On the World of Cinematics

The Ides of March (2011)

2012-01-11T00:08:00.000-08:00

Stephen Myers (Ryan Gosling) tells reporter Ida (Marisa Tomei) “I’m not naïve okay? I’ve worked on more campaigns than most people will have by the time they’re forty. I’m telling you, this is the one.” Stephen is a junior campaign manager for Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney), a presidential candidate competing against a Senator, Ted Pullman. Between Stephen and Morris is Paul (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Stephen’s superior and senior campaign manager. Stephen has just written a draft that Governor Mike Morris feels urged to accept. While he rides high on that, a call comes from Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti), a rival campaign manager diametrically opposite Paul, who invites him to a political tryst and gets the ball rolling.

Stephen meets with him out of an emotional need to feel self-secure and maybe even with the intent of revamping his political career. Tom Duffy praises himself for being jaded, cynical and having the ability to turn things to his advantage. Paul, on the other hand believes that loyalty is the only currency you can count on in politics. Human errors are made but there are heavy prices to pay. Something momentous is going to happen. Bring in press reporter Ida, a scoop-hungry fiend that will pounce on anyone for it and you await the spawn of an irreparable situation.

A virtual connection exists between the characters. If you see even a glint of empathy in the eyes of these characters, it won’t be long before Clooney shoves your head in and makes you see the big picture. They are all in it for themselves.

The acting is first-rate. Ryan Gosling is brilliant, as always. He gets Stephen Myers to traverse a complete arc. He remains the wide-eyed naiveté when he believes in the cause but by the end, those same eyes resign into cynicism on a hardened face. Although I personally prefer he get nominated for Drive, this is the movie I see him getting an Oscar nomination for. And here I was thinking that this was going to be another star role like in Crazy Stupid Love. The best line of the movie is uttered by Gosling to Giamatti “This is my life you’re talking about.” That’s when you begin to understand the gravity of this ugly game. Clooney’s handling of Mike Morris’ character is ingenious. For the most part, you see Mike Morris’ representative, waving from a distance at you. It is only when he's cornered that you see the real Morris.

The Ides of March works on multiple levels. On the surface, it works as a political thriller. On a deeper level, it works as a coming-of-age movie about the loss of innocence. Even deeper, it questions the basics of humanity and the existence of morality. Clooney springs surprises, one after the other, from time to time. You think you know the characters, but you don’t. The screenplay is tight, quick-paced and surprisingly compelling, and its dialogue, clever.

The all star cast works wonders. Shot mostly in close-ups enable us to focus entirely on the faces and the conversations they have with each other thus letting us entail on who is saying what and to whom. Because, after all this is politics. Clooney might not be nominated for best director but Ides is definitely a lock for Best Picture.

The fact that this absolute mess of a situation fails to hit the stands leaves a stronger message; that these close-call situations happen all the time and a few exchanges of favours keep them from erupting.

Rating- 10/10

Le Gamin au vélo- The Kid with a Bike (2011)

2012-01-04T08:23:00.000-08:00

The Kid with a Bike. What if that is all it is about?

French filmmakers seem to rely on the beauty of simplicity. I’ve not seen too many French movies but I have seen enough to spot a resemblance. Their style of filmmaking is minimalistic. There’s nothing colourful about their movies. You cannot split them into physical elements (cinematography, editing, direction) and appreciate them. Neither can you single out any particular aspect for having a particularly stronger effect on you and go on about it. Their characters, normal human beings whom you can easily relate to. Their stories, earthly. Not of a man that’s caught in a sticky situation, not of the underdog that goes from rags to riches, not a twisted story that frightens yet pulls you in. There’s nothing cinematic here, no do or die.

The Kid with a Bike is the kind of story you might hear from a friend and remember it only because it is the story of your friend. The filmmakers here are successful at acquainting, and connecting, you with its lead character. You don’t need to do more for a film such as this, which succeeds in its entirety.

Ten-year old Cyril is in search of his bike, sold off by his father. A father who has abandoned him at an orphanage. That’s all that there is to its premise.

Every frame of this movie sent a wave of thoughts through my head. You simply cannot take your eyes off this magnificent creature brimming with inexhaustible energy. His antics, ranging from simply cycling quickly to beating two men with a baseball bat fascinate that side of you that needs to see it to believe it. You detest his father immediately because you know he’s for real. It is one thing to empathize with a character; it is a whole other thing to hate every character who comes in his way, with a vengeance. The Kid with A Bike takes turns between wrenching your heart and your gut. When things begin to look up and the bad phase of this kid’s life appears to have ended, you want the movie to end too. Because anything, just anything is possible in the life of this unpredictable human being.

Congratulations to the Dardenne brothers who've crafted a wonderful film that’s rapid and steady just like the kid is with his bike.

Rating- 10/10

The Station Agent (2003)

2011-12-12T13:50:00.000-08:00

The Station Agent is about Fin (Peter Dinklage), a man with an unusually short name and an abnormally small body. He’s reminded of it at nearly every point of his life by almost everybody he meets. The little boys playing at a ground near his workplace enquire about the whereabouts of ‘Snow White’. The lady at the cash counter says something apologetic for not having seen him. A cheeky old woman grins with victory after taking a picture of him. The librarian freaks out on almost walking into him and explains that she thought the place was empty. Even the good news of inheriting a piece rural property left by a friend comes along with distasteful dessert, “You’re one of those memorable people.” And you will laugh as expected. But director Thomas Mccarthy doesn’t let the film capitalize on Fin’s short stature for laughs. He directs his actors with precision and lets them sink into the skins of the characters. You see their sadness. You see something exceptional in it and you hop on the train.

Fin adapts to the situation by choosing to exclude society from his world and replacing it with trains. I don’t understand how someone could instantly be fascinated by trains. I don’t think Fin was either. He probably took up the job out of necessity and ended up liking it. Things take an uncertain turn when his only friend, and employer, passes away and the railway modeling shop gets sold off. All he has left is a rural property at a fairly deserted place. The closest convenient store is two miles away. There’s a Joe (Bobby Cannavale) right outside his place running a snack truck. “I’ve been here six weeks and its driving me crazy,” Joe complains. Fin finds him obnoxiously extroverted and tries to rebuff him but Joe simply doesn’t seem to receive the signals. Then there’s Olivia (Patricia Clarkson). Olivia is pretty much on the same page as Fin. She escaped from society because she saw the sympathy in its eyes everyday for having lost her child and it made it harder for her to move on. Both Olivia and Fin tend to escape from their own trauma by focusing on the other person’s trauma without realizing that they’re doing it to make their own worlds burn brighter. When they witness Joe’s gregarious innocence, they’re reminded of the damage that life’s done to them. Any genuine offering of help from Joe or Olivia is misread as sympathy by Fin. Joe’s reaching out because there’s really nothing out there to do while she reaches out to absolve herself for almost running him off the road, twice.

Fin’s guard is brought down slowly until he eventually discards it. But then he gets hurt and lapses again into antisocial behavior. His energy level snowballs down and reaches its lowest point pushing him to end it all by lying on rail tracks. His small frame saves him as the train passes through the tracks, leaving him unhurt. Using that as a blessing, he decides to go and speak about trains at a school.

The Station Agent is a brilliant examination of characters, society and loneliness-a personal favourite of Mccarthy. This is the same guy who brought Richard Jenkins an Oscar nomination for The Visitor and wrote the animated movie Up. Another trait of Mccarthy that reminded me of The Visitor was the presence of non-sexual intimacy. The characterization is great and the actors are fabulous. They don’t stop with providing full justice to the material, they elevate it. The Station Agent is a 90-minute long dramedy that showcases the most cinematic phase of Fin’s life. This is an outstanding debut that’s been conveniently overlooked by The Academy.

Rating – 10/10

Margin Call (2011)

2011-12-04T11:23:00.000-08:00

Margin Call is set at a large investment bank. It begins with a firing squad walking down a long corridor, sending chills up the spines of nearby employees. Yes, people are going to get fired. Head of sales, Sam Rogers (Kevin Spacey) explains “It’s going to get worse before it gets better.” Among the many terminated is Eric Dale (Stanley Tucci), a high ranking employee in risk management. He insists on finishing up with his final report but his boss reminds him that it doesn’t concern him anymore. His protégé, Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto) escorts him to the lift where he hands over the responsibility of completing the final report and says “Be careful.” Before Sullivan can react the elevator closes. Later that night, on finishing the report, Peter Sullivan predicts an economic meltdown. Everyone’s going down. “Look at all these people; they don’t have the slightest idea about what’s about to happen,” he remarks.

Disaster lurking around is acknowledged by the angst that you see on all their faces, one at a time, as the news gets passed up the chain of command. This is one of those situations happening and about to happen, where you understand close to nothing but everyone’s genuinely concerned and terrified so you decide to stay and watch. Margin Call’s inspirations are obvious- 12 angry men, Glengarry Glen Ross, Network, Wall Street. You don’t have to understand all the fiscal details to be a part of the ride. The firm intends to sell off its stocks at a significantly lower price to people who’re only later going to find out that they’re worthless. Sam Rogers is more sympathetic than the rest of the brokers. When urged by a superior to go along (“We’re salesman, we only sell”) he protests”You don’t sell anything to anybody unless you think they are going to come back for more.”

Shot under a budget of $3million and in three weeks, Margin Call might not have depth but it is well-crafted and smartly acted. The casting choice is perfect and the characters are etched well. Among the actors, the real star is Jeremy Irons as John Tuld, a menacing predator who swoops down on the venue in a helicopter and makes his mark despite being on screen for considerably lesser time. He is mesmerizing even when he says “Explain it as you would to a little child; or a golden retriever.” His character’s motto in life is “Be first. Be smarter. Or cheat.” But Director J.C.Chandor doesn’t demonize the brokers. They simply choose themselves over everyone else. The material had enough scope to become a hell of a play. Being adapted as a film is as good as it gets. The stifled atmosphere keeps you hooked. That is, before it totally knocks you out.

Rating – 8/10.

Six Feet Under (2001-2005)

2011-10-20T16:16:00.001-07:00

When I told people to check out the series, ‘Six Feet Under’, they all asked the same question- “What is it about?” I had no answer, so I said “Just watch it.” A number of possible answers came to mind but none of them could accurately represent what the series was really about. When I finished it, I found the correct answer to the question- Life and Death. That is what Six Feet under is about. It’s funny I didn’t get the answer before. The celestial opening theme suggests just that. It seemed apt for the series but I never asked what about it made it apt.

Six Feet Under revolves around a funeral home, Fisher & Sons. Every episode begins with introducing new characters, one of which contributes to the family business by, well, dying. The deaths fade to white, instead of black, because it is these deaths that fuel the fisher family, and the series. Ironically, the pilot episode begins with the death of Nathaniel Fisher, the patriarch of the family and the owner of the business. His younger son, David, plays by the book and makes funeral arrangements for his father while battling with his own sense of shock. His elder brother, Nate, is an extreme libertarian. He continuously grunts at the subdued way with which people choose to grieve. The youngest, Claire, complies with indifference. Their mother, Ruth, drowned by ambivalent feelings confesses that she’s been having an affair with her hair dresser. This episode establishes clearly the personalities of the Fisher family. How they progress or regress, you will see for yourself.

Alan Ball, screenwriter of American Beauty is the creator of the series. Road to Perdition and Revolutionary road gave me the impression that director Sam Mendes was the genius behind American Beauty. Only now do I realize that American Beauty is more of Alan Ball than Sam Mendes. Alan Ball looks at life and death with rose tinted glasses. They’re phenomenal to him, just as that plastic bag was in American Beauty. Somewhere in between, the series loses tempo and, in its characters and viewers, rakes up emptiness- one of the many themes that Ball confronts. The biggest strength (a difficulty with respect to implementation) in television series is character development. Since they last longer than movies, you watch the characters grow slowly, accepting them. The writers here don’t scrimp on the characters. There are a number of characters that come and go and they all exist as their own entity. The lead characters' thoughts are often shown through surreal conversations with dead people. Having to hear tragic incidents every now and then only punctuates their own lives with decision making conflicts. The use of music here is great, particularly the choice of closing the pilot episode and the series finale with ‘Waiting’ by the Devlins and Sia’s ‘Breathe me’ respectively. At this point, I simply cannot stop listening to those tracks. Acting is consistently top-notch. Every performer here darkens the lines between the characters by disappearing into their own. Dexter fans, if you thought Michael C Hall was great there, watch him here. He shows promises of becoming a legendary actor.

There is more heart in this than anything I’ve seen. And just so you know, that isn’t synonymous with being the best I’ve seen. However, it did become an instant favourite. The closing montage of the series finale filled me with sadness because I felt like I was a Fisher, myself. There are deaths in every episode but the one that leaves you emotionally battered is the death of the series. This is a worthy emotional investment. Don’t miss out on it.

Rating - 10/10

Drive (2011) - Review/ Analysis/ Interpretation/ Spoilers

2011-10-12T15:56:00.000-07:00

After the pulsating ten minute heist (ending with Ryan Gosling almost going face to face with a cop to ooze ‘cool’) comes the title sequence in pink font with electro house music playing in the background. I don’t know why but something about it told me the film was set in the late eighties. Now, I’m expecting Drive to plunge into the darkness of neo-noir with Driver being the hero, as opposed to, a character. But then, the stoic Driver flashes an effeminate smile and descends into a montage that is, set near a pond and guided by a pop track with lyrics like “A real hero, a real human being”. Now, I’m embarrassed. I’m skeptical about how this is going to turn out. Seriously, what the heck is this kind of music doing in a neo-noir? This is just what I’d expect to see in a chick flick or a daytime TV movie. It only gets worse when you have to play spectator to the awkward stares shared between Driver and Irene (Carey Mulligan). Watch the film a second time and you’ll see these scenes exist for characterization purposes.

