"Flirting with Disaster" (1996) - Movie Review

Knowing a neurotic freaky person is different from seeing one. Seeing several of those is different from seeing one. The modern day life style for perfection, overflowing information and more than needed psychoanalysis has given birth to the true breed of dysfunctional family. In olden days, there was an order in this set problems of family but now the balance has been achieved and the chaos has henceforth in full fledged process. “Flirting with Disaster” witnesses many of those people we begin to care but crowds it up and we not really care about them anymore.

Mel Koplin (Ben Stiller), a new father aspiring to counteract this role in finding his biological parents. Do you know that feeling inside you which urges all the crazy cells in your body to go for something when you damn well know that the end result might not be what you are hoping for? Mel has taken a solid potion of it when the movie begins. His wife Nancy is played by Patricia Arquette, yes that blonde seductive and dangerous beauty plays her like a typical fresh mother. Not because of her edgy attitude but because of the way she lets her body flow unaware or not caring to be precise. Saying this might be the easiest judgment and conclusion I would have had but letting your body to go through such naked and explicit makes a woman free herself of the surroundings looking at her, at least for a while. And Arquette along with director David O. Russell makes that a point in their Nancy.

Mel has every one and everything going against him. The new baby without a name, his adopted parents Ed (George Segal) and Pearl (Mary Tyler Moore) going expectedly bonkers on him for his expedition and the tense and vulnerable adoption agency worker Tina (Tea Leoni) drive him through the air, road and inside of his brain. Mel is no clear minded himself. His need to find his roots after these years is a substitute for his fresh and blossoming problem of parenting. Nancy is supportive though is being slowly pushed to the boundaries of being annoyed and used.

“Flirting with Disaster” knows these people on the sledge and brings them one at a time. Seeing them do their things brings smiles out of the misery Mel is been put through. Mel and Nancy fly with Tina to San Diego to the mother (Celia Weston). They meet her and she is a nice enough woman embracing her son she gave away. They begin to share the commonality and the obligations to reflect the hereditary practices gets flowing. Soon it is realized that the woman is not really his mother and the computer did a mistake. Those damn machines of 90s. They always do that. Surviving the greatest awkward moment, they begin to travel towards Michigan to the supposed dad. You know where it is going from there on. May be but the idea is barge in these characters from varied places and put them to the mix in the pathetic situation of Mel and Nancy, and yes Tina too.

Everything goes fun and frolic and absorbing some sumptuous pleasure in these people’s pain. And David O. Russell wants more. He gets all the interesting characters we met in the first hour of the film and takes them to one spot where Mel’s actual and confirmed real parents are, (Alan Alda and Lily Tomlin). A bad choice indeed and they champion that mistake till the credits. A film which smells so much abundance of independent movie making inviting good stars in this flick loses all its ticklish but real sense of comedy and pain with thorough rinse of out of the roof chaos.

There is Richard Jenkins, Josh Brolin, Alan Alda and other talented names bringing riveting craziness to their American characters. Richard Jenkins and Josh Brolin on his early play this two cops that seemingly become increasingly a parallel to the married Nancy and Mel. Do not you just hate it when a film lets you down raising itself high and high and then finally not particularly shatter into pieces but simply fizzling it in the aim of achieving beyond borders of limitations? Well if you do not know, you will probably find it in “Flirting with Disaster”.

"Hunger" (2008) - Movie Classic

You do not need to take a stand, side with the IRA or hate it or be neutral. You do not need to be sympathetic or hateful towards the cause. You do not have to know much of Bobby Sands played with a brutality and dangerous grit by Michael Fassbender. You do not have to like what he does, the perils he puts through and others in the name of the belief he bores. You do not have to look for meaning, poetry or sight for redemption in Steve McQueen’s “Hunger”. You just have to watch it because a movie like this comes once in a long time and it damn well deserves the attention regardless of what you think of anything.

It follows the final days of Bobby Sands in his 1981 hunger strike in Maze prison. Before deciding to go for the hunger strike, he and his fellow prisoners were on “no wash” strike. A new prisoner enters as room mate to Bobby Sands whose walls are pasted with feces and the man himself is covered in hair. In the long narrow corridors carrying these prison rooms becomes an arena for flooding urine from their cells, getting beaten by the prison officers and get smashed over the brick walls in the process. These are few of the violence. The real violence comes in the form self consuming putting them into the worst test of their body and mind.

