Movie Review: About a Boy

The day I watched this film I watched two others, 'United 93' and 'The Spiderwick Chronicles'. Although I liked them both I feel this would be more fun to review. It had a decent rating on IMDB and Roger Ebert gave it three-and-a-half stars. I didn't know what to expect. All I wanted was a good romantic movie but got something more. No complaints with that.

1. Have I ever seen a movie with the message 'No man is an island'? Have I ever seen a movie which said we need people around us? I can't recall any. To make a movie out a question asked on a famous T.V. program and to make it so well is commendable. For the theme itself this film deserves applause.
2. The way the story moves too is special. There is a point in the film when Marcus is trying to hitch his mom with Will. I expected the film to follow on familiar lines. At this time I even asked myself how could this film achieve a nomination for adapted screenplay. But then the film took me through some fantastic but realistically shot scenes. I say it again, fantastic but realistically shot. Yes! It all seemed real to me but failed to touch my heart because it all felt improbable.
3. The story is very much into building convinving characters. They all gel together very well in the story.
   
4. Hugh Grant is charming. He may not be the best actor, heck! He's nowhere close to that. However, he has carved a niche for enacting such roles. I loved him in this flick just as much as I loved him in his other British comedies.
5. The rest of the cast acts well. Marcus makes the cut.
   

All said and done I regret watching this film for one reason. I wish I'd read the book first.

RATING: 4/5

Another Look @ 'The Satanic Verses'

It's been a few days since I typed that review of 'The Satanic Verses'. The sheer depth of the book has taken some time to digest. Perhaps a few days should have been spent perusing the book after reading it once.

Firstly, I can't get the characters out of my head. Gibreel Farishta, Saladin Chamcha, The Cones (Otto, Elena, Allie & Alicja), Jumpy Joshi, Pamela Lovelace Chamcha, Mahound, Ayesha, Mirza Saeed, Osman and his bullock - this list is endless. Every character is so well described. Take the story of Ayesha's Haj where we knew virtually the entire village and the village neighbouring Ayesha's where she sells her dolls. Look at Gibreel love interest - Allie. We know everything about her and her family members. Were all these characters necessary? I will never know unless I take some courses in the understanding of fiction, but I can say that to me it made such enjoyable reading.

Secondly, I have to make a special mention of the number of issues tackled in this one book that is almost five hundred and fifty pages. Most authors struggle to get one idea through a book but here is Rushdie speaking of multiple issues in one book.

Further, the writing style is unlike any I have read before. The first time I read 'Shame' I was 'seriously' into it. When I finished the book and read up on Rushdie and his works I started to realize that I should have found many things funny. With 'The Satanic Verses' I was more prepared and enjoyed the worlds that Rushdie created.

Moreover, however cheap it was of the author to use this tactic I found it creative. Who else would have had the Prophet's adversary live the Prophet's life? Then use that same existence and all the secrets he was open to in form of imitation to write his poems. Very creative. Unfortunately, very cheap too.

The story of MIrza Saeed Akhtar and Ayesha that is my favourite. Many of us want to believe. I too want to, I almost do too. But then there are times when I find it hard to. Mirza with his Mercedes tries his best to get the pilgrims to see the path of reason and technology but fails. He sees the truth as it is. I feel sad. Sad there was no magic. But wait! There are so many other who witnessed the same act but with a major difference. The author is equivocal in the book if not in life. I am undecided too in matters of faith. Thus, the story appeals to me.

Why did I earlier say I didn't like the book as much as I liked 'Shame'? Perhaps I expected another fast moving tale not as heavy as this novel turned out to be. It is a much more profound and ambitious work. For that reverence is due. Maybe it slipped at first immdiately after turning the last page. I can't claim I understand all of now but I feel like I have got more out of the book in these last few days. Another reason could have been that I was disappointed with the end. It was too simple. But I now reason with myself that the entire work can't be judged on the the last few pages.

But the central problem with the novel still remains. Why denigrate Islam? The author may not believe but there are many who do not share his feelings.

Book Review: Life of Pi

EXPECTATIONS: 2002 Booker Prize winner - has to be good? No! Winning a Booker prize means it has greatness thrust upon it. Having loved two books which were just on the shortlist in the 1980s meant I was expecting a great book in a winner.

VIEWS: Have just read finished the book an hour ago and may have to re-think what I type. Not having the patience to wait I write this.

1. Firstly, the idea of a an adult Bengal tiger sharing a lifeboat with a sixteen year old is by itself a great idea. This concept has so much scope. Was it utilized fully? It is. His most entertaining digression provides fasinating insights on zoomorhpism, the one single idea that Piscine Molitar Patel exploits to survive with Richard Parker. My only problem with this 'idea' is that it appears to be plagiarised, I read this in Wikipedia.
   
2. Secondly, the book plays out very unlike my expectations. I'd already read of Shymalan refusing to direct this film because of its twist ending. So I started off trying to 'gather' clues as I turned pages. Very soon I was enjoying Pi's childhood and then his adventures on the lifeboat. This pleased me as I thought I'd bekeeping tab of 'loose-ends' to guess the end as early as I could. But here I was feeling sorry for the zebra, cheering the orang-utan and smiling at Pi's handling of the tiger. It's fun enjoying the entire book rather than just the 'surprise' end.
3. The end, in my interpretation, allows us to choose between Pi's 'tall-tale' and a believable one. The latter of couse is a lot more gruesome. Perhaps it was because all the while Martel has been portraying cannibalism very softly but now describes it vividly. It was the second story which really hurt. Did I see the end coming even after keeping tab? No!
   
