Hi All,
Thought of making a list of the best phillumi fight sequences. But could not get beyond fifteen, even with help from my friends. Hence this post, an appeal to shore up my ageing and fading memory. The combined list follows, do add a comment with your contributions / corrections :
1) The fight between Jet Li and the warrior called ‘Broken Sword’ in ‘Hero’
2) The fight between Jet Li and the warrior called ‘Sky’ in ‘Hero’
Both these fight sequences have amazing photography, and graceful – almost lyrical fight sequences. Loved the concept of a mental duel and how it was translated on-screen
3) The fight and chase sequence at a construction site at the beginning of ‘Casino Royale’
4) The Rajnikanth fight scene in ‘Sivaji’ in which the gun revolves halfway round a statue and then shoots at the villain – this sequence is remarkable for pushing the boundaries of a farcical fight scene, especially since it occurs in between a song sequence !
5) The sequences in ‘Matrix’ – though we cannot think of any particular one to highlight
6) The ‘Roadies’ bickering on MTV – especially when they are voting out one of their fellow travelers
7) Since we are including telly warfare, how about the saas-bahu wars - the unending saga of quivering eyebrows and flaring nostrils
8) The Fight in ‘Kill Bill’ where She kills 84 people in one sword-fight
9) Fight in Dharmendra starrer ‘Maa’ between the tiger and Dharmendra; If we're going to include tiger fights, why leave out the one in Mr Natwarlal which has the Tiger, Amitabh, and Rekha.
10) If we're going to include animal fights, why not the fight for the cockroach in Mr India?
11) Any fight in ‘Wanted’, but particularly the "training" sequence where this new assassin-to-be is taught how to curve a bullet around any obstacle his target might choose to hide behind (for those who haven't seen it, the answer is "instinct". (For those who are upset I let it out, trust me, you don't want to watch this movie. Although it would make you appreciate the gritty realism of Rajnikanth movies. Plus you get to see Angelina Jolie's butt-double))
12) Amitabh and Vinod Khanna in ‘Amar Akbar Anthony’
13) Amitabh and Ranjeet in ‘Deewar’
14) ‘Goonda’ – fight scene during the climax – most surreal of all fight scenes, staged in a warehouse, where the ceiling has cots hanging from it, each cot has a whore, and each baddie after getting beaten up gets tossed onto one of the cots (actually ‘khatiya’ more than cots)
15) the Ajay Devgan fight at the end of ‘Gangajal’
By,
Zen,
With contributions from Venky, Anita, Rohit, Sachin, Ro, Speck42
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Dasavatharam – The ten horrors or I want my money back
The problem with being Kamal Hassan is you eventually get consumed by your own ‘thinking man’ image. Kamal Hassan is undoubtedly a good actor. Some of his movies have you crying your heart out, like Mahanadhi. Or laughing your guts out like Michael Madana Kama Rajan. But then, he comes up with these grandiose plans to make an ‘intelligent’ movie and you are crushed by the collapsing reels of his ambition – Guna, Alavandan, Hey Ram. Dasavataram is as ambitious as he gets. And unfortunately, it fails as badly as it can.
I can only think of one reason for this tendency of his to make such bloopers – a mega ego which probably tells him that he is up there in the list of the world’s intellectuals. Sure, he is intelligent. He has some very well thought-out views on a lot of topics. He probably reads much more than ninety percent of the Tamil film industry. Sadly, being a good actor or an intelligent person is not adequate criteria to write a good script or screenplay. Kamal fails to realise this. Like a third year, precocious, graduate student, eagerly grabbing his chance to voice his rapidly forming world views, Kamal throws idea upon idea at the audience, more to impress than to explore. One minute he hints at the dangers of biotechnology. Another minute he is urging us to live in harmony with the environment. The third he questions the existence of God. He talks about untouchables and about historical religious wars between Shaivaites and Vaishanvites. Also in the mire is a reference to Muslims being typecast as terrorists (Oh Boy! is he the one to talk about typecasting. Watch out for a Japanese character called Yuka who is from Hiroshima, is a Kung fu goddess and has a brother who runs something like a Shaolin school) .
It is not just the ideas that swing wildly. It is also the mood of the movie. The first fifteen minutes try to establish a serious tone. Then presumably, the director realises that the audience would probably find the whole thing too intense and the track switches to comedy. You grin uneasily when funny lines follow gruesome killings, wondering what to make of it. The movie can’t quite make up its mind till the end on whether it is supposed to be serious with funny thrown in or the other way around.
If Kamal the scriptwriter has bombed, what about Kamal the actor? After all, the movie is supposed to be a vehicle for his impressive range of emoting. This is probably where the plot could have been structured better. The ten roles that Kamal plays do not seem integral to the plot line. Some of them are totally irrelevant and seem to be there just to showcase Kamal the actor. Why did you need the Grandma or Avatar Singh (dancing with an aged Jayaprada, reminding you that it is not just the movies that are going to the dogs and you may as well take a moment to worry about politics)? The other roles could have been played by other actors. Kamal as George Bush looks as silly as Hrithik Roshan as the queen in Dhoom 2. Kamal as the villain, Christian Fletcher looks strangely out of proportion, with a large android head and a punier body. All that money spent on make-up would have been so much better spent on special effects. The scenes of the sea surging and cars and trees being tossed around look like the work of someone who has just completed the first level of Arena Multimedia’s courses.
The protagonist Govind is a role Kamal can sleepwalk through and he does exactly that. Balram Naidu, the RAW officer is the most impressive of them all, actually bringing a few chuckles. The dalit environmentalist also manages to convince us that it is not Kamal playing the role. Fundamentally though, a lack of clarity in the plot renders most of the characters superfluous and hence lessens your ability to admire the disguises or the voice modulations or even a surprising leap from the usual put-on accent Kamal uses when he speaks English. Govind is supposed to be a scientist, trying to prevent a deadly virus from falling into the wrong hands. Christian Fletcher is supposed to be working for the wrong hands. So, are the characters played by Kamal supposed to be aiding the destruction of the virus? Or are they proof of the fact that there is good and bad everywhere?
With even the characters played by Kamal floundering, there has been little focus on other roles. Leading to some downright annoying ones like that of Asin. Towards the end of the movie, you want to grab the bronze statue she holds for most part of the movie and hit her on the head to get her to shut up. Peripheral characters like Sethu, the greedy head of the biotech firm selling out to foreign hands are laughable. Why does the evil dealmaker run around for 15 minutes lugging a VIP-like suitcase straight from the 80s?
The bottomline is that Kamal, the scriptwriter has bitten off more than he can chew leading to Kamal, the actor getting a raw deal.
By,
Anita B.
http://royalvilla.blogspot.com/2008/06/dasavatharam-ten-horrors-or-i-want-my.html
I can only think of one reason for this tendency of his to make such bloopers – a mega ego which probably tells him that he is up there in the list of the world’s intellectuals. Sure, he is intelligent. He has some very well thought-out views on a lot of topics. He probably reads much more than ninety percent of the Tamil film industry. Sadly, being a good actor or an intelligent person is not adequate criteria to write a good script or screenplay. Kamal fails to realise this. Like a third year, precocious, graduate student, eagerly grabbing his chance to voice his rapidly forming world views, Kamal throws idea upon idea at the audience, more to impress than to explore. One minute he hints at the dangers of biotechnology. Another minute he is urging us to live in harmony with the environment. The third he questions the existence of God. He talks about untouchables and about historical religious wars between Shaivaites and Vaishanvites. Also in the mire is a reference to Muslims being typecast as terrorists (Oh Boy! is he the one to talk about typecasting. Watch out for a Japanese character called Yuka who is from Hiroshima, is a Kung fu goddess and has a brother who runs something like a Shaolin school) .
It is not just the ideas that swing wildly. It is also the mood of the movie. The first fifteen minutes try to establish a serious tone. Then presumably, the director realises that the audience would probably find the whole thing too intense and the track switches to comedy. You grin uneasily when funny lines follow gruesome killings, wondering what to make of it. The movie can’t quite make up its mind till the end on whether it is supposed to be serious with funny thrown in or the other way around.
If Kamal the scriptwriter has bombed, what about Kamal the actor? After all, the movie is supposed to be a vehicle for his impressive range of emoting. This is probably where the plot could have been structured better. The ten roles that Kamal plays do not seem integral to the plot line. Some of them are totally irrelevant and seem to be there just to showcase Kamal the actor. Why did you need the Grandma or Avatar Singh (dancing with an aged Jayaprada, reminding you that it is not just the movies that are going to the dogs and you may as well take a moment to worry about politics)? The other roles could have been played by other actors. Kamal as George Bush looks as silly as Hrithik Roshan as the queen in Dhoom 2. Kamal as the villain, Christian Fletcher looks strangely out of proportion, with a large android head and a punier body. All that money spent on make-up would have been so much better spent on special effects. The scenes of the sea surging and cars and trees being tossed around look like the work of someone who has just completed the first level of Arena Multimedia’s courses.
The protagonist Govind is a role Kamal can sleepwalk through and he does exactly that. Balram Naidu, the RAW officer is the most impressive of them all, actually bringing a few chuckles. The dalit environmentalist also manages to convince us that it is not Kamal playing the role. Fundamentally though, a lack of clarity in the plot renders most of the characters superfluous and hence lessens your ability to admire the disguises or the voice modulations or even a surprising leap from the usual put-on accent Kamal uses when he speaks English. Govind is supposed to be a scientist, trying to prevent a deadly virus from falling into the wrong hands. Christian Fletcher is supposed to be working for the wrong hands. So, are the characters played by Kamal supposed to be aiding the destruction of the virus? Or are they proof of the fact that there is good and bad everywhere?
With even the characters played by Kamal floundering, there has been little focus on other roles. Leading to some downright annoying ones like that of Asin. Towards the end of the movie, you want to grab the bronze statue she holds for most part of the movie and hit her on the head to get her to shut up. Peripheral characters like Sethu, the greedy head of the biotech firm selling out to foreign hands are laughable. Why does the evil dealmaker run around for 15 minutes lugging a VIP-like suitcase straight from the 80s?
The bottomline is that Kamal, the scriptwriter has bitten off more than he can chew leading to Kamal, the actor getting a raw deal.
By,
Anita B.
http://royalvilla.blogspot.com/2008/06/dasavatharam-ten-horrors-or-i-want-my.html
Monday, December 17, 2007
Another Review of 'Khoya Khoya Chand'
The settings and the mood were brilliant. The clothes, the hairstyles, the songs, the music composing sessions so different from today’s technologically superior studios, the same casting couch problems, the Bengali director high on artistic integrity and liquor, the Punjabi producer shamelessly spouting commercialism and neither character coming across as stereotypes. Alas, the principal character is the victim of this attention to detail on everything else.
Nikhat (Soha Ali Khan) is supposed to be an actress who is exploited by everyone, manages to make it as a success in Bollywood and then takes up drinking as her career and personal life nosedive. Sadly it is a rare moment when you can understand or empathise with Nikhat. She looks the same whether it is confessing her first casting couch experience at 14, or discovering that her memories of a loving father are not true or buying liquor surreptitiously from a bootlegger. In a scale of ‘how much I empathized with the character’, if Mr Bean scored a 3, Nikhat would score 1. Especially considering that I was pre disposed to weep for her as she is supposed to be based on real life heroines like Waheeda Rehman who did suffer a lot of trauma.
