Asking me to review C U @ 9 is possibly the worst possible prank anyone could have played on me.
The movie brings to light, in a forceful manner, certain recurrent questions that have been plaguing my mind for decades. These questions came to mind when I watched different films at different points in time. Of course, while watching this film, all of them jousted for attention!
How did the producer agree to finance the film?
Did the writer suffer from hallucinations/illusions while writing fragments that he dared call a story?
More on rediff.com!
Mughal-e-Azam opens in the US
On the sets of Apharan
Why Aamir didn't like Devdas
When newcomers are offered roles in movies, do they jump and accept just about anything?
Was the director drunk while filming the movie?
Was the attempt at making the movie different so desperate he didn't know the difference anymore?
Why do people who can't be seductive (I'm referring to the heroine, Shweta, who plays a double role) even try and end up making fools of themselves?
Can anyone be made to look seductive and inviting if they wear skimpy clothes and roam around half-naked?
And, by the way, does this painful tale have anything resembling a plot?
Frankly, the answer is no.
But if you insist, here's the jist: Some 'steamy' scenes with Isaiah aka Romeo and Shweta aka Kim, with the latter exposing and doing a shoddy job of it. Blood dripping between frames. A display of all the tools a carpenter would ever use. Predictable sound effects. White clothes stained in blood that would need a year's supply of Surf Excel if you wanted, for some reason, to restore them to their original pristine state.
Blood, blood and more blood.
To top it all, a pathetically inferior attempt at explaining the waste of your three hours.
Do you still want to watch it?