4. The concept picking a fantastic story to the harsh truth is the central theme of one of my favorite films, 'Big Fish'. So this end is not new to me. Does the end make it a better book? To a great many it will. Some extent it works for me too. I smiled when Pi starts narrating the more plausible tale.

CONCLUSION: I liked the book. Will I remember it forever? At this point I can't remeber reading a novel on shipwrecked person(/s) & have no plans of reading another. In that sense it should stay with me for sometime. However, I will not remember it as a great piece of writing.

Book Review: The Satanic Verses

After 'One Hundred Years of Solitude' I realized my reading choices would never be the same. 'The Namesake' happened next, a commercial masala work but with Salman Rushdie's 'Shame' the transformation was complete. I'd like to draw an analogy to mechanics in Rushdie's case. While most of understand the laws of motion as given by Newton only the true intellects understand Einstein's concept of space-time. Similarly, in the world of fiction there are usual laws of characterization and narrative which start out and end adhering to all the laws we know and are forced to follow. What laws? Dusk follows dawn, death follows life and the likes. The regular best-sellers that we read don't break this mould. Rushdie cuts loose. For him there are no rules, only imagination. Imagine linking Amitabh Bachchan, Ayatollah Khomeine and Prophet Muhammad! Characters based on famous personalities linked together by magic set his books apart from every other.

Moreover, regular novels tend to take the reader through one dimensional narratives. Rushdie gives so many angles in 'The Satanic Verses', the two leads and their worlds, Gibreel as the archangel in other smaller stories, Saladin's adventures, Ayesha, Jumpy Joshi, Mahound and the list is endless. I don't know what to call this line of thought so I am calling it 'dimensions' just because other writers don't build characters through smaller tales, each of them so interesting & magical by themselves, like Rushdie does. Further, each of these stories is layered, speaking a tale not directly but through our greater but common knowledge.

Salman Rusdhie links stories through lines of dialogues or certain characteristics of the characters involved or even names given to characters, which initially will probably pass unnoticed . I had memorized an example but can't recall it now. Have to keep this in mind while I read further.

The English language has its rules laid down. But not for Salman Rushdie. Although not uncommon for writers to incorporate local lingo into their writing it is Rusdhie who uses it to further the narrative and describe characters. He does not even bother to give the English meaning of the words he uses.

THE CONTROVERSY: Having spent a couple of hours reading about the controversy surrounding the book I must say my feelings are purely for the followers of Islam. Salman Rushdie's exceptional imagination and creativity if kept aside for a moment will reveal the pervert within. No one can weave a tale like Salman Rushdie has done revolving around Jahilia. If I were to try I could not. It's because of my upbringing. Derogatory and detached views of the theology of any religion, mine or any other, does not come naturally to me. I am sure it does not come naturally to anyone else. How could this man do it? I believe Salman Rushdie knew exactly what he was getting into when he wrote 'The Satanic Verses'.

CONTROVERSY ASIDE: Being a Hindu it was not too hard to distance myself from the 'blasphemous' (yes, I do feel that way) references. So here goes,

1. The three 'short-stories' did keep me occupied. Especially the pilgrimage with Ayesha which I thought was fantastic. The story of how Baal extracts his revenge deserves both credit to Rushdie's imagination and more so to his perversity. The story of the return to power of the exiled Imam reminded me of a special-effects filled movie where hoardes of people come together at a fortress to dethone some evil queen. Personally, the book is more about these short-stories than that of Gibreel Farishta and Saladin Chamcha.
2. The first half of the tale involving Saladin and Gibreel is more engaging than the latter half. It was somewhere in the middle of 'A City Visible but Unseen' where it slipped for me. After this I was not interested in what happened to Saladin and Gibreel, and the people surrounding them.

I have read 'Shame' and 'The Satanic Verses' from Salman Rushdie. Clearly, 'Shame' is better by far.

Movie Review: Bandit Queen

IMDB lists 'Bandit Queen' as Shekhar Kapur's third film. Seven years after 'Mr. India' and eleven years after 'Masoom' came 'Bandit Queen'. Without watching 'Masoom' I can say this film marked the jump from childhood to the realm of adults for Shekhar Kapur. How does he fare?

In my opinion, there is no other movie like this. Why?

1. Shekhar Kapur does not hold back an inch from the truth, assuming everything there is true. Most directors would not have made this into a movie. The small fraction who'd have ventured would have toned it down. Even that toned down version would still have been 'too much' for us. BUT WAS THIS NECESSARY? Yes, for without the violence, sexuality and nudity this would have been a lesser film.
2. The chemistry between Nirmal Pandey and Seema Biswas is unconventional magic. In many ways I compare this pair to 'Bonnie & Clyde' - both couples are out on the run, attracted to each other physically and both evenly matched in every possible way. I love Nirmal and Seema in this film, perhaps more than Beatty and Dunaway. WHY? The scenes that have Nirmal and Seema in the same frame are so so so real. Check them out dressed as police and looting trucks, listen to the dialog and watch them act when they do it (this scene is etched in my mind for it is so so so natural) that dirty apartment in Kanpur and finally listen and watch them again just before Nirmal is killed. Oh! Observe the pair when they visit Seema's place. Oh and when drag out Aditya Srivastav and beat him up. Almost forgot! Check Nirmal christen Seema as 'Phoolan Devi'. Is this the best couple I have seen in cinema? As I write this I can't think of any other pair.
3. The locations seem real. Apparently, nothing seems to shot on sets in this film. After I watched 'Manorama Six Feet Under' for the first time I was in the movie. I could feel the heat, smell the sweat, hear the bullet whizz past my ears........
   
