Move Review: Son of Rambow

When kids are the lead actors in a film you are sure to be charmed easily. If one of the kids is a brilliant actor you will be charmed for sure. Combine the two with generous doses of 'First Blood', the ideals of the Plymouth Brethren and Garth Jennings and we have a the recipe for the perfect film. Yes, I said 'perfect' and that means I am giving it full points!

1. Will Poulter, I promise to watch every film you make for the next few years. You are a great actor. I see you like football but give it up, kid! You are born to act.
2. STORY: This story is so down to earth. Nothing extraordinary ever happens in the film. They don't win the award they are aiming for. What do they win? Something more valuable. One gets the chance to pursue his interests, the other wins a brother and the two win each other's friendship. There are so many happening in this film, the angle of the Brethren, Lee's elder brother, the French exchange student. I love them all. I like the small things here like the way the watch is used (surfaces finally with Lee's elder brother and I didn't expect that!), the way Frank has been used etc. If I was not watching this film with my father I'd have tears in my eyes watching 'Son of Rambow' in the big screen for the first time with Lee.
3. Roger Ebert says there is no sense of urgency in the film. I noticed that too but now I feel that is how life as a kid is. No kid is in a hurry. It's us as adults who are always worried of 'things of consequence' ("The Litte Prince"). 'Son of Rambow' is about kids and their lives. It is about their days. They are in no hurry, except to meet the deadline for 'Screen Test'. I'd like to believe this was the intention with which Jennings paced the film so.
4. WHERE LESSER FILMS WOULD HAVE REMAINED LESSER FILMS: An easy way to finish off this movie would have been when Lee Carter saves Will Proudfoot. At this point they would have put aside their differences and gone on to win 'Screen Test'. But Garth Jennings decides he wants to make this movie a little more than about winning a competition.
   

CONCLUSION: I'd love to own a copy of this on DVD. Maybe I will take my own camera to shoot a film.

RATING: 5/5

Movie Review: 13 Tzameti

'City of God' released in Mumbai and I got two friends to accompany me to watch it at the nearest multiplex. None of us had heard of the film. The three of us loved it. Some guys were planning on get the best of world cinema to the big screens in Mumbai. '13 Tzameti' was the next to release and we had not heard of it either. We failed to watch it before it was out. I will be writing this review as I watch it. Oh yes! I am watching this film with high expectations.

1. Minutes 0-2: A typical start to a thriller. Dialoge is the usual in a thriller where the characters refer to something big without revealing what it actually is. A guy limping, counting of money and music that builds the atmosphere of a thriller all cliches used in thrillers.
2. Minutes 3-30: Interesting technique has been employed to put an innocent dude into the underworld (I'm guessing it is the underworld at this stage). For an eighty-nine minutes film half hour has gone by and nothing serious has happened.
3. Minutes 31-45: Exactly on the the thirty-second minute I noticed that everyone around the protagonist was considerably older than the protagonist himself. I remembered the old man, now dead, remarking about his age. At this stage that dialoge started to make sense to me. I realized the 'kid' would now be asked to do something guys of his age don't generally indulge in, something that would require a bravery (or bravado). At the point where people can't believe who is amidst them to play this ''game'' a remarks "Good......brave". The last word confirmed my suspicion. I kept asking myself what this game would be. I was expecting a card-game but when the movie revealed what it'd be I was surprised. Full marks to the idea. The movie so far has not been bad but there is exactly half the film to go. Where will the story go now? Oh, almost forgot to mention that I still don't understand the rules of this 'game' the kid is forced to play. Finally, the casting of the protagonist is perfect. The guy looks young and innocent.
4. Minutes 46-60: Round two came on and I understood the rules of this game. The movie slipped a bit after one of the rounds until 'the duel' was announced. It was very predictable who the guys in the duel would be. There is no reason for one of the guys to hate the kid. Why this angle in the film? I was expecting this film to dwell on the psychology of the kid but nothing of that sort. One of the players, expectedly, gets psyched up and dies in the next round. However, it definitely keeps me interested. The last half-hour to go.
5. Last Bit: Well, the final word is that this is a good film. Not an extraordinary film. But having watch the movie I can say the makers were not trying to make an extraordinary film. After the kid wins the duel there is little that is not logical. He makes all the right moves but let's face it, he just had to die. That's just how the mob works.

CONCLUSION: I like the film. Not great, won't remember it forever. It's built around one idea and once the game is over there is little left in the movie. It does not come out as a thriller neither does it come out as drama. It falls somewhere in between and that does not work in this film. The first and last part try to deliver some emotions, not so well though, but the middle part succesfully delivers some tense moments.

RATING: 3/5

Movie Review: Plan 9 from Outer Space

The worst movie ever? I don't think so.