When I first saw the trailer for Drive, I was expecting an action film and a charismatic Ryan Gosling. That’s how the movie presented itself to be. If you’ve seen the trailer, you know the film’s plot. However, the film isn’t plot centric. It has action, crime and it is fairly dark but I’d categorize it as a character study. With very little dialogue, Nicolas Winding Refn has managed to vividly characterize his players.

First there’s Driver, a car mechanic who works part-time as a getaway driver and stunt driver to escape from his existential vacuum. He wears gloves, a silver jacket with a scorpion on it and chews on a toothpick. He ensures to keep his jacket even though it can tie him to the heists he’s carried out. He says little and keeps his eyes wide open. This is a personality he has chosen to embody. An identity, influenced by action movies in the eighties, he believes he ought to live up to. Notice him grit his teeth when told “You’re doubling for the star. You’re not like a day player, really.”

The addition of idiosyncrasies to the character causes him to face difficulty in social situations. This gives the character depth, transforming him from an action hero to a real person. Driver is withdrawn from society. Any real sense of connection he feels is with his employer, Shannon and his neighbour Irene. In Irene’s presence his feminine side crops up- a needy, vulnerable side that he otherwise suppresses to embody the strong, silent tough guy he wants to be. The feminine side is evoked by pop music, laced shoes and graceful body movements. I suspect that the scorpion symbolizes a feminine violence (since scorpions engage in sexual cannibalism) explaining the Butch-and-femme relationship shared between Driver and Irene. Their best scene in the movie takes place in an elevator when Driver has just crushed a man’s skull right before Irene’s eyes. The expression on Gosling’s face when he turns to look at her speaks volumes. Driver’s animality has been revealed to his lover. He’s afraid, embarrassed, vulnerable and helpless. Yet, he knows it had to be done for both of their sakes. It is this scene that might just earn Gosling an Oscar.

Accompanying Gosling in The Academy radar is Albert Brooks as Bernie Rose, a gangster who’s apologetic about his ways but knows that these are things that need to be done. Brooks is terrifyingly morose and establishes his character more with, subtle body language and silent stares, than dialogue. When Driver locks horns with Bernie and his belligerent partner, Nino, he is scared to death. That much is evident. This fear is overshadowed by anger once Shannon and Irene are in danger causing him to put his enemies ‘off the map’.

Drive is a great film. With Drive, director Nicolas Winding Refn has proved to be one of the great contemporary film stylists. He couldn’t have done that without a technically sound crew. Drive is more of a mood piece than a product of neo-noir. It reminded of Eastern Promises, Taxi Driver, Down in the Valley and No Country for Old men. The violence is beautiful, artistic and is sure to cause whiplash for most viewers. The second half of Drive is driven entirely by Cliff Martinez's dark ambient score that puts you in a trance. By conventional standards, it might be slow paced but it is, nevertheless, intense and immersive. Multiple viewings are mandatory.

Rating- 10/10, added to Great movies.

Dogtooth (2010)

2011-09-27T03:29:00.000-07:00

“Mama, can you pass me the phone?” asks the girl. Her mom quietly passes the salt shaker and they continue with their dinner as if this was routine procedure. You're the odd one out. This is when you start wondering if there is something wrong with the family sitting at the table. Delve deeper and you’ll realize that everything’s wrong with it.

This is a family whose functioning is determined by the twisted minds of the heads of the household. The oligarchs have reared their children in this house since birth. Their three subjects (now in their late teens) haven’t dared to step beyond the compound gate. The outside world (so they’ve been told) is populated with carnivorous cats (which they are trained to bark at) and its ground intends to consume anyone who sets foot on it. Their father drives out to work. They watch the gate slowly closing itself behind him. They will have their day, they believe. But they must wait until their dogtooth falls off. While they wait for that day to come, they let time pass by watching home-recorded movies, consuming anesthetics and positioning themselves correctly to catch overhead airplanes.

Enter Christina, a prostitute who pays regular visits to satisfy the son’s sexual needs. She is their dictionary, their media, their encyclopaedia; their only connection to the outside world. When the boy refuses to lick her ‘keyboard’, she lures his elder sister (with a piece of phosphorescent jewelry) into doing it. The opportunistic exchange continues to advance, ultimately letting the girl’s increasing demands blackmail Christina into giving her two violent films - a hazardous move on both accounts.

The parents are a suspicious duo. While the wife chooses the confines of her home all day, the man makes a living outside. An inquisitive colleague asks about the home situation and his wary eyes contemplate bringing back his dog from obedience training. They’re willing to go to any extent at keeping their children confined at the fort, deserted somewhere in the hills and enclosed by a 15feet high fence. Even the consumable commodities are stripped of their brand labels so that there are fewer questions to answer.

Director Yorgos Lanthimos lays out the details with a sharp eye making the premise feel hauntingly real. One minute you’re inside the world as a spectator and the next minute you question your own existence because this is a world that couldn’t exist. On other occasions, you’ll be torn between laughing and cringing. Backing Lanthimos’ up is Thimios Bakatakis’ prying cinematography that works by keeping the camera rooted and letting the heads of the characters just miss the cut successfully stimulating something akin to peering through a key hole, or a door crack.

Rating- 9/10

Delhi Belly (2011)

2011-07-13T13:58:00.000-07:00

Watching Delhi Belly is like smelling aftershave lotion. The first time you do, you like it but then it evaporates. That’s how volatile Delhi Belly is; its effect wears off in no time. Every joke works because of its inherently unpredictable nature and that is precisely why the film doesn't warrant a second viewing. You remember scenes from the film much more than the film itself. It has all the ingredients of a no-brainer - bare characterization, average acting and silly gags. Serving no purpose other than popcorn escapism, Delhi Belly is entertainment served on a silver platter. Just be sure to leave your brains behind.

Rating - 6/10

Antichrist (2009)

2011-07-10T14:38:00.000-07:00

He (Williem Defoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) are having wild sex. They’re doing it against the bathroom wall, against the washing machine, on the floor, on the bed sincerely letting delicate objects in the proximity, topple over and break. Meanwhile, their little son is just getting out of his cradle with his eyes on the falling snow outside and climbs onto the table beside the window. Her eyes are on the boy but having been penetrated with full force for the last few minutes, she’s on the verge of climax. To the orgasm she succumbs, letting her beloved infant roll over and fall head first onto the curb. Here, ends the prologue.

The event described above doesn’t end there. The aftermath is one with complex ramifications. He expresses grief over the loss of his child and chooses to move on. She feels grief accompanied by guilt. She saw it happen and believes that she could’ve chosen other than her own sexual gratification. A month’s stay at the hospital hasn’t improved her condition. The doctor calls She’s grief atypical. She’s husband, He, a psychologist believes he has the ability to treat her without medication. In principle, He agrees with the doctor that a psychologist shouldn’t treat his own family but in this case, He doesn’t think another psychologist could know her better than he does. Thus embarks their psychotherapeutic journey. He keeps his relationship with She on a professional level letting her deal with her grief alone. When she needs a husband to grieve with over the death of their child, He chooses to escape from his own grief by diverting his attention to his work, with She being the object of dissection, irregardless of her own skepticism toward psychotherapy. What happened to helping you help yourself?

The rest of the film is divided into four chapters- Grief, Pain, Despair and (the) Epilogue. Addressing her fears brings them to a cabin lodged inside the woods called Eden. She and her son were here the previous summer to spend some quality time letting her focus the rest on a thesis, one that initially intended to be critical of the evil against women. Burying herself into it, She sees herself reaching an unpleasant conclusion and abandons it. But, the damage has already been done. Psychotherapy brings her to resume it. His desperation to cure her causes him to oscillate between husband and therapist, being judgemental as the former and condescending as the latter. He dismisses her visions by saying “Under fear, your thoughts distort reality. Not the other way around.” Enraged by his domineering ‘smart therapist replies’, she slowly inches toward the brink of sanity. Chaos Reigns.

Antichrist is the most unsettling film that I’ve seen. The beautiful imagery (Kudos to Anthony Dodd Mantle) seizes the distasteful, detestable nature of its characters. There’s no heart or soul in the film. Lars Von Trier, who went through a series of depression while making the film, has infused the screenplay with nihilism and cynicism. While translating it on screen, he doesn’t just refuse to side with his characters but treats them with repugnance. The viewer is expected to look at two antagonistic characters (both actors fire on all cylinders) and decide who the Antichrist is. The invisible yet deep characterization enables Antichrist to work as a psychological horror. On another level, it works as a natural horror and can be understood through the film’s use of symbolism. I took the former. On my first viewing, I was caught unaware by a few grotesque scenes (responsible for the fainting of a few viewers at the Cannes film festival). I found great difficulty in reviewing Antichrist. I hated it as much as I appreciated it. Another two viewings changed my perspective letting me see and critique it for being the downer that it is.

Antichrist is riding a full-speed roller coaster, blindfolded, knowing throughout that it will ultimately crash into a boulder. It is not a film to enjoy, but one to endure. I dare you to watch it.

Rating – 9/10

Source Code (2011)

2011-06-18T23:51:00.000-07:00

Source code is a tightrope walked by Jake Gylenhaal and held on either ends by screenwriter, Ben Ripley and director, Duncan Jones. Jake Gylenhaal walks it with utmost sincerity yet he wobbles because Ripley and Duncan Jones are pushing him and our patience too hard. He never falls and you sit there hoping he makes it but you come to realize that it was all staged. A gimmick like this doesn't warrant a second viewing.

Colter Stevens (Jake Gylenhaal) wakes up to find himself on a train talking to Christina (Michelle Monaghan), a woman he’s never met. As flustered as he is, he goes in to the toilet to figure things out only to find a face he doesn’t recognize in the mirror. Eight minutes later, the train is blown to smithereens and he’s transported to a secret laboratory. Apparently, he’s been employed by Goodwin (Vera Farmiga), the commanding officer of an army of scientists who repeatedly transport him back (only virtually) for the last eight minutes of the explosion with the hope that he’d help in tracking down, the terrorist involved, and prevent another scheduled explosion. Every time he’s transported back he becomes increasingly callous and desperate, using violence to find what he needs. I loved this part. It’s nice to hurt someone and not have to live through the consequences because after all, it’s an alternate reality. Unfortunately, he seems more interested in finding out about his employers and trying to prevent the explosion even when he’s aware that he isn’t really changing the past. This is where the film begins to falter.

Stevens is constantly told by Goodwin to focus on his mission. I wish the filmmakers did the same. The film ends up fluctuating between finding the terrorist and flirtatious conversations between Stevens and Goodwin (who conveniently turns from a hard ass to a humane do-gooder); and once in a while, his eight-minute built love for Christina. They could've stuck to just finding the terrorist by replaying the events, focused on the characters and kept us guessing. That’s precisely why Groundhog Day worked, with the laughs. But no, they’re clear with their intentions. They want to make money, a lot of it and they won’t compromise on that. Source code was hinged on structure at first, and then it shifted to the relationships of poorly written characters. I understand that there isn't enough room for characterization, but why take on more than you can handle?

The first half was constantly energetic while the second half steadily lost tempo. Another problem with source code is giving us its source code. It’s a science fiction; no one’s going to question it. We just suck it up. I don’t remember anyone asking about the how’s of Inception. They just asked where? Where does it end? That of course, was a word-of-mouth marketing trick. Source Code thinks it has ended on an intelligent note but it isn't smart enough to know that it doesn't.

Rating – 6/10

The Hangover Part II (2011)

2011-06-07T05:38:00.000-07:00

Shallow. Dark. Unrealistic. Ribald. Hilarious. These five words encapsulate The Hangover Part two. The words shallow and unrealistic stand out to me. So the film didn’t really work for me. To those of you whom the words ribald and hilarious stand out, I recommend the film.

I find it hard to turn off my brain before watching a no-brainer. I am bombarded with questions regarding the plausibility of the film’s events. With The Hangover Part Two, each time I threw a question, it softly bounced off the screen; but I didn’t care. I was too engrossed in what was happening to even remember what it was that I wanted an answer to. The film switched off my brain. Starting from the same point as the prequel and ending at pretty much the same point, the film takes a similar journey, different in the number of bumps it encounters and the catastrophic nature of each. The screenplay is packed with dull dialogue but it tries mighty hard to torture its characters and awakens the sadist within us. Whether it is a moron getting sodomized by a tranny, a fingerless teenager being stuffed into a refrigerator or the ebbing pulse of a crack addict, we grin with pleasure. There’re extremely horrible parts but they’re so uncompromisingly horrible that you’re left in stitches. Well, that’s that. Now, I’ll tell you why it didn’t work for me. I expect a film to have decent characterization, developed relationships and fairly good acting. The Hangover Part Two doesn’t have any of these. Ed Helms is effective at displaying high-strung emotions but that’s about it. Zach Galifianakis, who delivered his best performance with a cameo appearance in Up in the Air, is more of an unnecessary appendage than those of the transexuals in the film. The Hangover Part two’s saving grace is Mike Tyson. It isn’t a feat to be proud of, though. Even as the credits roll, you’re sitting there watching a montage of still photos; not because you care about the characters but because you can’t get enough of seeing them suffer.

Rating- 5/10

Dead Loops (2011)

2011-05-25T11:10:00.000-07:00

I don’t consider myself to be a music critic. A film critic, yes very much but not a music critic. I choose to review Dead Loops because it has had a profound effect on me. The pent up energy instilled in me has to be let out and I will channelize it with this review.