Dialogues are sparse except a spellbinding 17 minute single shot scene between Bobby Sands and his priest (Liam Cunningham) which is the only time we hear his philosophies, explanation, determination, stubborn and the little left comedy in his destructing body. The length is there to not perturb the moment. The serenity of that scene has to be intact through the clouds of cigarette smokes. As though McQueen and the actors were containing a cracking glass of water, they hold it closely and tightly. It is not to show they can do it but to maintain the stillness and the aggressiveness in the conversation. It is the pivotal scene to put its viewers through the course of this man’s extreme belief for the rest of the film.

There needs a mind shuddering incident for people to act together. Emotional upheaval from mass of people comes forth of witnessing utter brutality. Sands chooses to do it to himself and feels so right about his decision to keep his course till his brain has shrunken enough to hallucinate and pass out of pain. The film is carefully constructed wherein the only talk between the prisoners and the officers are the slamming of those police sticks on their naked body. It is a one way talk from the officers by the way.

It is an obvious question to search for the reason to go in the details of this torture the protagonist put himself through. The reason is clear for the individual but not for the audience. We are not here to judge his decision or the sanity of it but to see there is something beyond the tale. There is a migration of those terrible violence and self destruction coming outside of the screen. It reaches out inside us to not alone disgust on this raw nature of pain but to realize that there is a pain which cannot be comprehended. The characters are not alone pitiful which they do not expect but there is something in the air along with their protest on contaminating it with their feces.

“Hunger” is not a pleasant film if you have not figured it by now. It has immense violence, very affecting in nature but it is also a film defining the extremities of human vigour in carrying out something. It is given like an impossible mountain climbing and the hardship to attain the peak. In most of these stunts for achievement, the trick is to come back alive while Bobby Sands knows where this road is going and that is indeed his peak. He has the set mind of a suicide bomber and the difference is that he is taking himself alone. Though he persuades his fellow prisoners to do the hunger strike along with him spanning it in gaps to counter for the death in the process. 9 more members died after him.

The scenes are extended from your normal attention span the Hollywood has dumbed down to. In the corridor after the urination protest, a guard cleans the floor. He splashes the detergent/disinfectant liquid throughout the corridor. Then he goes and begins cleaning it pushing it with the scrubbing floor brush. We see him do the entire floor and that particular part appeals to you on unexplainable levels. Is it a metaphor? Is it symbolism? It is nothing but a man cleaning the excreted human waste, yet there is more humanism and inhumanity in it. You will know what I mean when you see it.

“Hunger” is beyond the visual emotional drama and is Fassbender’s dangerous dedication to his character. In the final scenes of the known demise of his character, his body is nothing but degraded bones, his skins are nothing but sores and his mind is nothing but unfathomable determination. I cannot admire the hunger strike nor degrade it to the stupidity. It birthed igniting other people to enlist in the cause which again resulted in more violence. But this is not about the right and wrong of a belief. It is about a man caught up in it and ready to go all in slowly, surely, sacredly and stupidly in his own way. This is more than a visual dark poetry. This is the extremity of a human body and the limitlessness of the mind over it.

"Forgiven" (2006) - Movie Review

The indie film “Forgiven” is a good project film for writer/director/actor Paul Fitzegerald and it is a compliment. He has a tough story to say and have some brilliant unknown actors at his service. Every one delivers and the movie is a good film but does not entirely provides the effect of drama it began to venture. It is a sad story and a conflicting one too. In this considerably short feature film, it has a mood, ambience and people to be dissected but there is a layer which is missing. The layer of complete emotional closure. It does not play like a short story or a film which depends on the mood which throws it into the category of good try but no cigar.

District Attorney Peter Miles (Paul Fitzegerald) is the all American man in the town of Stuartsville. Sharp, clean, articulate and a natural charisma poses him as the ideal candidate for US Senate position. With wife Kate (Susan Floyd) and son Jake (Cooper Agar), job to do and a bible study to attend, he has everything going fine in his life. For death row inmate Ronald Bradler (Russell Hornsby) the man Peter convicted several years ago, it does not look good. His Attorney Jamie (Kate Jennings Grant) has given up hopes along with him and they are ready to put him to sleep. In the final moments, the call comes from the Governor to pardon him. He is free and Peter gets questions from every one. He is convinced Ronald is guilty while Ronald appears like a man in the wrong time and place.