4. The dialect used in this film forced me to follow the film on subtitles. Although able to follow most of the dialog I didn't want to miss out on anything.

If I were to pick one thing from this film that I will remember it for or that one thing which makes it different from any other movie I have seen - it is the first and last lines spoken by Phoolan.

RATING: 5/5

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

Documentary: An Inconvenient Truth

All movies I have seen so far have either been disturbing or inspiring. I can't remember any that achieved both. 'An Inconvenient Truth' easily does both.

It's a documentary on global warming so most of the points in this film are expected. However, this documentary puts it in a better perspective. Sometimes it does it through numbers at other times it shows satellite images as evidence and looks at some possible consequences of further damage. Then at other times it explains the reasons for 'revenge' we have been victims of in forms of weather hazards. This is the disturbing part.

For a long time I have been living with a feeling that there is little we can do now to reverse the damage. This is where 'An Inconvenient Truth' worked for me. It is the last ten minutes or maybe not even that much. The duration of this does didn't matter to me. What mattered to me was that all this can be undone by 2060. The film actually worked its charm (or was it Al Gore?) on me. At this moment I well and truly believe that I can play a part in this change for the good. I was inspired.

So much for the message of the film. On the film itself:

1. I am not able to make up my mind on the presentation style. From what I understand, this film has been pieced together using all the talks Al Gore has given 'at least a thousand times'. I was not expecting this style and can't make up my mind on it.

2. I can make my mind on one thing though. I felt the inclusion of Al Gore's personal life in this film was not justified one bit. It hampered the narration of the main theme a bit but I am keeping this point out of mind when I give out my rating at the end.

3. The opening and closing of the movie is special, that image of earth is so captivating. In fact, I should have seen the end coming. They showed a photograph of the earth, which is claimed to be the most reproduced image in history. I should have seen that's how the film would close.

On the whole, this film is a must-watch. Can't be missed, shouldn't be missed.

RATING: 5/5

Documentary: The Corporation

The subject of 'The Corporation' can make very interesting viewing. But it doesn't. However, that does not diminish the importance of the message of this well intended documentary.

Facts I was not aware of:

1. Just like everyone I know corporations can acquire and get rid of assets. But I was surprised to find out how this come into existence. If I am not mistaken it is the fourteenth amendment that was responsible for equating a corporation to an individual. It was interesting hearing the number of cases that were put up at that time, a vast majority of the cases from corporations and not Afro-Americans. Very unlike what we'd expect.

2. IBM's involvement in the concentration camps under Hitler. The subject of 'Iron Man' is so old? What does one say if it is the same today as during WW2?

Michael Moore's reasoning behind how this documentary is released for the world to see is interesting. The flaw in this system allows us to watch this documentary.

For me, the film was too long with not a clear structure. It seemed like they were throwing out evidence after evidence to prove that corporations are villains. They did that well right through the film. I guess that's what documentaries are supposed to do anyway.

RATING: 3/5

Movie Review: Hellboy 2

Some observations to start with:

1. The creatures are all creative for sure. Special effects are one aspect and the creativity in the creatures that surround Hellboy deserves a very very special mention.

2. The special effects are special. One must keep in mind that for a movie relying so heavily on special effects this is a 'cheap' film at $ 70 million or so. Same was the case with 'Pan's Labyrinth'.

My feelings on this film:

1. Is there a story? I don't see one that deserves a mention. The entire plot of this film is stereotypical.

a. The flashback which the movie opens with does not seem to be linked anywhere in the film. If it is I missed it. I know Hellboy pulls a face on first hearing about the Golden Army but that's it. So the flashback essentially could have been done with.

b. At one stage it seems the film will tackle the issue of deforestation. I was up and game. But then it all fizzled out. Hellboy finishes the forest God and that's it. It is not referred to again. It would have been great to see a creature not from our world tackle a larger issue. No superhero film I have seen has done it.

2. For most part the story moves at nearly-brisk pace with the action and all. However, once Prince Nuada abducts his twin the movie fizzles out. We are told about the destiny of Hellboy which will surely come up in future parts, if there are any. For all the fuss, the Golden Army is almost never raised! I didn't expect that. I felt cheated. The Golden Army is what this film goes by but it hardly has any screen time.

3. To me the second love track didn't fit into the tale. It seemed forced. The moment Abe fell Princess Nuala we all know he is going to be heartbroken. After all the Prince can't be killed without killing the Princess.

4. The part where Hellboy and Abe get drunk, well, what can I say? I should have seen it coming. They seemed to be acting like humans all along. I enjoyed it anyway.

5. I liked Hellboy's girlfriend. Interesting concept of her getting pregnant with Hellboy's twins. Where are they taking this?

6. I felt the destiny bit of Hellboy thrown into this film was so forced and lame. It was totally in-your-face. I know it is the way films are these days. But a smarter way of introduction to the what's coming should have been thought of. For example, the way Joker is introduced at the end of 'Batman Begins'. Else why bother with this? Isn't it first a duty to finish this film properly?

All those were my thoughts on the story. Seems like I didn't like it much, huh? Not really, this is a superhero film and I enter the hall not expecting much. Even after the rave reviews this film got I was not expecting much. But I did have one expection, good special effects and wonderful creatures all served on a budget. I was not disappointed there. I also liked the flamboyant character of Hellboy. He is portrayed as a cool dude.