Rajat Kapoor as the aging hero, Premkumar, has a great role and does it well. Shiney Ahuja as the self-involved writer Zafar again vacillates from realistic to uni-dimensional. Peripheral support characters like Vinay Pathak, Saurabh Shukla, Sonya Jehan shine.
The movie reminded me of some of the dinners I have been to. The table is set right, complete with excellent chinaware and filled with well-garnished, delectable looking items, but the actual food usually tastes average. Looks great for a photo shoot but you can never forget yourself in it.
By,
Anita B.
(Read other posts by Anita B. at http://royalvilla.blogspot.com)
Nikhat (Soha Ali Khan) is supposed to be an actress who is exploited by everyone, manages to make it as a success in Bollywood and then takes up drinking as her career and personal life nosedive. Sadly it is a rare moment when you can understand or empathise with Nikhat. She looks the same whether it is confessing her first casting couch experience at 14, or discovering that her memories of a loving father are not true or buying liquor surreptitiously from a bootlegger. In a scale of ‘how much I empathized with the character’, if Mr Bean scored a 3, Nikhat would score 1. Especially considering that I was pre disposed to weep for her as she is supposed to be based on real life heroines like Waheeda Rehman who did suffer a lot of trauma.
Rajat Kapoor as the aging hero, Premkumar, has a great role and does it well. Shiney Ahuja as the self-involved writer Zafar again vacillates from realistic to uni-dimensional. Peripheral support characters like Vinay Pathak, Saurabh Shukla, Sonya Jehan shine.
The movie reminded me of some of the dinners I have been to. The table is set right, complete with excellent chinaware and filled with well-garnished, delectable looking items, but the actual food usually tastes average. Looks great for a photo shoot but you can never forget yourself in it.
By,
Anita B.
(Read other posts by Anita B. at http://royalvilla.blogspot.com)
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Review of 'Khoya Khoya Chand'
'Khoya Khoya Chand' attempts to recreate the magical world of Hindi cinema as it existed during the Guru Dutt era. I am tempted to say that it is a 'different' film, except there have been so many different films lately that the word can no longer be applied to most movies. It is an interesting story, and well told, though the second half could have done with crisper editing.
It is the story of the aspiring young star Nikhat, her journey from obscurity to fame and then her growing dependence on alcohol as her stardom lessens; of the men who accompany her / exploit her at various phases during this journey. According to news reports, the screenplay is loosely based on the story of Guru Dutt and Waheeda Rehman, sprinkled with excerpts from Meena Kumari and Madhubala's lives.*
The sets, costumes and music recreate the look and feel of an era. Apart from three absolutely delightful new songs - 'Khoya Khoya Chand', 'Yeh Nigahein' and 'Thirak Thirak', there are popular songs from old Hindi movies constantly playing in the background. There are references to stars of that time, and scenes that are respectful nods to classic movies of that era.
Each individual in the ensemble cast holds his own - Rajat Kapur, Vinay Pathak, Shiney Ahuja, Soha Ali Khan etc. Though Soha's acting has been panned by many reviewers, I thought she suited the role and was quite natural as Nikhat. The movie has some lovely dialogues - most of them delivered either by Saurabh Shukla essaying the role of a Punjabbi producerr, or by Shiney Ahuja as the writer Zafar. Soha Ali Khan, by contrast, has many overdramatised filmi dialogues, though she manages to make you believe in Nikhat in spite of them.
All in all, definitely worth a watch.
* (Note: Wonder why they left out Nutan ? Moral of the story : Good girls have no fun in their youth and no movies are made about them once they pass away.)
By,
Zenobia D. Driver
It is the story of the aspiring young star Nikhat, her journey from obscurity to fame and then her growing dependence on alcohol as her stardom lessens; of the men who accompany her / exploit her at various phases during this journey. According to news reports, the screenplay is loosely based on the story of Guru Dutt and Waheeda Rehman, sprinkled with excerpts from Meena Kumari and Madhubala's lives.*
The sets, costumes and music recreate the look and feel of an era. Apart from three absolutely delightful new songs - 'Khoya Khoya Chand', 'Yeh Nigahein' and 'Thirak Thirak', there are popular songs from old Hindi movies constantly playing in the background. There are references to stars of that time, and scenes that are respectful nods to classic movies of that era.
Each individual in the ensemble cast holds his own - Rajat Kapur, Vinay Pathak, Shiney Ahuja, Soha Ali Khan etc. Though Soha's acting has been panned by many reviewers, I thought she suited the role and was quite natural as Nikhat. The movie has some lovely dialogues - most of them delivered either by Saurabh Shukla essaying the role of a Punjabbi producerr, or by Shiney Ahuja as the writer Zafar. Soha Ali Khan, by contrast, has many overdramatised filmi dialogues, though she manages to make you believe in Nikhat in spite of them.
All in all, definitely worth a watch.
* (Note: Wonder why they left out Nutan ? Moral of the story : Good girls have no fun in their youth and no movies are made about them once they pass away.)
By,
Zenobia D. Driver
Monday, September 10, 2007
Review of 'Apna Asman'
I watched ‘Apna Asman’, a film by adman turned film director Kaushik Roy (currently President-Brand Strategy and Marketing Communication at Reliance Industries). The film is about an autistic child and the trauma and he and his parents undergo. The film is about a teenager's journey to be loved and admired for what he is rather then what his parents want him to be.
The movie is set in the city of Mumbai and is a modern insight on a young couple’s desires and aspirations, true of any modern day parent today.
The story is of Ravi Kumar (Irrfan Khan) his wife Padmini (Shobhana) and their teenage son BuddhiRaj (Dhruv Piyush Panjwani). Khan works for a plastics company and runs the family financially. Padmini his wife who is a classical dancer quits dancing after marriage to take care of the family and her son.
The couple is heart broken when their son is detected mild autistic and a slow learner. Buddhi’s only connection with the world is through his paintings. But his parents are not willing to accept his short comings and encourage him in his paintings. His retarded condition leaves his father broken with guilt and his mother who was looking for a bright future from the boy. The film maker has brought out the frustrations of the parents very well. So much so to the extent that they get carried away by a fake doctor who claims to cure brain disorders with an injection he has invented.
Despite being warned by their doctor (Dr Sen played by Rajat Kapoor) not to use their son as a guinea pig, the father manages to get the injection for the boy and in an inebriated state injects the medicine into the boy.
To their utter amazement the boy recovers and is normal. But the normalcy comes with its own set of consequences. From here the story takes some drastic turns. The boy who returns to normalcy is shown to have changed so drastically that it is a little too much to take.
The boy turns to be a big celebrity mathematician magician and is called ‘Arya Bhatt’. He is shown to become nasty having forgotten his past, he thinks his parents are imposters and are after his money. This is where I felt the film needed better treatment as the director goes a little overboard in showing the change in the boy. But finally all’s well that end’s well.
The casting is brilliant with Irrfan Khan, Shobhana and Rajat Kapoor having performed brilliantly. Dhruv Panjwani is good as an autistic child but I did not like his performance when he changes to be a normal teenager.
More than its portrayal of how a couple copes with their autism-affected child, the film touches a chord with its message on parenting. Apna Asmaan takes this story line “How far would you go to make your child a genius?” The film-maker gives it the sensibility of an urban thriller and has tried hard to make it an entertaining yet thought-provoking film about parents and their demands of their children.
Inspired by his own son ‘Orko’ Kaushik Roy’s first attempt to deal with a serious and intense subject of this nature is fairly good. I think it is a must for all parents to watch and learn from it.
Umang Pahwa is the producer of the film. Barun Mukherji is the head of the cinematography department and director Kaushik Roy has conceptualized and penned the story of the film. The music by Leslie Lewis is good.
The film that was released on September 7th has been screened at several international film festivals and has won the ‘The German Star of India’ at the Stuttgart Festival.
The film has been distributed in India by Sony Pictures.
The film might not be commercially viable but it could appeal to the serious film goers.
By,
Anusha
The movie is set in the city of Mumbai and is a modern insight on a young couple’s desires and aspirations, true of any modern day parent today.
The story is of Ravi Kumar (Irrfan Khan) his wife Padmini (Shobhana) and their teenage son BuddhiRaj (Dhruv Piyush Panjwani). Khan works for a plastics company and runs the family financially. Padmini his wife who is a classical dancer quits dancing after marriage to take care of the family and her son.
The couple is heart broken when their son is detected mild autistic and a slow learner. Buddhi’s only connection with the world is through his paintings. But his parents are not willing to accept his short comings and encourage him in his paintings. His retarded condition leaves his father broken with guilt and his mother who was looking for a bright future from the boy. The film maker has brought out the frustrations of the parents very well. So much so to the extent that they get carried away by a fake doctor who claims to cure brain disorders with an injection he has invented.
Despite being warned by their doctor (Dr Sen played by Rajat Kapoor) not to use their son as a guinea pig, the father manages to get the injection for the boy and in an inebriated state injects the medicine into the boy.
To their utter amazement the boy recovers and is normal. But the normalcy comes with its own set of consequences. From here the story takes some drastic turns. The boy who returns to normalcy is shown to have changed so drastically that it is a little too much to take.
The boy turns to be a big celebrity mathematician magician and is called ‘Arya Bhatt’. He is shown to become nasty having forgotten his past, he thinks his parents are imposters and are after his money. This is where I felt the film needed better treatment as the director goes a little overboard in showing the change in the boy. But finally all’s well that end’s well.
The casting is brilliant with Irrfan Khan, Shobhana and Rajat Kapoor having performed brilliantly. Dhruv Panjwani is good as an autistic child but I did not like his performance when he changes to be a normal teenager.
More than its portrayal of how a couple copes with their autism-affected child, the film touches a chord with its message on parenting. Apna Asmaan takes this story line “How far would you go to make your child a genius?” The film-maker gives it the sensibility of an urban thriller and has tried hard to make it an entertaining yet thought-provoking film about parents and their demands of their children.
Inspired by his own son ‘Orko’ Kaushik Roy’s first attempt to deal with a serious and intense subject of this nature is fairly good. I think it is a must for all parents to watch and learn from it.
Umang Pahwa is the producer of the film. Barun Mukherji is the head of the cinematography department and director Kaushik Roy has conceptualized and penned the story of the film. The music by Leslie Lewis is good.
The film that was released on September 7th has been screened at several international film festivals and has won the ‘The German Star of India’ at the Stuttgart Festival.
The film has been distributed in India by Sony Pictures.
The film might not be commercially viable but it could appeal to the serious film goers.
By,
Anusha
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
King India
The 90s was an exciting time in India. Liberalisation was making the kind of sweeping changes that would enable a whole generation of B-School grads to start off with double-digit salaries. The license Raj was disappearing, sectors were being thrown open and everywhere we were ascending new heights. Except Bollywood. If there is one era that can be pointed out as the worst in Bollywood’s history, it must be the early 90s and Raja Hindustani was perhaps some sort of a flashpoint in this nadir. I watched the promos of this movie as an 18 year old and wisely stayed away from it.
Then again, you grow older, more sentimental and foolish. After all, the 90s were my days, and frankly no other sane human being would preserve the cultural heritage of this fine generation. It is up to me and my ilk to inch up TV ratings to ensure 90s songs and movies don’t totally disappear from mainstream media. So saying, I settled down to watch Raja Hindustani on Sab TV the other day.