There is no detailed mention of the crime other than a murder of a cop. Ronald has been inside the walls for several years to pound himself on the unfortunate events of his life. He is out and he has tough time adjusting to the unfairness of the system. He has been exonerated and yet he gets treated like a convict. His previous employer promised a job which he backed off. He is angry at the system and mainly the man who put him through this. Peter apart from dodging questions is questioning himself on the race card being used on his appeal for death penalty on three of his cases. All these runs fine and impressive in dealing it with a care than a melodrama.

Ronald’s pain is real and we along with others are startled on his disregard for the second chance he got. The reality is that we see him as a convict too. There is no necessity to explain his innocence but there is a space between his exoneration and his mistake of an act which goes vague and substantial enough. Having said that, the actor playing Ronald is nothing short of brilliant. Russell Hornsby gets the note so perfect with this man struggling inside and questioning the conscience and the system he is in. Even when the film does not do a terrific job of him doing the unthinkable in the end, he makes it believe it. He gives Ronald as this seriously disturbed man by the turn of events he did not start.

“Forgiven” touches on various topics to ponder. Death penalty, justice system and the existence of right and wrong. As the film spins out slowly to the tragedy we are now sure of, there is a new revelation which makes it even stronger on a definite loss. In the midst of the people choosing their decisions and acting on emotions, the people surrounding them are the absolute victim and in the case of Ronald and Peter it becomes their family in a very direct manner. Both men are tilted by a moment’s choice and live with it.

I did like “Forgiven” for the most part because it is a well done film and a film handling itself with the maturity and professionalism where most of the budding indie film misses. It was breath of fresh air to see this area of film industry taking things a little more public and large than simple family drama. It puts the topics on the table for the public debate and forks through the controversy in our daily life. Paul Fitzegerald is definitely an able film maker and an actor. Out here he is good but he can be really good which will be what I will be expecting in his next film.

"Splice" (2010) - Movie Review

Creating a new life form lets the screenwriter loose on a wide ground not only to vividly stretch their imagination but to take bad advantage of that boundary to do anything they want without reason for explanation. Director Vincenzo Natali is not a science fiction film maker alone but also carries certain cleverness which I noticed in film “Cube”. “Splice” is not a conventional shock show. It does have some of those but it has a dense plot in hands and seriously raises some questions beyond ourselves as the answers gets murky and muddled, Natali dumps the film into traditional demise. Such a shame.

Geeky couple Clyde (Adrien Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley) have opened the crazy doors into merging DNAs and creating new species. Why they create a new species? To churn out products for their funding corporate Newstead Pharma to have their glory medicinal miracle. Clyde and Elsa work themselves to death and they are good at it. They manage to create disgusting fleshy and blobby creatures Fred and Ginger. They are not the medical magic gone wrong story we are going to witness. When Clyde and Elsa propose the idea to merge human DNA into their newly formed species to unravel the medical utopia of a future, the boss woman (Simona Maicanescu) shuts the “splicing” project down demanding results. No more pet creation. Real product is the demand and the deadline will be sooner than they can think.

Elsa has a history, a family history, a crazy family history which we are not exposed to but enough to know to be scared. She keeps pushing the experiment, little by little and just has to nudge her companion Clyde to keep going. They work hard through days in seclusion from the team to combine a female DNA into the Fred/Ginger creature DNA. The resultant of these are unclear or not explained but where Vincenzo wants to take us is clear. The ethical, moral and the unexplainable values and stands we have to take in this story. It cannot be more unclear yet fascinating.

In “Mythbusters” TV series, I remember one of Adam Savage’s line “I reject reality and substitute my own” to explain his often playful ventures he does in the show. It applies to the disturbingly messed up Elsa. She knows the limits for this experiment and keeps on going convincing herself and Clyde on the way. First she asks for succeeding in the integration and storing of the DNA cells. Then when it is done, she wants to get it injected into Ovum to see whether they “actually” succeeded. When the growth is unusually fast, she is fine giving delivery and when the part human part something else comes out, she nurtures it like a mother. In all these events Clyde stands there letting it happen with very little protest.

“Splice” has to be credited for its intelligence in taking up this field to debate on the defined norms, philosophies, values and ethics. When people are commitment phobic and dare to even take the plunge in owning a pet, creating something which begins to develop emotions, interaction and affection takes it out of the science project. For Elsa it gets out of the science when the creature begins to respond to her coaxing motherly skills. Soon she names her Dren (Delphine Chanéac) and they begin to form a relationship which becomes creepy, scary and an end no one is going to like.