1. Minutes 1-25: The movie has been decently set-up in terms of story. The acting and production qualities are very very mediocre. But after Tim Burton's 'Ed Wood' I expect this. Burton's film also emphasises that Edward D. Wood, Jr. was not bothered about trivial stuff and wanted to focus on the 'big picture'. I am looking for that in this film.
2. Minutes 26-53: Worst movie ever? I can't believe there is no movie worse than this. Wait! There are so many. Most Bollywood movies of the 1990s would be lesser than ''Plan 9...''. 'Ghajini' is another. So far the film has not been a masterpiece. But it definitely has not been the worst. The plot though silly does keep moving along, at times quick and most times slow.
3. Last Twenty-five Minutes: Clearly this is as good as the first first twenty-five minutes. I liked it! There is some genuinely engaging conversation about the usage of arms. For once a movie involving extra-terrestrials has some purpose.

I like it more than I like 'Independence Day' and I am not scared to say so.

RATING: 3/5

Book Review: Shame

EXPECTATIONS:

It was raining like it does during that season in Mumbai. The disastrous rainfall, now a part of history, was a week away. But this write-up is not about that eventful day. A week before that on the way to campus I bought 'Shalimar the Clown' off the street. For long I was wanting to read the work of an Indian writer. First attempt at reading 'Shalimar the Clown' was a failure. Honestly, I could not understand it. Second attempt, within a week, met with the same result. The next time I was home my 'chikkappa' and my father totally wrote off Salman Rushdie. They claimed he is a hypocrite, they still do, and I didn't understand what that had to do with his writing. My chikkappa said he tried reading 'Midnight's Children' and could not finish it. However, he didn't give me a reason for not reading it fully. I didn't want to make any guesses. Then and there, Salman Rushdie was not an author on my list of must-reads. I felt he wrote books for people with intellect beyond mine. Within my mind I surrendered to reading regular fiction consisting of bestsellers.
'One Hundred Years of Solitude' changed my perception of novels. Arguably the author's most well-known book was to me highly entertaining. Yes, there are references to the war in Colombia and maybe lots of other stuff but to me it was great entertainment. A work by a Nobel prize winner became one of my favorites. It was time to revisit an Indian author and maybe go beyond the bestsellers.
An ideal start would have been 'Midnight's Children' but I could not get it. The library at UCD has everything related to this novel except the novel itself, books on understanding the book, stage play written from the novel, commentary on this etc. 'The Satanic Verses' was checked out. I was not too familiar with the other books. So why did I pick 'Shame'? I read somewhere on the internet Rushdie saying something about getting a better book after winning the Booker prize for 'Midnight's Children'. If not exactly at least something of this sort said by Rushdie himself gave me a feeling it was a good book. I also vaguely remembered it was on the Booker nominations, but I was not sure then. I gambled with 'Shame' and checked it out on my I-card.
On coming home I looked for response on the internet. What did I find?

1. For many books Wikipedia has a long article which includes plot, characters, response, etc. But for this there was hardly anything. I was dissappointed.
2. I could hardly find any reviews on the internet. Another disappointment.

The arguments in favor and against the book were balanced, 2-2. I started the book not knowing what to expect. I was starting with a clean slate. The thing hurting me was a feeling that I was starting with one of his 'lesser' books and that if I didn't like this I may not read Salman Rushdie's works again.

AS I READ THE BOOK:

1. PAGES 1-40: I could not believe what I was reading! I was blown away in the first forty pages. I was reading almost every paragraph twice. Yes, I had trouble following the book. Why? The sentence structure was too complicated. So many ideas being brought about in the same sentence that I had to read them more than once and put the different ideas together. I loved it because it was unlike what I expected. The story until then was so out-of-the-world. It was truly fantastic. Three sisters, their father's death, their party to get pregnant and the way they bring up Omar Khayyam Shakil. It was so captivating. At this stage I looked closer into the article in Wikipedia and noticed it had 'magic-realism'. I loved this in 'One Hundred Years of Solitude' and was thrilled to see it here.
2. PAGES 41-200: The best portion of the book in my opinion. The strong but strange characterization of Omar Khayyam Shakil, Maulana Dawood, the Harappas, the Hyders, the women in the Harappa and Hyder families, the policeman who marries (shamelessly) Hyder's younger daughter (is it his daughter?), Sufiya Zinobia and an endless list of supporting characters. At this stage I started to feel that for a 286-page novel there are too many characters. In fact there are too many characters anyway (just like 'One Hundred Years of Solitude'). To have so many characters, who all need introductions, the pace does not slack. Surprising isn't it? 'One Hundred Years of Solitude' too employs a similar technique of jumping back and forth in time sometimes through its characters and sometimes through the narrative. Somewhere in this period I again visited Wikipedia and came to know it is the story of General Mohd. Zia-ul-haq and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of whom I didn't know much. All fears of not knowing the history evaporated as I flipped page after page.
3. LAST PAGES: With some forty-odd pages to go I could not wait to see how it'd end. I loved the 'eighteen shawls' Rani Harappa makes for Arjuman Harappa. The detail with which Iskander's life is brought out is memorable because I could visualize the shawls in my head. Moving on, I should have seen the end coming. I should have known it would culminate in 'Nishapur'. The 'magic realism' keeps building up as the reader turns the pages. The end is so far-fetched even for 'magic realism'. But by then I was totally into Rushdie's grip. I was ready to believe anything. Sufiya Zinobia's transformation into the animal and the trio escaping dressed as women only to be taken right into their graves is over-dramatic but I lapped it up.
4. The similarity of Babar Shakil's death and that of one of the characters in 'One Hundred Years of Solitude' can't be ignored. Both turn into angels and take off.