I thoroughly enjoyed listening to Snakeism. I couldn’t care enough to pay attention to it and that was because listening to it without the lyrics was already very satisfying. When Dead Loops came out, I just had to check it out and I did, again without the lyrics. It wasn’t satisfying. Why? It never attempts to catch your attention; it believes it deserves your attention. I couldn’t form my verdict without giving it a fair shot and eventually I did listen to it with the lyrics. It was a depressing experience. With every song, I felt like I was being slowly lowered into a deep dark empty well. As soon as I hit the bottom, I was told to take the risk and ‘Rise Above’ by myself. Adam and the fish eyed poets kept raising similar questions that some part deep down inside me wanted to ask but didn’t seek the answers out of fear of having to deal with them. And then, it answered them too short and too quick. It was an unsatisfying answer. I was angry. I was unprepared. I felt let down. I was pushed out of my comfort zone. And those were just the artist’s intentions. I eventually got to it again with the hope that I will get the answers. The answer was to seek an answer by MYSELF, not wait for circumstances to give me one.

Two days later, I was awakened at five in the morning by ‘suicide girl’ playing in my head. It wasn’t just the song that lingered but the feeling it evoked. I could feel the character’s sense of loss. I listened to Snakeism again and this time with the lyrics. Snakeism is deep but you’re given the liberty to glide through the surface. Dead loops refuses to be taken for granted. You’ve got to work your way through it. Characters with contradictory thoughts and conflicting ideas fascinate Kishore Krishna. If the song isn’t his rant against a society that kills the individual spirit, it’s mostly the experiences of these characters silently at war with themselves. These characters, I believe, if connected the right way are part of a common world. Dead Loops’ intensity and Kishore’s self-expressive honesty are what make it a poignant work of art.

You can listen to it here- http://adamandthefisheyedpoets.bandcamp.com/album/dead-loops

Belle De Jour (1967)

2011-05-20T01:18:00.000-07:00

23 year-old Severine (Catherine Deneuve) has been married to her soft, sensitive husband Pierre for a year but their sex-life is in limbo. Pierre is a doctor with compassionate looks while Severine, on the other hand has repressed her sexuality because she’s afraid of sex. Being a woman of self-defeating behaviour, she’s drowned by masochistic fantasies. Her own physical pain is mental pleasure. All her fantasies end up with her being abused and feeling worthless. The more she wants her husband to demand sex as if it were his right, the more he requests her for it, followed by an apology when declined.

When she learns that a friend of hers is a sex-worker (a profession she didn’t think still existed), she fails to understand why or how anyone would be able to have sex with a stranger (“You don’t get to pick”) and asks around but they all explain the business like it didn’t need an explanation, in brief. She still doesn’t understand it. It isn't long before these unanswered thoughts translate to action. Inquisitiveness builds and eventually overpowers her making her enroll at a whorehouse as a sex worker.

The sound design is the viewer’s map. If you want to understand the film, looking carefully isn't enough; you must listen carefully. Every sound in every scene has significance. If you perceive the film in a “what you see is what you get” way, the film will make no sense. You have to make sense out of it. In spite of that, the film has no background score. That’s because the film doesn't intend to stimulate the heart. It’s your mind that will be stimulated.

Nor does it intend to stimulate the prostate gland. Severine is elegant and attractive in an aristocratic way. You’re tempted all along to see her nude but this is no porno; the film’s focus is on the self-destructive thoughts swimming inside her head. That explains the absence of frontal nudity. The director, Luis Bunuel knows her beautiful body would serve no other purpose than being a distraction.

Catherine Deneuve delivers a perversely innate performance. Her act doesn’t communicate as much through her face muscles as it does through her eyes. It’s a subtle performance of restrained power.

Belle De Jour is art at its purest form. The biggest risk it takes is in not providing explanations. Doing that would just take away subjectivity from the film and art is subjective. The first watch raises the questions and it’s up to you to look for the answers with multiple viewings. This is precisely why it isn’t a film for everyone. You won’t be satisfied after the first watch but with repeated watches, you’ll be glad that the film raises more questions than it answers. With Belle De Jour, Luis Bunuel has taken surrealism to its pinnacle. This is no erotic thriller and I don’t recommend it to anyone who doesn’t enjoy intellectually stimulating films; because, Belle De Jour is a cerebral work out.

I’ve watched it thrice and all three interpretations of mine are considerably different. It isn’t one of those films with simply ambiguous binary endings- answer A or answer B? It’s not just open-ended, it’s open all the way. It’s a maze; you start somewhere and you always think you’ve made your way out but its path is one that you choose.

After you watch the film, you’re going to ask two questions-

1) What is real?

2) What is fantasy?

It’s whatever you want it to be.

Rating – 10/10, added to Great Movies.

All Good Things (2010)

2011-05-15T12:34:00.001-07:00

All Good Things is based on the true story of a real estate mogul accused of three murders but let off the hook. David Marks (Ryan Gosling) watched his mother jump off the roof and “crack her skull like a walnut.” He hid under a table for a week. When he came out, it was as if it never happened. In spite of therapy, the feeling associated with the memory doesn’t change and the issue remains unresolved. Adding fuel to the fire is his overbearing father (Frank Langella) who needles at his conscience for not being as involved as he’s expected to be in the family affairs and often reminds him of his scrounger status. Ultimately, David falls prey to the manipulation and joins his father’s real estate firm. I can’t go on in this direction because this is where the mystery starts.

What I will tell you is that this is a first-rate murder mystery. I understand why most critics panned the film though. They wanted a satisfactory explanation. But there isn’t one. The film’s director Andrew Jarecki has simply taken all the facts from the case and presented them in just that manner. The film is based on facts, facts that are inconclusive. No one really knows what happened which is why David wasn’t convicted. Based on what Jarecki’s heard on the characters involved, he tells the story and lets you decide whether David is guilty or innocent.

The obvious characterization is excusable because this isn’t a character drama it’s a thriller. Kirsten Dunst excels as Katie Marks, David’s love interest. Nevertheless, the film stays on David and his struggle with the voices screaming in his head. You don’t hear them but you see the conflict on the actor’s face in every frame. Gosling is ticking dynamite. It’s a performance of repressed intensity. Each and every time he makes an appearance, you hold your breath expecting him to explode. You never know when, but you know it will happen. However, it isn’t just the actor who brings forth the character. The cinematography and the score have nakedly exposed the character’s mind- his fears, his urges, his angst. Its synergy is what makes All Good Things a triumph of ambience.

Rating – 8/10

The Notebook (2005)

2011-05-03T10:22:00.000-07:00

Ryan Gosling is probably the best actor of his generation- The Believer, Half Nelson, Lars and the real girl, Stay and Blue Valentine. Seriously, what a brilliant character actor! There was no way I wasn’t going to check out The Notebook.

The Notebook opens with a senile woman looking out of a window with a dazed expression in her eyes. The window of a nursing home that keeps the place alive by allowing old men to read out to old women. One old man reads out to an old woman a love story between a Noah and an Allie. If you want to know anything about the story, you’ll have to watch the film. Wait a minute. Did I just say that? No, don’t watch the film. It’s a dreamy, sugary chick flick that is so down and out that even the luminous performances of Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams don’t elevate it. Despite the characters being shallow caricatures, the actors manage to breathe life into them. I don’t know you and I don’t know what you do but whatever it is, Nick Cassavetes’ The Notebook is a big waste of your time.

Rating – 4/10

Madrasapattinam (2010)

2011-05-02T05:04:00.000-07:00

A.L. Vijay has no imagination of his own. He’s taken ideas from Lagaan, Titanic, Apocalypto and Shanghai Knights. In trying to infuse cinematic realism, he’s spent a lot of money on the production design. Madrasapattinam looks like a world of its own; I’ll give it that. Art direction, cinematography, costume design, make up and editing have provided it that. It looks real, but it doesn’t feel real. The film lacks substance. The characters do little that you can possibly believe. You’re not rooting for Arya’s character because he’s a character you feel for. You root for him because every other character is a moron. His screen presence being felt is attributed to comic foils. The film tries to have everything in it- comedy, realism, heroism, patriotism, romance and irony. It takes on more than it can handle and every saccharine cliché is soporific. Madrasapattinam is nice to look at; that’s just about it.

Rating – 5/10

Angadi Theru (2010)

2011-04-26T00:17:00.000-07:00

Until I saw it, Angadi Theru was simply the name of a film that got critical acclaim. It was almost sent out as India’s official entry to the Oscars this year. But now that I’ve seen it, it’s a lot more than that. Just recalling the film puts in me enough positive energy to go on for hours about it. Let me first tell you what the film is about. It’s not an assumption, it’s not a possibility and it definitely isn’t reading more than there is. Anyone who’s seen it knows that the film brings to light, how employees of Saravana Stores are treated.

Director Vasanthabalan has a lot he wants to tell the people. He believes that happiness and sadness are just phases in life. With that treatment, the film achieves the realism it deserves. He’s read about the events and mishaps at Saravana stores and his heart is aching for the employees. Each time there’s a signboard bearing “Saravana Stores” on the screen you know that burn is all that there is to it. He’s got great communication skill as a director. The cinematography is sly. It isn’t used for you to go “Wow, beautiful shot.” There isn't anything beautiful about the film's content. The shots shock, provoke and make you see eye to eye with the characters- just how you would’ve perceived it had you been in the characters’ shoes. The montages provide essence to the film and the acting is uniformly great. The store manager is played by A.Venkatesh with enough villainy to make you grit your teeth and feel pleasure even when the slightest hitch befalls him. It’s an award-worthy performance. The characters are well developed and the screenplay tells a lot within a small time frame. Not only is Vasanthabalan a brilliant director, he’s a raconteur. He makes it an exclusive experience for the viewer. You don’t feel like this is a film made for everyone to see, you believe it’s a story that Vasanthabalan is narrating directly to you. Even the characters that aren’t relevant to the story of the film have been given identities.

Angadi Theru is a message against capitalism. Those of you sitting in front of the computer screen and reading this are beneficiaries of capitalism. Angadi Theru says nothing for or against capitalism; it merely shows the plight of the people who’re at the suffering end of capitalism. There’s no way you won’t ache for them. Their plight is shown with so much power and realism. Just that is enough to convince you. You’re a rightist? So am I. But it did make me sway, as long as the film stuck to me. It’s definitely one of the years best and the most compelling film of 2010.

Rating – 10/10

Mynaa (2010)

2011-04-26T00:13:00.000-07:00

Prabhu Solomon’s Mynaa is a film that’s well written, well shot, well directed, well scored and well acted. It succeeds in all the major categories. However, it does come up short in its pacing and in staying modest. It starts modestly albeit its ideas are fresh and refreshing but ends up overdoing the comedic aspect. I don’t think it sold out, I think Solomon got carried away. All the excitement from directing a near perfect first half shows in the early parts of the second half. It appears to preach that loving people would guarantee a happy life but that’s not quite what I took from it. I contend it says that many minor injustices sum up to become a major injustice ending up in chaos. Characterization and character development couldn’t have been better in a film stuffed with eventful happenings. Its characters change according to circumstances without going out of character; that’s what makes them more earthly. There’re no good or bad people here. Solomon doesn’t take a side with the film’s characters giving you the freedom to perceive them the way you see them. Nevertheless, what becomes of them does affect you.

Rating – 6/10

Due Date (2010)

2011-04-17T17:04:00.000-07:00

Contrasting personalities, Peter Highman(Robert Downey, Jr.) and Ethan Chase (Zach Galifianikis) are heading from Atlanta to Los Angeles. En route, plain and simply put, shit happens. Every Hiccup in their journey is a hiccup for you, because you want Due Date to cut to the chase.

Peter Highman says to Ethan Chase "Now hear this, beware, I'm warning you, don't go to Hollywood. The streets are not paved with gold, they're paved with the carcasses of fucking imbeciles like you who think they're gonna go there and make it. Pray you avoid it. Did you get that?"
This dialogue is pitched perfectly. You know why? Because Robert Downey Jr. wasn't aware that he was being filmed. The person he was talking to was director Todd Philips.

Downey Jr. stands apart from the crew like a butterfly among roaches. His performance is effortless and genuine because just like his character, he feels trapped in the situation. Peter Highman finds Ethan Chase a pain in the ass. You empathize because you feel the same way about the film.

Rating - 3/10

The King's Speech (2010)

2011-03-07T05:51:00.000-08:00

King George VI waged war with Germany. But before that, he was an inveterate stammerer. How he overcomes that is what the film is about. Hence, “The King’s Speech.” The King’s a fragile person who shies away from people. There’s a connection between that and his stammering. He doesn’t stammer when he talks to himself or his family but when he’s out there in front of people, he’s conscious of what he says. As far as he can remember, he’s been stammering.

At the age of four, some incident sparked his stammering. That incident is mentioned in passing and so is the world war. The film keeps these issues at arm’s length and refuses to stray away from The King’s Speech. His haranguing father is on his death bed and someone has to succeed him. His inability to live up to his father’s expectations has made him want to be left alone. However, when his elder brother intends to marry a divorcee, (who acquired certain skills at an establishment in Shanghai), the throne becomes his to lose. Even his father had remarked, “When I’m dead, your brother will ruin himself, this family and this nation, within twelve months. Who’s going to pick up the pieces?” The expectations pile on and he cries, “I’m not a King.” Destiny however places the crown on his head and with it comes the royal responsibility of addressing the nation.