The party of interest in this film is Dren. She cannot speak even though she has a tongue. Her physique is different but sexy. She has an odd charm and springs the wacky nature of being a female. The changes she goes through in her body confuses her and she reacts to it. She gets a parenting with a hybrid (no pun intended) of a pet and a spoiled kid. Elsa dangerously gets close to this which in every step of it screams danger. Yet she takes it and the only member who can see it is Clyde and he stares and stands helpless succumbing to the overhauling success of decision making from Elsa.

The film then takes a dive into unknown territories which even it cannot understand. And that is a compliment. This is a realm which we cannot comprehend. The capability and the capacity of the power we could handle in putting out something totally non-existent in the nature is far more beyond than exposing the philosophical righteousness. This becomes about the responsibility in doing something of that caliber. Much like handling a super power energy source, this shakes the balance of today’s existing ecosystem. But maybe the new form will form an ecosystem of its own, though we humans will not be a part of it. That is the scary part the film stresses subtly.

“Splice” is unexpected in unraveling its story which is the best part about it. The scientists that are unimaginably intelligent, diligent and precise in their work are not the sharp tools when it comes to decisions. Elsa as an individual is a submissive psychotic woman while Clyde is simply a man. Elsa needs an emotional screwing while Clyde literally needs one. All works out in the worst way possible. Unfortunately for a film which makes the corporate talk about next phase, it does not take it to the next phase in being mature. It becomes the horror film where the creature attacks for no reason and soon it needs to be killed for the film to be ended.

"Quiz Show" (1994) - Movie Review

Robert Redford’s “Quiz Show” is not alone the commentary on early day celebrity status attaining its eventual snow ball in the 1950s but it is that and many other things. Few of them being the admirations, adulations, erudition, betrayal, trust and ridiculous amount of money an average person could lay their hands on. This is the kind of film which understands the need to dig deeper than to religiously and uninterestingly follow the uncovering of a rigged game show. It goes to the human sociology and the psychology developed from this game show on early TV days.

Twenty-one was the game’s name. A quiz show which had the contestants battle in their intellectual ability playing week after week to keep on going for money, fame and the thrill. Based on true events, the film begins with Herb Stempel (John Turturo) being on a roll with his ability to topple his opponents and keep America noticing him. He epitomes the hope of an average citizen and that of the network by keeping his ratings up. The ratings though is slowly coming down and that means he needs to be booted out. The program’s sponsor Geritol Tonic thinks so and so does the chief broadcasting officer of the then NBC. They ask Herb to bow down and leave. More than that he is asked to flunk one of the easiest question for that time which is to name the film which won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1955. It is one of Herb’s favourite film, “Marty”. It travels beyond flunking and into humiliation and embarrassment.

This is a display of likable and charming intellectuals than the regular slobs. The days for average Joe has declined with the not so great looking Herb. The able contestant and the charmer would be Charles Von Doren (Ralph Fiennes), son of literary Professor Mark Von Doren (Paul Scofield) and the nephew of Pulitzer Prize winning biographer Carl Von Doren. He has the right background, the blonde hair, sharp physique and a smile that could bring down the audience. He has seen this show and comes there to audition for another quizzing show. Al Freedman (Hank Azaria) spots him and reports to the producer of Twenty-one, Dan Enright (David Paymer) who can see this stunning fellow oomph the show. Stempel would hit the ground to this man and then comes the real catch, the answers are provided for further games to develop a fan base for Charles. This is celebrity at works.

Charles initially hesitates on this foul play though at the wake of this new medium, there is a line of ethics that has not been clearly drawn. Movie media is fiction at works to woo its audience. It is formulated, developed and produced gaging the interest the people longed for. The entertainment is a clear business of giving what the people want in one form or another. How different is television? Television fiction drama is one thing but how does it play for game shows where real people entered to win something beyond their regular paycheck? The people were naive but roared for popular faces. Charles is asked a familiar question which startles him though he wins. Suddenly he is on the heights of jubilation, something other than the money has grabbed him which is the fame.

Charles becomes the face that America loves and soon he has no problem getting questions and answers well before the show. Though a thoroughly well educated man, as any son idolizing their father, he wants his approval, attention and celebration of him from his father. Charles father Mark is presented by Paul Scofield with an elegance and a suavity which gives snobs a high respect. Mark is right to the point and his humour is classy harmless sarcasm. He has expectation on his son to be a family man as academically he is happy with him. He does not care about the new status his son has achieved. Charles yearns for that to be noted more than his academics.