What a movie it turned out to be ! Reading like a competent doctoral thesis on ‘successful elements in a 90s pot boiler’, the movie has everything – poor hero, rich heroine, scheming step mother, communication gaps, hero defending the heroine’s honour, high society birthday party where everyone stands around and politely nurses a drink while the rich family members sing sad songs.
Arthi Sehgal (Karishma Kapoor) comes to Palanpet (or Palanpur) to celebrate her newly straightened hair and ponder on the exact mathematics involved in getting thin eyebrows. She hires Raja Hindustani’s (Aamir Khan) car and going by the irrefutable Laws of Bollywood ends up falling in love with him. Enter father (Suresh Oberoi) who wants to take Arthi back home. Raja drives them to the nearest airport. On the way, singing the worst superhit song of the 90s ‘Pardesi pardesi jana nahi’ Raja persuades Arthi to stay back and marry him. The couple marries and proceeds to sing even more horrible songs in the hillside. Step ma-in-law (Archana Puran Singh) enters the fray and separates Arthi and Raja. Raja goes back to Palanpur and sings sad songs during the course of which Arthi has a baby. At this point, the villains wake up and decide to do away with Raja and the baby. Baam Bish Doom. Raja and baby emerge unscathed. Arthi and Raja reunite and sing more songs.
At first glance, you may want to go ‘blech’ and throw up after listening to the story. It takes a talented viewer to notice the subtleties that made this movie a super hit. Here they are
The Kiss: This movie finally solved the mystery of what happened when the hero and the heroine brought their faces together and then the camera swiveled to give a view of the back of the hero’s head and the top half of the heroine’s face. Curious teenagers did not have to wait for Emraan Hashmi to give them lessons in hitting first base.
The Stepmother: The evil stepmother wears vamp-like clothes. But no one immediately equates this sartorial preference with lurking evil. Hindi movies finally moved beyond associating scantily clad women with a lack of moral fibre. Of course, as informed viewer, you have known right from the beginning that ma-in-laws showing some skin must be evil and can barely suppress yourself from saying ‘I told you so’ when events prove you right.
The Surd: One could easily dismiss Johnny Lever as the worst type of Sikh stereotyping. Especially when he walks around squatting and screaming ‘balle balle’ for no good reason. But no. Carefully notice how he does not sport a beard.
The Cross dressers – Early prototypes of Bobby darling, the female does a volte face and marries the surd. In just one quick scene, she sprouts a long pigtail worthy of a good Bharatiya Nari. I am not sure which shocked the audience more – the change in preferences or the quick hair growing lotion.
The movie is actually one of those wonderful bridges between the old and the new – the halfway house before kissing on screen, transvestites, and every song repeated atleast twice in the movie became standard Bollywood practice. And really, the fact that it wants me want to scream even after 11 years is just a testimony to its consistent legacy.
By,
Anita B.
(read more of her posts on http://royalvilla.blogspot.com)
Then again, you grow older, more sentimental and foolish. After all, the 90s were my days, and frankly no other sane human being would preserve the cultural heritage of this fine generation. It is up to me and my ilk to inch up TV ratings to ensure 90s songs and movies don’t totally disappear from mainstream media. So saying, I settled down to watch Raja Hindustani on Sab TV the other day.
What a movie it turned out to be ! Reading like a competent doctoral thesis on ‘successful elements in a 90s pot boiler’, the movie has everything – poor hero, rich heroine, scheming step mother, communication gaps, hero defending the heroine’s honour, high society birthday party where everyone stands around and politely nurses a drink while the rich family members sing sad songs.
Arthi Sehgal (Karishma Kapoor) comes to Palanpet (or Palanpur) to celebrate her newly straightened hair and ponder on the exact mathematics involved in getting thin eyebrows. She hires Raja Hindustani’s (Aamir Khan) car and going by the irrefutable Laws of Bollywood ends up falling in love with him. Enter father (Suresh Oberoi) who wants to take Arthi back home. Raja drives them to the nearest airport. On the way, singing the worst superhit song of the 90s ‘Pardesi pardesi jana nahi’ Raja persuades Arthi to stay back and marry him. The couple marries and proceeds to sing even more horrible songs in the hillside. Step ma-in-law (Archana Puran Singh) enters the fray and separates Arthi and Raja. Raja goes back to Palanpur and sings sad songs during the course of which Arthi has a baby. At this point, the villains wake up and decide to do away with Raja and the baby. Baam Bish Doom. Raja and baby emerge unscathed. Arthi and Raja reunite and sing more songs.
At first glance, you may want to go ‘blech’ and throw up after listening to the story. It takes a talented viewer to notice the subtleties that made this movie a super hit. Here they are
The Kiss: This movie finally solved the mystery of what happened when the hero and the heroine brought their faces together and then the camera swiveled to give a view of the back of the hero’s head and the top half of the heroine’s face. Curious teenagers did not have to wait for Emraan Hashmi to give them lessons in hitting first base.
The Stepmother: The evil stepmother wears vamp-like clothes. But no one immediately equates this sartorial preference with lurking evil. Hindi movies finally moved beyond associating scantily clad women with a lack of moral fibre. Of course, as informed viewer, you have known right from the beginning that ma-in-laws showing some skin must be evil and can barely suppress yourself from saying ‘I told you so’ when events prove you right.
The Surd: One could easily dismiss Johnny Lever as the worst type of Sikh stereotyping. Especially when he walks around squatting and screaming ‘balle balle’ for no good reason. But no. Carefully notice how he does not sport a beard.
The Cross dressers – Early prototypes of Bobby darling, the female does a volte face and marries the surd. In just one quick scene, she sprouts a long pigtail worthy of a good Bharatiya Nari. I am not sure which shocked the audience more – the change in preferences or the quick hair growing lotion.
The movie is actually one of those wonderful bridges between the old and the new – the halfway house before kissing on screen, transvestites, and every song repeated atleast twice in the movie became standard Bollywood practice. And really, the fact that it wants me want to scream even after 11 years is just a testimony to its consistent legacy.
By,
Anita B.
(read more of her posts on http://royalvilla.blogspot.com)
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Review of 'Blue Umbrella'
'Blue Umbrella'--- a film that will make you smile
I was glad when I got a personally autographed copy of 'Blue Umbrella' from Ruskin Bond last year when I met him to do an interview. I was excited once again like a kid when I got an invite for the premier of the film 'Blue Umbrella' based on the same Novella and directed by Vishal Bharadwaj.
Set in a small town in the hills of Himachal Pradesh it's as idyllic as it can be. If you have seen Malgudi days on TV you can relate to the settings of the film very well. It is this small, happy and harmonious village where everyone knows everyone else and nothing is hidden from one another.
The film 'Blue Umbrella' opens on Nandkishore (Pankaj Kapur), an unkempt shopkeeper lying on his charpoy with headphones plugged into his years and listening to a robot telling him his fortune. The mechanical voice assures Nandu that he will become a rich and famous man like 'Bill Gates', and when asked by one of his cronies who 'Bill Gates' is Nandkishore promptly answers that like India Gate there must be something called Bill Gates.
Nandu is this shrewd shopkeeper who wants everything that he likes and looks to make money out of every little thing that he can. Just as everything is normal in the village, a little girl 'Biniya' (debutante Shreya) is gifted a 'Blue Umbrella' by a group of Japanese travelers. They exchange the enticing Blue Umbrella for a Bear Claw locket that is supposedly a lucky charm for Biniya.
Biniya takes the Blue Umbrella that is so beautiful and the entire village is in awe of that umbrella. Right from the Village School Teacher's wife to Nandu everyone wants to have the Blue Umbrella. While she shares the Blue Umbrella with her friends, Biniya is clear she is never going to part with the beautiful acquisition that she has made recently. Nandu attempts all to entice her - free choclates and biscuits and even a paltry sum of Rs. 50 for the umbrella, but she refuses. Then finally one day the umbrella gets stolen.
Not just Biniya, the entire village is upset. Everybody tries to pacify Biniya but Biniya decides to investigate the robbery on her own along with the village police. There are several twists and turns from here on in the story. I would not want to reveal the whole film to you. All I can say is that there are emotions and issues of ostracism, loss, longing and loneliness that are brought out well.
Finally, all's well that end's well. It's a happy ending. The film is shot brilliantly, the photography is amazing. The cast has done a brilliant job. A low-budget production ‘Blue Umbrella’ deals powerfully with snow and nature, at the same time superbly highlighting the umbrella. In fact the director Vishal Bhardwaj treats the umbrella like the main protagonist of the film.
All in all the film is lovely and definitely brings the child out in you and makes you smile. I liked the film better than Bhardwaj's earlier children's film 'Makdee'. One must go and watch the film.
By,
Anusha S.
I was glad when I got a personally autographed copy of 'Blue Umbrella' from Ruskin Bond last year when I met him to do an interview. I was excited once again like a kid when I got an invite for the premier of the film 'Blue Umbrella' based on the same Novella and directed by Vishal Bharadwaj.
Set in a small town in the hills of Himachal Pradesh it's as idyllic as it can be. If you have seen Malgudi days on TV you can relate to the settings of the film very well. It is this small, happy and harmonious village where everyone knows everyone else and nothing is hidden from one another.
The film 'Blue Umbrella' opens on Nandkishore (Pankaj Kapur), an unkempt shopkeeper lying on his charpoy with headphones plugged into his years and listening to a robot telling him his fortune. The mechanical voice assures Nandu that he will become a rich and famous man like 'Bill Gates', and when asked by one of his cronies who 'Bill Gates' is Nandkishore promptly answers that like India Gate there must be something called Bill Gates.
Nandu is this shrewd shopkeeper who wants everything that he likes and looks to make money out of every little thing that he can. Just as everything is normal in the village, a little girl 'Biniya' (debutante Shreya) is gifted a 'Blue Umbrella' by a group of Japanese travelers. They exchange the enticing Blue Umbrella for a Bear Claw locket that is supposedly a lucky charm for Biniya.
Biniya takes the Blue Umbrella that is so beautiful and the entire village is in awe of that umbrella. Right from the Village School Teacher's wife to Nandu everyone wants to have the Blue Umbrella. While she shares the Blue Umbrella with her friends, Biniya is clear she is never going to part with the beautiful acquisition that she has made recently. Nandu attempts all to entice her - free choclates and biscuits and even a paltry sum of Rs. 50 for the umbrella, but she refuses. Then finally one day the umbrella gets stolen.
Not just Biniya, the entire village is upset. Everybody tries to pacify Biniya but Biniya decides to investigate the robbery on her own along with the village police. There are several twists and turns from here on in the story. I would not want to reveal the whole film to you. All I can say is that there are emotions and issues of ostracism, loss, longing and loneliness that are brought out well.
Finally, all's well that end's well. It's a happy ending. The film is shot brilliantly, the photography is amazing. The cast has done a brilliant job. A low-budget production ‘Blue Umbrella’ deals powerfully with snow and nature, at the same time superbly highlighting the umbrella. In fact the director Vishal Bhardwaj treats the umbrella like the main protagonist of the film.
All in all the film is lovely and definitely brings the child out in you and makes you smile. I liked the film better than Bhardwaj's earlier children's film 'Makdee'. One must go and watch the film.