RANDOM THOUGHTS:

1. Rushdie is a part of 'Shame'. He surfaces now and then in the book. I don't remember specifics of these and so can't elaborate. However, I will say that at first I was surprised with this 'trick'. It seemed at first a way for the author to impose himself on the reader. Made me feel Salman Rushdie was being arrogant here. But as I kept reading I found myself looking forward to these parts of the book. They gave better insights of his opinions on various issues (agree or disagree is up to the reader) and some places exposed me to other great works of literature. I love this totally new technique which I have not come across in any book I have read. Now I don't care if Rushdie was imposing himself or is arrogant.
2. Wikipedia claimed this is the story of General Mod. Zia-ul-haq and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Any other book would have been written around these two characters. 'Shame' does not do that. Omar Khayyam Shakil is numerous times referred to as the 'peripheral hero' and the book starts and finishes with him. I don't know why Salman Rushdie does this. When I closed this book did I think of any one characters or two characters or three or four? I simply thought of the book as an outrageous but engrossing tall-tale. Rushdie calles Omar the 'peripheral hero' but in my opinion he is not. If anyone it is the narrator who simply takes us through all the significant happenings in Omar's lifetime which includes those two important people in history. That's one great thing about this, the way these important characters are placed in the book. Not at the start, not at the end, not in the middle but scattered everywhere and surfacing now and then.
3. All the while I was reading 'Shame' I kept telling myself it was the best book I'd ever read. It was so much fun. Not a thriller but I didn't want to put the book down. Only when I finished it did I tell myself to be a little impartial. A day later I realized that in literature and cinema (and in majority fields) there is no such thing as 'best' and that any such title bestowed is purely a matter of opinion. So it is not the best book. But I want to put it down here because, and I quote myself, "all the while I was reading 'Shame' I kept telling myself it was the best book I'd ever read'. I am going to read every book by Salman Rushdie.

WHAT 'SHAME' & 'ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOLITUDE' HAVE DONE FOR ME:

Starting today I shall read as many award winning books as possible. Very consciously I shall approach popular books from now. Reading 'Shame' & 'One Hundred Years of Solitude' have put the belief of enjoying, if not with complete understanding, the act of reading prize winning books.

The Kite Runner

When I read this book last month it left two sentences in my memory.

1. For you, a thousand times over,
2. There is a way to be good again.

Without any doubt I can say that the kid playing Hassan, Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada, is the best casting I have come across in a long long time. This kid has the innocent looks of Hassan from the novel.That's not all, Ahmad is a wonderful wonderful actor. The best part of this film is Ahmad's performance. Just watch his face as he innocently asks Amir why the protaganist in his first short story does not just smell onions to produce tears. Better just observe how his face and gait as he walks out after being abused. The book had me feeling sorry for Hassan right through but that's was just because it was written that way. I feel for Hassan and only Hassan in this film and it solely due to Ahmad. Only a good director can extract such a performance from a boy so young. Kudos to Ahmad and Marc Foster.

This film is another exercise in the discovering that the novel is almost always better than the film. Exceptions of course will be all of Kubrick's films who made movies out of books that will not be known in this day and age, and Coppola's 'The Godfather'. My wife's words sum up the feelings for someone who has read the book.

"The book is so emotional. We feel like crying at many points but the movie does not give out any such feelings."

In my opinion, there was little more that could have been done. If one were to watch the film not having read the book it may actually seem very good. Keep this in mind I rate the film as I do.

RATING: 3.5/5

Movies Cast in the Same Mould: 'Hellboy'

I just noticed that the Hellboy movies have the same skeleton. Underneath the action and the wonderful creatures, which I call the flesh, they are the same can I say skeleton.