In this mix comes Dick Goodwin (Rob Morrow), a young and aspiring Harvard Law School graduate in to US Congress of Legislatives to probe on this quiz show. He finds Charles particularly charismatic than others might see him. They have a mutual respect for the intellectual ability they both share. Dick in a way adores this man but knows that he is not seeing everything. He begins his investigation and eventually runs into the disgruntled, humiliated and complaining Herb whom John Turturo depicts as an undeserving champion. This leads to finally unraveling the scheme.

Redford brings everything together and even gets Martin Scorsese as the tycoon of the Pharmaceuticals company Geritol to give short but powerful performance. He deals with more than the subject of celebrity. It goes to tell how the idea of corporation was well deep rooted to throw its simple naive principles under the bus and comes out more than clean and how it keeps repeating till date. Their appearance might be slimy but they rule the floor where every one stands. This is a drama constructing on its characters and finally releasing the ethical and moral fraudulent behaviour these contestants let them do to themselves and the millions others. The corporate runners know the evil as what its for and hence know the way to deal with it to themselves and in when they are in jeopardy. It is the everyday people facing the choice who assumes to be confused. They have already made the choice to go for the gain. When the lights are on and when there is more than money and approval at stake, the wake is imminent with terrible consequences. “Quiz Show” is an exercise on that bringing some splendid story telling and performances.

"Babies" (2010) - Movie Review

Think about this, four babies from four different nation and director Thomas Balmes with his crew will capture the myriads of cute actions, steps, smiles, cries, anger and discoveries from these little precious human beings. This has got to be the best possible idea to come up with for a film, isn’t it? Much to the surprise of mine, “Babies” having several of those cuteness fizzles out like an amateur running a marathon. Beautiful and artful it is but there should be something more than that.

This 79 minutes long documentary does what I mentioned and focusses on these small creatures with their siblings, parents, animals and their surroundings. There is a contrast drawn upon the way each of these parents nourishing and parenting their flesh and blood. The much more far and impressive of these four will be seeing Ponijao grow up in Opuwo, Namibia. Born in the tribes, the infant is brought up not without care but more towards the basic harshness of the nature. That means crawling on the stoned surface and flies circulating him constantly. We are worried, sometimes shocked but the point of the matter is that somehow most part of it are how our ancestors without the birth of these luxuries and technology would have brought their kids. True that it exposes dangers bringing the mortality closer but seeing Ponijao and several others survive it informs about our basic natural instincts.

Seeing Ponijao been brought up in those tough environment, the next better environment would be for Bayar from Bayanchandmani, Mongolia. With scenic surroundings and cattle wandering around naturally mowing the grass, Bayar has some interesting qualms with his sibling. This will be followed by Mari in Tokyo, Japan and Hattie in San Francisco, USA. The names of the parents, siblings or any history of their education, work and lifestyle are not discussed. There are no interviews, dialogues or any text mentioning some information about the reason they chose these four or the objective of these close follow up. It is the objective of the film and it sufficiently keeps our interest levels on the curiosity of babies learning and understanding little things.

Later things goes where I got into the territory of being restless. I wanted to see more than babies doing cutesy stuff. It is not a necessity to have dialogues. We see the encounters of babies with the animals simultaneously and see their reactions. The animals are unaffected and withstand the naive tortures these infants impose. There is a commonality of the rivalry developing with their siblings. It ends there.

Regardless of the qualms I have, “Babies” does have some breathtaking shots of the nature and the nature of bringing up the babies in different parts of the globe. The film boldly takes the close up shots of feeding and the innocence at its work. The innocence, unawareness and seeing these miniature beings of our once long and forgotten memory is exciting. What is the thought that goes in their mind when they laugh at nothing? How emotions translate and how it is unbelievable to see their grasping ability. These are all the questions and amazement any one would have seeing any kid. They are the same seeing them in better photography and good music to accompany them.

“Babies” is the film where you cannot refuse your love. It is true because this is ultimate purity of human beings in action. There is something so clean, clinical and colourful about this process of growing up and in this film it is out there without a doubt. There is a time limit for everything, even the best of things and here they push their luck. Even with the very short 79 minutes, “Babies” begin to appear going on and on. We smile and chuckle at these adorable kids but soon enough we want to know them more and their surroundings even more.