By,
Anusha S.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Movie Review : 'Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix'
It was 10.15 am on Monday and I was rushing to Eros Mini Theatre where we were going to get the first glimpse of the latest-fifth-cinematic outing ofr J K Rowling's saga ‘Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix ’: the film that sees the boy wizard growing up to face the dreadful truth of his destiny.
In this latest flick Harry Porter painfully begins to understand the battles with evil that lie ahead. The film is good and gives us thrills and fun we have not already had in previous installments.
The latest film is far more merciless than the earlier ones and begins to introduce properly the idea that we are no longer in an amusing magical playground, but are en route to an epic confrontation with real victims.
The main story is how trouble brews as Harry's fifth year at Hogwarts begins. The authorities are ignoring Harry and Dumbledore's warnings of Voldemort's return, causing his fellow classmates to view him with disdain.
As all of you familiar with the book know, Order Of The Phoenix's story is about the magical world being split into two -- one half believes Harry and Dumbledore and the other believes the Ministry and its spin doctor, the Daily Prophet, who are out to make it look like Harry is a delusional fool and the Hogwarts headmaster a conniving, power-hungry wizard.
Harry suffers from nightmares, but even worse is the new defense against the Dark Arts teacher, the poisonous-in-pink Dolores Umbridge. She is the new witch who assumes control at Hogwarts, throwing the entire school into chaos. She is thoroughly dislikeable in the film and reminds us of some of our most hated school teachers.
The acting skills of Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) and Emma Watson (Hermione) have improved. Evanna Lynch as the eccentric Luna Lovegood has done a brilliant acting job. You feel sorry for her just as you do in the books.
The film is darker than all the previous films. The special effects along with the photography, locales and background score have all moved a notch above.
All Harry Porter fans and even those who aren’t his fans should like this one.
By,
Anusha
In this latest flick Harry Porter painfully begins to understand the battles with evil that lie ahead. The film is good and gives us thrills and fun we have not already had in previous installments.
The latest film is far more merciless than the earlier ones and begins to introduce properly the idea that we are no longer in an amusing magical playground, but are en route to an epic confrontation with real victims.
The main story is how trouble brews as Harry's fifth year at Hogwarts begins. The authorities are ignoring Harry and Dumbledore's warnings of Voldemort's return, causing his fellow classmates to view him with disdain.
As all of you familiar with the book know, Order Of The Phoenix's story is about the magical world being split into two -- one half believes Harry and Dumbledore and the other believes the Ministry and its spin doctor, the Daily Prophet, who are out to make it look like Harry is a delusional fool and the Hogwarts headmaster a conniving, power-hungry wizard.
Harry suffers from nightmares, but even worse is the new defense against the Dark Arts teacher, the poisonous-in-pink Dolores Umbridge. She is the new witch who assumes control at Hogwarts, throwing the entire school into chaos. She is thoroughly dislikeable in the film and reminds us of some of our most hated school teachers.
The acting skills of Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) and Emma Watson (Hermione) have improved. Evanna Lynch as the eccentric Luna Lovegood has done a brilliant acting job. You feel sorry for her just as you do in the books.
The film is darker than all the previous films. The special effects along with the photography, locales and background score have all moved a notch above.
All Harry Porter fans and even those who aren’t his fans should like this one.
By,
Anusha
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Review of 'Vacancy'
Husband and wife- David and Amy Fox (Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsale) are driving back home from a party and suddenly they take a detour and their car breaks down in the middle of nowhere. They walk a few miles and end up staying at a motel. They are tired and have a long day ahead but unfortunately they are unable to get any sleep as they are constantly bothered by unwelcome noises and visitors that keep them from falling asleep. When they discover some tapes of murders taking place in the very room that they are staying in, they realize that they are next. David and Amy then begin the fight for their lives.
This is ‘Vacancy’ a good suspense and thriller film. I just love these kinds of films. A Sony Pictures Release, the film is due to release in India tomorrow (Friday).
While it is not very different from most suspense thrillers or murder mysteries, it is still a nice fast - paced and well - made film according to me.
Both Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsale are good in the film. I was watching Kate Beckinsale after a real long time. The last film I saw of hers after ‘Pearl Harbour’ was ‘The Aviator’.
I liked the characters played by Wilson and Beckinsale. They have arguments that are full of banter and eye rolling. There are some sarcastic statements made here and there to let the audience know why they are so pissed off with each other. There are no flashbacks just lines that explained enough to understand without going into grave detail.
The ending is very simple and not exaggerated. I was entertained though and I am not sure if people who love the horror genre will actually like or love this film. But if you do like smart horror movies instead of dumb ones you will most likely like ‘Vacancy’. So don’t leave a vacant seat, give it a chance.
Anusha Subramanian
This is ‘Vacancy’ a good suspense and thriller film. I just love these kinds of films. A Sony Pictures Release, the film is due to release in India tomorrow (Friday).
While it is not very different from most suspense thrillers or murder mysteries, it is still a nice fast - paced and well - made film according to me.
Both Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsale are good in the film. I was watching Kate Beckinsale after a real long time. The last film I saw of hers after ‘Pearl Harbour’ was ‘The Aviator’.
I liked the characters played by Wilson and Beckinsale. They have arguments that are full of banter and eye rolling. There are some sarcastic statements made here and there to let the audience know why they are so pissed off with each other. There are no flashbacks just lines that explained enough to understand without going into grave detail.
The ending is very simple and not exaggerated. I was entertained though and I am not sure if people who love the horror genre will actually like or love this film. But if you do like smart horror movies instead of dumb ones you will most likely like ‘Vacancy’. So don’t leave a vacant seat, give it a chance.
Anusha Subramanian
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Review of Die Hard 4.0
'Die Hard 4.0' - a Must Watch
In the US it has been released as 'Live Free or Die Hard' but internationally in other markets the 20th Century Fox has titled the film Die Hard 4.0. The name is in sync with the new plot of virtual terrorism.
Back for the fourth round after a decade on the sequel sidelines, Bruce Willis is resurrected as a resourceful New York City detective John McClane and takes on the bad guys in a bold exhilarating adventure that threatens the very infrastructure of the digitally savvy United States . But this time on McClane is helped by computer hacker Matt Farrell played by Justin Long.
Considering the fact that the film takes place 18 years after the first film ‘Die Hard’, the makers have clearly kept in mind the new target audience for the film. The makers have responded in obvious ways, pairing Willis with a scruffy young computer geek (Justin Long) and tailoring the package for a PG-13 rating rather than an R, which is what the previous three entries received.
In the movie McClane is forced to confront the technical expertise of 21st-century baddies who know how to shut down communications, data and security systems with the press of a laptop key. When the FBI realizes its computers have been hacked into, McClane is assigned to haul in Matt Farrell (Long), a New Jersey slacker on a laundry list of suspects.
Even this isn't easy, however, as French assassins frantically attempt to take Matt out even as McClane endeavors to spirit him away. In short order, the ultra-efficient culprits, led by ice-cold, black-clad tech genius Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), bring Washington D.C. , to the sort of standstill it hasn't experienced ever. The chaos starts with first disrupting the transport system. After this, Wall Street is thrown into similar disarray and Matt sees that someone is setting off a fire sale, a three-step plan to shut down everything in the country that's run by computer.
While the government -- Homeland Security, FBI, NSA ( National Security Administration) , the armed forces, police, et al. -- scrambles to figure out what to do, McClane tries to keep Matt alive long enough to reveal what he knows about the dastardly project in which he was an ignorant participant. The film is action packed from start to end. It works and delivers. Head shaven and still in fine shape, Willis has no trouble convincing that he's still capable of handling heavy action. Justin Long proves to be a very sympathetic young actor. And of course, Timothy Olyphant’s (Thomas Gabriel) is good as well. Although at some places I thought the action was slightly disjointed.
All the "Die Hard" films have centered upon terrorists. The fourth sequel is a film like it should be done and it totally lives up to its title ‘Die Hard 4.0’ on all levels. I think it’s worlds better than the last one and just as fun as the second one. But nothing comes close to the original. I recently read in some interview where Bruce Willis said that he thought ‘Die Hard 4.0’ was as good as the first; well, I guess he has to believe that on some level to work on it, but man, ‘Die Hard’ defined a genre, and you can’t touch that.
It’s worth a watch once.
The film is releasing in Indian on June 29
By,
Anusha
(Read more stuff by her on admediaworld.blogspot.com and freaktrekking.blogspot.com - Ed)
In the US it has been released as 'Live Free or Die Hard' but internationally in other markets the 20th Century Fox has titled the film Die Hard 4.0. The name is in sync with the new plot of virtual terrorism.
Back for the fourth round after a decade on the sequel sidelines, Bruce Willis is resurrected as a resourceful New York City detective John McClane and takes on the bad guys in a bold exhilarating adventure that threatens the very infrastructure of the digitally savvy United States . But this time on McClane is helped by computer hacker Matt Farrell played by Justin Long.
Considering the fact that the film takes place 18 years after the first film ‘Die Hard’, the makers have clearly kept in mind the new target audience for the film. The makers have responded in obvious ways, pairing Willis with a scruffy young computer geek (Justin Long) and tailoring the package for a PG-13 rating rather than an R, which is what the previous three entries received.
In the movie McClane is forced to confront the technical expertise of 21st-century baddies who know how to shut down communications, data and security systems with the press of a laptop key. When the FBI realizes its computers have been hacked into, McClane is assigned to haul in Matt Farrell (Long), a New Jersey slacker on a laundry list of suspects.
Even this isn't easy, however, as French assassins frantically attempt to take Matt out even as McClane endeavors to spirit him away. In short order, the ultra-efficient culprits, led by ice-cold, black-clad tech genius Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), bring Washington D.C. , to the sort of standstill it hasn't experienced ever. The chaos starts with first disrupting the transport system. After this, Wall Street is thrown into similar disarray and Matt sees that someone is setting off a fire sale, a three-step plan to shut down everything in the country that's run by computer.
While the government -- Homeland Security, FBI, NSA ( National Security Administration) , the armed forces, police, et al. -- scrambles to figure out what to do, McClane tries to keep Matt alive long enough to reveal what he knows about the dastardly project in which he was an ignorant participant. The film is action packed from start to end. It works and delivers. Head shaven and still in fine shape, Willis has no trouble convincing that he's still capable of handling heavy action. Justin Long proves to be a very sympathetic young actor. And of course, Timothy Olyphant’s (Thomas Gabriel) is good as well. Although at some places I thought the action was slightly disjointed.
All the "Die Hard" films have centered upon terrorists. The fourth sequel is a film like it should be done and it totally lives up to its title ‘Die Hard 4.0’ on all levels. I think it’s worlds better than the last one and just as fun as the second one. But nothing comes close to the original. I recently read in some interview where Bruce Willis said that he thought ‘Die Hard 4.0’ was as good as the first; well, I guess he has to believe that on some level to work on it, but man, ‘Die Hard’ defined a genre, and you can’t touch that.
It’s worth a watch once.
The film is releasing in Indian on June 29
By,
Anusha
(Read more stuff by her on admediaworld.blogspot.com and freaktrekking.blogspot.com - Ed)
Monday, June 11, 2007
Another review of 'Ocean's 13'
Robin Hood and his merry men are back. This is time though, it is not about money, or survival. It about righting a wrong perpetrated on a pack rat.