1. Both movies open with a scene that happened a long time ago. In the first installment it is the one where the the hero, the superhero rather, and the villain are introduced. In the latter a flashback is employed but the purpose is the same. The viewers get to see Hellboy and the villain at the same time.

2. Within these opening scenes also there is a pattern. The superhero is shown is shown as a kid while the villain is already grown up or from the past. This I feel gives an effect of the villain already set into his evil ways while Hellboy is still an innocent kid.

3. The first action scenes involving Hellboy and the team from the bureau are in similar places, places which have relics and antiques. In the sequel it is an auction house where antiques are sold while in the first film it is a museum. I have seen both films just once and even the rooms looked similar to me.

4. Hellboy must not show himself in public and he just has to do it. In both the movies this happens at nearly the same time, during or after a fight sequence.

5. Somewhere in both movies Hellboy saves a kid (or kitten) while the mother (or owner) can be heard screaming in the backdrop. Hellboy continues fighting holding the kid (or kitten) and saves the day. The only difference being that in the second part he is blamed for his action.

6. The villains make their way into BPRD to either kill or abduct someone. This happens just before the final act which involves Hellboy having to go to some creepy place.

7. Oh yeah! The final acts in both the films involve Hellboy going somewhere. The only difference is that in the first part he has to get his revenge while in the second part he has to help Abe.

8. The last act in both films is a let-down. The creature from hell never looks threatening in the first part and the Golden Army hardly has any screen time to scare. It appeared that movies were finished in a hurry if not made in a hurry.

THERE IS ONE DIFFERENCE: The second film actually takes some time to set-up the future movies.

However, I did like the "Hellboy 2: The Golden Army". At least, it was not too bad.

Movie Review: Scenes from a Marriage

A friend told me about him last year and soon after that I read of his demise in the papers. It made front page news in India. I was expecting a great movie. Let's look at what I got;

1. The title for this movie is very apt. This film is a series of scenes put together. But the scenes are not just randomly picked up. They do take the story forward. Essentially, this is the first time I have seen a movie with this concept. Scenes are introduced with titles and play for around a half-hour and then we move to another scene. The scenes independently make intriguing viewing and as a whole form a part of a greater story.

2. I was talking about close-ups of facial expressions in the film 'Blue' and how I was not able to understand what the character was feeling on many occasions. It is very similar in this film where almost every scene is indoors and all dialog happens with close-up shots of the actors. In this film there is a lot of dialog which works well with me. This helps me understand the character and gauge the acting.

3. If there ever is a brilliant pair on screen portraying a couple it has to be these two. Now I use superlatives very often but I mean it from my heart this time. Very rarely will we see performances as real as this. Erland Josephson and Lic Ullman are so believable. I don't want to elaborate on this because the only point I want to highlight is the reality of their acting.

4. One point I have to state about this story. I truly loved this aspect of the film. After Johan leaves for Paris I could not imagine he'd actually get closer to Mariane than he ever was before. Stereotypes often portray hatred, or at least lost warmth, among a couple who have had to face the consequences of a broken marriage. But through this film I realize that adults can't obviously act like kids and not speak at all. That's why when Johan comes home after a few years I was not surprised by their behaviour. They are trying to break the ice and see how it goes from there. That's how adults would probably tackle the situation.

5. I will not forget the scene where Johan tells his wife that he is leaving. I truly don't have words to describe this scene so I won't even try. But the credit has to be shared between the acting, the dialog and the direction. The only point I must add is a repetition, the scene is handled with total originality and not like other commercial ventures.

6. The last two scenes are the only ones where the dialog got very heavy for me. There seemed to be deeper meanings which I didn't decipher.

Surprisingly, this is the freshest film on marital life that I have seen. Although it was made 34 years ago it does not seem dated.

RATING: 4/5

Movie Review: The Dark Knight

My reviews generally open with expectations. What can I say about my expectations with this film? Saying they were as tall as the mile high buildings in Gotham city would still remain an understatement. Let's get to the points:

STORY:

1. 'The Dark Knight' has a very linear story. It does not even have flashbacks. Very surprising as I associate Nolan with complex highly nonlinear plots. In fact, this tactic was very useful in converting even average tales into gripping cinema, like 'Memento' and 'The Prestige' which in my opinion would have been lesser movies if not for the style of narration. I do not mean to say that 'The Dark Knight' is lesser for having a linear screenplay.

2. I am surprised that no one has felt the story is overdone. It is very very complex. No one can possibly give away this movie's story in any review. Luckily, it is followable and very very thrilling.