Colin Firth is both subtle and over-the-top in playing King George VI. The character is real but it is just one dimension of him that we’re shown. Who would’ve expected to see the freak in Fight Club and Sweeney Todd, portray British highness with grace? Here, Helena Bonham Carter breaks stereotype. Just as her character, Queen Elizabeth stands by the King, Carter supports the film. Not entirely of course. There’s Geoffrey Rush playing Lionel Logue, the unorthodox and controversial speech therapist. Logue has no diploma, no qualifications, and no credentials; yet he’s a man with his head on his shoulders. Haven given people faith in their voices, he’s mighty sure of his work and himself. Rush shines in the role and the scenes where he and Firth indulge in verbal sparring are a pleasure to watch.

David Seidler, (who probably used a lot of his own diary entries for research) a cured stutterer himself, gives heart to the film by laying the foundations with his slick screenplay, one filled with British banter.

The cinematography is beyond functional. It isn’t just beautifully shot; it is effective enough to make the microphone look vicious and overbearing. There’re wide angle and low angle shots capturing the audience who’re actually at a lower plane but appear to be towering the King. As the last few long shots are shown minutes before The King’s Speech, it is you who’s going to feel the tension mounting with every “Good luck, your Majesty.”

Every scene resonates with royalty thanks to the sublime direction of Tom Hooper, a master of his craft. Unlike its Oscar rival ‘The Social Network’, it may not stand the test of time; but for what the film is, it’s flawless. The King’s Speech is a powerfully inspiring film that is relatable to anybody wanting to be a somebody.

Rating – 10/10

Singam Puli (2011)

2011-03-07T05:42:00.000-08:00

‘Singam Puli’ as the title suggests pits twins against each other; there’s Shiva, an honest, crass fisherman and the other, Ashok, a lawyer who gets a high on deceiving people. Kollywood, once again exploits the dual role trick.

Full review -http://nowrunning.com/movie/6716/tamil/singam-puli/2991/review.htm

Seedan (2011)

2011-03-07T05:34:00.000-08:00

Let me start by telling you that Seedan is unbearable. It does nothing to stand on its own feet. Absent of ideas, the film is so formulaic in its plotting and clichéd in its dialogue that within the first fifteen minutes you know exactly where the film’s heading. Even if I wanted to, I wouldn’t be able to spoil the film for you. Here, predictability is at its most abysmal. I can give you a number of reasons for you to avoid Seedan but I can’t think of a reason for you to watch Seedan.

Full review- http://nowrunning.com/movie/7331/tamil/seedan/2989/review.htm

Nadunisi Naaygal (2011)

2011-03-07T05:24:00.000-08:00

Similarities between Yudham Sei and Nadunisi Naaygal-
1.Psychopathic murderers.
2.Women get abused.
3.There’s a message.
4.At least a part of the story is narrated by a character in the film.

Differences between Yudham Sei and Nadunisi Naaygal-
1.Yudham Sei plays with your emotions; Nadunisi Naaygal doesn’t.
2.Yudham Sei is completely music driven; Nadunisi Naaygal is visceral and has no background score.
3.Yudham Sei starts preaching right from the very beginning; Nadunisi Naaygal tells you what the point of the film really was after the film is over.
4.Yudham Sei has characters that are either “good” or “bad”; Nadunisi Naaygal doesn’t judge its characters and treats them as individuals.
5.Yudham Sei is laden with a horribly contrived plot while Nadunisi Naaygal has no plot.
6.Yudham Sei has sociopaths working together (Mysskin, please do your research the next time) who react the same way to the same situation; Nadunisi Naaygal does a character study of a psychopath.
7.Yudham Sei has choreographed fight sequences; Nadunisi Naaygal keeps it real.
8.In Yudham Sei a bearded drunkard who has a bullet lodged in his stomach tells the story; the psychopath of Nadunisi Naaygal is narrating his story to a cop.
9.The cinematography is solely for the purpose of catching your attention in Yudham Sei, in Nadunisi Naaygal it is used with authenticity.
10.The actors in Yudham Sei could’ve been replaced by pieces of wood; the lead actor in Nadunisi Naaygal digs deep and gets into the psyche of the character.
11.Yudham Sei tells you to kill anyone who checks you out when you’re changing in the dressing room, Nadunisi Naaygal tells you that victims of child abuse are unable to move on and need serious attention.
12.Yudham Sei gets 0/10 from me, Nadunisi Naaygal gets 8/10.

I don’t have to tell you which one to watch.

83rd Academy Award predictions.

2011-02-27T10:11:00.000-08:00

Best Picture-

Will win: The King's Speech

Should win: The Social Network

Should've been nominated: The Ghost Writer

Best Director-

Will win: David Fincher- The Social Network

Should win: David Fincher- The Social Network

Should've been nominated: Roman Polanski- The Ghost Writer

Best Actor-

Will win: Colin Firth- The King's Speech

Should win: Javier Bardem- Biutiful

Should've been nominated: Edward Norton- Leaves of grass

Best Actress-

Will win: Natalie Portman- Black Swan

Should win: Natalie Portman- Black Swan

Should've been nominated: Julianne Moore- The Kids Are All Right

Best Supporting Actor-

Will win: Christian Bale- The Fighter

Should win: Christian Bale- The Fighter

Should've been nominated: Edward Norton- Stone

Best Supporting Actress-

Will win: Mellisa Leo- The Fighter

Should win: Mellisa Leo- The Fighter

Should've been nominated: Milla Jovovich- Stone

Best Original Screenplay-

Will win: The King's Speech

Should win: The King's Speech

Should've been nominated: Stone

Best Adapted Screenplay-

Will win: The Social Network

Should win: The Social Network

Should've been nominated: The Ghost Writer

Original Score-

Will win: The Social Network

Should win: The Social Network

Should've been nominated: The Ghost Writer

Original Song-

Will win: Toy Story 3

Should win: Toy Story 3

Cinematography-

Will win: Roger Deakins- True Grit

Should win: Matthew Libatique- Black Swan

Should've been nominated: Anthony Dodd Mantle- 127 hours

Editing-

Will win: The Social Network

Should win: The Social Network

Should've been nominated: Inception

Sound Editing-

Will win: Inception

Should win: Inception

Sound Mixing-

Will win: Inception

Should win: Inception

Should've been nominated: Stone

Visual Effects-

Will win: Inception

Should win: Inception

Art Direction-

Will win: Alice in Wonderland

Should win: Alice in Wonderland

Should've been nominated: The Ghost Writer

I won't be predicting the categories of animated film, foreign film, documentary, costume design and make up because I haven't seen all of the nominees. Even If I did, I wouldn't be sure.

EDIT: Result- 14/16. Didn't expect Inception to win for cinematography and The King's Speech to get more praise than it deserves.

127 hours (2010)

2011-02-22T15:11:00.000-08:00

Aaron Ralston is going out to the Blue John Canyon, all by himself. Before leaving, he informs his boss.

"Where to?" He's asked.
"Don't know yet."
"Hope it is good."
"Always is."

He's an adventurer. In his eyes, he's his own man. He believes he can make it on his own. He ignores answering machine messages from his mother, he can't be bothered searching for his swiss army knife and he's not going to check again if he has everything he needs. He hasn't told a soul where he's going. The possibility of things going wrong doesn't cross his mind. Yes, pride goes before a fall. And boy, does he fall.

He bumps into two lost girls and offers to guide them. The three of them squeeze between rocks and let themselves drop into water. One of them asks "What if these rocks move?" to which Aaron jestingly replies "They're moving all the time. Let's just hope it's not today." That's taken for granted. Once he's on his own way, the rock just happens to move and he lands with his right arm under a boulder. What does he do? He tries chipping off the rock. He tries making a pulley to get the rock off. He screams his lungs out for help. All in vain. "Don't lose it," he instructs himself.

He goes on to realize that he has not enough food or water to last more than a day. By the time a missing person complaint is filed with the police and they start looking out, he'd probably have starved to death. He does regret the choice he's made but he's willing to stick by it and think his way out of the situation. "It was your choice. You made this choice," he tells himself. He drinks his urine, he sucks water off his contact lens, he distracts himself by enacting a conversation between Aaron the survivor, a talk show host and the Aaron stuck in "loser canyon". He thinks about having a son, he hallucinates about a party with Scooby Doo and the whole time he's videotaping everything that's happening. But that couldn't go on forever. He beings to recollect the best memories of his life; they're all in the company of his loved ones and he's of the opinion that they're worth reliving. For which he's willing to survive; even if it means leaving his right arm behind. He cuts it off, little by little with his 'made in china' knife. You see him in excruciating pain when he's cutting through his arm. Once he's finished ripping through the flesh, it is time for the bone.

The film personifies the man it's made about. It's a bold film. 90 minutes of a man who is trapped under a rock isn't something that people are going to rush out to theatres to check out. It couldn't have been more engaging. You see various shades of the character, Aaron Ralson. He's a survivor and is shown that way. The film makers respect him for that and don't try getting the audience to empathize with him. You're kept at bay. You won't feel sorry for him yet you want to know what becomes of him. What the character feels is expressed by James Franco, shown by the cinematographer Anthony Dodd Mantle and understood by A.R. Rahman's music. Mantle closes in on Aaron's face when there's intense feeling and zooms out to show Aaron's state of claustrophobic helplessness. Franco is dynamite. If he wins the oscar, he's definitely worthy of it. Danny Boyle, the director is a genius. The book must've told the story in words, Boyle does it with little talk, more with action.

127 hours is a gripping film that will appeal to both the film buff and the average viewer. It will probably be forgotten years from now but as long as the buzz exists, it's a film that's not to be missed. It might not be a great film but it most certainly is great filmmaking.

Rating- 9/10

Yudham Sei (2010)

2011-02-18T18:05:00.000-08:00

The general consensus of Yudham Sei: “An edge of the seat thriller.” I agree with the choice of words. I was actually on the edge of my seat contemplating on walking out of the theatre. That was thrilling, compared to the film.

Yudham Sei is self-indulgent pretentious garbage that I wouldn’t watch even if I was to get paid for it. Homeless beggars would rather sleep on the streets than sleep in an air-conditioned theatre that screens the film. Director Mysskin has tried too hard to make a powerful film by playing with the audience’s emotions. With the film he shocks, provokes, inserts twists, milks sentiment as and when he wishes.

The lead character is J.Krishnamoorthy. He runs fast, he takes on eight people with a penknife and wears leather shoes. The man is labeled as a “good” guy. That’s how the central character of the film is written. He has hardly any depth. All you know is that he is “the best police officer” and that he wants to find his kidnapped sister. How are we to understand him and his wants? He is glorified by making every other character around him seem insensitive. This is the limit of Mysskin’s talent. He might be able to capture and invert beautiful shots of cobwebs, cardboard boxes, watermelons, snakes, skies, lampposts and water, in various colors of light, but a consummation of all that doesn’t qualify as a film. It’s no more than a power point presentation of google image search results.

You know right from the beginning that it’s a talented crew and they could be good at what they do. Unfortunately, they’re in the wrong hands. Mysskin uses them in all the wrong ways. He has an eye for detail but not the honesty of an artist. He goes to the extent of making a direct reference to Rashomon by using the film’s name. It wasn’t a tribute or a token of appreciation; it was a shameless attempt at letting the audience know that he’s someone with international exposure to films. As if we’ve forgotten about him not giving credit to the original material that Nandalala was adapted from. Mysskin has low self esteem, he doesn’t have faith in his script and therefore he tries to get the music to drive the film. Newcomer K certainly has talent but it’s the truth, everyone has to start at the bottom.

The screenplay is laughable. It’s so horribly contrived. Half the story is narrated by a nearly dead man who laughs and drinks despite having two bullets lodged in his intestine. The characters keep doing things that are out of character. Mysskin, the director should never hire Mysskin, the screenwriter again. From Mysskin’s films, it’s pretty obvious that he’s a film-maker only because he wants to be one, not because he enjoys making films. It’s shabbily overdone and the visual metaphors just make it worse. Yudham Sei is like eating a burger filled with just mayonnaise. You’re going to feel like throwing up. I could write another thousand words about why the film sucks so hard, but I’m going to spare you of that. It’s poison. Stay away from it.

Rating – 0/10

Biutiful(2010)

2011-02-15T09:36:00.000-08:00

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu who has directed three award worthy films in the last decade with Amores Perros, 21 grams and Babel, now delivers his fourth. Just that Biutiful follows a linear storyline could give you the idea that it'd be a notch under its predecessors, however, its narrative stays steady. The main character Uxbal is described as "Devoted father, tormented lover, mystified son, underground businessman, ghost seeker, spiritual sensitive, consumer-goods pirate, guilty conscience and urban survivor." All personified by actor Javier Bardem whose face expresses a multitude of emotions just by the slightest twitch of a muscle. He nails every nuance of the role. What he embodies is more a human being than a character. You're in his state of mind when you're watching Bardem's visceral projection of a man who eventually concedes to the bitter truth that his end is near and it's all over, but still remains someone who's trying to keep everything from going to pieces.

Every minute you're watching the screen, you're not in your seat. You're right there, in the film. You're in the world the Inarritu has created. The film tells you little about Uxbal, nonetheless, he seems familiar. The time capsule of the film comprises just a slice of his life which is penetrated with shrill humanity. Biutiful lives up to its title in every way. The streets of bedraggled tenements in Barcelona are turned pretty by cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto's magic touch. You might be unable to connect the dots after the first watch, but it won't matter. It's the heartfelt journey that counts. If there's something terrific about the film, it is the film itself. When I think back on what was good about the film, I don't know what to put my finger on, although its greatness is one that can be sensed early in the film. Nothing stands out; everything seems to have been channeled through a pipeline. What comes out is something that is experienced with palpable melancholy and leaves you in emotional shambles. You're in for a work out.

