Dukhtar (Daughter) is an epitome of parallel cinema. Unfortunately, it does not go beyond the boundaries with its message. The storyli...

Dukhtar (Daughter) is an epitome of parallel cinema. Unfortunately, it does not go beyond the boundaries with its message.



The storyline follows a mother (Samiya Mumtaz) and her ten-year-old daughter (Saleha Aref), who escape their home in order to restrict the girl from an arranged marriage to an elderly tribal leader.

Filled with brilliant cinematography highlighting the picturesque mountains and valleys of Northern Pakistan, Dukhtar is a gem of theatrical beauty. The cast is superb with the foremast performance by lead actress Mumtaz, with strong support from Mohib Mirza (the truck driver) and Aref who played the titular character.

The movie does have stunning direction. With more than enough artistically shot scenes. But the writing power is limited. Only some of the dialogues are worth applause, and the entire movie relies on Mumtaz to push it forward.

Another negative factor is the predictability. The is one of the most foreseeable dramas I have watched. Furthermore, the screenplay confuses the viewer into where the plot is leading them. Is it a dramatic thriller? Is it an adventure? This flick should have used a particular genre. And by trying to be multi-layered it sort of failed in this venture.

Yet, it is still one of the best non-commercial features of 2014. And I want to congratulate writer/director Afia Nathaniel in showing the world that Pakistani motion-pictures are no joke. And also for her debut being selected as an official entry in the Best Foreign Language Film category for the 87th Academy Awards.

IMDb: 7.3/10.
Rotten Tomatoes: N/A.
BO101: 3 out of 4.

My third official short film. Shot on location in Al Ain, the United Arab Emirates. It is the sequel to Passing the Driving Test Plot: The...

My third official short film. Shot on location in Al Ain, the United Arab Emirates. It is the sequel to Passing the Driving Test

Plot: The Brother (Hassan Faheem) finally gets his license. Now, Ali wants a try at the test, much to the dismay of The Instructor.

Dear friends, this movie is for you to review, in the comments section below.

Also, be sure to like my production crew's page on FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Three-Musketeers-production/707407262708541?fref=photo.

Thanks for watching! (in advance).

Passing the Driving Test 2:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=717644331684834&set=vb.707407262708541&type=2&theater.

My 2nd official short film. Again, this was shot in Al Ain, UAE. My dear readers it is up to you to review this movie. And please place your...

My 2nd official short film. Again, this was shot in Al Ain, UAE. My dear readers it is up to you to review this movie. And please place your remarks in the comments section below this article.

Passing the Driving Test:


Thanks in advance for watching/commenting.

Hi people, It's been a long time since I've posted a review. University days have been keeping me busy. But I also had the chance ...

Hi people,

It's been a long time since I've posted a review. University days have been keeping me busy. But I also had the chance to foster my creativity. I give you my first official short film titled The Race. And this time around it is up to you, my dear readers, to review it in your comments.

Thanks for watching in advance. And do share at your convenience.

The Race:

With a plot that could have been derived by a 7-year old, and a mega-ensemble cast of action stars, The Expendables 3 was not bound to impre...

With a plot that could have been derived by a 7-year old, and a mega-ensemble cast of action stars, The Expendables 3 was not bound to impress the majority of top critics. All that glitters is not gold, and this is true for the third outing of this franchise. The Expendables 3 is far from gold, but could still be hailed as silver.