3. This is an obvious one. There is no explanation for Joker being the way he is. I didn't expect this. In any other movie there would have been a flashback or some other means to convince the viewers of his actions and his being. 'The Dark Knight' does not try to do that. For movie that's 152 minutes that works so well without this to have this would have been foolhardy. Not a single film by Nolan gives a feeling that some scene is forced into the movie. The way the script works, it keeps going forward in time, it would have been reckless to take the clock back to include an unnecessary flashback. Joker's intentions have to be accepted by the viewer with a no-questions-asked policy and I did just that.

4. This is perhaps the best part of the film for me. This is one film where the villain's plotting is not shown explicitly. Even the execution of the Joker's plans is not shown. The audience sees his actions through the cops, Dent and Batman. What an effect this has! This is a great great idea. Why? Every action comes as a total surprise. Some of 'stunts' that he pulls off make me feel as he has some magical powers. How does a guy get to perform that "social experiment" or place Dawes and Dent where they are? Without showing how Joker works but showing only what he does Nolan convinces a simpleton like me that Joker can do whatever he wants. So when Joker has the entire city under his control through the T.V. telecast or announces that he will kill Reese in 60 minutes I am convinced that Joker can actually do whatever he says. This is the trick of Nolan along with Ledger's performance make Joker as menacing as he comes out in this film.

5.The motive behind Harvey Dent's transformation into Two-Face is hackneyed. I can't believe Nolan could not come up with a better reason for Dent to lose control. Losing a girl-friend is reason enough for men to lose their mind, especially she accepts his proposal a split-second before her demise, but it is an oft-used concept to explain villainy.

6. Dent's reason for transformation is Rachel's death. The idea of doing with her character is a total surprise. This along with no explanation of Joker's past are fresh ideas in this superhero flick. Which other superhero loses his girl?

7. 'Social experiment'! Brilliant! I loved this small thing in the film. Joker's goal is to prove that Batman lives in an indecent world and Batman has no reason to fight for the people of Gotham. The script had to be written in a way to prove Joker wrong. Once this experiment goes wrong Joker is stunned.

8. Within that experiment I didn't like the way the experiment fails. I guess the way it is done is good for dramatization but I everyone will see that coming. I am trying to see how else this could have been done. Let's see.......I can't think of any other way. Can someone else? Maybe there is no better way. I should not have brought this up but I am leaving it on print anyway just because I felt it was predictable.

ACTING:

1. There has been a lot of talk with regard to the acting in this film. I maintain that there will be no awards, maybe except for Heath Ledger, but the entire does maintain a straight face throughout. Unlike other comic book movies there is no one smiling at the camera or giving us a feeling they are bored. Every actor knows where he or she fits in the script and acts with a purpose. I picked this point from another review and it's here because this is point readers to keep in mind when I explain 'why this movie works' later on.

2. The reaction to Heath Ledger's performance has been unanimous. I fully endorse the fact that he has given us one of the best villains of all time. It will be hard to forget this performance especially in the aftermath of his demise. Will he win a posthumous Oscar? It is too early to say. The Oscars are far away and there is every chance of another better performance. If not a better performance there is an even better chance of performance which if not as good as this but comes in a film which hits the screen very close to the Oscars.

RANDOM THOUGHTS:

1. "The Dark Knight" is more about the story. Characterization takes a bit of a backseat in this film. If there is any characterization it is seen in Harvey Dent and to some extent in James Gordon. Personally, I feel there is no characterization of Joker. He is just what he is from his first scene to his final scene. The character does not change. It is one-dimensional. Some will argue that the character of Batman and Joker are contrasts and that is great in itself. But the characters don't grow. Harvey Dent character grows (rather deteriorates!) in this film.

2. This may contradict something I wrote earlier. But I will try to push it through anyway. The discussion here is about the final act of the film, the portion of the film after Joker blasts his way out of prison and then the hospital. Until this point the movie is very very real. The portion after this when Joker has the entire city at his disposal is where the film slips a little away from reality. I don't see it happening in today's day and age when one man will hold a city, that too as big as Gotham, hostage. But I once again emphasize that I was so caught up in the film that I believed it all. I still do. It is only as I write this do I feel it is not possible.

3. I didn't like the bit where the batmobile comes in the way of a shot fired from a rocket launcher. I mean that's the one scene, during the film, where I was reminded that is a comic book we are talking about.

4. "Batman Begins" achieves one thing that 'The Dark Knight' does not. The former speaks more about the system at Gotham which is inherently screwed. It has been so for long. This feels very real. In the latest installment I got a feeling that Joker was trying his best to make the system worse. He is externally corrupting the system. As a result, Batman is fighting a bad system in the first film and fighting a criminal in the latter. To me the concept of the first film is more appealing. But they are different films and both are great.