Reubens, the still flamboyant man of Vegas past is worried about being laid to rest alive on an ice slab. He therefore enters into a deal with Bank, a super successful property owner and a career backstabber, betting on the unwritten bond that exists between men that shook hands with Sinatra. He wouldn't, would he?!
He does, and leaving him with nothing save a $10000 poker chip and a myocardial infarction.
The merry men gather, and decide to win back Reuben's money and more importantly his joie-de-vivre.
The movie is about a multitude of capers, electronic, seismic, polymeric, of strange bedfellows, and some tongue in cheek humour. The movie is good, but isn't as pleasing as the first one or even the second one. The earlier editions did great jobs of keep the action going throughout. This one is a heavily back loaded, the first half being a very long and unduly slow lead up. Also, the audience knows how each trick is going to play out. Rather than discovering a sweet deception that they had failed to notice which was key to the first two.
It is light-hearted. It makes fun of a lot of things - Oprah, and mexican sweat shops. The carried over cast is good, and predictable. Of the newcomers, Al Pacino (Bank) seems to be trying very hard to be a ruthless man, but is really a Corleone on the brink of retirement. In fact, his character would have been better off being a little more comic. The last time I saw Ellen Barkin (Bank's flunky) in a movie, was in the Big Easy, when she was effortlessly hot in an intense way. Here she is just a pale shadow of that smouldering self.
The verdict ? Ultimately it is like a mutual break up date. Reminds you of things that were great, but you know it has come to an end. You will go, but only to say so long.
By,
Nikhil Pednekar
Reubens, the still flamboyant man of Vegas past is worried about being laid to rest alive on an ice slab. He therefore enters into a deal with Bank, a super successful property owner and a career backstabber, betting on the unwritten bond that exists between men that shook hands with Sinatra. He wouldn't, would he?!
He does, and leaving him with nothing save a $10000 poker chip and a myocardial infarction.
The merry men gather, and decide to win back Reuben's money and more importantly his joie-de-vivre.
The movie is about a multitude of capers, electronic, seismic, polymeric, of strange bedfellows, and some tongue in cheek humour. The movie is good, but isn't as pleasing as the first one or even the second one. The earlier editions did great jobs of keep the action going throughout. This one is a heavily back loaded, the first half being a very long and unduly slow lead up. Also, the audience knows how each trick is going to play out. Rather than discovering a sweet deception that they had failed to notice which was key to the first two.
It is light-hearted. It makes fun of a lot of things - Oprah, and mexican sweat shops. The carried over cast is good, and predictable. Of the newcomers, Al Pacino (Bank) seems to be trying very hard to be a ruthless man, but is really a Corleone on the brink of retirement. In fact, his character would have been better off being a little more comic. The last time I saw Ellen Barkin (Bank's flunky) in a movie, was in the Big Easy, when she was effortlessly hot in an intense way. Here she is just a pale shadow of that smouldering self.
The verdict ? Ultimately it is like a mutual break up date. Reminds you of things that were great, but you know it has come to an end. You will go, but only to say so long.
By,
Nikhil Pednekar
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Review of 'Ocean's 13'
I began my week by watching Steven Soderbergh's Ocean’s 13. Reminiscent of its old school roots, the film returns to its original, classic casino setting to entertain us with another sensational, dangerous heist. In the current sequel, Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and the gang have only one reason to pull off their most ambitious and riskiest casino heist - to defend one of their own. But they need more than luck on their side to break the ruthless casino owner Willy Bank (Al Pacino).
Pacino aka Bank never imagines that the odds would be against him when he double-crosses Danny Ocean’s friend and mentor Reuben Tishkoff, putting the distraught Reuben in a critical condition. Bank miscalculates - badly. He may have taken down one of the original Ocean’s eleven, but he left the others standing and, worse for him, gave them a shared purpose: to take Bank down on the night of what should be his greatest triumph - the grand opening of his new casino, appropriately named ‘The Bank’.
While not as fresh as 'Ocean's 11', the latest sequel is slick and funny and fast enough to keep you happily entertained for a couple of hours (2 hours and few more minutes). As always Clooney and Pitt are good (irresistible as usual) in every scene they share. It is sad that Julia Roberts does not return in this sequel. Ellen Barkin is the solo female star in the epicentre of the distinguished boys club in this film. Pacino is deliciously evil as always. Matt Damon is especially funny with a new comical disguise to support his increased responsibilities. The remainder of the cast is humorous as usual with the inclusion of Andy Garcia as Terry Benedict. .
There isn’t a dull moment in the film as the men conspire to contrive an ingenious plan of action for this complex heist which they execute with perfection. All OCEAN’S fans will enjoy the film. I have quite liked it.
By,
Anusha S
(Read more stuff by her on admediaworld.blogspot.com and freaktrekking.blogspot.com - Ed)
Pacino aka Bank never imagines that the odds would be against him when he double-crosses Danny Ocean’s friend and mentor Reuben Tishkoff, putting the distraught Reuben in a critical condition. Bank miscalculates - badly. He may have taken down one of the original Ocean’s eleven, but he left the others standing and, worse for him, gave them a shared purpose: to take Bank down on the night of what should be his greatest triumph - the grand opening of his new casino, appropriately named ‘The Bank’.
While not as fresh as 'Ocean's 11', the latest sequel is slick and funny and fast enough to keep you happily entertained for a couple of hours (2 hours and few more minutes). As always Clooney and Pitt are good (irresistible as usual) in every scene they share. It is sad that Julia Roberts does not return in this sequel. Ellen Barkin is the solo female star in the epicentre of the distinguished boys club in this film. Pacino is deliciously evil as always. Matt Damon is especially funny with a new comical disguise to support his increased responsibilities. The remainder of the cast is humorous as usual with the inclusion of Andy Garcia as Terry Benedict. .
There isn’t a dull moment in the film as the men conspire to contrive an ingenious plan of action for this complex heist which they execute with perfection. All OCEAN’S fans will enjoy the film. I have quite liked it.
By,
Anusha S
(Read more stuff by her on admediaworld.blogspot.com and freaktrekking.blogspot.com - Ed)
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Review of 'Pirates of the Caribbean-3: At World's End'
First it was Spiderman-3, then Shrek-3 and yesterday I watched Jerry Bruckheimer’s Pirates of the Caribbean-3: At World’s End (POC-3). POC-3 would be the third sequel in a row as this summer ends. The movie is releasing in India tomorrow.
I think it is a one time watch definitely if you have watched POC 1 & 2. It is a movie that isn't making a political statement and that’s good enough for me.
In the current sequel it is a dark time as the age of Piracy nears to a close. The sequel picks up from where the record-breaking 2006 smash hit left off, with our heroes Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) allied with Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) in a desperate quest to free Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) from his mind-bending trap in Davy Jones' locker, thanks to his encounter with the monstrous Kraken. With the terrifying ghost ship, The Flying Dutchman, and its commander Davy Jones under the control of the East India Trading Company, there is havoc on the Seven Seas. Navigating through treachery, betrayal and wild waters, the heroic trio must forge their way to exotic Singapore and confront the cunning Pirate Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat). Now headed beyond the very ends of the earth, each must ultimately choose a side in a final titanic battle – as not only their lives and fortunes, but the entire future of the freedom-loving Pirate way hangs in the balance.
Three hours long compared to the first two, the film is mildly diverting and is anchored by the scenery chewing performances of Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush. While Depp's Captain Jack chatter is starting to wear thin - Depp still puts a lot of gusto in the role and is never anything less than entertaining. He is a pleasure to watch as always.
Captain Barbosa is also great to watch - just like in the first film. Keira Knightley - who's role has been considerably beefed up in this sequel looks great and acquits herself nicely- while Orlando Bloom takes a back seat this time out and doesn't really figure into the plot until the last act.
Naturally, the ending of the film leaves open the possibility of another sequel. Another 'Pirates' seems inevitable- but next time it would be nice if the film-makers don't take two 3 hour films to tell a story which could have been told in one.
Now for some facts and figures on the film:
While internationally the critics have ripped the movie and not said too many good words about this final voyage of Captain Jack Sparrow, it is a film that has already raked in a boatload of cash (pun intended). The film has landed in the global box office record books and laid claim to the biggest opening in the industry history, with an unprecedented moolah of $401 million in its first six days of release and in the process created a new industry record. This figure surpasses, the previous record of $382 million set by the six day opening of ‘Spiderman 3’ earlier this year. ‘Pirates’ continues to please audiences around the world with exceptionally strong exit polls.
In India , the film is releasing with more than 300 prints in Hindi, Tamil, Telugu and English.
By,
Anusha
(Read more stuff by her on admediaworld.blogspot.com and freaktrekking.blogspot.com - Ed)
I think it is a one time watch definitely if you have watched POC 1 & 2. It is a movie that isn't making a political statement and that’s good enough for me.
In the current sequel it is a dark time as the age of Piracy nears to a close. The sequel picks up from where the record-breaking 2006 smash hit left off, with our heroes Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) allied with Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) in a desperate quest to free Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) from his mind-bending trap in Davy Jones' locker, thanks to his encounter with the monstrous Kraken. With the terrifying ghost ship, The Flying Dutchman, and its commander Davy Jones under the control of the East India Trading Company, there is havoc on the Seven Seas. Navigating through treachery, betrayal and wild waters, the heroic trio must forge their way to exotic Singapore and confront the cunning Pirate Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat). Now headed beyond the very ends of the earth, each must ultimately choose a side in a final titanic battle – as not only their lives and fortunes, but the entire future of the freedom-loving Pirate way hangs in the balance.
Three hours long compared to the first two, the film is mildly diverting and is anchored by the scenery chewing performances of Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush. While Depp's Captain Jack chatter is starting to wear thin - Depp still puts a lot of gusto in the role and is never anything less than entertaining. He is a pleasure to watch as always.
Captain Barbosa is also great to watch - just like in the first film. Keira Knightley - who's role has been considerably beefed up in this sequel looks great and acquits herself nicely- while Orlando Bloom takes a back seat this time out and doesn't really figure into the plot until the last act.
Naturally, the ending of the film leaves open the possibility of another sequel. Another 'Pirates' seems inevitable- but next time it would be nice if the film-makers don't take two 3 hour films to tell a story which could have been told in one.
Now for some facts and figures on the film:
While internationally the critics have ripped the movie and not said too many good words about this final voyage of Captain Jack Sparrow, it is a film that has already raked in a boatload of cash (pun intended). The film has landed in the global box office record books and laid claim to the biggest opening in the industry history, with an unprecedented moolah of $401 million in its first six days of release and in the process created a new industry record. This figure surpasses, the previous record of $382 million set by the six day opening of ‘Spiderman 3’ earlier this year. ‘Pirates’ continues to please audiences around the world with exceptionally strong exit polls.
In India , the film is releasing with more than 300 prints in Hindi, Tamil, Telugu and English.
By,
Anusha
(Read more stuff by her on admediaworld.blogspot.com and freaktrekking.blogspot.com - Ed)
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Review - 'Flags of our Fathers'
For those of you who don’t know the details of the historical incident on which this movie is based, here is a bit of history.