You can tell by the tagline of the above poster of how poorly this film is written. Stallone, Statham, Li, Lundgren, Couture, Crews and Schwarzenegger (still need Wikipedia to spell that correctly) return in this feature. While the list of new veteran actors include Harrison Ford, Wesley Snipes (who is finally out of prison after 3 years), Kelsey Grammer, Antonio Banderas, and Mel Gibson who plays the antagonist (and acts the paramount throughout the running time). And the range of latest young thespians are Kellan Lutz, Ronda Rousey, Glen Powell and Victor Ortiz. 
  Yes, we have a super-action packed line-up of stars. What we don't have is a sane script that all of the actors could have properly done justice to. Let me start with the negative points of the movie, although I began with that from the get-go.
  Firstly, the plot. The ending can be guessed by any casual adrenaline movie-watcher after viewing the first 10 minutes! I mean this is the third venture of The Expendables series. Stallone should have at least taken an extra year to release this film if he wanted a critically acclaimed version. The Expendables 3 is directed by Patrick Hughes and this makes it only his 2nd feature-film. And kudos to his directing ability as the newbie did a fantastic job of handling such a colossal cast. I'm only praising the guy as I am outlining the facts of this film. Now to continue the negativity. The script is penned by the husband-wife duo Rothenberger/Benedikt and Stallone himself (who has also co-written the screenplays of the first 2 installments).
  Rothenberger/Benedikt have only one writing credit before this film and that is the 2013 White House invasion action-thriller Olympus Has Fallen which starred Gerard Butler. And was a pretty damn good movie. So I expected more from them or at least at the same level as OHF when they co-wrote this script. The storyline follows Barney Ross (Stallone) recruiting younger blood for his fight against Conrad Stonebanks (Gibson), the Expendables co-founder who is wanted by the CIA. 
  The tension played between Ross and Stonebanks is mediocre and could have been written more fluently. The predictability level of this venture is high above the bar. I don't mind the plot outline but there was no hard-work done in elevating the thrill throughout the 126-minutes run. Even the universally panned Sabotage (2014) did a better job at creating a dread-filled atmosphere. 
  Also, I saw no need for a younger cast of actors. The Expendables 3 should have added more villains like Steven Seagal or their initial idea of casting Jean-Claude Van Damme again (as the identical twin brother of the main villain in The Expendables 2). There should have been additional opposing characters but all we get is Gibson. The latter who is an old-time action star but never starred in bad-ass films like the majority of the other cast members. So I don't understand the point of only giving him a diabolical role. Stallone should have shunned the idea of budding performers and added more fiends. Also, Bruce Willis was missed in his role as Mr. Church as Ford could not exercise the same level of dialogue delivery in his role as CIA officer Max Drummer.
  The first two films had a variety of villains played by awesome entertainers like Eric Roberts, Steve Austin, Gary Daniels, Scott Adkins and Jean-Claude Van Damme respectively. Here, we only have Gibson while we had at least two in the start-up installments. This factor and the plot are the worst attributes of the third part.
  Now, for the pros: excellent acting by Gibson, Banderas and Stallone. The trio give their best blockbuster performances. The most praise I can give is to Gibson who really nails the bad-guy role. Another major pro is the superb action scenes. Some are, I admit, over-top, but the majority aren't and they're so fun to watch in a theater. I have to recall that the first half-hour of dialogues are completely vague, but when the movie passes its thirty-minutes windows, the conversations between characters were penned quite humorously. And this I can only attribute to the third screenwriting credit. 


  The stunts are awesome, and when the action begins no one wants it to end. The whole atmosphere transforms into a Battlefield map, and we see so many explosions that some would've guessed Michael Bay had filmed this outing. Action is fantastically choreographed throughout the screen-time. And is the dominant highlight of this motion-picture. The Expendables 3 is undoubtedly is the predominant of the three in terms of action.
  The Expendables has a 41% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, whilst the sequel has a 65% approval on the latter website. Both these individual ratings are higher than the 3rd installment's. And I'm not at all surprised. But if you watch this with an action junkie's eye, and not a critic's, then you will thoroughly enjoy the experience. 
  So, The Expendables 3 is way better than the first in the series, but falls short in its totality to The Expendables 2. Not only is the 2nd part the most critically-acclaimed in the franchise, but also the most financially successful gathering $305m at a budget of $100 million. The Expendables 3 has a lesser budget of $90m, but with such a low-scoring start-up weekend it will not be as monetarily rewarding as its predecessor. It will probably end its worldwide run at $150m-$180m becoming the lowest grosser among the series.
  That's not all folks. The Expendables 4 has already been announced and is confirmed to introduce former James Bond star Pierce Brosnan in a role. Just hope it has an above-average script.

The Expendables: 3/4.
The Expendables 2: 3.5/4.
The Expendables 3: 3/4.

If Godzilla is the King of Monsters, then Godzilla (2014) is its rightful throne. This is the third Hollywood-based Godzilla film with the p...

If Godzilla is the King of Monsters, then Godzilla (2014) is its rightful throne. This is the third Hollywood-based Godzilla film with the preceding ones releasing in 1956 and 1998 respectively. Originally, the Godzilla film franchise started with Godzilla (1954). It was directed by Japanese directorial legend Ishiro Honda. The universal critical and commercial success of the formerly-mentioned film led to the American versions, and also 28 films that were produced by Japan.

( The 1998 Godzilla movie poster. Source: Wikipedia)


  But these 28 films did not use CGI as seen in the 1998 and 2014 Americanized productions. Instead, they used costumes and props, even into the late 20th and early 21st century.
  The foremost Godzilla was inspired by the 1952 re-release of the 1933 King Kong feature. Now, reviewing Godzilla (2014) as separate from the 1998 version will be expansive. To put their comparison into simple terms: Godzilla (1998) made a bit over $379m worldwide off a massive budget of $130 million. But the producers wanted it to earn a lot more (they wanted it to beat Jurassic Park: The Lost World's $618.6m international revenue, which was released a year prior). And as you can clearly picture, it did not even come close. 
  Not only that, but the super negative reception from critics and fans of both American and Japanese nationality held off all plans for the forthcoming couple of sequels. The film currently has 25% on Rotten Tomatoes, with a 28% approval rate from the audiences on that website. As I have also seen the movie, I can honestly say that it was an epic fail.