5. I see Christopher Nolan getting at least a nomination for direction. The Nolan brothers will receive nominations for writing. These two I am dead sure about. In fact, I feel this film can win these categories. I am little skeptical about nominations for best picture and one for Heath Ledger. The chances are high in my opinion, I am not ruling it out, but no one can state this for sure.

QESTION: WHY THIS MOVIE WORKS?

ANSWER: This is where my views may hurt the ones who call themselves "true" fans. 'Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight' do not work as films inspired from comics. They work as stand-alone films. Only 'Sin City', a very good film, constantly reminds viewers that they are watching a comic book adaptation. All the Nolans have done is take the characters from the comics and put them into the real world.For a long time I have been hearing from friends and relations that to enjoy an 'x' superhero movie one has to understand the character that was developed in the comic. Nolan's two films have shown how people like the ones I mentioned have been hiding behind this excuse to make a series of badly adapted superhero films look good. For many years I have been hearing that some 'x' movie is the best superhero film till date. That is not so with these two flicks. We are ready to put them alongside real cinema. Critics have been saying this maybe one of the best crime movies of all time. Some critic went even further and spoke of 'The Departed' and 'Heat' in the same breath. When a superhero film is spoken of as a great crime film it can no longer be considered as a superhero film. Not too long ago Ang Lee tried to make 'The Hulk' into such a film which failed at the B.O. and with critics. Most importantly, 'The Hulk' failed to get a favorable review from me! Nolan has succeeded where 'The Hulk' failed. I don't know a single person who has read the 'Sin City' comics. Note that reading the comics after viewing the film does not count.

CONCLUSION:

1. Watch it once because it exceeds all expectations.

2. Watch it twice as a triumph of the Nolans.

3. Watch it the thrice for a great super-hero film.

4. Watch it again for it rises above a suerhero film into one of film noir.

5. Watch it once again for it will be the fastest 152 minutes of your life.

6. Watch it the penultimate time because it is my favorite of 2008.

7. Finally, watch it because it is a must-watch.

I pray the Nolans have at least another two dozen movies left in them. At least a couple of them being Batman films.

RATING: 5/5

Movie Review: Barry Lyndon

Stanley Kubrick. What name! What movies! Almost every single movie of his that I have seen I have liked. Only sixteen movies of which at least ten movies that range from very good to classic. Seems very unrealistic, doesn't it? Prior to this I had watched six of his films and now have told myself that to expect his other movies to be great may lead to disappointment. The last couple of movies that I have seen of his I started with average expectations. In my opinion 'Barry Lyndon' is better than a good film.

1. I don't think Kubrick has repeated his lead actors in any film. Has he? So that's one thing I look forward to in Kubrick's films. New faces who will give a good performances. Ryan O'Neal and the actor playing his stepson give decent acting performances.

2. If there is one director who can handle any genre of cinema it has to be Stanley Kubrick. Is there anyone else? He has done sci-fi, heist, ultra-violence, war, court-room drama, sex, horror.......In as few as sixteen films he has covered a broad spectrum.

3. The story of 'Barry Lyndon' although not different it is not totally predictable. It seems to slow down a little in the second half but the final duel covers up for this. We can see the end coming, in fact even predict good portions of it. Redmond Barry is transformed in this movie. We can all see it coming after an hour into the film just because we know where this transformation is going.

4. But 'Barry Lyndon' is not about the story as much as it is about how it is told. Personally, I like the first half, or 'Part 1', where Redmond Barry runs away from home and joins the war. Then he is captured by the Prussians and fights his own people! I kept telling myself this is the story of a coward, I even found the first half funny. The scene where Barry breaks down in front of The Chavalier to me was damn funny. I seriously thought this was a comedy below the surface of what is known as a period film. But then Barry Lyndon's ill-treatment of his stepson sets up the final act.

5. The character of Barry is very interesting to me. The early scenes show him very shy and in love. But suddenly he is transformed when he sees a pal die in war. After that he is a plain opportunist. In many ways this is an extra-ordinary story. It is the story of a con-man, an impostor, which is familiar to regular Bollywood followers. This is where Stanley Kubrick steps in and makes 'Barry Lyndon' what it is.

6. I loved the music in this film. This was funny to me too. During times of war and scenes of death the music that was playing sounded more like a nursery rhyme to me! Unbelievable as it may seem such were my thoughts in the scenes of war. That does not mean I didn't like the music.

7. Finally, I have a problem with the duel. Beautifully shot! I loved the location and the birds flying around. The sound mixing or editing or whatever it is called was superb. I am now starting to realise how sounds create an atmosphere and tension. At moments of tension it happens to me when I start hearing every small sound. I got the same feeling here. Coming back to my problem with this duel. Being the opportunist that Barry has been all through the film I could not see the reason for him to spare his stepson. Why does he let his son live? It seemed out of character to me. Maybe more thought and another viewing will clarify this but I don't have the patience for it right now.