To sum up, the SAVING GRACE:

1. Wonderful special effects.
2. The toothfairy in particular was spectacular.
3. Hellboy - the cool dude with the coolest lines.

RATING: 3/5

Movie Review: The Prince of Egypt

I am writing this after a fortnight so I am sure to miss out on many many details.

I wish I watched this on the big screen. Believe me, I tried to catch it when it released but for some reason I can't recall now I missed it. If people think it is an animated film and probably not worth watching on the big screen then they could not be further from the truth.

1. 'The Prince of Egypt' has a huge canvas. There are so many wonderful visuals in this film which would definitely look massive on a big screen.

a. The chariot race through which Moses and Rameses are introduced.
b. The parting of the sea.
c. A particular scene during the parting of the sea when a whale (or some really big fish) is seen in the parted water.
d. The scene where the sea comes together.

2. The face of Moses is unforgettable. A clear face without any guile. Maybe it is my innocence or gullibility that made me look for such a face for such a character. I agree the bias does help but I am sure the artists kept Moses' appearance in mind.

3. The songs are very melodious as always in any animated feature film. But in this movie they blend into the genre. The music is not too loud. It is calm. Except maybe one, in Rameses' court.

A very steady tale with no sudden ups and downs in the pace. The dubbing is great, Val Kilmer sounds so calm. But is it touching? It can be if you want it to. 'The Prince of Egypt' relies on you to have some faith and belief beforehand.

RATING: 3/5

Movie Review: Amruthavarshini

Kannada movies have the advantage of starting out as an underdog. No one expects a lot from them. Even the biggest hit last year 'Mungaru Male' does not feature in my book of good movies. My wife recommends the Kannada movies we watch and the last one was a total wash out. However, 'Amruthavarshini' surprised me.

1. The story is not entirely new. To me it is character of Ramesh Arvind, his performance and Suhasini's acting that make this moves what it is.

a. The character of Abhi makes the movie what he is. Abhi, from what I understand, suffers from an inferiority complex. He is so low on confidence that he hardly speaks, stutters when he is lying and his hands shake when he knows he is not in the right. The fact that he hardly ever speaks does not give away his intentions so the murder he commits comes a surprise. It is at this point that the movie takes you on.

b. Acting accolades for Ramesh Arvind and Suhasini are richly deserved. Ramesh puts in a memorable performance as the low-on-confidence Abhishek Bharadwaj. Suhasini keeps the first half of the film alive with her gusto and witty lines while the second half brings out the exact opposite face of her character. I am not sure if they won awards for their performances but I hope they did.

2. Barring the first ten minutes, where the couple exchange recorded messages, and climax where Suhasini speaks for a while the movie is not over dramatised. The direction and editing are first rate. After Abhi commits the murder the pace is steady and does not falter.

3. I didn't like the way Dr. Vimala's court case was used to bring out the interest in the camera. I felt that was lame. It was too direct! Once everyone had forgotten about the camera one just wonders how it will be introduced again. To introduce it the way it was didn't earn any points for imagination. But in the bigger picture it didn't matter much so it was not a big deal.

4. Most songs are melodious with the very first song being the best in the set.

CONCLUSION: My wife redeemed herself after the 'Guru Shishyaru' fiasco. A charming film this one.

RATING: 3.5/5

Movie Review: The Killing

1. I liked the non-linear style of storytelling here. To be frank, till yesterday I believed it was something the became popular after 'Pulp Fiction'. It works more in the second half than the first half when the heist is actually in operation.

2. Time is not wasted on building characters as only the important are focused upon. I liked this idea. Not a reel is wasted!

3. The narration is very effective in helping the viewer through the non-linear plot. I don't like thinking every few minutes after a scene change to figure where the story is now.

4. Never heard of Sterling Hayden before? Doesn't matter! His no-nonsense style of mouthing his lines is just perfect for this film. He displays no emotions and is to the point which are perfect qualities for mastermind of the heist.

5. If this movie were to be made today then stuff like technology, over characterization and unnecessary exploitation of women would have hindered the flow of the film. Not here though. I like this James Hadley Chase style of storytelling. Wearing clown masks during the robbery was enough. Every single gun to be used in the operation had to be planned for. One could drive through town with a couple of million dollars in bag made of cloth. The same money could become checked-in baggage while flying a airplane. Such simple but exciting heists so convincing shown make me believe a few men with guile would be enough for a robbery unlike the planning and execution of a modern 'Swordfish' or 'Ocean's Eleven'.

5. The pace of the film has to be credited. It builds up and carries till the last scene. The intensity just goes up, up and up till the credits roll.

6. At 83 minutes this is as taut as it can get. Absolutely no slack here.

7. Two doubts I had during the movie,

a. What's the purpose of the old man asking Hayden to come with him after the robbery?

b. What was he doing loitering around the bar during the operation? I thought he was supposed to stay at home. Was it to distract us into thinking he'd be the one to foil the plot?

RATING: 4/5

Movie Review (NOT!): It Happened One Night

I should seen this coming. Sometimes it pays to know a little of the story before actually watching it. Not that I didn't like this film, I quite enjoyed it. It was just that some of the ideas in this film I have come across in Bollywood movies.

How does one hitch a ride? The 'thumb rule' clearly is no match for Claudette Colbert's (or should I say Pooja Bhatt's!) legs.

Peter Warne takes a married Ellie Andrews to her husband. Aamir Khan's character too does it in a movie.

