Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Abhishek Vasu GREAT GREAT Movie I Literally Burst Out OF Laughing Great Acting By All Of The Cast Specially THE Great Comedian We Have Its AKSHAY KUMAR PARESH RAWAL The Chemistry Between Three OF Them Was Superb It Will Definitely Change The Comedy Tradition IN India The Script,Direction,Cinematography,Editing,Techniqule Part And All The Cast And Crew Worked Really Hard For The Movie I Will Ensure That If You WIll WAtch THis Movie OVer And Over You Will Never Get Bored Of The Movie

ashray_koch It feels sad to digest the fact that a sequel of Hera Pheri (which was like a trend setter in the bollywood for its situational comedy )was lifted from Guy Ritchie's Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels.The movie is funny in some parts cos of its big list of comedians and it keeps us entertained from starting to the end cos of some fine performances from akshay kumar,sunil shetty,paresh rawal,johnny Lever and the other comedians . But nothing would justify it as the story is not an original one. I had a lot of expectations from this movie as it was a sequel of hera pheri. But the fact that it runs on a copied story is just not acceptable.

vebkumar For those who don't know, this movie is a sequel to the movie 'Hera Pheri.' Hera Pheri was a truly funny movie. It's not that the humor was very sophisticated or even ambitious - the movie was merely funny at a very basic level. This sequel is perhaps one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and undoubtedly one of the worst sequels ever made by Bollywood (and that is an achievement!!!) Firstly, it seems that the movie was merely made to cash in on Hera Pheri's success (as opposed to say realizing that they could do more with the same characters).Secondly, as some people have noted, it's a total rip-off of 'Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels' (which is an excellent movie!) - even to the point that the ending scene is exactly copied!! Frustratingly, throughout the movie the copying is done with total non-application of mind, and this factor alone is worthy of the contempt that any self-respecting movie buff should have for this atrocious excuse for a movie.It's really a pathetic situation here in India where soooooooo many movies are made by ripping-off movies from all around the world, and the vast majority of the audience are ignorant of this fact. This movie is just another illustration of this terrible state of things.Guy Ritchie, sue these guys!!!

travised87 I just watched this one on TV, with some anticipation and a few fears. Both were realised, to my retrospective disappointment:Hera Pheri told the story of three losers, Shyam, Baburao and Raju, and their attempts to escape the poverty and desperation they and their respective families were in to ultimately become rich. A simple story, with a moral angle, and of course, the wider focus on comedy. They get the money, climb out of poverty, all is well, blah blah and the film ends. This is where its sequel starts.There are formulas, patterns, tried and trusted that many directors reuse for their films. The formula for Hera Pheri, was used for hungama, hulchul, and several other subsequent priyadarshan films. Problem is, tautologically speaking, it no longer works for the sequel of the originator.Speaking of circles, the director - who is different from the original - gets himself stuck in a plot circle (no pun intended) and leaves us wondering about the subsequent direction of the film. After losing their property early on in the film, the trio are on the streets, back to square one, and this means of course that the rest of the plot will be about them trying to get back to being rich. Predictable? Yes. Thrilling? No. The problem like I said, is the blind reusage of the winning formula of other films. It seems that there must be a goose chase, and the familiar 'hera pheri' (and all its synonyms) style ending with all characters insanely after the object of desire. To do that, he brings the trio to the footpath, and exasperated, we, with them, start again. this undoing of the original's work to, only to redo it again is an immature directorial gimmick.Hera Pheri was a controlled film, with a simple, poignant tale subsumed into the larger serving of comedy. The 'Hera Pheri' element, was mainly at the end. Here, due to the absence of a plot, it bursts in uninvited half way through the story. This means the relinquishing of control so early on, which is disastrous. We become lost in the madness, and seek an elucidating ending, a 'clear-it-all-out' which doesn't happen. The heaps of plot twists become entagled webs that keep piling up, until at the end, we, exhausted, become more desperate than ever for a clear, happy end to cure our misery. This never happens, and instead what the director does is suddenly in the last two minutes, expect the audience to put on our thinking caps, which we never brought to the film, to swallow the ending. As much as i understood the ending, I was initially in disbelief and frustrated enough to spew expletives.A failure, a case of trying to ambitiously juggle too many things at once is what brings this film down. What he could have focused on instead was perhaps the moral element: how the trio learn that money is not everything, and that happiness actually is about the simpler things in life, etc. Even the characters, seems to have escaped the strings of their puppeteer here. Rawal is excessive, and the other two portray their characterisations poorly this time. It is as though the director hung a piece of meat high up on a string a distance away from the audience, letting them smell and savour its fragrance in the original, and his successor decided to just cut the string and let them devour it in this one. What ever it was, it seemed a cheap imitation of the original, and it didn't help that it was just one of many money-grabbing sequels released in the year.