Rating- 10/10

Aadukalam(2011)

2011-02-15T09:28:00.000-08:00

I happen to agree with the general consensus on Aadukalam: Thumbs up. It is certainly worth the price of your ticket.

Pettaikaaran and inspector Rathnaswamy are rivals in the cockfighting business. Pettaikaaran trains his roosters exclusively for tournaments. He has three accomplices in the business- Dorai, a bar owner who invests in Pettaikaaran’s cocks, Karruppu who positions the cock before every battle and Ayug, the medic who helps the cocks rejuvenate so that they’re back in action. When Rathnaswamy can take no more of the losing streak, he sends his men on a raid and arrests people involved. Pettaikaaran’s men refuse to submit to the situation, so they hit back. A series of battles ensue and they finally settle on the ultimate cockfight tournament. While the story is hinged on the cockfighting business, the film examines the minds of the characters in it, through which it deals with dark themes such as power, jealousy, disloyalty, greed and the human ego. The love affair between Karuppu and an Anglo-Indian girl works as breezy humour even at times where the film intends to be serious.

Director Vetrimaaran has wrapped everything into a single unit with crisp direction. With Aadukalam, he surpasses Polladhavan, his debut film. Splendid acting by the cast is what the film mainly benefits from. The characters might not be complex, but they’re credible. The music is a perfect fit, including the godfather soundtrack being played at regular intervals for which, credit hasn’t been given.

The film isn’t without its share of flaws. Cockfights are more interesting than watching Dhanush bash up five guys. What the film lacks is in the aspect of storytelling. You get the arc of the story, but it is told rather plainly. The ending? It sucks. Don’t let that stop you from watching it, it takes away little from the film.

Kollywood gives us hope by opening 2011 with Aadukalam.

Rating- 7/10

The Ghost Writer (2010)

2011-02-04T06:22:00.000-08:00

I've heard of first person shooters, but first person films? Not until I saw The Ghost Writer.

While playing fps(first person shooter) games, you cower when you die and feel glory when you kill. When you're doing neither, you feel fear, tension and excitement; all at the same time. That's how you feel when watching The Ghost Writer, which I'd call - a first person film.

Adam Lang, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has been accused of torturing British citizens of Islamic nature. Being a grave violation of human rights, it has caused a stir amongst the people of the nation. In an attempt to repair his blemished image and win back the people, he decides to write a memoir. For that, he needs a Ghost Writer. That's where the central character of the film, the unnamed ghostwriter comes into play. He has no identity and his character is intentionally undeveloped. But he is a character. He acts and feels what you'd feel in such a situation. Yet you do. You feel the tension not because you empathize with the character, but because you feel it is you who's being hunted.

I'm in a delicate position having to review this film without giving away any details. The film is plot-driven. Unlike most plot driven films that focus on keeping you engaged and giving you adrenaline rushes, this one aims its attention at building atmosphere. It's all in the air. There's interdependence between the cinematography and the sound design, which itself maintains the right balance between the score and the sound from stationary objects that you're just subconsciously aware of. Indeed a first person film. It's a film to be experienced. Seventy-seven year old Roman Polanski has made yet another masterpiece. Chinatown, The Pianist and now The Ghost Writer.

I felt I needed to dedicate an entire paragraph to praise the performance of Ewan McGregor, who carried a major part of the film on his shoulders. It's a generic performance. He had to communicate what the character felt with great reserve, so that it'll get to you in a subliminal way. It's a great performance that's hard to appreciate the first time. When he notices that something is amiss, he investigates. He fears for his life, but he's keener on uncovering the mystery. McGregor's prying eyes were rightly cast. There's a shot where he's shown towered by everything around him. That's symbolic. He's a speck in a huge world, having to find his own way. The film in spite of the amassing tension not once chooses to burst fire with emotion. Rightly done. The supporting performances of Tom Wilkinson, Olivia Williams and Pierce Brosnan are all on the mark.

The Ghost writer is a triumph of a film that deserves to be hailed with Oscar nominations- best actor, best adapted screenplay, best cinematography, best score, best sound editing, best picture and most of all, best director. But that didn't happen. If The Academy ever decides to give away belated Oscars, The Ghost Writer rightfully deserves a few.

Rating- 10/10

Mar Adentro - The Sea Within (2004)

2011-02-02T08:32:00.000-08:00

A film about a man who narrowly escaped death but survived to be a talking vegetable could’ve moved the audience to pieces. As toneless as the film may be, the quadriplegic is one of the many people in the film, whom we don’t care about let alone empathizing with. He’s treated neither as a survivor or a sufferer. After hiring a hypersensitive lawyer, he hopes to be killed, mercifully. Just as you’re expecting the case to start, the lawyer ends up as a quadriplegic herself. They’re both lust for each other but sadly they can’t have sex. So, they talk about it, visualizing it with their eyes closed. The guy can’t feel a thing, which includes his penis yet he manages to two-time and has multiple (visual) sex partners. Those in the film that aren’t disabled fight with each other, over shaving and bathing him. The acting is terrible except for that of Javier Bardem who does what he can to give the film, well, something; although, his inanimate presence (mostly with a pencil in his mouth) isn’t something you can sit through for two hours. Every scene without him isn’t worth watching and every scene with him is repetitive. A priest comes to convince him that life is worth it and guess what? He’s a quadriplegic too. If there’s anyone you can empathize with, it’s the cameraman who makes it a point to move the camera in every scene. There’re about half as many wheelchairs as people and they’re more interesting to observe. The screenplay is a recorded debate on euthanasia, which reaches a ‘living is a right, not an obligation’ verdict. Two hours of babble to get to this? You won’t get past the first hour. I wholeheartedly agree with the message. This quadriplegic film should’ve gone where it deserved to be- in the waste basket.

Rating- 3/10

Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)

2011-01-25T13:05:00.000-08:00

Who would’ve thought that a trick like this would work a second time? Paranormal activity 2, the prequel of paranormal activity although released after its sequel initially works. That’s as much credit as I can give the film. With each thud you’re going to skip a heartbeat. It convinces you that while dying might be bad, living with intense fear is worse. The constant wave like noise gets under your skin and tells your instincts that something terrible is about to happen. I’ve covered the first half hour of the film. The remaining hour is a spoof of the first half hour. The ghost turns hospitable by opening and closing doors, but when it doesn’t receive the due “Thank you”, it burns a man’s testicles. When the teenage girl tries communicating with the ghost, the ghost starts flirting with her by saying that he wants pussy. And a hat. Since she doesn’t respond positively, he wakes her up by whispering her name in her ear. Not very imaginative, is he? From here on, he goes on a series of pranks with locking her outside and triggering a false fire alarm when she’s making out with her boyfriend in the pool.

Here’s the twist- it’s not a ghost, it’s a DEMON. The head of the house refuses to acknowledge the demon’s existence. Now, the sensitive demon feels insulted. The increasing anger of the demon drives the remaining half hour of the film. From here on, it works neither as a comedy nor as a horror. The film throws sucker punches by banging open every door that could possibly be opened, when you’re expecting the frying pan to fall on the wife’s head. The characters are not believable. They hold on to the camera even when the certainty of their lives is suspended by a thin thread. There’s more chemistry between the camera and the people who feel it up than between the husband and the wife. To make up for that, the demon’s character is well developed. He suffers from identity crisis. But the people in the house don’t know that, do they? So they assume that talking about the demon would just enrage him further. How close it all came to never happening!

From here on, it’s hilarious. The dog gets tossed from one corner to the other, you can’t be sure if it got humped just before, because the demon’s invisible, but it certainly seems so. This scene in particular, is rib crackling especially for PETA activists. Of course, the pets are always killed first. The screenwriters have obviously seen Fatal Attraction and Cape Fear. The film ends like the first one, with everyone dying. The Demon is a wrestling fan; it performs a chokehold on the husband, a choke slam on the wife and walks away with the baby (an allusion to the golden belt). Why the baby? Apparently, some old hag in his ancestral tree hadn't honoured a deal with the demon- to exchange a male infant for riches.

Rating- 2/10

Open Water(2003)

2011-01-24T10:59:00.000-08:00

Two people kicking against water, the sound of it and sharks. This is a film that attempts to do no more than tell the bloodcurdling story of a couple left in the middle of the sea. It isn't something that'll go down easy. Every cinematic element is used in the barest amounts with the exception of the camera. Not much has gone into developing the characters but that doesn't stop the characters from being real people. The sound of the water induces temporary aquaphobia. Open water is cinematic minimalism at its biting best. Its simplicity is what makes it so effective. It accomplishes what it intends to without attempting to foray beyond and entertains you without requiring your complete attention. Just let yourself into the world and you're in for a treat. Movies like Open Water are rare in the 21st century. The film rests on ideas, less on technology. This little gem of a natural horror based on real events is not to be missed.

Rating- 8/10

Conviction (2010)

2011-01-16T16:43:00.000-08:00

Even the excellent performances of Sam Rockwell and Hilary Swank can’t save this absolute farce of a film. Conviction is such a drag. There is nothing interesting about the story. But just the fact that it’s a real story about a brother and sister, who spent most of their childhood in foster homes, fighting for justice managed to attract a lot of good actors. Once they’re on board, director Tony Goldwyn lets them do all the work. He just sits by and watches them work while translating the screenplay in a color by number fashion. The pace is steady only because the director makes no attempt at capturing your attention. Depicting real events hardly matters when what you see on screen isn't the least bit believable. Not worth your time. Just skip it.

Rating - 4/10

Easan (2010)

2011-01-14T07:00:00.000-08:00

Critics didn’t treat Easan very well. Many reviews mentioned that the second half of the film wasn’t related to the first, that there could’ve been more time spent in the editing room cutting down the time duration and that eventually, it wasn’t worth watching. I’m a person who trusts critical opinions over trailers. Since I watched Subramaniapuram free of cost and loved every bit of it, I decided to pay my respects by watching Easan at the theatre. It would be difficult to disappoint me since I had little expectation.

As soon as I came out the theatre, I felt something strong surge through my head. The last part of the film was so unsettling that I really didn’t know what to say. But I could feel something. The film was powerful enough to create such strong emotion in me without meaning to do so. Easan is a film that has so much substance that it can be appreciated more in retrospect. The more I think of the film, the more I see its brilliance. Now, that doesn’t mean it’s going to keep you thinking. It’s the film maker’s brilliance I’m talking about. The amount of importance he gives to little details is astounding.

Easan’s a film that carves a niche for itself in kollywood. I’ve seen nothing like it. The screenplay isn’t something that comes from a lucky brainwave but something that is a product of great insight, something that’s been studied for a long time with interest and attention. It has a plot, but the film isn’t plot driven. The plot while being complex in itself is told with such authenticity that it keeps you engaged the whole 200 minutes. Before you get to the plot, there’re a lot of culturally relevant aspects that are focused on. Once you get to it, he still retains some of the focus on Chennai culture.

The film maker, Sasikumar has studied Chennai, its people, how they think, how that thought translates to action and how society reacts to it. Besides, he doesn’t take sides or tell you what to think. He just shows things for what they are and gives you the freedom to decide how you feel on issues that we know of but hardly talk about. There're some strong themes that have been dealt with very subtly that I'd rather not mention, but you'll know it when you see it. He knows that films aren’t about stories, but about storytelling. And he’s a damn good storyteller. By adding new characters, one at a time, the story is unraveled, bit by bit. Easan, he narrates with brutal honesty- it has gore in the right amounts and at the right time to make you feel just the way you would if you saw it happening right in front of your eyes.

This is not just another Tamil film. Heroes and Villains don’t exist. There’re so many characters and not one of them is neglected. Sasikumar decides to treat them as characters and show them for what they are. They don’t do what they do because they’re ‘good’ or ‘bad’. You see their wants, their motives and their actions. The actors who play them, retain their characters in their shoes as long as they’re on screen. You understand the characters by what you see, not by watching them tell you how they feel.

James Vasanthan has done a good job scoring the music for the film. Most people are bound to compare it to that of Subramaniapuram, but they compare it not by its use but how the music tracks stand out, alone. Instead of being present for the purpose of entertainment, it has been employed purely as a device for storytelling.

The main stand out of the film, is the camerawork. My sincere appreciation goes to Sasikumar for expoiting cinematographer Kathir and to Kathir for letting himself be exploited. This is just why calling Sasikumar a film maker would be understating. That isn’t what his definition limits to. He’s an artist. I’ve seen the film twice in the theatre, spent almost seven hours watching it and I plan on watching it again when it gets a DVD- release. Yes, it is that good. For what it is, I believe it’s a flawed masterpiece. There're a few parts of the film that were rushed. Has it outdone Subramaniapuram? I don’t think so. Subramaniapuram had more raw ferocity to it. Easan, covers so much more but doesn’t have that grit and it isn’t supposed to. Subramaniapuram is as great a debut film as Easan is as a second film. The former was clearly a labor of love while the latter shows Sasikumar’s evolving maturity as a film maker.

Rating – 9/10

Machete (2010)

2011-01-09T12:55:00.000-08:00

I'd been waiting to see Machete after I saw the fake trailer of it in Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino's Grindhouse. I enjoyed both parts of Grindhouse, Planet Terror and Death Proof. While I liked Death Proof more, I felt Planet Terror deserved more appreciation.

But Machete? I can't find one reason to recommend this film. It's not so much of a misfire or a disappointment. It's too dull to be given even that much of importance. A movie like this isn’t one I expect to satisfy my intellectual appetite, so I don't pay much attention. Its entertainment value is supposed to grab my attention. Does it do so? Not one bit. I won't tell you what it's about, there's nothing special about it. There's gore, in amounts that neither entertains nor provokes you. The film's a snooze.

