What fact completely ruins a movie?

 Typically in movies you see heroes breaking through glass mirrors or windows like this, more so in action flicks.

Only never even try such stunts in real life. Because what you see in movies is a special kind of glass called “Breakaway Glass”, or rather Sugar glass, a brittle transparent form of sugar thaat looks like glass. Though of late sugar glass has given way to a liquid plastic, made from a type of thermoplastic resin poured into silicon moulds to harden.

In real life if you try to break through a glass window, the result is more likely to be like this.

And unless you have some kind of super power, there is every chance of your hands or feet getting cut badly by one of the shards or edges, which also bears the weight of the glass. And you are more likely to land up in a hospital bed. Even worse those heavy shards of glass can act like a guillotine too at times on your neck,

The other scenario is that the glass does not shatter but rather stays cracked, and you decided to force your way through, again you could end up with a whole lot of cuts all over.

The windows you see in real life are made of regular glass that is quite thick, and needs a whole lot of pressure to shatter, even if the glass does not cut you, the impact could cause serious fractures.

What happens on TV all the time, but never happens in real life?

 Kids aren't like that. Especially as shown in the Indian TV serials.

1. Don't even get me started on this. To begin with, Diya (Tejaswi Prakash), an 18-year-old princess, is given the sole responsibility of Ratan Banna (Afaan Khan), the 9-year-old heir to a supposedly enviable Rajput empire, one that he stands the risk of losing his life over. Of course the only way for her to be able to protect him is to be his wife.

I’ll give you a moment alone with that logic. All they are depicting is a 10 year old stalking and romancing an adult girl.

2. They are always super excited and talk in annoyingly high pitched voice. Always.

3. Serials with a child protagonist always have him get bullied in the school because he/she is poor. He/she then vows to turn them into a good person and ends up making them their best friend. I would kick them right in the nuts.

4. Their problems? No, not homework or school projects. That's for like…babies. There everyday headache is how to get their fighting parents to reconcile and patch up. My problems were calculus, trigonometry and Archimedes principle.

5. Somehow they notice some sinister plot by the villain, investigate it better than the FBI would, get kidnapped, and yes..escape as easily as Jerry would from Tom's grasp. They would then reveal everything and save the day. I still watch Tom and Jerry.

6. Did I tell you they also specialize in dating advises. They would make their elder brothers or sisters realise their feelings and convince them to go and propose. My brother would whoop my ass if i even ask about his girlfriend.

7. And those evil children who conspire like evil geniuses that even Joker would come to shame. Then there is their smirking. I've never in my life seen a kid smirk and say huh with air of disgust. I still get fooled by my friends every April fool's day.

8. Fear. What's that. They would go to inspect where's the sound coming from dead in the middle of night. I still don't go to the bathroom alone if i can control it till morning.

9. They know how to use the smartphones and the laptops. I would play gilli danda at their age.

10. Bhagwan ji. Special connection between them and god and whatever they wish comes true. I'm still wishing for a girlfriend. Where are you god?

11. Girls with specks larger than their face and pony tail till waist. Boys with the typical spiky hair and broken incisors. My Dean still frowns if she sees me with a good haircut.

12. McDonald's, burger king, Domino's. Everyday.

13. Then there was this bullshit.

14. Those kids don't have to attend schools. They are most of the times seen playing around the house and jumping and dancing for no reason. I had 100% attendance till 10th .

At their age i was mostly doing this

---

Make no mistake , I'm not questioning the effort and hard work from these kids. They really are talented. There are some real good serials as well like Udaan( initially it was good,now it's like typical tv crap). But what the directors make them do just doesn't happen in real life.

What are the differences between The Thing (2011) and the original movie?

 In many ways The Thing (2011) does what a good follow-up film should do. It expands on the world. It doesn't overdo it on the amount of references to events that happened in the previous film. It upped up the action, the rush, the adrenaline. Did it better, actually.

It's just…meaningless as a whole. All the good stuff's already been done.