8. Oh! I liked the performance Frank Middlemass. He is not there for more than a minute but it was a good strong performance. I guess the lines given to him were to so strong it seemed he acted well.

CONCLUSION: Engaging first half, steady second half, good performances by those mentioned, the final duel, great music and Kubrick's touch make this worth a watch.

RATING: 3.5/5

Movie Review: Trois Couleurs

After reading of this film I forgot about it until a friend recently reminded me of it. When something like this happens, two independent recommendations of an old and almost forgotten film, expectations are not low.

This trilogy comes under the category of 'art films' and when this happens I am a little cautious. My experiences so far with art films have been mixed. 'Rashomon' and 'Seven Samurai' were enjoyable. 'A Clockwork Orange' was disturbing and perhaps left a few mind but it did keep me involved. '2001: A Space Odyssey', spoken of with great regard, resulted in two unsuccessful attempts at finishing it.

FIRST MOVIE: Blue

I am writing this after reading a few reviews of this film. Although my opinion has not changed after reading those reviews it must have influenced my analysis.

1. A few minutes into the movie my wife and I realized that not much would be spoken. Emotions had to be understood by the look on the protagonist's face. After years of watching mainstream movies where characters speak their emotions this exercise proved considerably difficult.

2. The earlier observation of course means that most scenes involve close-ups of characters' faces. Effective as this technique is there were numerous occasions when I was not able to figure out what exactly the person was trying to emote.

3. From this one understands that this movie has to be 'sensed' or 'felt' rather than just watched through the mind. Just the visuals and dialogs, which are enough for every other film, will prove insufficient when trying to truly appreciate this film.

4. The story is simple. I should see known this because are cinema to me is about telling a simple story on the top with a deeper meaning hidden somewhere. I will admit that I missed any intended deeper meanings in this film.

5. Did I like the film? Looks like I didn't understand it, right? In my opinion, the story is engaging. It is not slow. Something or the other keeps happening and I was always left wondering as to where these events are taking me. I was a little letdown with the 'simple' story.

RATING: 3/5

SECOND MOVIE: White

1. I think I am missing the point of these colors. My wife told me that white stands for purity. I am still trying to fit the theme of this movie with purity. I will continue to do this as I type.

2. If this is art cinema then bring it on, man! This movie to me works better than the first one. Honestly, it benefited from not-so-expectations as I didn't like, rather maybe failed to understand the point, the first installment.

3. Saying this film is a thriller would not be right. It has elements of drama, romance, friendship and a lot more which maybe I missed. But to me it is a thriller. That's the way I have decided to understand the film. Now I view films just once and never view it again. There are very few movies I have seen more than twice in the last ten years. So my understanding of a film remains that one point that the movie conveys most strongly to me. 'White' comes across as a steady thriller.

4. The lead actor is perfect. Don't ask me if he really did fit into that suitcase because you asked me I'd surely say yes. This is perfect casting!

5. The acting is neat in this film as it does not require over-the-top acting. Every scene is natural and real. Just like it'd happen in my life or anyone else's.

6. SPECIFICS:

a. The friendship between Mikolaj and Karol is perfect! It makes them friends for life. There is no reason for Mikolaj to talk when Karol is going through this scheme. Mikolaj can't do it as he was in a similar position and Karol got him out of it.

b. The point is my interpretation. In the closing scene Karol is shown with tears in his eyes which I guess means he regrets what he's done. But he can't set it right because along with him he will send Mikolaj and his friend or brother or relation or partner to jail too.

c. Karol and his wife love each other. He cries when she is in prison and she cries at his funeral. But they are inflicting suffering on each other. Quite a hackeneyed concept, right? But it's the treatment that is sheer magic.

d. I like the idea of Karol giving all away his land to the church in his will and the next word mouth Jesus. That character, if I am right, keeps cursing that way in the whole film and he is about to lose his money to the very person! I liked it!

7. At least in this film I felt the facial expressions were a lot easier to interpret for a novice like me. Even if my interpretations were incorrect at least there was something in my mind to take the story ahead.

CONCLUSION: A not-edge-of-the-seat-but-very-very-steady thriller. At 92 minutes, with credits, it plays out smoothly. A simple but intriguing story.

RATING: 4/5

P.S. I could not figure out what 'white' stood for.

THIRD MOVIE: Red

1. Firstly and most importantly, I have missed the point of all the colors. Unless I read it somewhere I will not realize on my help. But will I look it up?