"The Contender" (2000) - Movie Review

Nothing has been so captivating and engrossing I have seen in the political thriller genre as I did in “The Contender”. It plays like a David Mamet film but it has a life of its own. Its characters speak out plain and upfront unlike in Mamet but has the edgy nature of the great writer’s works. It has performances that can rightly be called sharp even though it is a cheesy word for a reviewer. It stands firm on principles as “Nothing But the Truth” did couple of years back and I learned as I am writing this line that Rod Lurie is the writer/director for that masterpiece too. This comes so close and so millimeter far away from the great stance of classics but for personal reasons becomes a great film and not so great enough to call it the classic. Clear as mud isn’t it?

A heroic Governor (William Petersen) is the bright light of hope to fill the vacancy left so by the sudden death of a Vice President serving President Jackson Evans (Jeff Bridges). But the President chooses Senator Laine Hanson (Joan Allen) and this does not sit well with the Member of Congress Shelly Runyon. That is Gary Oldman playing the balding curly haired unlikable congressman. The confirmation hearing becomes the battle ground for slaying Hanson because Runyon ran a digging expedition on Laine’s life. This reveals a graphic photographs of her having an orgy when she was nineteen as a part of a sorority initiation.

On the front it appears like this high tensioned hearing drama which it does have but not the back and forth argument in a court room drama. The drama is outside this hearing, inside the White House and the office rooms in Washington D.C. Joan Allen’s Laine holds her ground stating that she will not comment or talk about it to the press, to the world of men surrounding her including the President. This film thrills in the strategies the people move and talk. The idea of power and its greatest nature put in effect. Threats flying like a juicy cocktail and the pleasure on having that ability to do so. This is arrogance glorified because the characters are playing survival technics in politics. They cannot literally eat other but can tear apart with words and sneaky innuendoes. This is politics at its best.

Shelly Runyon does not want to elect her because in his opinion she is not qualified. He milks information from one of the President’s compadre that the second man for the job was Jack Hathaway, the Governor who jumped without hesitation towards a car splashing into the lake he was fishing. He begins his works and assembles the men. One of them is an aspirant and energetic young man Representative Webster (Christian Slater). He is driven, ideal and learning the dirty game under the experienced. Everyone is very well convinced of the nation’s best interest and the greater good of their philosophies being put to use. When one wants something that is against their ideals, and values they have to convince themselves of the righteousness in doing it. When you are in the business of politics as Runyon, you do a damn good job of convincing yourself. To convince others, it is a cake walk and to a budding politician, do not even talk about it!

Gary Oldman cannot be more spiteful and hateful. He cannot be more ruthless in generating such an unforgiving resentment from his audience to the character he plays. His Runyon is the perfect zest for the certainty he believes in. Joan Allen as his direct target provides one of the calm and focussed performance in her Senator Laine Hanson. Being the Governor’s daughter and fighting against that shadow and then following it with the fact of being the woman in the men’s world, she is a strong politician. She comes through as a great mother, wonderful political daughter and a gracious wife.

If there can be a film President who can embrace the celebrity status of the position and make the person look righteous at the same time, that can be Jeff Bridges. Here he is so in control of this President, not slipping away into dilemmas or long pauses. He knows what he is doing and he charms his people with that status. He constantly changes the menu for his food schedule giving orders at the last minute and makes himself an ordinary person in enjoying these simple pleasures of being in power. Sam Elliott as his right hand man Kermit is equally enigmatic, loyal and threatening by his side.

“The Contender” cannot stop itself from being this most astounding thriller in word games and battle. Yet when the show is about to over, there comes the speech from the President. I thought the film deserves an applause ending and hence it goes with the nature of the field its playing. It went on and then on a little and that marginal “on” with the final smiles and claps snapped the forgiveness I developed for that finale. It does not mean it is a bad scene but for me even though the falter is insignificant to an otherwise great film, it stood miles away from the film I was watching. I was in a miniscule disbelief. But this is terrific film making and on the principle advocacy of its commentary on this historically marred man’s world, “The Contender” is the right path to the roads of equality and standard.

"Get Him to the Greek" (2010) - Movie Review

You would think that Judd Apatow and his fraternity after creating this comedy genre/routine would burn out in this male bonding streak. You are wrong. Comes from the director of “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”, Nicholas Stoller takes Aldous Snow from his film to “Get Him to the Greek”, another raunchy comedy flick the Apatow production has managed to come up successfully. It dips down to the bottom of traditional butt jokes and drug trips but comes out as film from this production house containing sweet moments and nice smile to end it with a heart.