In trying to recall the film, I remember it ends with nuns, priests, rock n roll stars(who've picked up a trait or two from 50 cent) and Mexican parasites in blood lust mode, all of them spraying away bullets hoping to reach orgasm. It's a blood bath, sadly, not of the holy Christ. The screenplay is laughable with dialogues that are caricatures of already existing catch-phrases. "You Just Fucked With The Wrong Mexican." Woah! That did send a shiver down my spine. Jessica Alba gets on top of a car and screams “ We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us.” A crucified priest decides to say “God has mercy, I don’t. You go to hell.” Cool? Smart? Maybe, if you’ve just reached adolescence.

Danny Trejo is lethally magnetic but nothing that Machete does is even close. Machete's a guy with enough scars to prevent his dead body from being recognized, constipated expressions that'll make you restrain your laughter(Out of, not fear, but pity), a cartoonish raucous voice and a weapon belt with a lot of knives that look like they were stolen from some old lady's kitchen at midnight.

If anything, I'm glad I watched this cheap gimmick because it's been on my hard disk long enough, now I can free 1.22 GB. But you don't have to sit through 100 minutes watching it, just to free your hard disk, you could take my word and delete it right away. I know, there's a lot about the film I haven't talked about. Those aspects just exist, they are not worthy of criticism.

Before the credit rolls, we're asked to look forward to sequels. Machete Kills. Machete Kills again. The missing object in the sentence is Robert Rodriguez' reputation.

Rating - 4/10

Stone (2010)

2010-11-23T11:42:00.000-08:00

Some people tell lies. Others live them.

Jack Mabry while appearing to live the life of a ‘good’ human being is confronted with thoughts that aren’t supposed to occur to such a person. He’s been married for over forty years, has never broken the law and works as a parole officer trying to reform people. But what does that do to him? There isn’t a soul he trusts; he’s carved that way. Prison inmates are trying to keep up with him by creating an impression and get him to believe that they’ve turned over a new leaf. With all the experience he’s had, he sees through all of it. Not for long.

Gerald Creeson better known as ‘stone’ is under the supervision of Jack. Empty and pointless is what he believes his life is as long as he’s in prison. There’s desperation to break free. He believes he deserves it. Attempting to needle the vulnerable side of Mabry by sending his sexy wife, Lucetta, to meet with him, he hopes to be released. How long could that last?

Lucetta is no femme fatale, as the trailer would have you believe. A buoyant, effusive, middle-aged nymphomaniac is what she is. Stone tells Jack that she’s an ‘alien’.

Madlyn, Jack’s wife is like stone. Jack has threatened her before and the memory of the experience doesn’t fade away. She’s stuck in a loveless marriage and doesn’t have the nerve to raise the issue about her ‘soul being kept in a dungeon’.

There’re some interesting issues raised by the film, and without being answered or taken a stand for or against, are put in front of us through the characters. Does sin come naturally to human beings? Does being physically imprisoned mean no freedom? Are we all hypocrites after all? Is it foolish to sought after the righteous path? Is there a definite righteous path? Is there a higher power watching over us and our actions?

Jack is the lead character and it’s his perspective that is the focal point of the film, which is why we don’t know what’s happening. Like him, we don’t know whether to trust the characters or not because clearly they all have their own motives. The narrative doesn’t intend to spoon-feed its viewers. You have to see the film again through the eyes of each character, pay attention to their reactions and understand their motives with which you determine whether they have done what Jack believes they did, or not. This is no ordinary thriller. It’s heavy. It’s complex. It’s an in depth character study. John Curran’s real deal is in displaying these characters, how they feel. What’s going on inside their heads.

Acting is first rate. Robert Deniro, a name that echoes unforgettable characters- Jake Lamotta, Travis Bicke, Jimmy Conway, Vito Corleone and a lesser known Rupert Pupkin, has shown that even at this age he’s capable of doing much more than what he’s been doing for the past ten years- frowning, cursing, head tilting and spastic nodding. Edward Norton, who has proven time and again that he’s not merely an actor with expressions but a character artist, delivers a gritty performance. This one’s nothing like his other characters. People have complained about this role being similar to Primal fear and American History X particularly because all three of them are prisoners but that’s just being myopic. That’s like saying Robert Deniro is not versatile because he’s played only gangsters and tough guys, or even more abstract- in almost every movie of his, he’s malicious. It’s not what viewers choose to reduce those complex characters to, with a word or two. It’s the way the characters are played. Vito Corleone and Jimmy Conway are both Italian Mafiosos but are their characters similar? Not at all. In spite of all the praise I’ve given these two actors, it is Milla Jovovich who steals the film. Her performance is something that I’d characterize as a combination of Karen Black in Five easy pieces and Uma Thurman in Pulp fiction. She’s the soul of the film. Frances Conroy is spot on with the character. She doesn’t have much screen time but when she’s on screen, you see her dying within and losing hope, shred by shred.

The director, John Curran and the screenwriter, Angus Maclachlan have made an original film that works only because the actors understand its subtleties. The other elements although unable to atomize themselves on independent merit are all appropriate. The sound design is at a strangely different frequency focusing more on background noises, the score is haunting and the cinematography, I have to point out, would’ve really enriched the feel of the film had it been shot in black and white with low key lighting- in the realm of film noir. What’s left at the end is an incomplete puzzle of a film that you’re expected to finish. Stone doesn’t go easy on you. It is a film of major distinction that made me feel privileged as a film viewer. For my intelligence was not just respected, but trusted.

Rating-9/10

How I Met Your Mother (2005 - )

2010-10-16T03:39:00.000-07:00

On First attempt, I watched three episodes of the first season. I’ve seen films as long as 4 hours (Once upon a time in America) and I can’t remember myself feel time move slower than it did for each episode of “How I met your mother”. If you take an IQ test before and after watching an episode, and plot a graph, it would result in a downward slope. Its objective is to burn your brain cells and it is successful at doing so. Well done. Its setting has some random guy whom you don’t see on screen (Thank the creators for that, we have enough imbeciles on one show) telling his kids how he met their mother. They feel like they’re being punished. Unfortunately, they’re not alone. We, the audience, feel more punishment than any of them. (For those of you who’re fans of the series, I feel I’d be being rude if I didn’t put it in imbecile-friendly words-I don’t mean it’s because we empathize with them but because the show is excruciating (Oh, forgive me, I mean painful))

People around didn’t take my criticism lightly and urged me to watch it again, this time with the suspension of disbelief. I didn’t want to be a contrarian, so I gave it a second chance with episodes “Swarley” and “Stuff” from Season 2. It was a laugh riot. The series' creators, the joke. A horrible, mind numbing experience is what it was. It’s no surprise though, that its acquired a huge fan following, a majority of which, probably includes lonely women who’re willing to go to the extent of spending time with a charismatic (effeminate in my opinion) supporting TV character to make up for their insipid life, and guys who’re trying to learn one-night-stand moves from the same, Barney Stinson. Sure, he’s a funny character but what’s new? We’ve seen so many of them. On the contrary, there is something that’s sincerely funny- Neil Patrick Harris while being a homosexual in real life plays a straight guy here. And fans are thinking “Wow, what a daring actor.” He disappears into a character that’s defined to the T by one word, womanizer. Alas! How could I forget the pitch perfect dialogue delivery of larger-than-life dialogues such as “Suit up.” Each time Harris says that, it’s his dignity he’s suiting down.

Everyone involved in this is trying so hard to sell. Slow down, there’re enough whores in the industry. There’s not an ounce of sense, realism, subtlety or creativity. ‘The Simpsons’ is more realistic and its characters despite being more improbable are believable. I know. I know. You’re probably going to say, so what “it’s fun!” Fun? Only if the rest of your day involves staring at the hour hand of a clock.

In a season where Martin Scorsese has stepped into the television scene and directed the pilot of “Boardwalk Empire”, there’re actually people waiting for the next season of “How I met your mother.” Just what the hell? If you watch and enjoy this drivel so much, let me let you in on a little secret, the creators have no respect for the intelligence of the viewers and hence the excessive use of canned laughter. They don’t believe you’ll get the jokes unless they prompt it with previously recorded laughter. And You? You think they’re AMAZING. Please, have a little self-respect.

Rating - 3/10, for a culturally fitting opening theme.

A Dry White Season(1989)

2010-10-04T13:55:00.000-07:00

The story takes place in 1976 in South Africa, around the Soweto riots, during the Apartheid system that lasted from 1948 until 1994. Students of African origin are protesting against education in a vernacular medium. They don’t want to end up working as messengers, mine workers and gardeners. One of them in the rally, Jonathon is caught and whipped. His father, Gordon, a gardener is worried that his police record would ruin his future and so he approaches Ben(Donald Sutherland), his white boss for help. Turning a blind eye to the unjust practices of the government, he just says they must’ve had a reason.

The boys refuse to quit protesting and strike again. This time, however, it turns out really ugly. The cops open fire and many children are killed. Jonathon is taken to prison and beat up unto death. A troubled Gordon tries to take it up with the court with the help of a witness inside, but in vain. He’s arrested and tortured until he gives up the witness but enduringly, succumbs to his injuries. Ben, on the other hand, tormented being by his own conscience refuses to look the other way this time. He takes the matter into is own hands and approaches a Human Rights lawyer, McKenzie who suggests that he “chuck the lot”. He replies saying “That’s what I said to Gordon when his son was whipped, that’s what I said when his son was killed and now they’re both dead because of my neglect. I cannot give it up.”

There’re a few memorable courtroom scenes displaying blatant corruption and second class treatment by the legal system of the blacks. Unfortunately, that’s all there is, from the director, Euzhan Palcy. If you’re moved by anything in the film, it is its subject. It is a sensitive subject and anyone who’s intolerant to injustice will have some feeling evoked. The film simply has no tone and there is some safri duo kind of music played repeatedly in the background which is completely unnecessary. We’ve been told enough that it takes place in South Africa we don’t need the score to tell us that just as many times. Furthermore, there’re some unforgivable technical flaws in many aspects. She’s had a clear vision but been very negligent with respect to the small details. She just wanted the story told and she does it with little consistency.

All in all, I’ll have to call this a bad film that could’ve been worse if not for its on the mark acting. The real standout of the film is Donald Sutherland who turns in a terrific performance personifying perfectly the lead character’s political awakening.

Rating-4/10

Viva Zapata(1952)

2010-09-26T11:09:00.001-07:00

Emiliano Zapata is a delegate of an aggravated union that is rebelling against a long time corrupt president who dismisses their claims as trivial. While most of the union members choose to be patient with the issue, Zapata who says " We sow our seeds with tortillas not patience" remains unyielding. They go to war, they overthrow two presidents, a general and it finally the throne comes to Zapata.

Zapata is faced with the same problem when his brother Eufemio Zapata starts doing what he wants with no respect for the law, he takes the land that belongs to the farmers and abuses their wives. Zapata tells these men that there is no such thing as a leading man and that "You have to find it in yourselves." He resigns from his presidency post and leads another mutiny for the farmers. He's been bribed with property, money and gratitude from big men but nothing means more to him than to be at the vanguard of an army of peasants. This thing in particular seems to have inspired the main character of The Hurt Locker.

Although it fails to be as great as Elia Kazan's best works, it definitely can be considered a good film. There're some very memorable scenes and both Anthony Quinn and Marlon Brando are excellent in their respective roles. Brando created 3 consummately different characters in 4 years, Zapata, Terry Malloy(On The Waterfront) and Stanley Kowalski. Another film, released in these golden years of Kazan's career, I happened to miss was Julius Caesar, another role that received recognition from the Academy. On that, you'll see in my next review. But, to conclude, if acting happens to be an important aspect of a film to you, you should watch Brando deliver some really fierce acting chops in Viva Zapata.

Rating - 8/10

On The Waterfront (1954)

2010-09-21T08:11:00.000-07:00

One thing I can guarantee about On the Waterfront, is that it is a film you won’t be able to admire on the first watch. You’ll just wonder, is this what the hype is all about? When a film is made so well, you get engulfed into the world and become part of the world. You just perceive everything in a matter of fact way. On second watch, you don’t get into the world because you’re already familiar with it. It isn't a complex psychological thriller or a Tarantino film. This time, you remain an external entity. You enjoy the pleasures the film has to offer.

Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando), a simple minded dockworker winds up being a witness to a murder. One that he has been made an accessory to, coming to know of it only after the murder's been committed. No, all of this is given straightforward. It's his guilt that determines the future of his actions which is the film's main focus and how his lawyer brother, his rags to riches boss, an enraged priest and the sister of the murdered guy, try to bring him to their side of the fence.

Let me get done with the flaws first. One part of the film that seemed completely unnecessary was the relationship between the sister of the murdered guy(who also happens to be a sister in the church) and Terry Malloy. The poor chemistry is something a five year old can ascertain and bet his life on. How can she love a person whom she believes "lives like an animal and has no feelings." But considering the epic feat the film achieves as a whole, we forgive this. There's a very memorable scene in a car between the two brothers which sticks to you long after it's gone. You see what has brought Terry Malloy to such a sense of resignation. And Brando in those scenes.. it's worth writing an entire paragraph on.

From The Godfather and A Streetcar named desire, we saw Brando work on two different planes. With On the Waterfront, he reaches a new dimension. It’s simply impossible to tell which of the three is better than the other. All three of them are delivered with the same magnitude, on three different axes. It just amazes me, how acting had evolved so much in the 50's but now, over fifty years later, we hardly have any of that caliber.

The main strength of the film lies in a co-ordinated effort between its cinematography and its editing. Although each scene stands on its own merit, it’s the cohesiveness of the scenes that makes the film feel spontaneous. Just great.