I have delayed this review by almost a week to try and review this movie in isolation. But I just can't do it! I give up. 'Dil Hai Ke Maanta Nahin' is a remake of this film. I liked that film the first time I saw it. In all probability I'd have liked this if I'd seen it earlier.

Movie Review: Halla Bol

When making a movie with a message the message by itself is as important as the execution. The message by itself is the problem of a very well executed 'Halla Bol'.

1. Pankaj Kapur turns in a riveting performance. This is his movie. Watch him tackle his former mate and some goons to save a chick. And then watch him in his 'nukkad nataks'.

2. OSO took us inside Bollywood. But we all know it is not as nice a place as it was made out to be. It has a dark side. I guess that was what this movie was meant to bring out to the public. But this film does not achieve that. Although it starts in that direction it diverts to the oft repeated theme that a bystander can't claim he or she is innocent.

3. Typical Raj Kumar Santoshi movie. He is in his elements here.

4. Vidya Balan is wasted.

5. The main plus with this film is that it has no songs. Oh! I think it has one song but it didn't really hurt me.

A well intended and well executed film which works only as a well executed film.

RATING: 3/5

Movie Review: Planes, Trains and Automobiles

1. Memorable Scenes:

a. The look on John Candy's face when Steve Martin tells him how irritating his conversation is.

b. John Candy speaking to himself when he is left out in the cold.

c. Steve Martin laughing when their rented car is burning.

2. Both the actors give hilarious performances.

But what is this movie about? For sure it is more than comedy. I can sense it. But I was not able to understand it rightly, I think. Well, there is one guy who has his life planned and everything out of the plan does not work well with him. In contrast there is another guy who has friends all over and can get out of any situation. The movie explores the situation when circumstances bring them together for a couple of days. Beyond that I don't see anything else. To me it's a hilarious movie, no doubt, and nothing more.

RATING: 3/5

Movie Review: Life in a ..... Metro

Two weeks after having seen the film is probably not the best time to write a review. But who cares? I will give it shot.

I remember:

1. Sharman Joshi's track was a total let-down. I watched 'The Apartment' not too long ago and it is not a movie one forgets in a hurry. Moreover, that meant Kay-Kay Menon's track was also lost. Although I appreciate their wonderful performances the tracks could not keep me interested.

2. Why was Dharmendra and Nafisa Ali's track in the film? Is it to remind us that even at old age we need someone? And was it also to tell us that we should keep our promises to our loved ones? I thought this track was unnecessary.

3. For once we didn't have characters from different stories coming together. It was a movie which had stories which had people from different walks of life and stayed that way. Their paths were not forced to cross. Moreover, the flow of the film was very very smooth. Transitions from one track to the other were deftly handled. So the Anurag Basu did a great job of directing and writing this movie.

4. Great performance by the entire cast. Simply superb! Every actor and every star carries his or her own baggage. Kind of rare in a film like this.

5. Songs deserve a special mention. They are great.

RATING: 3/5

Movie Review: Raiders of the Lost Ark

I have to open this entry with expectations I had from this film. I recently watched the new one in the theater and then saw 'Temple of Doom' and 'The Last Crusade' on T.V. Did I love 'The Last Crusade'! Some adventure! Brilliant! Clues taking one to various places punctuated with comedy and action, not to forget the conditions under which Junior is sent after the Grail. All these memories I will treasure for life.

But this is supposedly the best of the series. More than that, it is supposedly one of the best films ever made. In my opinion, 'The Last Crusade' is the best of the series but because this is the first in the series people remember it more fondly.

1. My problem with the movie is pretty straightforward. Jones finds the Ark of the Covenant in sixty minutes or so. What happens after that is not very difficult to see. The fun is almost over once the Ark is packed and sealed, only some action remains.

2. There are several smart scenes and ideas in the film. The monkey business, snakes, the fight on the plane and the one on the streets of Cairo. I have seen them so many times before, Spielberg plays with action in virtually every film of his. Nevertheless it was fun this time, like always.

3. Harrison Ford settled into Jones' shoes as early as the first part in the series. This is what I noticed watching 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.

4. The part of the movie after Marion is picked up by Jones till their escape from the chamber of snakes is great! It's the portion after that which was very predictable.

RATING: 3/5

Movie Review: Grindhouse

When directors venture out to deliberately make bad movies what happens. This is the question 'Grindhouse' answers. However, I must admit that I have not seen any exploitation movies and first heard of grindhouses through this film.

1. PLANET TERROR

Now this is a bad movie. As bad as it can get. Now I like action movies and was expecting this to be my favorite among the two films. Sadly it is not as good as Tarantino's 'Death Proof'

a. I like both babes. That's one of the reasons they were picked for this film. Exploitation cinema is about babes.

b. The action was not my type at all. There was more of gore and bloating humans than I like. It's not scary and it is not funny. So on this front it is was not worth anything.

c. The story is absolutely pointless. It's exactly how it was supposed to be, I guess. The small stuff about the recipe, the engagement ring, the missing leg replaced with a gun and Tarantino's appearance were funny. Meaningless people popping in and out. Stupid! And that's exactly how it is to be, right?

d. I watched this on DVD (and 'Death Proof' too) and lost interest many a time. It was too long, 105 minutes.

e. If there were any references I probably missed them.

Full marks to the idea but that doesn't make-up for the bad story. I feel something better (or worse, if that's what people want to call it) was easily achievable.