During WW2, the Americans attacked an island called Iwo Jima . This island, located about 1000 miles off the coast of Tokyo was of crucial geographical importance. To the Japanese it provided a strategic lookout point on enemy naval movements. To the Americans the capture of the island could mean a base from which to attack the Japanese mainland. The Japanese defense strategy of the island was considered unique then. The Japanese had burrowed the volcanic mountain near the landing shores in the island, creating portholes through which enemies could be shot unseen. They had also created a network of underground tunnels connecting such portholes. When the Americans landed, the volcanic ash did not offer them much cover and they were shot at by unseen allies. Ariel attack by the Americans did not cause much damage and most of the fight was carried on by men on the ground throwing grenades into the port holes. The battle lasted about 30 days and the Americans won. On day 5 or 6, the Americans had made some amount of headway and had managed to plant a flat on the highest point there. This flag was ordered to be brought down and a new flag put in its place. When the second flag was put up, a photo was clicked and circulated in the American Press. The photo went on to become one of the most famous of all times, winning a Pulitzer in the year of its publication. The American government cashed in on the publicity surrounding the photo by making the soldiers featuring in the photo campaign for funding the war effort. The campaign was a brilliant success and raised more money than all previous campaigns put together.
The movie centres around these three soldiers who campaigned successfully. Ordinary enlisted men (or rather boys aged 20) like everyone else in the war, they catapult to fame, being caught in the right place at the right time. Three of their buddies who also featured in the photo had been killed during the siege. The trio tries to handle the sudden glory cast upon them by the American government, the media and the public. As they go on their campaign from place to place, the movie shows the reality behind their popularity – how chance places them holding the flag, how the picture was intended to be no better or no worse than other war pictures, how they were not killed on account of nothing more than fate and all the other mundane details of the war. The movie also explores the guilt that the men need to deal with knowing they were no better than the others and were lucky to be alive and campaigning. The movie finally is about heroes being as ordinary as you and me, a bunch of men doing their jobs.
The story is both interesting and touching. A quick Google search will give you an idea of exactly how big the episode was and deconstructing heroism of this sort is no mean feat. The movie tries to walk a fine line making its point while not belittling the efforts of the three soldiers. It is also quite entertaining, without slipping into a documentary mode. Perhaps all these points overpower other issues – the movie is not as taut as you would like to be, it is slightly clichéd and repetitive in a few parts and you never feel involved with any of the characters except possibly for those of Ira Heyes and Rene Gagnon.
The verdict though is still overwhelming positive. It needs to be seen if you do not believe in heroes and more so, if you do.
During WW2, the Americans attacked an island called Iwo Jima . This island, located about 1000 miles off the coast of Tokyo was of crucial geographical importance. To the Japanese it provided a strategic lookout point on enemy naval movements. To the Americans the capture of the island could mean a base from which to attack the Japanese mainland. The Japanese defense strategy of the island was considered unique then. The Japanese had burrowed the volcanic mountain near the landing shores in the island, creating portholes through which enemies could be shot unseen. They had also created a network of underground tunnels connecting such portholes. When the Americans landed, the volcanic ash did not offer them much cover and they were shot at by unseen allies. Ariel attack by the Americans did not cause much damage and most of the fight was carried on by men on the ground throwing grenades into the port holes. The battle lasted about 30 days and the Americans won. On day 5 or 6, the Americans had made some amount of headway and had managed to plant a flat on the highest point there. This flag was ordered to be brought down and a new flag put in its place. When the second flag was put up, a photo was clicked and circulated in the American Press. The photo went on to become one of the most famous of all times, winning a Pulitzer in the year of its publication. The American government cashed in on the publicity surrounding the photo by making the soldiers featuring in the photo campaign for funding the war effort. The campaign was a brilliant success and raised more money than all previous campaigns put together.
The movie centres around these three soldiers who campaigned successfully. Ordinary enlisted men (or rather boys aged 20) like everyone else in the war, they catapult to fame, being caught in the right place at the right time. Three of their buddies who also featured in the photo had been killed during the siege. The trio tries to handle the sudden glory cast upon them by the American government, the media and the public. As they go on their campaign from place to place, the movie shows the reality behind their popularity – how chance places them holding the flag, how the picture was intended to be no better or no worse than other war pictures, how they were not killed on account of nothing more than fate and all the other mundane details of the war. The movie also explores the guilt that the men need to deal with knowing they were no better than the others and were lucky to be alive and campaigning. The movie finally is about heroes being as ordinary as you and me, a bunch of men doing their jobs.
The story is both interesting and touching. A quick Google search will give you an idea of exactly how big the episode was and deconstructing heroism of this sort is no mean feat. The movie tries to walk a fine line making its point while not belittling the efforts of the three soldiers. It is also quite entertaining, without slipping into a documentary mode. Perhaps all these points overpower other issues – the movie is not as taut as you would like to be, it is slightly clichéd and repetitive in a few parts and you never feel involved with any of the characters except possibly for those of Ira Heyes and Rene Gagnon.
The verdict though is still overwhelming positive. It needs to be seen if you do not believe in heroes and more so, if you do.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Review of 'Life in a Metro'
I love Bombay in the monsoons. I don’t mean the traditional eating-corn-in-marine-drive aspect of it. Has anyone noticed how the city’s noise and confusion disappear in the thudding of raindrops? Dull trees spring to life. Duller buildings look pleasantly old instead of dilapidated. The story of ‘Life in a Metro’ unfolds on one such rainy morning. This is perhaps why I gave it my approval even before the cast made its way to the screen. But a good beginning is half the battle won as this movie proves.
Shilpa Shetty, a housewife and mother dodges puddles to go through the set routine of her unexciting life. Her sister, Konkona Sen is checking out yet another matrimonial prospect from Shaadi.com to see if he is loving, caring, likes to travel and loves books. Irffan Khan, meeting her, is everything a financially stable, approaching thirty, urban single woman would despise – slightly lecherous, far from cultured and thinks that the irresistible qualification for an eligible groom would be to be a non-drinker and non-smoker. Sharman Joshi, an ambitious BPO employee still grappling with his value system, finds yet another way to grab a two-minute conversation with his unrequited ladylove Kangana Ranaut. As the movie progresses their stories unfold. Caught in the bustle of Mumbai’s daily grind, they learn lessons about life and love and eventually make choices about both.
The movie is clearly inspired from myriad sources. However, despite the lack of originality director Anurag Basu needs to be given full credit for tackling two key challenges well. The first one is to have woven his web of characters in a wonderful and credible manner. Given the large selection of characters he has picked up – a couple with a dissolving marriage, an ambitious youngster, a looking-for-love single woman, a slimy boss, a self destructive girl, two old people racing against time, a failing theatre actor – he could have easily degenerated into portraying caricatures. Fortunately he largely manages not to do so and gives each character a voice that speaks not so much as the stereotype that they represent but as a living and thinking individual. The second one is to keep your interest going even though you can guess how each story-stream would end. Perhaps the fact that you have already started getting under each character’s skin by the first thirty minutes keeps you hooked.
The music is yet another glorious aspect of the movie. Fitted into the correct sequences, it captures the mood of the moment aptly. The composer trio appearing on screen and actually shown singing was a trifle shocking initially and a trifle annoying later on. Notwithstanding, you were happy to set the story aside for a while, sit and listen at these interludes.
Irffan simply rocks as the frustrated, aging singleton who is desperate to embrace the love and lust he can get in a marriage. Kay Kay Menon turns in a good performance as an insensitive, two-timing husband and manipulative boss. The rest are pretty decent. Give me Shilpa Shetty any day over Ash Rai to be premiering movies in the UK. While having her as India’s cultural ambassador may not be my first choice, it cannot be denied that she can at least be made to act. Konkana and Kangana are both expectedly accurate in their portrayals.
The one thread that did not make much sense to me was the romance of yester year’s hero, Dharmendra, with Nafisa Ali. The idea of finding love at that age seemed sweet and realistic but do old people really act and talk like that ?
The movie is by no means perfect and falters here and there. It will however rank as one of the best efforts at capturing the challenges of urbanites in the current generation.
By,
Anita B.
Shilpa Shetty, a housewife and mother dodges puddles to go through the set routine of her unexciting life. Her sister, Konkona Sen is checking out yet another matrimonial prospect from Shaadi.com to see if he is loving, caring, likes to travel and loves books. Irffan Khan, meeting her, is everything a financially stable, approaching thirty, urban single woman would despise – slightly lecherous, far from cultured and thinks that the irresistible qualification for an eligible groom would be to be a non-drinker and non-smoker. Sharman Joshi, an ambitious BPO employee still grappling with his value system, finds yet another way to grab a two-minute conversation with his unrequited ladylove Kangana Ranaut. As the movie progresses their stories unfold. Caught in the bustle of Mumbai’s daily grind, they learn lessons about life and love and eventually make choices about both.
The movie is clearly inspired from myriad sources. However, despite the lack of originality director Anurag Basu needs to be given full credit for tackling two key challenges well. The first one is to have woven his web of characters in a wonderful and credible manner. Given the large selection of characters he has picked up – a couple with a dissolving marriage, an ambitious youngster, a looking-for-love single woman, a slimy boss, a self destructive girl, two old people racing against time, a failing theatre actor – he could have easily degenerated into portraying caricatures. Fortunately he largely manages not to do so and gives each character a voice that speaks not so much as the stereotype that they represent but as a living and thinking individual. The second one is to keep your interest going even though you can guess how each story-stream would end. Perhaps the fact that you have already started getting under each character’s skin by the first thirty minutes keeps you hooked.
The music is yet another glorious aspect of the movie. Fitted into the correct sequences, it captures the mood of the moment aptly. The composer trio appearing on screen and actually shown singing was a trifle shocking initially and a trifle annoying later on. Notwithstanding, you were happy to set the story aside for a while, sit and listen at these interludes.
Irffan simply rocks as the frustrated, aging singleton who is desperate to embrace the love and lust he can get in a marriage. Kay Kay Menon turns in a good performance as an insensitive, two-timing husband and manipulative boss. The rest are pretty decent. Give me Shilpa Shetty any day over Ash Rai to be premiering movies in the UK. While having her as India’s cultural ambassador may not be my first choice, it cannot be denied that she can at least be made to act. Konkana and Kangana are both expectedly accurate in their portrayals.
The one thread that did not make much sense to me was the romance of yester year’s hero, Dharmendra, with Nafisa Ali. The idea of finding love at that age seemed sweet and realistic but do old people really act and talk like that ?
The movie is by no means perfect and falters here and there. It will however rank as one of the best efforts at capturing the challenges of urbanites in the current generation.
By,
Anita B.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Review of '13 Tzameti'
One of the most interesting movies I have seen in recent times.
Best described as a ‘suspense’ movie, ‘13 Tzameti’ had me on the edge of my seat in quite a few scenes, nervously wondering what was going to happen next. A movie with an unusual theme that is very well executed (pun intended). Words used to describe it in other reviews that I read were ‘taut’, ‘gripping’, ‘perverse’, ‘wicked’ – all of which are equally true. The central story of the film is twisted and evil, but in a fascinating way.
‘13 Tzameti’ is a French movie, and has English sub-titles - having to read the sub-titles in no way detracts from the enjoyment of the movie – dialogue is quite unnecessary to understand this movie. It is shot entirely in black-and-white, and that somehow heightens the edgy mood of the movie.
