further elaborates the story. What Ahana and Vishwatma do thereafter is shown in the climax. Is Ahana able to trace Anushka and free her from the spirit? That is the suspense which is revealed in the latter part of the climax.

Rajesh Ranshinge’s story is routine and Haroon Rashid’s screenplay is confused and also one of convenience. The audience is not very clear about why Steve (Murali Sharma) wants the bungalow, about how Ravi had bought the bungalow, about why some people meet with instant death on encountering the spirit while others don’t die equally soon, about why Ravi initially takes Anushka’s fear of the bungalow being haunted, so lightly, about how Ravi’s first wife had died, about why Ahana dares to visit the eerie bungalow alone, and about why the CBI officer is drawn to the tantrik so easily after scoffing at Ahana’s belief in ghosts and spirits. Also, it seems weird that Ahana goes about trying to solve the mystery of the ghost rather than locating her lost sister, which should have been her first priority. What if her sister is dead or in danger? Wasn’t Ahana bothered about that at all?

The first half moves at a fairly good pace and involves the viewer but the pace drops after interval. Too much footage has been given to the tantrik, and his portions are often boring. Also, because Yashoda’s part of the story is not very clearly explained, the fear element reduces instead of increasing. The horror scenes are all very similar as a result of which the novelty factor dies down very fast.

What are, however, good are the sound effects which create a chilly atmosphere at several places. That is to say, it is the sound which scares the audience more than the story and the scenes. Haroon Rashid’s dialogues are good but only at places.

Udita Goswami does quite well. Tanushree Dutta is also fairly good. Shaad Randhawa needs to improve on his dialogue delivery and voice modulation. His mannerisms are villainish although he is actually an investigating CBI officer. Arif Zakaria should’ve been far more effective. However, more than his acting (which is nice), it is his characterisation which is to be blamed for the lack of his effectiveness. Ashwini Kalsekar leaves an impact. Sachin Khedekar does an average job. Murali Sharma is okay. Nishigandha Wad makes her presence felt in a brief role. Preeti is okay. Baby Akshita has acted ably. Imran Hashmi, Tarikesh Singh, Raju Pandit, Neha Bam and the others lend ordinary support.
Rajesh Ranshinge’s direction is average.

He has left several questions unanswered because of which the audience is unable to experience to the fullest the thrill of a chilling suspense drama. Also, there is not much novelty in his horror scenes. Music (Sunil Singh) is a letdown. Background score is effective more because it is loud rather than due to its quality. Joshy Anthony’s sound has the desired effect. Hanif Sheikh’s stunts and action scenes are okay. Camerawork (by Shakil Khan) is good. Art direction (Shree Kumar Nayar) is commonplace. Editing (Raju Kapadia) is not very sharp.

Released on 5-3-’10 at New Excelsior (daily 2 shows), Alankar and 33 other cinemas of Bombay thru Al Makdoom Enterprises. Publicity: good but not very effective. Opening: dull. …….Also released all over. Opening was weak at most of the places and ordinary at some others.

Issue dated March 7 – 13, 2010

Review of Thanks Maa

TFSJ — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:57:41 +0000

On the whole, Thanks Maa is a wonderful attempt but its commercial prospects will not at all match its merits for two reasons: it is a depressing fare, and its promotion is almost negligible.

Quantum Films Ltd.’s Thanks Maa (A) is a bold film about the underbelly of Bombay city.

Salman Khan a.k.a. Municipality Ghatkopar (master Shams Patel), Soda (master Salman), Cutting (master Fayaaz), Dedh Shaana (master Jaffar) and Sursuri (baby Almas) are five slum-dwellers who bond well and do odd jobs, besides picking people’s pockets, for a living. Municipality Ghatkopar is the most principled of the lot and he is very sad about the fact that he was deserted by his mother when he was still a tiny tot.

Sent to a children’s home after he is caught for a petty crime, Municipality runs away from there when he realises that the warden (Alok Nath) is a paedophile who is lusting for him (Municipality). While escaping from the children’s home in the middle of the night, he sees a lady abandoning a new-born baby at the doorstep of the same home. Instinctively, he picks up the baby and runs away with it so that it is spared the lustful eyes of the wretched warden. He resolves to trace the woman who left the child, christened Krish by him, but the only thing he remembers is that the taxi in which she had come to the children’s home had a picture of Salman Khan the actor from the film Tere Naam.

Even as Soda taunts him for his mission, Cutting, Sursuri and Dedh Shaana join him. The four little kids now roam the streets of Bombay, trying desperately to trace Krish’s mother. With some help, they succeed in locating the cabbie, Yusuf Charsi (Sanjay Mishra), who had driven the woman to the children’s home. He leads them on to Motwani (Ranvir Shorey) who had had an affair with the woman. Motwani, in turn, informs them of the whereabouts of the woman, Laxmi (Mukta Barve), who turns out to be a prostitute in a brothel. The four children reach the brothel and brave all dangers to get in touch with Laxmi.

One destination leads to another and Municipality, with the help of the authorities in the hospital where Krish was born, and a priest who runs an orphanage, finally locates the mother of Krish but he is in for the worst shock of his life. Does Municipality give Krish to his mother? Does Municipality get to know who his own mother is? What happens to Krish thereafter? These questions are answered in the climax.

