1920 London Review by Bollywood Hungama
The film’s debutant director Tinu Suresh Desai does a superlatively decent job with 1920 LONDON. He achieves his motive of shocking the cinegoers almost in every scene and scaring their wits away. His direction complements the film’s screenplay and narrative and vice versa. He does a splendid job in culminating the story, which is an extremely vital aspect for a horror mystery film. Tinu also needs to be applauded for delivering what the film promises in abundance viz., eerie and scary moments in plenty. While the film does suffer from its ‘lagging moments’ in the first half and more towards the second half, the interval scene surely shocks the viewers and catches them unawares.
1920 London Review by Manjusha Radhakrishnan on Gulfnews
Joshi might be on a quest to explore different kinds of roles, but he comes across as a misfit in this horror film. Barring an interesting twist in the first half, the second half falls into a glorious mess. Director Tinu Suresh Desai seems to have faltered when it comes to casting and keeping the story together. Chopra, who plays the devout wife who’s also torn about her failed love affair, gives an insipid performance. Songs that are inserted at regular intervals don’t offer respite and just serve in prolonging this arduous torture.
1920 London Review by Soumyata Chauhan on Bollywood Life
Meera Chopra was a decked up damsel in distress. Her acting and dialogue delivery were totally bland. The spirit looked so make-believe that left you anything but scared. Unlike the previous films, where the ghost had a motive to possess someone, here it is just used as a tool to exact revenge. The chemistry between the actors was disappointing especially in the romantic songs which looked more like a montage of famous Bollywood-couple gestures. Needless to say, the latest entry in the 1920 series disappoints big time, with Sharman Joshi being the only saving grace. Watch the film only if you don’t have anything else to do.
1920 London Review by Rohit Bhatnagar on Deccan Chronicle
Vishal Karwal quite literally slept through his debut film. Meera Chopra looks promising in bits and pieces, but she did a fair job as a timid and helpless wife of a royal prince. And Sharman Joshi? Sigh. Is he still the same actor who gave such fine performances in films like ‘3 Idiots’ and ‘Rang De Basanti’? His act here is so awful that the witch performs better. Sharman should surely spruce up his acting skills now, along with his appalling acting in his previous series of flops, which would easily chuck him out of the race. Supporting cast Arun Bali, Gajendra Chauhan and Sushmita Mukherjee are just above average.
1920 London Review by Mohar Basu on The Times Of India
Director Tinu Suresh Desai redeems himself only because he gives us enough things to laugh about. There are corny dialogues that provide some comic relief. And the visual of a flying Sharman ala Shaktiman, will have you in splits. Clearly, the actor sleepwalks through his role and a good pay cheque seemed like his only impetus to see this through the end. Meera is abysmal and the rest of the actors with their grim voices are not worth mentioning.
Review by Shalini Langer on Indian Express
Hats off for at least the ambition — and there are plenty of those to doff, this being early England and all. Few films, fewer still with the limited scale of a Vikram Bhatt horror, swing as frequently between 1920 London and 1920 “somewhere in Mewar, Rajasthan” — on streamers no less. An infinitesimal number, hopefully, do so chasing an “aatma” that resides in a locket.
Review by Manisha Lakhe on Nowrunning
There is a twist to the tale that comes in the middle of the movie that announces Intermission. I wish they has ended it right there. It would have made us suffer less.
Review by IANS on Zeenews
Unfortunately, for the actors, it is the script which is their Waterloo. Written by Vikram Bhatt, the plot and the characters are a quick-fix. What’s more, the dialogues too seem regressive and obsolete in nature today, making the entire narration seem like an unintentional comedy. The action sequences are well-choreographed, but they are not exciting enough to give a teeth clenching edge-of-the seat experience. For, the horror tropes engaged are generic and not at all spooky. Nor are there any jump-scares.
Review by Swapnil Rawal on Movietalkies
Sharman Joshi, who seems to be experimenting with the choice of roles lately, looks unconvincing as an exorcist in the film. Though, he did not overdo his part, Sharman should stick to his strengths. Meera Chopra’s portrayal of a devoted and distressed wife is drab and she needs to increase her range of expressions. Vishal Karwal, who had very few scenes, will have to show more than his dimples the next time he gets an opportunity on the big screen. Overall, sitting through the film is exhausting so don’t hesitate to give 1920 London a miss.
Review by Namrata Thakker on Rediff
Sharman Joshi’s 1920 London is like most of Bollywood horror movies: boring and predictable. Cliched dialogues, unrequited love angle and romantic songs… the film has everything but scares. If that isn’t enough, you have actors who look blank throughout the film and barely hold your attention. Sharman Joshi, however, does a decent job in comparison to his co-stars Meera Chopra and Vishal Karwal.
Best Rated Films in 2016
- Neerja – 4 stars
- The Jungle Book – 3.8 stars
- Airlift – 3.7 stars
- Kapoor & Sons – 3.7 stars
- Nil Battey Sannata – 3.7 stars
- Aligarh – 3.6 stars
- Fan – 3.5 stars
- Zubaan – 2.6 stars
- Saala Khadoos – 2.6 stars
- Laal Rang – 2.5 stars
- Ki & Ka – 2.5 stars
- Bollywood Diaries – 2.5 stars
- Tere Bin Laden Dead Or Alive – 2.3 stars
- Jai Gangaajal – 2.3 stars
- Fitoor – 2.3 stars
- Baaghi – 2.2 stars
- Rocky Handsome – 2.1 stars
- LoveShhuda – 2 stars
- Love Games – 1.7 stars
- Santa Banta Pvt. Ltd – 1.1 stars