The movie begins with a slow half-hour and then slowly ratchets up the tension. The hero Sebastian is a poor construction worker. When his employer dies without paying him, he decides to take the employer’s place in a job which promised a lot of money. He blindly follows instructions and ends up a part of a vicious game of Russian roulette.
Telling you more would detract from the movie, so I will end by urging everyone to watch the movie.
By,
Zenobia D. Driver
Best described as a ‘suspense’ movie, ‘13 Tzameti’ had me on the edge of my seat in quite a few scenes, nervously wondering what was going to happen next. A movie with an unusual theme that is very well executed (pun intended). Words used to describe it in other reviews that I read were ‘taut’, ‘gripping’, ‘perverse’, ‘wicked’ – all of which are equally true. The central story of the film is twisted and evil, but in a fascinating way.
‘13 Tzameti’ is a French movie, and has English sub-titles - having to read the sub-titles in no way detracts from the enjoyment of the movie – dialogue is quite unnecessary to understand this movie. It is shot entirely in black-and-white, and that somehow heightens the edgy mood of the movie.
The movie begins with a slow half-hour and then slowly ratchets up the tension. The hero Sebastian is a poor construction worker. When his employer dies without paying him, he decides to take the employer’s place in a job which promised a lot of money. He blindly follows instructions and ends up a part of a vicious game of Russian roulette.
Telling you more would detract from the movie, so I will end by urging everyone to watch the movie.
By,
Zenobia D. Driver
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Review of 'Namesake'
The namesake, despite its name, is really about Ashima Ganguly's life. She is a simple bengali girl well versed in Wordsworth. She has a thing for shoes that ends up transplanting her from her cosy traditional bengali existence into the cold dull New England winters where she begins life anew with bhel made out of rice crispies and chilly powder and masala peanuts.
The movie chronicles her falling in love with her husband, the birth and growing up of her children. Things keep changing around her as she slowly but confidently adapts herself to stay in sync with things around her and yet seems to be the one unchanging constant in the movie.
Her family leads a largely happy uneventful life; she, a librarian, husband a prof, and with the kids in fact being comfortably American. Especially the son Gogol, who, seems to fit in better with his white girlfriend's all - american family and their affluent ways than with his own family. He greatest peeve though, is his parents’ incomprehensible choice of naming him after a tragic, eccentric Russian author Nikolai Gogol; he legally changes it to something more manageable.
A sudden tragedy however pulls the family together, and sends Gogol, now Nikhil, on a path that makes him yearn for his roots and causes him to take on a more Indian identity. Ashima helps her family and herself pick up the pieces and they begin to move on.
Nikhil marries a bengali girl suggested by his mother (or Ashima, either is fine), the daughter finds herself a non-indian boy, who mom is ok with becus times are-a-changing. Slowly as things fall in place again, Ashima feels she has fully discharged her "duty" as wife and mother, and decides finally to do something for herself: Go back to India, and follow her dream of learning music, 'if, a guru would have a 45 yr old as a student'.
However, as is often the case, the movie is "not a patch", as a friend put it, on the book. and I am not a member of the 'books ARE always sooo much better than the movies' mafia.
Ashima actually represents the ideal (not typical) immigrant experience, somebody who is comfortable with their own identity, and yet appreciative of the new things that a new world has to offer. With its repeated references to Nikolai Gogol's overcoat as being the source that we all come out of, the book drives home the point why a sense of identity is important to individuals as a source of strength and any attempt at questioning or undermining this identity can lead to turmoil.
The director doesn't take any chances in making the movie. It would have been far more interesting to see it as a series of flashbacks from the mom's and/or the son's point of view, rather than a series of episodic capsules of an unfolding story. Some of the more moving scenes are watered down, not giving you enough time to empathize with any of the characters. The story feeds on sentiments, but the background musical score was terrible, and did nothing to draw the viewer in. Also both Irrfan Khan andTabu weren't convincing either as the clumsy 20 yr olds or the 45 yr old parents of strangers. The attention to detail was sketchy, footage of calcutta trams had ATM adverts.
The movie is worth a watch, but don't miss it's original namesake.
By,
Nikhil Pednekar
The movie chronicles her falling in love with her husband, the birth and growing up of her children. Things keep changing around her as she slowly but confidently adapts herself to stay in sync with things around her and yet seems to be the one unchanging constant in the movie.
Her family leads a largely happy uneventful life; she, a librarian, husband a prof, and with the kids in fact being comfortably American. Especially the son Gogol, who, seems to fit in better with his white girlfriend's all - american family and their affluent ways than with his own family. He greatest peeve though, is his parents’ incomprehensible choice of naming him after a tragic, eccentric Russian author Nikolai Gogol; he legally changes it to something more manageable.
A sudden tragedy however pulls the family together, and sends Gogol, now Nikhil, on a path that makes him yearn for his roots and causes him to take on a more Indian identity. Ashima helps her family and herself pick up the pieces and they begin to move on.
Nikhil marries a bengali girl suggested by his mother (or Ashima, either is fine), the daughter finds herself a non-indian boy, who mom is ok with becus times are-a-changing. Slowly as things fall in place again, Ashima feels she has fully discharged her "duty" as wife and mother, and decides finally to do something for herself: Go back to India, and follow her dream of learning music, 'if, a guru would have a 45 yr old as a student'.
However, as is often the case, the movie is "not a patch", as a friend put it, on the book. and I am not a member of the 'books ARE always sooo much better than the movies' mafia.
Ashima actually represents the ideal (not typical) immigrant experience, somebody who is comfortable with their own identity, and yet appreciative of the new things that a new world has to offer. With its repeated references to Nikolai Gogol's overcoat as being the source that we all come out of, the book drives home the point why a sense of identity is important to individuals as a source of strength and any attempt at questioning or undermining this identity can lead to turmoil.
The director doesn't take any chances in making the movie. It would have been far more interesting to see it as a series of flashbacks from the mom's and/or the son's point of view, rather than a series of episodic capsules of an unfolding story. Some of the more moving scenes are watered down, not giving you enough time to empathize with any of the characters. The story feeds on sentiments, but the background musical score was terrible, and did nothing to draw the viewer in. Also both Irrfan Khan andTabu weren't convincing either as the clumsy 20 yr olds or the 45 yr old parents of strangers. The attention to detail was sketchy, footage of calcutta trams had ATM adverts.
The movie is worth a watch, but don't miss it's original namesake.
By,
Nikhil Pednekar
Monday, February 26, 2007
Review of 'Parzania'
I read in the papers yesterday that one of the purposes of art is to ‘make one see’. Without getting into a debate on ‘art for art’s sake’ and ‘a poem must not mean, but be’, let me add that I think one of the purposes of art (please note – ‘one of’) is to remind us of a reality we would rather ignore or forget about. It is this purpose that the film ‘Parzania’ succeeds in.
‘Parzania’ is not great cinema. Of course, there is some amazing acting – there could be no less given that Naseeruddin Shah essays the role of one of the main protagonists, but a few scenes are clichéd, almost amateurish. However, it is a very powerful movie, and undoubtedly a very brave one (Salaam to the maker Mr. Rahul Dholakia). It took two years for the censor board to clear ‘Parzania’, and after seeing the movie, am surprised (pleasantly so) that it was released in India at all. The film deserves a watch, both for some powerful performances and for the topic it deals with.
The movie tackles the Gujarat riots of 2002 - why they happened, how they were carried out, the complicity of the administrative system, the systematic ethnic cleansing of minority communities in some areas etc. It does this through the story of a Parsi family in Ahmedabad – their lives before the riots, the loss of their son during the riots and how they deal with that loss. And around this kernel are woven the threads of the larger story about the riots. (A few of which just seem to dangle needlessly in the wind, like the track about the American in search of Gandhi, I didn’t quite get it.)
The film-maker makes a lot of unequivocal judgements about the role of the police, government, right-wing Hindu parties etc. There is no fig-leaf for anyone to hide behind in the movie, no subtlety, no euphemisms either – the truth is stated quite plainly. Thankfully, some of the more gory acts of violence are mentioned, but not shown visually.
I think the movie is a must-watch. But don’t forget to take your handkerchief along, you will need it.
By,
Zenobia D. Driver
‘Parzania’ is not great cinema. Of course, there is some amazing acting – there could be no less given that Naseeruddin Shah essays the role of one of the main protagonists, but a few scenes are clichéd, almost amateurish. However, it is a very powerful movie, and undoubtedly a very brave one (Salaam to the maker Mr. Rahul Dholakia). It took two years for the censor board to clear ‘Parzania’, and after seeing the movie, am surprised (pleasantly so) that it was released in India at all. The film deserves a watch, both for some powerful performances and for the topic it deals with.
The movie tackles the Gujarat riots of 2002 - why they happened, how they were carried out, the complicity of the administrative system, the systematic ethnic cleansing of minority communities in some areas etc. It does this through the story of a Parsi family in Ahmedabad – their lives before the riots, the loss of their son during the riots and how they deal with that loss. And around this kernel are woven the threads of the larger story about the riots. (A few of which just seem to dangle needlessly in the wind, like the track about the American in search of Gandhi, I didn’t quite get it.)
The film-maker makes a lot of unequivocal judgements about the role of the police, government, right-wing Hindu parties etc. There is no fig-leaf for anyone to hide behind in the movie, no subtlety, no euphemisms either – the truth is stated quite plainly. Thankfully, some of the more gory acts of violence are mentioned, but not shown visually.
I think the movie is a must-watch. But don’t forget to take your handkerchief along, you will need it.
By,
Zenobia D. Driver
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Review of 'Seven Islands and a Metro'
Summary - An interesting movie, albeit one that might have benefited from with crisper editing. On the whole, I enjoyed the movie, though I felt some parts just dragged on for far too long. A must – see for all those who love Bombay, an added attraction is the use of Saadat Hasan Manto and Ismat Chughtai as narrators. The archaic language that Manto and Ismat speak in is charming. I have read some short stories by Manto before, gave me a thrill to recognise some of them in Manto’s dialogues. Though too many of his partition stories were used in the context of the Bombay riots - just one of those would have been far more effective.
The movie delves – err actually makes brief dips into - the lives of all who make up ‘Aamchi Mumbai’- the bar girls, mill workers, night-time tea sellers (the guys who wander around on cycles with a can of tea and plastic cups), construction site workers, kolis (fisherfolk), rich Jains, Christians, Parsis…..everyone.
It introduces one to the history of this city, the forces that have shaped it, how it is changing and why, and the turmoil that the change is causing. I loved the way they introduce the heterogeneity of the people who make up Bombay by combining the visuals of identity papers and the vocals in the background of various people answering an impersonal babu’s questions about their identity. Also loved the picturisation of the 7 islands of Bom Bahai metamorphosing into Bombay.
There were lots of small facts about the city that this movie brought to light. Though I have relished fried Boomla (Bombil in Marathi, Bombay Duck in English) for years, it was during the movie that I realised that they had really sharp teeth. Really enjoyed seeing how their jaws are used to hang them out to dry, and listening to the old Parsi lady and the not-so-old Maharashtrian woman describing the ‘right’ way to cook Boomla.
