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?

More on rediff.com! Mughal-e-Azam opens in the US On the sets of Apharan Why Aamir didn't like Devdas

� Did the writer suffer from hallucinations/illusions while writing fragments that he dared call a story?

� 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?