2. STORY: I watched all the movies in this trilogy without reading a word about them anywhere. So every aspect of every film in this set has been a surprise. Expectations were high after 'White', a movie which will be one of my favorite thrillers. However, 'Red' reverted to the style of 'Blue' where I thought I failed in comprehending the film. Surprisingly on reading about it on Wikipedia (not a good source?) I realized was almost spot-on. My interpretation was that the retired judge tried to get the female and the newly appointed judge together. The accident at the end of the film even successfully did that, my interpretation again as they show them walk off together. Wikipedia also mentions that the film speaks about the uncertainties and surprises in life, like how the new judge and the babe miss meeting many times, how the babe meets the old guy through his dog, etc. Hey! All Bollywood films use this somewhere or the other. So I am not too impressed with this idea.
Half-way into the film when the retired judge is introduced and then later when the babe catches him listening to people's conversations I felt this going to the way 'White' went, that of a thriller. The film was set-up like that at one stage. There was intensity when the babe walks into the judge's neighbour's house. She was in a dilemma, turn him or not. To me this was interesting. Once the judge turned himself in the film's pace slackened with excessive dialoge. Of course I could see the old man falling for this girl who had won him over with her conscience. But that story didn't go anywhere.
Finally, I kept missing the point of some shots. For example, the broken glass or bottle shown in the bowling alley, buying some album in a store, the about-to-be judge's life going parallel to the retired judge's life etc. This film is filled with such things. Oh! How did I forget this? All the important characters from the first two films showing up in the climax. What was all this about? Was it to showcase the power of fate and destiny? I hope it was not that.

3. Acting accolodes belong with the old man enacting the retired judge.

CONCLUSIONS: I didn't enjoy the film. The first half was engaging but the second half didn't do the trick. Perhaps my failure in comprehending the film has a lot to do with it.

RATING: 2.5/5

ON THE TRILOGY: My favorite is 'White'. I'd like to go a step ahead and say this is the only good film in the set. All the praise heaped on this work seems to subconciously ensure I don't trash the film altogether. When one watches movies praised like these are you want to love them. My only regret will be I didn't understand them as well as I'd like to. My final words to others are to watch them with some preparation. How can one prepare for these? I don't know.

TRILOGY RATING: 3.1667/5

Why the test in Galle is one of the best in recent times

After three days of play there are no clear favorties in this test. Same has been the case at the end of the first and second days of play.

The next test series is against the mighty Australians. Although we played RSA just before this it was the series in Australia where we showed the world, and Australia, that the gap is finally closing. Batsmen had finally risen to the challenge and played well on the fast tracks in Australia. Perth had been conquered af years of Australian dominance. The 'fab four', especially VVS, had if not at least had not let us down at crucial moments. A real fast bowler had emerged in Ishant Sharma. Sehwag was back in the side with a match-saving century in Adelaide. The future looked bright.

The South-Africans did push us at home, we nearly lost the series. But there were positives, Sehwag's hypersonic triple-century, an out of form Dravid scored a century and we won the third test quite comfortably. The point now is that we had won the third on a turner. In fact, ICC warned BCCI against preparing such pitches for test cricket. But our batsmen played well on spinning tracks as was expected. Although not ideal preparation for the series in Sri Lanka it did not raise any questions on team composition.

It all went wrong at the SSC. The last time India was so badly mauled was in the 1999-2000 tour of Australia. The 'fab four' had collapsed against two spinners one an all-time great, who didn't particularly have a great record against us, and a debutant 'mystery-spinner'. A good portion of the blame was put on the bowlers who let Sri Lanka post 600 runs in the first innings. However, I beg to differ. Sure we bowled badly but a middle order with names like that should have been shot out twice in time less than Sri Lanka took to declare with 600 runs in their first innings. Moreover, there was a virtual kid opening who played every bowler pretty decently.

The next series, although far away in terms of time, is Australia's tour of India.

-----

I stopped here a few days and have not finished it. So I am posting this anyway.

Movie Review: The Thing

Is it fair to classify this as a horror flick? Did it scare anyone even at the time of its release? It is very very thrilling no doubt, but it is not scary.

Few random points:

1. The gore and the violence is the worst part of this film. It is such a pathetic waste. Unfortunately, the story is built around it and has to be in this film.

2. Did Kurt Russel ever really look like that? Interesting but hard to believe his appearance.

On the story:

1. I liked the concept of the alien in this film. What an idea! The alien does not have a form of its own but imitates humans. The team, stranded in Antarctica, does not know who the alien is among them. More than the story, the execution or the horror (as it is supposed to be) it is the idea that did the trick for me

2. The first forty minutes or so are not that exciting. The style of the film, I can't describe it, is different. To me it seemed like a thriller being told in the style of a drama. The way the scenes change, the people's behavior and the over all visual style. All this works very well after the first forty minutes.

RATING: 3.5/5