The Thing (2011) is a prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 sci-fi horror.

In the 1982 one, a group of scientists run into...something from out this world.

The Thing came from another research camp, which was in ruins. All its inhabitants done for.

2011 goes back to see the events that transpired in that ruined camp.

Basing on 2011,

Dislikes:

The dialogue was too on the nose at times, especially compared to 1982's dialogue, which felt more natural.

I think Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a good actress otherwise but I did not like how her character, and the guy-in-charge's character, spoke at times. Very...um.."lecture-y"instead of a casual tone suited for conversations, which was what they were having.

1982 had a certain charm in the way they made supposedly one of the least smartest guys - the pilot in a team of mostly scientists - figure out a brilliant way to test if someone had The Thing. 2011 had...the smart science person do it. Who could have seen that coming?

The effects did nothing for me. Maybe I'm just sick and tired of CGI, but I did not care for the special effects here, especially since 1982 excelled in using practical effects.

The characters. Most of them felt like "copies," parallels of characters in the 1982 one. They look similar. Some acted similar. Whatever for? There was no need for this. They could have created entirely new characters.

Like:

I like how they zeroed in on how The-Thing-Can't-Replicate-Inorganic-Matter angle to save themselves.

The Thing, 2011. Whole movie felt unnecessary. It added very little to an already fully-told story. It used too much CGI, which was a low bar to clear because any CGI is too much when compared to how 1982 did it.

If there's one Thing you can gain from reading through this slop, use it as a reminder to consider rewatching 1982 this weekend.

What's the most inaccurate movie, in terms of science?

 Alien.

The iconic, alien species from the Alien franchise, known as the Xenomorph has one of the most inaccurate lifecycles.

The xenomorph has 3 lifecycles

Egg -> Facehugger-> Chestburster-> Xenomorph.

The xenomorphs grow so fast, like really fast. They can grow into adults within few minutes or hours.

I find that highly unlikely to happen because a living organism can't reach adulthood so rapidly and without consuming anything.

The human hybrid xenomorph grow into adults in just few minutes. Growing upto 2.30 m tall just after being born.

A perfect organism still need time and energy to grow.

Which classic Bollywood movie character do you think still perfectly embodies the enduring spirit of common Indian people today?

Avtaar : This Indian classic (1983) narrates saga of common Indian couple (Rajesh Khanna and Shabana Azmi) ; who selflessly devote their money ; energy and time for their family members.

Dejected : Nevertheless, an accident changes his personal and family fortune.

His entire family starts treating him as a liability and often misbehaves with him.

Restart : Nevertheless, he restarts his life again with the help of his loving wife and a dutiful assistant.

By fate, he makes it big and becomes financially strong.

Re approach : No wonder, his family members want to accept him.

But : He flatly refuses them and donates all his wealth to social cause.

Facts :Many elders are maltreated by their family members.

Unlike past, money often decides personal relationship.

It is always good to be financially ; but also ethically strong.

Movie has good music ; superb acting ; cinematography.

Note : 1st Pic displays Avtaar in hindi language.

Pic Credits : Google Images / Web

Why was the Bollywood movie "Teen Deviyan" awarded an 'A' certificate by the film censor board?

 I was shocked to know that Teen Devian was awarded an “A” Certificate. I have seen the film twice and decided to watch it again before drafting this answer.

There is on obscenity, vulgarity or voilence in the film which are the major reasons for an, “A” Certificate. There can be only one reason and it is the plot.

In Teen Devian, a charming Dev Anand falls in love with the three ladies simultaneously. Sounds strange, but this is the core plot of the movie. Dev Anand is not fooling them but genuinely likes all three of them for different reasons. Further he visits a hypnotist who takes him in a hypnotized state where he dreams and visualizes his future with each one of them and arrives at a decision. The film released in 1965 and the plot was way ahead of its time. A man falling in love with three ladies at a time can be the reason why it might have received an “A” Certificate.