(The 2014 Godzilla poster. Source: Wikipedia)

  Let's move on to this year's blockbuster. Godzilla is clearly 10 times better than its 1998 counterpart. But it also has its flaws. But I will start with the pros. The special effects in this film is top-class. The graphical design of Godzilla and the other monsters is indisputable. I have never seen better computer imagery of such caliber not even in Peter Jackson's King Kong (2005). 
  Katy Perry claimed that she was louder than a lion and we could hear her Roar. But the first scene of Godzilla's ROAR! really shook spectators in their seats. I watched the movie in IMAX 3-D with friends and believe me that cinematic sequence was unimaginably deafening.  
  The plot: Godzilla is awaken to fight off two fiendish creatures approximately identical to his stature. And the fate of human existence is put to the test. 
  So therein lie the cons of the movie. The first hour of the 123-mins feature is primarily rumbles and shakes of the ground coupled by bad weather. The actors in the movie are extremely dull. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is the main protagonist but his demeanor makes one wish to sleep in the first half. Ken Watanabe, a great actor, plays his role as a Japanese scientist monotonously. Elizabeth Olsen seems oblivious to everything going on around her. And even the audience might have been more aware of the surroundings in the movie than her.
  Yet there is a light in the darkness: Bryan Cranston. The Breaking Bad star does not get a lot of screen-time. Still, he manages to play his role tremendously well. Without him, all the acting would have been left to despair. His antics as a depressed scientist and the showcase of his Godzilla obsession was fantastic. 

(Bryan Cranston as seen in Godzilla. Source: businessinsider.com)

  What was so critically acceptable about Jurassic Park (1993)?. It has a 93% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Why? Because it was able to merge interesting characters with colossal monsters. It had equally comic parts as well as terrifying shots. This is what directors have been trying to do with disaster films ever since Spielberg's classic rendition of the genre.
  Godzilla does succeed in disturbing audiences with its spine-chilling atmosphere of desolation. Though the film would have gained much more critically if it were not so dark.. There are almost no funny sequences in the movie. It is like the world had already been devastated from the onset of the flick. I personally felt that the movie needed a more substantial ending.
  Also, we don't see much of the fight between Godzilla and the other monsters. Just American soldiers' heroic yet stupid schemes to eliminate Godzilla when he is clearly not killing humans intentionally. So with bad performances from all the actors except Cranston, a thin plot that could have been more unpredictable, and a lackluster finish,  Godzilla is a feature with a median rating.
  Godzilla is directed by Gareth Edwards and written by Max Borenstein, with a screen story by David Callaham. It has made $229.6m globally as of May 23, 2014 with a budget of $160 million. It will likely end its theatrical run between $600m and $800m.
  When asked I always declare that Godzilla is not a must-watch movie, but it is a movie worth watching in the cinema. Furthermore, worth the watch in IMAX (3-D or 2-D, it doesn't matter), or normal 3-D. So that you get the totality of the humongous size of Godzilla, and the other monsters.

IMDb: 7.3/10.
Rotten Tomatoes: 73%.
BO101: 2.5/4.


  

Despite the absurd rating of 5.1/10 from IMDb, Tokarev (2014) delivers what it had promised by the trailer. Two main highlights are firstly,...

Despite the absurd rating of 5.1/10 from IMDb, Tokarev (2014) delivers what it had promised by the trailer. Two main highlights are firstly, one of Hollywood's veteran actors Nicolas Cage proves he can act no matter what the role. And secondly, the film stars one of the world's most beautiful women Rachel Nichols:

(Wikipedia)

The plot is simple, with many claiming it to be a copycat of 2008's Taken - yet it is highly distinct. In the sense that Taken is an action thriller and Tokarev is an action drama.
  Nicolas Cage stars as Paul Maguire whose daughter is kidnapped by the Russian mob. Now, Maguire is a retired gunman from the Italian mob, and is living on a clean slate. The movie follows his relapse to the old ways, and each choice is determinant of what the result of his daughter's position might be.

(IMDb)

  To start with the pros, Cage's last movie was The Frozen Ground where he acted tremendously well. Another movie similar to Taken and Tokarev is 2012's Stolen, which is a worst Nicolas Cage feature.
  In Tokarev, Cage cannot be judged on an impersonation meter. This is because his dialogue delivery, and outfit, all play homage to an ultimate definition which he gave to his character. He portrays the role with every fiber of his being. When he expresses his sadness, the viewer does the same. When he shows rage, the audiences feels the adrenaline.
  Finally, Tokarev gets 3 out of 4 stars from me. The cons are that there are many plot-holes. Some scenes are just too cliched. But with the superb enactment of the lead star, and the unpredictable ending, Tokarev has already been included in my Favorite Action Drama Flicks of 2014.