Source Code (2011)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 ill-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)

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)

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)

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)

‘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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 heritage. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 - )

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.