Irfan Kamal and Vishal Vijay Kumar’s script is bold and, at the same time, it touches the heart. The writers have penned an authentic tale of street urchins. Their attitude, the language they speak, their innocence, their rawness, their intuitiveness, their mannerisms, all have been captured so beautifully that one can’t help admire the brilliance of the writers and the first-time actors playing the street kids. The film which immediately comes to mind while watching Thanks Maa is Hollywood’s Slumdog Millionaire (English) and its dubbed Hindi version, Slumdog Crorepati, and although comparisons are not always right, what differentiates this film from the earlier hit is that while Slumdog was an uplifting film, Thanks Maa is a depressing fare.And it is this feeling of depression one experiences while watching the drama unfold on the screen, that will hugely limit its prospects at the box-office. The depressing nature of the drama is because of the various facts of the city’s underbelly, which the film exposes. Paedophilia, extra-marital affairs, detailed working of the prostitution business, an insight into the sleazy functioning of a prostitute, child exploitation – these are only some of the crimes dealt with in the film in all their graphic details. As if this weren’t enough, what the climax throws up is even more shocking and, for the average film buff, horrifyingly depressing. In that sense, the film’s title is a complete misnomer, giving the public an impression of a family film. The liberal and truly abundant use of the choicest four-letter words in Hindi adds to the authenticity of the film. The censors deserve kudos for passing the film in its raw form. The swear words would be enjoyed by the masses and the menfolk although women would feel repulsed by the overdose.

The story is humane but where the writers have faltered is in not being able to incorporate pronounced emotions in the drama. They probably got so involved with the four-letter words, the authenticity factor and the shock value that they failed to weave the emotional angle effectively. A drama of this kind needed to be truly high on emotions. Comedy is inherent in the dialogues mouthed by the five street children. Climax is too shocking for comfort.

Performances of the cast members are absolutely fantastic. The five actors playing the street kids deserve the highest praise for their natural acting in their maiden attempts. Master Shams Patel is outstanding and shines with an unbelievably realistic performance. He deserved the National Award he won.

Master Salman is very good. Fayaaz is just too natural. Baby Almas does a brilliant job and seems to be a born actress. Master Jaffar is endearing and his dialogue delivery with a straight face makes him truly unique. Sanjay Mishra leaves a mark. Ranvir Shorey is natural. Alok Nath does a superb job. Raghubir Yadav shines in a brief role. Barry John is fair as the priest who runs the orphanage. Mukta Barve is okay. Jalees Sherwani is nice as the eunuch. Baby Sakshi is very cute in the role of the abandoned child, Krish. Krishna (as pimp), Kodak (as prostitute Laxmi’s client), Ayesha Raza (as Motwani’s wife) and the others lend excellent support.

Irfan Kamal’s direction deserves distinction marks. His narrative style is raw and, given that the tale is depressing, he has done an honest job of narrating the same. Background music (Ranjit Barot) is in keeping with the film’s theme. Ajayan Vincent has done a splendid job with his camera. His cinematography captures the proceedings marvellously. Amit Saxena and Firoz Khan’s editing is excellent. Art direction (by Tejashree Sheetal) deserves special mention. Thrills (Abbas Ali Moghul) are realistic.

On the whole, Thanks Maa is a wonderful attempt but its commercial prospects will not at all match its merits for two reasons: it is a depressing fare, and its promotion is almost negligible. A film of this kind deserved a huge promotional budget and extensive and effective marketing, without which it could go almost unnoticed. The film will have to depend on word of mouth but the pick-up in collections, if at all, will just not be enough. Chances are, it will go unnoticed.

Released on 5-3-’10 at Regal (daily 1 show) and 34 other cinemas of Bombay thru SPE Films India Pvt. Ltd. Publicity: dull. Opening: very poor. …….Also released all over. Opening was pathetic everywhere.

Issue dated March 7 – 13, 2010

Review of Legion (English)

TFSJ — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:52:13 +0000

On the whole, Scott Stewart’s apocalyptic-horror film is another illogical thriller. The script is laughable and clichéd; the lead and supporting cast don’t have a high market value; and the majority of the film is shot without junior artistes, lending a low-budget feel to it.

The Christian God, we are asked to believe, has lost his marbles. He doesn’t like what’s going on in the world today, in Bold Films’ Legion (A), so He dispatches his winged gun-toting generals to exterminate the human race.

At a wayside hotel in the middle of a desert, customers are seated around tables when the TV gives a strange signal. Instead of going up to the roof and quietly checking the antenna, the owner and the rest of the diners start panicking, as though they all have a premonition or are somehow aware of the film’s premise.

Then, a sweet old lady enters the place, orders a nice steak, and politely tells the pregnant waitress, Charlie (Adrianne Palicki) that her unborn baby will burn. Meanwhile, standing outside the hotel, Jeep Hanson (Lucas Black), a slightly frightened chap with a good heart, sees funny things in the sky.

The Sunday catechism nuns who taught that Michael (Paul Bettany) was the fallen angel will be flabbergasted to learn that he’s actually quite a nice fellow, and that the potential saviour of mankind has a mother who doesn’t want him to be born and a father who has absconded.

For want of better ideas, such are the kind of shockers that writer Peter Schink and writer-director Scott Stewart employ in their script. And yes, the “chosen one” character appears to be a favourite in ‘B’-grade Hollywood films these days.
Bettany puts up a rough-and-tough performance as the grey, emotionless action hero. Lucas Black and Adrianne Palicki are quite natural in their roles as the simple boy and girl next door. The rest of the cast too does its bit.
John Frizzell’s pulsating orchestral score is highlighted with a heavenly chorus.

Released on 5-3-’10 at Regal (daily 1 show) and 25 other cinemas of Bombay thru SPE Films India Pvt. Ltd. Publicity: fair. Opening: poor.

- Dalton L.

Issue dated March 7 – 13, 2010