Personally, I also feel that it's very important how you put up your point in front of the Censor Board. Guide released in the same year and it had a sub plot of an extra marital affair.

It was the time when woman would choose to stay in a bad marriage rather than leave her husband not only in films but also in real life. Still Guide was awarded an “U” Certificate. Therefore it becomes necessary how you convey your point to the Censor Board.

Whatever the reason, Teen Devian is a must watch film with great performances and good music. Though it is a black and white film, the hypnotized dream portion is shot in colour which is the crux of the film (some versions today have the portion in black and white). Just to add on, the film also had an English version but the print was never released. It was titled, “Oh Boys and Three Girls.”

Image(s) Courtesy: Google

What is the most gory horror movie ever made?

 Braindead/Dead Alive (Directed by Peter Jackson)

Bad Taste (Directed by Peter Jackson)

Planet Terror (Directed by Robert Rodriguez)

From Dusk Till Dawn (Directed by Robert Rodriguez)

Tokyo Gore Police and Ichi- The Killer

all of them were already mentioned.

I would add two more who are a bit overlook.

The 2007 French Splatter/Slasher À l’intérieur / Inside. This Film is not only very gory and disturbing, it has also great storyline and is really suspenseful.

The 2008 Horror The Midnight Meat Train directed by Ryuhei Kitamura and based on a short story from Clive Barker. This Film has a very interesting setting and a great Storyline and many Blood and Gore with Bradley Cooper as the Lead and Vinnie Jones as a evil butcher villain. One of my favourite films.

What are the film references from which the Bollywood movie Oh My God! was inspired?

 The storyline of the film Oh My God is based on a Gujarati stage-play Kanji Virudh Kanji.

The play has the same theme where an atheist sues God after his insurance claim is denied stating that his shop was destroyed by an “act of God”.

The play itself is inspired by an Australian film, The Man Who Sued God.

The producers of Oh My God had taken the rights to remake the film in Hindi with certain changes in the plotline and an altered climax.

The Gujarati play later inspired the Hindi play titled, “Kishan vs. Kanhaiya”. Interestingly Paresh Rawal plays the lead role in the Hindi film as well in the Hindi adaptation of the play.

Also, director Umesh Shukla has directed all the three versions of the story. Both the plays and the film explores themes of faith, doubt and commercialisation of religion and blind faith.

Besides this, the Boston Legal TV Series - Season 3 had an episode titled, “The Nutcrackers”, in which a woman wants to sue God after her husband is strucked and killed by lightning.

Image(s) Courtesy: Google

Which movie actors are one hit wonders?

 

• Rahul Roy : He became a known actor with Aashiqui . It turned him into a super star.
• Post this mega hit ; he never got any success and had a flop career.
• He later appeared in tv reality shows (Big Boss)

• Kumar Gaurav : Kumar Gaurav- son of Rajendra Kumar, actor- debuted with Love Story.
• It turned him into a known actor . But, he never had any successful hit.
• He later appeared in Naam - a mage hit- along with Sanjay Dutt. But, latter got acclaim for it.

• Deepak Parashar : This model turned actor appeared in Nikaah that earned him fame.
• But, somehow, he could not maintain fame after this classic.
• Although, he had also appeared in Insaaf Ka Taraju - a hit- but it earned fame for Raj Babbar

• Sadhana Singh : She appeared in Nadia Ke Paar- a super hit movie- along with Sachin.
• Hum Aapke Hai Kaun- a successful movie- is its remake.
• Well, she did not act in another successful movie.

• Anu Aggarwal : She appeared in Aashiqui - a mega hit -along with Rahul Roy.
• It turned this model into a legend for a while. But, she gave many flops.
• A tragic accident turned her into a recluse.

• Bhagyashree: She debuted in Maine Pyar Kiya along with Salman Khan .
• Movie turned her into a national craze. But, she got later married and gave many flops.
• She keeps on appearing in small roles.
• Well : Fate does play its role !
• Pic Credits : Google Images /Web

What is the biggest movie plothole you've found?