RATING: 2/5

2. Death Proof

It was probably the best idea in this movie to have Tarantino's film as the second one.

1. Tarantino is an expert at writing dialogues, especially conversations over a meal. I can't forget the conversation in 'Reservoir Dogs' when the gang is having breakfast (or was it lunch?). 'Death Proof' is filled with great conversations between the women. It's crazy for sure but it is engaging. I don't remember this happening in any of the other movies I have seen. Long conversationg keeping me occupied and those same conversations not adding to the story.

2. The story is good. In fact, it is great! It is so engaging! I could not believe someone could write such a story. It is stupid, I know many will say this. One can say the story in one sentence but the way the film treats it is brilliant. I can't put it in words but I will try. The conversations, the performances, the reference to 'Vanishing Point' and the action are all our of this world. When I say that one should understand that though it is 'Planet Terror' that pretends to take us into the surreal it is 'Death Proof' that actually accomplishes that by staying true to our world. 'Death Proof' is written in such a way that one does not realize, at least I didn't, as to who the good people are. It does not give a clue as to who is going to win, who is going to lose. That is one of the winning points in this film.

3. Kurt Russel has probably given the perforance of his life. I'd written him off as a non-actor until 'Death Proof'. This is a masterly performance. Why did he not get an Oscar nomination at least? I almost felt like giving it to him last night when I was watching it.

4. The action here is stupendous? Technically superb? I can't say. Why? It is because the suspense in the final car chase is unbelievable. Most of the time I am watching action I am in awe of the technical brilliance but here I was taken on a ride and didn't know what would happen. Will Stuntman Mike win once again like he always does? I will not forget this as long as I live.

5. All the girls have acted superbly. I am not going to talk about looks here because when performances are first-rate appearances don't count. Each and everyone of them is brilliant in the roles assigned.

6. I didn't understand more than ten sentences in the conversation between the two cops when Stuntman Mike is in the hospital. Does it matter? I didn't bother to rewind and try to understand what they said. I just went with the flow. Just like Tarantino would have wanted me to.

7. For me this is a stand alone film. I am reviewing it like that even though it is under 'Grindhouse'. Moreover, if this film were inspired from some other film I have no clue. Some say it is similar to 'Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!' but I have not seen or heard of it.

Great movie!

RATING: 5/5

GRINDHOUSE RATING: (2+5)/(5+5) = 3.5/5

Movie Review: Good Night, and Good Luck

Arguably one of the best movies of this decade. George Clooney is much better director than actor, in my opinion. I thought of him as a regular star with his Batman, Ocean's Eleven and Twelve, 'Intolerable Cruelty' etc. But behind the scenes is where his strength lies.

1. Outstanding timing for the film's release. Won't elaborate on that.

2. Senator McCarthy as himself from original video footage is a great idea. The scenes involving him are very powerful. In fact, they are so strong that if they were shot with an actor I'd be thinking it was dramatized.

3. There are no scenes outside the office. No family for the characters, no wasting time building relationships, no crap. Straight into the story.

4. David Strathairn delivers a riveting performance. I have not seen Edward Murrow or his show so I don't know if Strathairn bears any resemblance in looks or mannerisms. But his performance looks very studied and researched. I am quite confident that the real Edward Murrow behaved much the same way as Strathairn portrays him. A very purposeful performance.

5. I could not understand related the track of Downey Jr. and the problem with being married to a fellow collegue. What was that? How was it related to the tale?

6. Clooney gives a good acting performance too.

7. The direction is great. I say thing because the movie nevel loses its pace. At 93 minutes it makes very very compelling viewing.

A must-watch!

RATING: 4/5

Star Wars Episodes 1-6

This saga needs no introduction. I have seen them as a baby, as a kid, as a teenager and now I have decided to see them all once again. When I watched them earlier I was more interested in the special effects and the action. This time I want to see it more closely. Moreover, I have seen the newer episodes around the time they were released and have now forgotten the old ones.

EPISODE 1: THE PHANTOM MENACE

This has been long pending. I watched this movie on Monday and it is now Thursday evening as I write this. All through the film I was excited but the end didn't go well with me. To tell you the truth I just had to take a few seconds to remember the end of the film. As I was watching this, for the second time, I was only thinking of how a story has been woven around the discovery of Anakin Skywalker. This story seems like a 'filler' to me. But that was always going to be a challenge. Lucas must have known it when he decided to make these prequels. If one looks at this film in isolation it does make entertaining viewing.

The whole concept of 'a galaxy far, far away' is great. Those words which every film of this franchise starts with tells us we are going to another world. Those words by themselves stir emotions. I vividly recall the thrill of watching the villain with heavy breaths in a dark and scary suit. Add to that the swords which shone like tube-lights. It was fun when I was a kid and is fun when I watch it today. These are the emotions 'a galaxy far, far away' stirs in me.

My memories of this film will be two. Firstly, Jake Lloyd. Secondly, the pod race. The rest of the film is lost to me today.

The story moves. It keeps moving. The way it moves one gets a feeling that it will be endless. It just gives me a feeling that nothing has been achieved. The characters don't evolve in the film. It's a pity.

On the bright side, this is a movie about special effects. It is a movie about engaging sci-fi action. At least on that front it doesn't disappoint. The action was engaging enough. That was enough to make it a joy ride for me.

FINAL NOTE: Too many characters and constantly moving story line interspesed with wonderful action in great sceneries can be fun. Nothing more.

