I am an ardent fan of Hollywood movies but I missed Usual suspects. Still in 2015 I never watched it. In 2006 a neighbor told me that chocolate is excellent movie. I got it rented and watched. After watching it I was like my jaw fell off with tongue outside.This is brilliant in Indian movie industry. Some people never digest Hollywood plots and these kind of movies. By god's grace I was able to. I never watched Usual suspects and watched this. It has grip, it lets you glued to your seat.In 2015, I watched it again, I knew the story but still feeling the same. Vivek Agnihotri might have lifted it up but copying anything with that much brilliance requires an art.He proved it! For me, its 8/10 coz I watched it earlier. Else it could have been 10. Brilliant work, Irfan khan is known face these days but in 2006, I was loving his acting in this movie. Anil Kapoor did brilliant job, Arshad Warsi, Suniel, Emran and Tanushree were good.The credit goes to director for this work. Thankfully I am not able to compare it and hence I still like it.

While it is fairly obvious that the movie is blatantly adapted from the classic "Usual Suspects", its narration makes it impossible to understand what's going on and where the story starts or ends.Individual characters seem to appear, disappear, die and become alive without any obvious reason or time-line. The lawyer Krishna Pandit (Anil Kapoor) goes in and out of scenes acting as if he owns the movie but does nothing more than rave and rant. In one scene he gets an 80 page fax thats spitting out at the speed of a high speed photocopy machine and we never know what it contains or why its important.The only cute thing in the movie is Monsoon but she does not have much to do.

At the outset, let me make myself very clear on 2 issues. The Usual Suspects is my all time favorite movie and originality is a dying art in Bollywood.Now for the real issue. What was the dimwit director of this dumbass movie thinking of when he thought he had "conceived the idea" to make a movie? Did he think ripping off a Hollywood masterpiece without any admission of guilt would endear himself to the viewing public? Or, even worse, did he have the audacity to think that no one in the viewing public would have the intellect to understand the original masterpiece? Maybe he made it for the "masses" and thought he was attempting something "different". However, the director must have forgotten that despite the waning excitement got out of foreign locales, the "masses" will rarely warm up to a movie shot entirely in the UK. The least he could've done was to have "Indianised" the entire movie in all ways. Then again, an escapist director would always find the easiest way out right?! The only reason I have given this stinker of a movie the 2nd star is because instead of making me boil with anger it made me laugh out loud at the pathetic attempt in futility to create a movie!

this movie is a direct "inspiration" of the Bryan Singer's Usual Suspects. i think this should tell you most of the story. but wait.... is differently made in modern day London and the end is different. Four friends and a girl get into a web of crime and are drawn deeper into a web which is controlled by an omnipotent criminal. no one knows how he looks but he knows everyone. two friends are helped by a lawyer while the others are dead. the two friends narrate incidents to the lawyer which can confuse you somewhat but what the heck. the movie is stylishly made and is full of unpredictable sequences. thats what makes the movie better than what it could have been. all in all it is a better inspiration than the rest