The supporting actors are excellent. Eva Marie Saint, Rod Steiger, Lee J. Cobb and Karl Malden, all of them. The actors were all nominated for an Academy award with none of them winning. It seems to me that the Academy loved all of them so much they couldn’t choose between the three.

The soundtrack is old school and it is the best fit. Elia Kazan has shown to be one of the best talents of the 50s. Considered an actor’s director, he brought out the best female performance ever on screen from Vivien Leigh in A Streetcar Named desire, a performance and film I strongly admire and recommend as much as I do with On The Waterfront.

Rating- 9/10

Invictus(2009)

2010-02-04T04:14:00.001-08:00

If there's anything about Invictus that is great, it is Clint Eastwood's brilliant direction. A director known for creating melodramatically lopsided films, this time has taken the most uninteresting part of Nelson Mandela's life and made a movie out of it. Leaving out his years in prison, his struggle against the apartheid in South Africa and his rise to presidency, Eastwood chooses to focus on his involvement as a cheerleader(pun intended) for a rugby game.

There're problems everywhere in South Africa- people are homeless, shortage of food, crime rates are increasing, people are unemployed and the economy is down. Nelson Mandela has all of these problems to fix but there's no urge. He needs a driving force. That is The Springboks rugby team of South Africa. Francois Pienaar leads the rugby team. Mandela leads the country. This is what they have in common. He wants Pienaar to lead Springboks and win the world cup so that he can draw inspiration from it to lead his nation to stability.

Morgan freeman is an actor who slips into roles that he can fit in. He doesn't get into a character out of his comfort zone, unlike the great Daniel Day-Lewis, one of the most daring actors of today. His accent and mannerisms are similar to Mandela's, yes, but even that sometimes goes out of synchronization and reminds us that this is Morgan freeman, not Nelson Mandela. When I think of biopic actors resembling their subjects, the first that comes to my mind is Robert De Niro as Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull- a complete disappearance into character. What went in and came out was De Niro, but that character had nothing of De Niro in it. Freeman will be remembered for The Shawshank Redemption and Million Dollar Baby, not for Invictus. He probably had some left over love from the Academy to be preferred over Sharlto Copley in District 9.

Matt Damon's vigorous Oscar-worthy performance as the uncompromising Springboks captain is filled with the right amount of power that is required from a supporting role. After being snubbed for The Talented Mr.Ripley, this was a good make up by the academy.

Both of these actors are just the underlying bricks that Eastwood uses to build something that lies solely on his shoulders. His talent as a filmmaker seems to age like wine. Last year, we saw him transform from a good actor to a great actor and this year, he proves once again that as a director, he's legendary.

Most people are calling it this year's Frost Nixon, but personally, it brought back memories of Slumdog Millionaire. An entire nation following something, rooting together for the same thing with the hope of being able to share the team's joy.

This is a film where you know exactly what is going to happen once you've watched the trailer. A straight-forward film with a predictable trajectory, nonetheless an enjoyable one.

Rating 8/10

Oscar Predictions

2010-02-01T05:00:00.000-08:00

Best Picture-

An Education

Up in the Air

District 9

The Hurt Locker

Avatar

Inglourious Basterds

500 days of summer

Precious

Invictus

A Serious Man

Best Director-

Kathryn Bigelow- The Hurt Locker

James Cameron- Avatar

Jason Reitman- Up in the Air

Lee Daniels- Precious

Neill Blomkamp- District 9

Best Actor-

Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

Colin Firth- A Single Man

Morgan Freeman- Invictus

Jeremy Renner- The Hurt Locker

Sharlto Copley- District 9

Best Actress-

Sandra Bullock- The Blind Side

Meryl Streep- Julie and Julia

Carey Mulligan- An Education

Gabourey Sidibe- Precious

Emily Blunt- The Young Victoria

Best Supporting Actor-

Christoph Waltz- Inglourious Basterds

Alfred Molina- An Education

Peter Sarsgaard- An Education

Woody Harrelson- The Messenger

Anthonie Mackie- The Hurt Locker

Best Supporting Actress-

Mo'Nique- Precious

Anna Kendrick- Up in the Air

Vera Farmiga- Up in the Air

Paula Patton- Precious

Melanie Laurent- Inglourious Basterds

Best Original Screenplay-

Mark Boal- The Hurt Locker

Quentin Tarantino- Inglourious Basterds

Joel and Ethan Coen-A Serious Man

Scott Neustadter & Michael H.Webber-500 days of summer

Bob Peterson & Pete Docter-Up

Best Adapted Screenplay-

Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner- Up in the Air

Neill Blomkamp- District 9

Nick Hornby- An Education

Spike Jonze & Dave Eggers- Where the Wild things are

Geoffrey Fletcher- Precious

An Education(2009)

2010-01-29T02:14:00.000-08:00

Sometimes an education isn't by the book. This is the tagline of "An Education." Set in England in the 1960s, where women were less wary, it revolves around the life of a teenage girl, Jenny. A bright inquisitive girl on her way out of school, inclined to art- literature, music, painting and french films. She belongs to a conservative, "bourgeois" family that is keen on her getting into Oxford.

Her life is routine. She studies, plays the cello and gets bored, oblivious of the fact that she's actually feeling bored. Only after you've done something exciting do you feel that by missing it, you are bored.

In walks David, a middle aged man who gives her a lift on a rainy day and then sends her flowers wishing her luck arousing suspicion. Peter Sarsgaard is suitably slick and edges towards creepy as the middle-aged smooth talker who seduces her by fulfilling her enthusiasm for conversation, cigarettes, literature, French films, jazz, expensive restaurants -- and yes, a connection to a man who understands her, unlike those "teddy boys" who wobble about on their bicycles while trying to get her attention. Once he's finished charming Jenny's parents he slowly begins working his magic on her with the audience feeling its side effects. Just his ornate presence on screen will make you side with him. You'll think "Yeah, he's an older guy. So what? He's still a nice guy."

Carey mulligan knows this girl, Jenny. She probably was Jenny at some point in her life. You get to see Jenny right there on screen. I don't know what I can appreciate of it because it might not actually be acting. Imagine being asked to get on screen and play yourself, would you deserve credit? Had I read the screenplay, the woman whom I would've pictured in mind would've been a lot like Mulligan. Teachers at school warn her that this Mr.Rochester figure is a suave sexual predator ready to pounce on her, but she takes that chance. By making a subtle reference to the influential novel "Jane Eyre" it is hinted that Jenny is fascinated by the idea of dating an older man.

Alfred Molina deserves all the acclaim that he's been getting for his portrayal of Jack, Jenny's father, a Bigot whose social life is limited to Jenny and her mother. He goes out of his way to be cordial to a friendly stranger and ends up giving his daughter's hand to him in marriage. All the trust that he never dared to put in people all his life, he invests in David.

The main thing about the performances is that this cast is a damn good team. Unlike Inglourious basterds, Up in the Air and Precious where we saw the actors slyly intervening for the spotlight, this is a mutual effort. The best part of An Education is its acting synergism. Lone Sherfig probably chose people who loved their roles more than the script. Going by the buzz, a Best Picture and Best Actress nomination is guaranteed, but I can't be sure if it will or should win. One award I really think it deserves more than any other film of the year is the Screen Actors Guild award for an outstanding performance by a cast, an award that will be added by The Academy in the future.

Lone Sherfig has given the film just the right touches. Where this movie is leading you to, isn't the point at all. It is the journey. There might be many paths you could take to get to the destination but Lone Sherfig pushes you in the direction she wants you to and yet you feel at ease. This isn't a compelling film. When I say that, I don't mean it as a flaw. She takes the age-old story of the "young girl, married man leads to disaster" and revitalizes it. The screenplay is well written by Nick Hornby with witty, sarcastic and contemptuous dialogues- a trademark of the brits. The point of the film isn't to judge how naive girls were but how people get sucked into believing that a dream can transform into reality.

A wonderful coming of age film that requires multiple watches to get its entirety, "An Education" is one of the years very best picking up its spot right at the top beside "Up in the Air" and "District 9."

Rating- 10/10

Vallavan(2006)

2010-01-15T01:41:00.002-08:00

If you're amazed by feats that human beings achieve, you MUST watch Vallavan. Take my word, it will astonish you. Not because it shows you the heights up to which the human intellect can go, but because it opens your eye to the fact that, there exists no bottom.

Self deluded film-maker, T.R Silambarasan believes he is all that is required to make a film. He assumes himself to be the director, the screenwriter and the Lead actor. Only, what he does give birth to is a deformed offspring of a film. This is what happens to you when you take charge of all three primary roles, you fuck yourself and you get fucked.

T.R Silambarasan giving himself the privilege of collecting thrown up pongal.

I am not going to go into the details of the story because even the slightest of information would spoil it. Yes, it is unpredictable. Very unpredictable. Sherlock holmes would agree. So would Sigmund Freud. The degree to which self-indulgence and dementedness can possibly reach, is something that hasn't existed in the world I live in, until now. Seriously, what was he thinking? Was he thinking? As an actor I wouldn't blame him. You do what you have to for that fat paycheck. But then again, you wrote the screenplay and directed the film. Why couldn't he put someone else? The answer is simple, people here are idiots. They want you to do things that they wanted to do but never had the balls to. He knows this. He strips himself of dignity and integrity and acts retarded to expand his fan club and increase his bank balance. You Hack, are you aware that films are a form of art? And guess what, he succeeds with his intentions.

It became a box office hit that ran for 100 days and was later dubbed into telugu. What does this say about Kollywood? It needs more honest directors like M.Sasikumar who directed Subramaniapuram, a film that was expertly directed with artistry, at the same time, preserving its tradition.

You might wonder why I let myself be tortured with this utter crap. I contemplated quite a few times on turning off the television set, but I came to realize that there have been a lot of films this year that I've loved and now I needed to hate. So, human beings, if you feel like 2009 was a showcase for good films, this is just what you need.

Rating- 0/10

Up in the Air(2009)

2010-01-08T21:42:00.000-08:00

Jason reitman has an interesting point of view on the corporate world. In "Thank you for smoking", we saw a man who "talked for a living", a man who went around defending the tobacco industry. There's another man who goes from company to company telling people they've been let go of. As if that wasn't enough, he reassures them that it is not a misfortune, but an opportunity to let go of a life they loathe. "Up in the air" tells us the story of that man.

In a period of economic recession, it is only the firing companies that thrive on the losses of other companies. Ryan Bingham works for one of these companies. He calls himself a career termination facilitator. He has a secretary, a boss and a home. But they're not a major part of his life. The majority of his life is spent at hotels, airports and in aeroplanes. There exists no real connection between him and other human beings. A middle-aged bachelor executive closing in on 10 million frequent-flier miles, Ryan has his own protocols which he strictly follows. His philosophy is simple- Life is a backpack. He says "Human beings are the heaviest component of our lives." A heavy backpack will slow us down and "the slower we move the faster we die." He is incomprehensible and you don't know much about how he feels and you aren't supposed to, that is, until two women enter and become an important part of his life.

The performances in the film, every one of them, can be described in one word- Invisible. When the movie starts, thanks to the hype, you sit and watch, waiting for something brilliant to happen. To see some REAL acting. But you don't. As time progresses, you forget all the hype and you just watch it as it is, forgetting that all of this is staged. Clooney was born for the role. He is pitch-perfect in playing a guy who is distant yet magnetic, charming and brims with vitality. Anna Kendrick and Vera farmiga don't have as much screen time but when they are with him on screen, they match his energy.

Jason Reitman has done a great job in holding all the pieces of the puzzle together. He gives prominence to the themes in the film by his use of colour schemes. Only after watching "Up in the Air" did I realise that he had done the same in Juno as well. "Juno" had a mix of bright, bold and rich colours- Red,Orange,and yellow to emphasize on it being a simple,breezy and buoyant comedy. "Up in the Air" is more of white and black since it deals with the corporate world. It shows a clear distinction between things. We know Ryan is lonely. The only thing that makes us feel it is his use of colour schemes. Ryan's house was picked to have the barest of necessities and what colour makes that more obvious than white?

Despite the film being shallow in content, it is deftly executed with an equal blend of drama and clever,sarcastic comedy. An engaging, thought provoking film so perfect for its time, it is destined to become a classic. "Up in the Air" will be welcomed by The Academy with a red carpet and maybe an orange one for Jason Reitman.

Rating-10/10

District 9 (2009)

2010-01-03T02:36:00.000-08:00

To be honest, I'm not really a fan of Science fiction films. I hated "The Matrix" and "The Terminator" series. In fact, the only reason I chose to watch"District 9" over "An Education" was because it has been a while since I've bashed a film. But to my disappointment, I happen to be in great admiration for the film.

Visual effects artist, Neill Blomkamp got his film education not from watching movies but from watching CNN, BBC, NGC and Discovery channel. He employs a cinema verite style in his directorial debut, District 9. There hasn't been a greater breakthrough in recent years. The last I can remember are "American Beauty" in 1999 and "Amores perros" in 2000. Yes, those were the most memorable debuts. But this one although not as great, will be the most memorable debut because it will make me watch films of the Sci-Fi genre, one that is new to me.

A lot of films have released in the past ten years where the narrative is presented as a documentary pieced together from footage, filmed in real time. District 9, however, is incomparable. It doesn't simply abuse the shaky camera, but combines fast cutting technique so that before you judge and appreciate it in the cinematic sense, you get conned, swallowing everything you see. It really is, "Transformers" for the thinker.