RATING: 3/5

EPISODE 2: ATTACK OF THE CLONES

This episode was much the same stuff. Anakin Skywalker has grown up. The love angle is baffling but I took it in. My wife still can't buy the love angle. The action once again is great. This is the sole good point of the film.

RATING: 3/5

EPISODE 3: REVENGE OF THE SITH

Now we are talking about a great movie. This is a movie, man! This movie had a purpose and a sense of urgency. The earlier episodes didn't. We had to wait over four hours for Anakin Skywalker to make contact with 'the dark side' and supposed to enjoy the adventures he had before meeting the Sith lord.

The best one so far is this one. Clearly there is no doubt in that.

RATING: 4/5

EPISODE 4: A NEW HOPE

Yes! There actually is a new hope. After the first two episodes things picked up in the third and there is actually hope in the fourth installment.

Why this movie is better than the new ones:

1. Fewer characters in this film have been better exploited towards better characterization. There's Luke Skywalker who will of course become a Jedi because Obi-Wan is getting old for this. He has a motive to fight this war. Then there is Leia who has to be rescued. Check out Han Solo is as human as it can get, he does not believe in the 'force', wants money to clear his debts and is trying to pick a fight with Leia and flirting with her at the same time! Then there's Darth Vader, surrounded with technical geniuses, who still believes and is trying to enforce the power of the 'force'. Finally, the duo of C-3P0 and R2-D2 keeps he laughs coming. Oh and wait! Who can forget Chewbacca?

2. The memorable parts of this film are when the gang on Death Star. Leia has to be rescued by the two heroes, Obi-Wan has to turn off a power supply somewhere while C-3P0 and R2-D2 have adventures of their own. The humour more than the special effects is what I will remember this episode for.

3. Han Solo and Luke Skywalker become friends. I liked that. Some comraderie won't hurt in the later episodes I guess. This was missing in the three earlier episodes. I didn't feel strongly for any relations.

4. What's Luke doing trying to impress Leia? I don't get it yet.

RATING:4/5

EPISODE 5: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

The highlight of the movie has to be Darth Vader telling Luke Skywalker who Luke's father is. Unfortunately, the whole world knows it already irrespective of whether the person has seen a single one of the episodes. Now I can understand why this particular episode worked, apart from of course the really special effects.

1. The story in this film has nothing to offer for someone who is watching it from the first episode and reached the fifth in not too long a time gap. I understand this angle of judgment takes me away from how the audience viewed this film at the time of its release. So I am willing to overlook this.

2. The special effects in this film are far superior to 'A New Hope'. Things start to look a little like they did in the first three installments. Lando's city (or whatever it is) gives a feeling of deja vu, the lightsaber looks better and the space wars look better.

3. Yoda is almost incomprehensible. I wonder why it's so. He speaks so clearly in the first three episodes but back in the early days his diction is horrible. Is he going senile? Why does Luke have to carry him on his back?

4. Leia's fickle mindedness is almost irritating. I know Luke is her twin. That's the problem with watching this series from the beginning.

I should have enjoyed it more but I like 'A New Hope' very much. Although the special effects were not as good as in this film it had life. It was made as though it was for kids, Han returning to save Luke. I liked it. The fun is missing in this one.

RATING: 3/5

EPISODE 6: RETURN OF THE JEDI

Movie Review: The Age of Innocence

With Martin Scorsese calling the shots I was expecting a typical film. Slow start leading to a tense finish. But what's this? We have a neat little love story here.

OBSERVATIONS:

1. Firstly, it is a simple little tale. A straight-forward love story, which surprises me. It's a Scorsese film. It's a charming surprise though. Charming by Hollywood measures. In Bollywood this kind of a story would not be out of place.

2. I failed to understand why so many characters were introduced at the start of the film. The story involved just three people!

3. I can't understand any of the acting nominations from this film. Everyone does a decent job but the performances are not powerful. Maybe I am wrong in my opinion about acting nominations. What do they look for in an acting performance? Do they look for performances true to the script? If that is so then not a single person goes out of bounds.

4. Now most of the shooting is indoors. So the period feel had to come from the costumes and the language. Both of which are of high degree. On looking into IMDB I realized that it won the Oscar for best costumes and I am not surprised.

5. Even though it is the story of three people almost every frame has Daniel-Day Lewis in it. In fact, the tale makes us sympathize with his character.

6. I loved the conspiracy of sending Michelle Pfeiffer's to Europe. The subtlety and class with high society people do things was the best part of the film for me.

7. MY INTERPRETATION: WHY DOES NEWLAND NOT MEET THE COUNTESS AT THE END? I had a simple feeling. Just like he gave Olenska a chance to turn around once he was waiting for her to reveal herself to him once again. That didn't happen and he walked off.

RATING: 3/5

Movie Review: Awara

I have seen three movies today and have time to squeeze in one more. I added the run time of all these movies it turned out to be a staggering 12 hours. One of them was "Lawrence of Arabia". What a way to spend the Sunday, huh?

But when the movies are good how can I complain? Of the three I have seen so far I have liked 'Awara' the most. Okay! Agreed I am Indian and can identify more with my world. No questioning loyalties here.

This film was made in 1951. Keeping that in mind I have to mention things that surprise me old movies like this, 'Pyaasa', 'Kaagaz Ke Phool', 'Devdas' etc. are:

1. The story makes compelling viewing even today. While watching 'Awara' not once do we get a feeling that we are watching a dated story. That's the power of cinema that deals with human emotions. These emotions don't change!

2. Rita is a modern woman even by today's standards. She has a career ahead, has a head of her own with a heart in the right place. Very good performance by Nargis. Very pretty too.