 There's loads. I'll add to this as they come to me.

First that pops into my head is Alien.

They were heading so far out into space the crew needed to be put into suspended animation for the duration. Yet one of the crew was an android so lifelike that it passed for human. None of the crew knew he was an android until he was torn apart.

The most obvious question is: why didn't the mining company just use androids? Why bother with the cost and hassle of a human crew when androids would be more efficient, stronger, work harder, more intelligent, wouldn't be paid and presumably not need food.

Another movie, another plothole. Three, in fact.

Raiders of the Lost Ark

1. Indiana Jones swims over and climbs aboard a U-Boat which then, for no reason, putters across the Mediterranean not bothering to submerge despite the Nazis trying to hide what they're doing or carrying.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) – The Nazi Submarine – A Steven Spielberg Film

Indeed, if the nazis at around the 4-minute mark of the above clip are to be believed, they did in fact submerge. You can hear them say, “Tauchen, Tauchen das Uboot!” (“Dive, dive the Uboat!) I know he's Indiana Jones but surely even he can't hold his breath for that long!

2. If Indiana hadn't snuck onto the submarine, the Nazis wouldn't have opened the Ark until safely back in Berlin. In which case this:

Would have been Hitler. Indiana Jones' hubris resulted in WWII, the Holocaust and the deaths of an estimated 80 million. He's not a hero, he's an utter c**t.

3. The Ark of the Covenant is this incredibly powerful, destructive weapon that comes from God himself and is capable of destroying everyone within range…but only if you look at it. Close your eyes and it can't kill you. Is God a toddler with whom you can play that game where you close your eyes and say, “Where's god? Where's god? There he is!”

Another couple I just thought of:

Citizen Kane

There was no one in his room when he utters, “Rosebud” and drops the snowglobe.

Citizen Kane snow globe

So how is it possible that a newsreporter is assigned to investigate and decipher his dying words?

Batman: The Dark Knight

First shot we have of The Joker is this one:

Which means he's standing in broad daylight on a busy city crossroad in full joker make-up. Okay, not a plothole but just silly.

The plothole is the bank robbery. Every man has their own specific job to do that they need to do in order with one other of the team with them, who then kills them and goes off to do their specific task with another team member who then kills him, up until we get to the Joker who is about to be killed but is saved by the bus reversing in at high speed right where Joker's would-be killer is standing.

Anyone else see the problem with this?

The Joker had to assemble a team of highly experienced bank robbers who all have specialist skills yet did not know each other. In addition, each of these men were also cold-blooded killers who were easily convinced to kill their own (being a bank robber does not necessarily mean being a murderer). On top of of this, despite being extremely skilled in bank robbery and being heartless killers and double-crossers, they were none too bright. None of them stopped to think, “wait a minute: if I am to kill that guy after he has killed that other guy, after he has killed that other guy, might it be possible that this bloke standing next to me has been told to kill me after I've completed my job?”

Despite being so well trained, they also either did not train together or, if they did, never let on to each other their secret mission to kill.

At the end of the scene, the Joker had to rely on his killer not to shoot him earlier, to be standing in the exact spot the bus hits, for the bus to bust through at that exact time, and for the bus to be able to break through the bank wall.

Statistically this fails. Joker had to assemble a crew who were: Extremely experienced, did not know each other, were not friends, could be convinced to kill each other, did not talk to each other, were happy to be hired by someone they did not know and never meet, and were not bright enough to analyse their situation. And, iirc, Gordon (or someone) says that The Joker has done this several times. Which means he has repeatedly assembled a team of experienced killer bank robbers whom he then wipes out each time he robs a bank. You would think after the 2nd or 3rd time this happened, the bank robbers in Gotham would baulk at the next anonymous phone call requesting their services to rob and kill.

There were so many holes in the bank robbery scene it became farcical. It was obviously written in order to make us all think how 'awesomecool' The Joker is. Which is not good storytelling or filmmaking.