Its initial premise isn't very original. Aliens land on earth. For some reason, they choose Johannesburg, South Africa. They come in a spaceship but this time, they're malnourished, so they're harmless. Only, its human beings who are a danger to them. These human beings intend to send them back but love their weapons. So they're kept here and used as lab rats in medical experiments. All of this monitored by MNU, Multinational United. Enters, Wikus van de Merwe, a worker at MNU. He is ordered to give the aliens an eviction notice. Little does he know, that he's the one being evicted.

The only performance I can recollect from District 9 is that of Sharlto Copley, the lead. You see everything that happens in his life. He delivers what is expected from a simpleton who gets exploited. There is a scene in the film where he sees himself on screen being accused of having sexual intercourse with a prawn. On any other occasion, I would've found it hilarious. But Sharlto Copley's performance made me feel pity.

I don't know why, but I think that Neill Blomkamp and James Cameron both engage in bestiality and haven't had enough. In just one month, I've seen two films in which the main character's relationship is with an alien.

Grazing upon themes such as apartheid and Xenophobia, District 9 is a fresh,original and riveting film with high brow visual effects. A definite contender in the best original screenplay and best picture category but sadly, not in the best director.

Rating-9/10

Bad Lieutenant: Port Of Call New Orleans (2009)

2009-12-22T16:03:00.000-08:00

Nicolas Cage. He is the only reason you should? No,could watch "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans". Leaving Las Vegas, Adaptation, Matchstick men and Lord of War. That was Cage at his best. This one, however, is something you couldn't have imagined. In a role that demands eccentricity to the extent of inexplicability, he is fearless. As fearless as his character, Terrence McDonagh, the bad lieutenant. A character that requires more of acting out a lot. He gives his all. Not once will you feel him overdoing it. That is simply because he isn't playing the character but IS the character.

The story? Nonsense.

Eva Mendes? Wasted. With a reputation as a seductress, we don't expect much of acting from her. Of what we expect from her on screen, we get nothing. Oh, by the way, she emotes Frankie Donnenfeld, a prostitute.

A disarrayed clutter of well cinematographed scenes that works okay as a black comedy. Just okay.

Rating- 6/10

The Hurt Locker (2009)

2009-12-18T20:14:00.000-08:00

We've seen so many war movies right from The Bridge on the River Kwai to Letters from Iwo Jima. Why should we see another one? They always have the same things- gun firing, missile launching, explosions, airplane crashes, men crying and then dying. Why should we see this one? Proceed, and you'll find out.

Director Kathryn Bigelow and Screenwriter Mark Boal are the foundations of "The Hurt Locker." The screenplay is a director's bible. It gives him, her in this case, a story with which he can form a vision and then translate that vision onto the screen. Without such a strong screenplay, it would've been easy to term any war movie at this point of time, a cliche. Especially with Inglourious Basterds being the center of attraction this year. Mark Boal will be honoured with an Academy Award nomination for Writing Original Screenplay.

Kathryn Bigelow is simply brilliant, original and has directed this film with utmost care. She employs Cinematographer Barry Ackroyd's evergreen technique, the shaky camera technique. This, being the main reward of the film, gives the film a documentary feel which makes us wonder if what we're seeing is being displayed on the news. Background score is of low importance to her, its the sound effects that are sharp and pronounced, not of the explosions but things to which we pay minor importance, adding to its realistic nature. She uses big actors for cameos and blows them up when you're still glad to see them. Having won most of the precursor awards, its safe to say that she has already won the Best Director Oscar.

Although the film has no plot, it has an intelligible beginning and a pleasant ending. Its primary focus is on a bomb squad in Iraq that go around dismantling bombs. But we don't hear any bombs ticking, except the ones within us.

Sergeant First Class William James(Jeremy Renner) is the real man on the job who goes face to face with the bombs and defuses them. He is a reckless, carefree and free spirited bohemian. Renner embodies the character without the slightest noticeable effort. He is already a lock for the Oscar. This isn't the Sean penn, Daniel Day-Lewis or Russel Crowe kind of Oscar worthy performance. More like that of Richard Jenkins. There is no getting into character. He doesn't bring to screen something that'll make you go "Wow! Method Acting!." You'll see what you're supposed to see, what kind of a person Seargant William James is. And you'll believe it. This man isn't here to win oscars or steal the show, but to do his job with total sincerity.

Anthonie Mackie plays Sergeant JT Sanborn who communicates with William James, most of the time via radio during hazardous moments and gets treated as an unwanted accessory rather than as an accomplice. He doesn't like Sergeant James and holds a disapproving glare throughout the first half of the movie. Its intensity increases and ebbs away, but that is subtle acting at its finest. Towards the end he gets weak and breaks down, and that too, is subtle.

The Hurt Locker is an epic war film. One of the best films of 2009 and will get a Best Picture Nod from the Academy not just because its individual elements distinguish themselves independently but primarily because they all stand together, stronger.

Rating- 9/10

Bruno(2009)

2009-12-15T03:06:00.001-08:00

After the success of Borat, I was really looking forward to Bruno. But as it turns out, it is a disappointment. Bruno is the kind of guy who can easily make you get irascible, so unlike Borat who looked funny and was funny right from the very first second on screen. Bruno's entrance is silly, a guy(you might not guess) dressed in the most outrageous outfit exposing his hairy thighs(too loud for adults to laugh at)who laughs that reminds me of a horse neighing. It just keeps getting MORE and MORE stupid from here. Using guys for chairs and plates... Had it been an animated movie for the kids then yes, it would've worked.

Despite the movie being just an hour and seventeen minutes I was consciously aware that it was really slow, except for the last thirty minutes which was hilarious in the most ridiculous way. It drove me nuts. Only when the movie got over, did I realize that I was looking for more. Had they interchanged the first thirty minutes with the last, maybe this would've been a positive review. It doesn't make sense as a whole anyway.

Sacha baron Cohen may or may not suit such a role but my imagination doesn't stretch beyond him being anything other than Borat. "Bruno" is to blame for that.

3 stars for evoking a few laughs and another 2 stars for the effort.

Rating- 5/10

Public Enemies(2009)

2009-12-15T02:37:00.002-08:00

The director of Public Enemies had directed Heat and The Insider? Unbelievable. Oh wait, on second thought there were quite a few similarities between public enemies and heat. So perhaps, Michael Mann is an auteur? No. I don't think so. Similarities are merely- attractive costumes,guns and cars. Visually, the movie is inviting. But it stops with that. A few good shots do exist but the rest of them simply increase the rate at which your eyes blink.

A grand opening and a memorable ending indicates that the writer had only them in mind and just wrote bullshit in between to finish the script.

There're so many parts in the movie that are preposterous and unacceptable. John Dillinger walking into the police headquarters made me want to hit "ALT+F4" but I decided to stay on considering that there were just a couple of minutes left to get done with it.

Johnny Depp and Christian Bale are both woody as wood. John Dilinger doesn't scare me one bit. Marion Cotillard actually does a little bit of observable acting.

A few things were left unexplained and had been poorly dealt with. The romance between John and Billie was rushed. I felt as though I had missed a prequel to the movie. What does John do with all the money he robs from similar looking banks? There is hardly any insight given into the character.

If there're any nominations it can possibly get in the coming awards season, it would be for the art direction. Yes, Michael Mann does triumphantly manage to simulate the prohibition era.

If your aim is to get entertained you might as well go ahead and watch it. It isn't the most entertaining movie but Well. If you're looking for some real art, please do me a favour and skip it.

Rating- 6/10

Down in the Valley(2006)

2009-12-15T02:16:00.002-08:00

It starts with a love story, moves on to a bit of family drama and slowly treads onto a different path, of character study. And that turn is taken all of a sudden eventually putting your thoughts on why Norton chose to do this movie, to rest. This is a nice movie, not a good or great film but a nice one. Not for a second does it care whether it will appeal to people or not. A daring move by screenwriter-director David Jacobson at such a trivial stage of his career.

The lead, Harlan is an interesting character played by one of Hollywood's most interesting actors, Edward Norton. Harlan is the kind of guy who can just feel and act on an impulse. He doesn't think, foresee or fear anything, let alone regret. However, he visualizes a life he fancies, that of a cowboy by affecting a folksy, cowboy style with his cowboy hat, cowboy boots and jeans. Whether he is delusional or not, isn't brought to notice, giving us the prospect to understand him by ourselves rather than from the director's eyes. This is why it feels like a REAL film. Loose ends are left deliberately and these particular elements which are considered minor are what gives us more scope to get really close to the film. When it comes to Norton's performance, it is flawless, consistent and played without stint.

Evan Rachelwood, although perfectly cast, does a fair job in portraying a rebellious teenager filled with contempt for her father. It is reminiscent to her performance in The Wrestler for which she was probably cast after making an impact in this film. David Morse as her conservative and protective father, does a decent job as well. There isn't more to say about their performances except that they were far outweighed by that of Norton.

This film reminded me of A Streetcar Named Desire where Vivien Leigh is a deranged person whose imagination seamlessly interweave with her real world. Harlan suffers from the same problem, only at a relatively smaller level. He also cites a reference to the Martin Scorsese masterpiece "Taxi Driver." Norton being one of the producers himself had a zealous belief in the script, the director and the film just as he did in "25th hour" and "The Painted Veil" which as a result became outstanding films. Down in the valley is a rare delight to movie buffs and shouldn't be missed, especially by Norton fans.

Rating - 7/10

Do the Right Thing (1989)

2009-12-15T02:16:00.001-08:00

Spike Lee's "Do The Right Thing" is a simmering film which centers itself on the subject of racism and subsequent violence that sprouts from it. With his dead on approach, the film can be easily misinterpreted as one that campaigns for racism. It could have appeared to have taken sides with any one particular ethnicity but Lee effectively keeps it from going astray.

Although very compelling, it bombards you with such dark, disturbing themes and facts without giving you enough time to digest them. It differentiates itself from other films which deal with the same subject, by concentrating on racism and its effects in a small neighbourhood rather than on a political front. It has no message, questions or answers on the subject but fiercly confronts it, displaying it boldly without diluting it with even a drop of humanity.

No plot exists, it doesn't entertain but it is the kind of movie that radiates with brilliance, purely on artistic grounds. This being the fifth Spike Lee film that I've seen after 25th hour, Inside man, He got game and Malcolm X, I realize that there exist genuine trademarks in his films which initially, I disregarded as references to his other films. He is one of the few directors of today with a truly distinctive voice as a film maker.

Lee had a clear-cut vision of the character, Sal and was insistent on casting Robert De Niro. This is evident when Danny Aiello flawlessly portrays Sal with mannerisms similar to De Niro's Jimmy Conway, Sam Rothstein and Nick Wells.

Definitely a great film, the best movie of 1989 and one of the best movies on racism on par with American History X.

Rating- 9/10

Paranormal Activity (2009)

2009-12-15T01:13:00.000-08:00

Paranormal activity is not one of those typical horror movies that give you periodic jolts but instead one that keeps you rooted to the spot with your heart clenched. It is only the grasp that tightens when you aren't fully prepared, and loosens when you're at your breaking point, just so that you can sit through it without having a heart attack.

While it awakens memories of another horror movie, it can be interpreted as trying to glimmer in the shadow of "The Blair Witch Project". It was the director's intentions. Nevertheless, it is a shadow that exceedingly towers and then insolently looks down. For its meager budget of $15,000, I personally am glad that it grossed over $100,000,000 at the box office.

Straightforward as it may be, its principal characters are played so effortlessly in the most naturalistic way, subsequently making them comprehensible. Micah and Katie, despite their idiosyncrasies, are both pleasant, likeable people. Katie's enthusiasm from the day she moves into her boyfriend, Micah's house, gradually dies down like the hope of a cynic fading away with time. The movie keeps getting more and more "freaky", a term used endlessly to describe any kind of paranormal activity that occurs in the "haunted" house. Without exempting it of its nobility, there is one trivial question I'd like to ask. Why doesn't Katie move over to the other side of the bed? Wouldn't it keep her at a safer distance from the demon? Isn't Micah the adventurous daredevil? I cease to believe that it was a deliberate goof.

This movie isn't just a must watch but must be watched alone with headphones in a dark room. But beware, once you've finished watching it, you're going to be stared at by every inanimate object from every corner in the room including the corners themselves. No, it isn't just me.

Rating- 7/10

Precious: Based on the Novel PUSH by Sapphire (2009)

2009-12-15T01:06:00.000-08:00

Precious is a powerful, audacious film. Although it has an affecting script and appears to have only one perspective, it is deep and insightful.

It is the story about a girl who is black,fat,lived an unhappy childhood and doesn't possess what we call self esteem. It might seem stimulated in the beginning but the entire crew cohesively pull off a good, if not great, movie in arguably the most overtly obvious premise.

Director Lee Daniels' style of direction might have been rather conventional, but what is really commendable is that he manages to hypnotize his cast thereby making them deliver outstanding performances. First timer Gabourey Sidibe might not have had to do much, taking into account her appearance which so perfectly suits her role, but she doesn't slack. A truly remarkable breakthrough performance is what she does give and will no doubt be recognized by The Academy. Comedian Mo'Nique as Precious' monstrous mother is terrifying and gives a solid performance which is far from subtle(or funny) as it should be. Yes,it will be nominated and is the front-runner in her category. Paula Patton on the other hand gives a warm ethereal performance as Precious' English teacher. In my opinion, this is the best and most difficult role of the three convincing performances which will bring about internal competition in the supporting actress category come awards season. The third one is from the pop star Mariah Carey who digs deep into her character as a social worker desperately trying to help Precious. Lee Daniels cast relatively unknown actors and has not only launched their acting careers, but with extravagance.

Rating - 8/10