3. See her in a swimsuit and then speak of all the hype about Bipasha Basu in 'Dhoom 2'. The scenes were cleanly done in this movie. It was shot naturally. I mean swimming in a swimsuit is natural. It need not be highlighted with close-up views of flesh! It is our thoughts that have changed. That too for the worse.

Particularly to this movie:

1. Apart from one song, the title track, I didn't like the rest. This is unusual as I have enjoyed the music in all RK films.

2. All three Kapoors have acted well.

3. Nargis is great!

4. The story is comparable to 'Pyaasa'. Even though the outline plot has been beaten to death the things in between have been well managed. For example, the way Jagga is got rid of, the case that is fought, how Raj transforms. Raj actually transforms twice, maybe more, wants to be good, steals the necklace, wants to be good again, murders Jagga and is ready to murder his father. I liked it.

Great movie! Better than what I expected for sure.

RATING: 4/5

Movie Review: Good Morning, Vietnam

My brother and a friend have been singing praises of this film for a long time now. So my expectations with this film were fairly high.

CONFESSION: I had tried watching this film once before but failed. I was tired that day and slept after forty-five minutes. My brother made me regret that decision for a long time and today was my chance.

It is more than fair to say that the Oscar nomination for Robin Williams is richly deserved. This performance is typical Williams in parts and not typical Williams in the rest. We see him doing his stuff over the radio and then the other side when he is off it.

I can't help but compare it to 'Good Night, and Good Luck'. It is similar! We have Williams' character trying to get the real news on air while Murrow is having public trials of Senator McCrathy. We have not seen this in India. These films and others, like 'V for Vendetta', try to mock the government. I am not even sure if this would be approved of in India. Remember how 'Rang De Basanti' was cleared by the IAF prior to its release?

GMV {Bruno Kirby's character loves acronyms!} is a simple movie. Almost toned down. But then it is not supposed to be hard-hitting. Maybe it is because this is the story of an experience a 'funny-man'.

What will I remember from this movie?

1. The long commercial breaks that interrupt short intervals of actual film.

2. Forest Whitaker as the lovable sidekick. In many ways this movie is as much of how his character evolves as Williams' character.

3. I can't forget the characterization of Lt. Steven Hauk. Kirby does a fantastic job! This is my favorite character in the film. He does not change in the film. He can't be changed. Demanding respect and belief that humor is formulaic, can anyone beat that?

RATING: 3/5

Movie Review: Lawrence of Arabia

This is my first break into this film. Have seen one hour of the movie. Some observations so far,

1a. By the 'looks' of things so far it appears the visuals are going to transport me into the war between the Arabs and the Turks. Absolutely stunning visuals! When I watched 'Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace' I was taken in by the world it created. I'd have to say the same here. Except in this film it is all real whereas in George Lucas' films it was all CGI.

1b. One hour into this film the beautiful desert with the sand flying from the top of the dunes. The flying sand looks like steam coming off something hot and that again reminded me of how hot it actually was out there in the desert.

1c. Omar Sharif's entry will be memorable. It almost appears like he floated from the horizon to reach Lt. Lawrence and his guide. Beautiful!

2. The story so far has been great. I don't know the history behind this. However, I do know it is having the war as its backdrop. So this particular story is new to me. After an hour Lt. Lawrence and his fifty men have just taken off for Aqaba.

Looking forward to the rest of the film.

I have another hour of the film to go. My wife needed a break and frankly so did I. My views so far,

1. Very elaborate film. All trips across the deserts have got plenty of video time. There is a lot of focus on faces, especially Peter O'Toole's. Can't forget the scenes after Daud is lost in quicksand.

2. Lawrence's acceptance of liking killing was another surprising scene. Especially after his superior reads out his character, loves music and literature. So big turn around there.

3. The American angle, I should have seen that coming. It's a Hollywood movie, right?

4. I recognized Anthony Quinn as Auda. It took me a long time. I had seen him in some film, I kept telling myself but could not remember. Finally, I was not able to remember his name but could remember the face from 'Last Action Hero' {I loved that movie as a kid!}.

Have to get back and finish the final leg of the movie.

Finally! It's over. We started watching it at nine in the morning and at two in the afternoon it's finally over. A highly rated movie. If I'd not seen it now I probably would have never seen it. Final thoughts:

1. Noteworthy performances from Omar Sharif and Anthony Quinn, especially the latter. His mannerisms are commendable and more so his appearance. In my opinion this movie isn't about the acting.

2. Story kept me reasonably occupied. The first half moves pretty quickly. Upto the last hour it is fine. However, the last bit didn't go very well with me. But that's my opinion. I personally feel that a film's closure is very very important. But the end can be seen coming, it is very logical and is as must have happened.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. For me the movie is about the landscapes. It's about the visuals it treats the viewer to. Although this movie is old it is not dated. All the while I was watching this film I was thinking how it'd be in a cinema hall.

2. After watching CGI wars these days in movies it was great watching people fight their own wars.

3. I notice that the movie has little dialogue. I don't know what to make of it though. Maybe it is the focus on the desert which is intentionally done.

4. I like my movies to have some 'masala'. I understand this is adapted from Lawrence's writings. But there are movies based on real life which are entertaining, 'Good Night, and Good Luck', 'The Aviator' and 'Goodfellas'. As far as entertainment is concerned this movie has little of it. But then I suppose this was not meant to be an entertainer. Fair enough.

RATING: 3/5