Another interesting fact about Bombay. In the 1980s, there were 2,32,000 mill workers in this city. Now there are only 30,000 !! I never realised the magnitude of this decrease. Suddenly I want to know what happened to those people, where did they go ? How many of them are currently unemployed ? How many are employed and in what capacity ? By how much has their income / living standard dropped, if at all ? Where do they live now ?
Through snippets of conversations with actual people, the movie takes a look at the social and economic forces that cause tension in the social fabric of the city. The kolis who are angry that no one visits the fish markets anymore as North Indian ‘lungiwalas’ go door-to-door selling fish. The rich vegetarian people who moved into a newly constructed building near a koliwada and now want to evict the original kolis because the smell of fish bothers them. The cemeteries that have been encroached upon by shanties. The pushing and jostling for precious inches of space that causes tempers to rise. The communal tension. The economic disparity. Enough reasons for serious concern about this wonderful city’s future.
I walked out of the theatre with the warm feeling like one gets when you meet a good friend after a long time and spend time going through his/her childhood snaps. Even though in the process of the conversation you may discover that your friend is currently unwell, and you may be concerned about that; when you go back home at night, the overriding feeling is one of happiness at having got back in touch with your friend again.
By,
Zenobia D. Driver
The movie delves – err actually makes brief dips into - the lives of all who make up ‘Aamchi Mumbai’- the bar girls, mill workers, night-time tea sellers (the guys who wander around on cycles with a can of tea and plastic cups), construction site workers, kolis (fisherfolk), rich Jains, Christians, Parsis…..everyone.
It introduces one to the history of this city, the forces that have shaped it, how it is changing and why, and the turmoil that the change is causing. I loved the way they introduce the heterogeneity of the people who make up Bombay by combining the visuals of identity papers and the vocals in the background of various people answering an impersonal babu’s questions about their identity. Also loved the picturisation of the 7 islands of Bom Bahai metamorphosing into Bombay.
There were lots of small facts about the city that this movie brought to light. Though I have relished fried Boomla (Bombil in Marathi, Bombay Duck in English) for years, it was during the movie that I realised that they had really sharp teeth. Really enjoyed seeing how their jaws are used to hang them out to dry, and listening to the old Parsi lady and the not-so-old Maharashtrian woman describing the ‘right’ way to cook Boomla.
Another interesting fact about Bombay. In the 1980s, there were 2,32,000 mill workers in this city. Now there are only 30,000 !! I never realised the magnitude of this decrease. Suddenly I want to know what happened to those people, where did they go ? How many of them are currently unemployed ? How many are employed and in what capacity ? By how much has their income / living standard dropped, if at all ? Where do they live now ?
Through snippets of conversations with actual people, the movie takes a look at the social and economic forces that cause tension in the social fabric of the city. The kolis who are angry that no one visits the fish markets anymore as North Indian ‘lungiwalas’ go door-to-door selling fish. The rich vegetarian people who moved into a newly constructed building near a koliwada and now want to evict the original kolis because the smell of fish bothers them. The cemeteries that have been encroached upon by shanties. The pushing and jostling for precious inches of space that causes tempers to rise. The communal tension. The economic disparity. Enough reasons for serious concern about this wonderful city’s future.
I walked out of the theatre with the warm feeling like one gets when you meet a good friend after a long time and spend time going through his/her childhood snaps. Even though in the process of the conversation you may discover that your friend is currently unwell, and you may be concerned about that; when you go back home at night, the overriding feeling is one of happiness at having got back in touch with your friend again.
By,
Zenobia D. Driver
Monday, September 18, 2006
Movie Review - 'House of Flying Daggers'
Its funny writing a review of a movie, nearly two years after it was released to much acclaim. It is a pity that HOFD took so much time to come to India. And it is an even bigger pity that it runs only for a couple of shows in Bangalore, the other slots being taken by an Indian Indiana Jones movie called “Naksha”.
HOFD has a gossamer storyline. It is the time of anarchy during the Tang dynasty, late ninth century. Various rebel groups are fighting the government and HOFD is one of the leading bunch of anarchists. A policeman, Jin, is sent to a brothel called Peony Pavilion in disguise to check out intelligence that a rebel is hiding there. There he runs into Mei, a blind courtesan, who is arrested after a dazzling dance sequence (the Echo Dance) on the presumption that she is the daughter of a leader of HOFD who was killed by the police. She is later helped to escape by Jin himself, who is acting as a mole to follow Mei to the HOFD. Jin and Mei are chased by soldiers and they fall in love after some elaborately staged fight (or dance) sequences across jungles, meadows, mountains and bamboo forests. Or are they just acting to be in love to meet their own motives. Some more surprises are in store and there is nicely spun tale of morality, love (there is even a love triangle) ending in a climax which is tragic and elemental. HOFD is a love story and please do not go expecting an action movie; the movie is not actually short of action sequences and indeed uses these to propel the love story forward.
Words like operatic and symphonic abound reviews of HOFD. For me personally, whose understanding of either operas or symphonies is next to zero, HOFD is a simply wonderful return to film making in its most pristine and unspoiled form. Films like “Crouching Tiger..”, “Hero” and now “HOFD” show the world and especially Hollywood a way of filmmaking which seem to have been forgotten. That cinema is primarily a visual (and aural) art form, in colour and texture. HOFD re-emphasises this in greater grandeur than ever before. The costumes are lavish and the art direction intricate (witness the floor design and the wall work in the Echo Dance. The action sequences are breathtaking and as (or more) wonderfully choreographed than the ones in Crouching Tiger or Hero (which to me was more mechanical than fluid). You are just dazzled by the way special effects have been integrated into the action.
Some of the sequences are truly memorable scene-of-the-decade ventures. ¬The Echo Dance in the beginning where Mei has to dance to the pat of a bean/ seed on a drum and the Bamboo Fight with its astonishing colours, sounds and movements are both sequences of unadulterated visceral glory. You want to tip your hat to the directors ability to imagine, leave aside execute, these scenes. Even some of the sensitive scenes are shot very well, like the scene were Jin gallops on a horse around a meadow sweeping flowers to give to the blind Mei and the panning shots of Mei and Jun in the meadows after a frantic love-making session. One can just go on.
The music and cinematography are the high points of the movie. Unlike the earlier named Chinese movies which had music by the brilliant Tan Dun, this has music by Shigeru Umebayashi who managed to reach the immense heights scaled by Tan Dun in both “Crouching” and “Hero”. Zhang Yimou, one of the greatest Chinese directors, has been called a “visual sensualist” by some. Movies of Zhang Yimou (himself a photographer) have always had brilliant composition and shot-taking. Colour for him is like dialogue to a Woody Allen movie. Here it is not as in-your-face as the colour- coded “Hero”, but simpler and still elegant and recalls all the visual splendour of Zhang’s earlier movies.
More interestingly, the career of director Zhang Yimou seem to echo the stage and growth of the Chinese economy. In his earlier classics like Red Sorghum, Raise the Red Lantern and Ju Dou made around the time of the student rebellion, he ran afoul of the government. However, the growing integration of Chine into the world economy seems to have made him return to more simple story-telling in movies like Hero and HOFD, though not in any way diluting his auteur status. I wonder what sociological conclusions to make from this, it is either mute indifference or an acceptance of the economic boom in China.
HOFD is “rich” in the way Hollywood movies were in the 50s when they were trying to battle television. The movie is a true feast to the senses, a riot of colour and music. I guess you may not catch it on the screen but a DVD rental is surely due. After seeing these movies, I wonder why we, with an equally strong mythology and folklore, don’t venture anywhere near what the Chinese have been doing.
By,
Guthikonda Vamshidhar
(http://guthikonda@blogspot.com)
HOFD has a gossamer storyline. It is the time of anarchy during the Tang dynasty, late ninth century. Various rebel groups are fighting the government and HOFD is one of the leading bunch of anarchists. A policeman, Jin, is sent to a brothel called Peony Pavilion in disguise to check out intelligence that a rebel is hiding there. There he runs into Mei, a blind courtesan, who is arrested after a dazzling dance sequence (the Echo Dance) on the presumption that she is the daughter of a leader of HOFD who was killed by the police. She is later helped to escape by Jin himself, who is acting as a mole to follow Mei to the HOFD. Jin and Mei are chased by soldiers and they fall in love after some elaborately staged fight (or dance) sequences across jungles, meadows, mountains and bamboo forests. Or are they just acting to be in love to meet their own motives. Some more surprises are in store and there is nicely spun tale of morality, love (there is even a love triangle) ending in a climax which is tragic and elemental. HOFD is a love story and please do not go expecting an action movie; the movie is not actually short of action sequences and indeed uses these to propel the love story forward.
Words like operatic and symphonic abound reviews of HOFD. For me personally, whose understanding of either operas or symphonies is next to zero, HOFD is a simply wonderful return to film making in its most pristine and unspoiled form. Films like “Crouching Tiger..”, “Hero” and now “HOFD” show the world and especially Hollywood a way of filmmaking which seem to have been forgotten. That cinema is primarily a visual (and aural) art form, in colour and texture. HOFD re-emphasises this in greater grandeur than ever before. The costumes are lavish and the art direction intricate (witness the floor design and the wall work in the Echo Dance. The action sequences are breathtaking and as (or more) wonderfully choreographed than the ones in Crouching Tiger or Hero (which to me was more mechanical than fluid). You are just dazzled by the way special effects have been integrated into the action.
Some of the sequences are truly memorable scene-of-the-decade ventures. ¬The Echo Dance in the beginning where Mei has to dance to the pat of a bean/ seed on a drum and the Bamboo Fight with its astonishing colours, sounds and movements are both sequences of unadulterated visceral glory. You want to tip your hat to the directors ability to imagine, leave aside execute, these scenes. Even some of the sensitive scenes are shot very well, like the scene were Jin gallops on a horse around a meadow sweeping flowers to give to the blind Mei and the panning shots of Mei and Jun in the meadows after a frantic love-making session. One can just go on.
The music and cinematography are the high points of the movie. Unlike the earlier named Chinese movies which had music by the brilliant Tan Dun, this has music by Shigeru Umebayashi who managed to reach the immense heights scaled by Tan Dun in both “Crouching” and “Hero”. Zhang Yimou, one of the greatest Chinese directors, has been called a “visual sensualist” by some. Movies of Zhang Yimou (himself a photographer) have always had brilliant composition and shot-taking. Colour for him is like dialogue to a Woody Allen movie. Here it is not as in-your-face as the colour- coded “Hero”, but simpler and still elegant and recalls all the visual splendour of Zhang’s earlier movies.
More interestingly, the career of director Zhang Yimou seem to echo the stage and growth of the Chinese economy. In his earlier classics like Red Sorghum, Raise the Red Lantern and Ju Dou made around the time of the student rebellion, he ran afoul of the government. However, the growing integration of Chine into the world economy seems to have made him return to more simple story-telling in movies like Hero and HOFD, though not in any way diluting his auteur status. I wonder what sociological conclusions to make from this, it is either mute indifference or an acceptance of the economic boom in China.
HOFD is “rich” in the way Hollywood movies were in the 50s when they were trying to battle television. The movie is a true feast to the senses, a riot of colour and music. I guess you may not catch it on the screen but a DVD rental is surely due. After seeing these movies, I wonder why we, with an equally strong mythology and folklore, don’t venture anywhere near what the Chinese have been doing.
By,
Guthikonda Vamshidhar
(http://guthikonda@blogspot.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)