Aldous Snow (Russell Brand) an English rock star has hit the rock bottom after his abysmal last album “African Child” claimed as the worst thing happen to Africa since Apartheid. Yes it is that bad. Hell broke lose after that and to top it off, his long time girl friend and collaborator Jackie Q (Rose Byrne) breaks up and takes away his child. In America is our chubby friend Aaron Green (Jonah Hill) living with his nurse girl friend Daphne (Elisabeth Moss). Their relationship appears to be day and night, I mean in the literal sense of the words. Aaron works as an executive in a record production company, a day job while Daphne is on night shifts.

Aaron’s boss Sergio (Sean Combs) is on the lookout for breakthrough ideas to revamp the music revenue. Our man suggest an idea to put up a ten year anniversary show of the declining rock star which flies good and bam! He is on plane to meet the on the edge rock star. Russell Brand’s snaky maneuver of his attire and behaviour on its own causes a strange nature of unsettling comedy. Still we can see how he can be magnetic to his fans. He is an alcoholic, drug addict, sex monger and forms every letter on the word decadence. This is a man off the ledge and floating in air to let the gravity do its job. Aaron is there to get him to the LA concert theatre before he falls off completely. Their journey becomes the running joke.

Stoller uses all the possible scenario the comedies made their mark on. I could not identify anything new in the set up but the characters are unique, likable and in the genuine lookout for love and care. Aaron left US after a terrible fight with Daphne and he thinks they are officially on the break. A bad catalyst like Snow is only there to ignite him to drunken debauchery. Aaron consistently tries to get the man to the flight and Snow goes through as if there is no urgency. He is carefree and lives in his world of sad, despair and alone numbness.

Reading the previous paragraph, you might mistake it to be an overly dark story of the rock star but it is true comedy in works. One’s desperate sadness becomes another’s comedy. Here Snow’s struggle with himself comes out as never ending party orgy and Aaron happens to be the driver for this madness. Result is a raunchy, sex filled, deservingly R-rated fun coming through as comforting heart warming ending to not become disgustingly cheesy. It places and plays itself honestly to categorize into the string of success this crew did in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”.

Aaron is psyched to meet his rock idol and Snow does not bully him or treat him with disrespect. He simply self destructs and Aaron has to pretend to love the worst album of his god to be the great. Their first mission is to land for the “Today’s Show” and perform a song. Snow wants to perform “African Child” while Aaron suggest one of his old classics. At the moment to perform, Snow reveals he has completely forgotten the lyrics for “African Child” and Aaron runs to find someone who might know the lyrics. See Snow has to choose “Clap” out of desperation rather than putting down his ego. In that scene, Aaron could have looked it up in his Internet phone but he runs on the streets and building to look for it. Even in that made up scene and a blatant mistake, Stoller makes it work through Russell Brand. And I was surprised by the way the songs worked with its horrible lyrics. I would not lie that I will be buying couple of songs from this film.

Talking about Russell Brand and Jonah Hill, they carry their character with respect and strange admiration. When Brand’s Snow asks the honest opinion of Hill’s Aaron on “African Child”, Hill lays it out. The reaction from Snow would be simple to go ballistic therein showing his stereotype persona of a celebrity. Instead Snow replies with the combination of anger and respect. It not alone brightens the day in a scene where formula comedy was written and highlights the nature of its characters. The same characters engage in a total chaotic unpredictable sex experiment in the end which only throws its audience out of their guessing game. You cannot figure out the reasoning for it and neither does its characters which becomes compromising in a good way. “Get Him to the Greek” gets it there, loud, funny and a little bit of sweetness in the end.

"Girl on the Bridge" (Language - French) (1999) - Movie Review

Patrice Leconte’s “Girl on the Bridge” is not plot work. It is a story of two people meant to be together for their fortunes to turn good for once in their life. They are an unusual pair but it is no choice for them other than to be together. The faith over fate and luck is the driving force behind this film. It drives its audience to hope for the faith to come true in the end which it eventually does much to no one’s surprise. But it is the journey not the destination that gives a cinematic experience of Leconte’s presentation.

Adele (Vanessa Paradis) sadly tells her story to a group of people we are not shown. Not sure where and to whom she is confiding but her life story is the naivety and stupidity in full throttle. She left home for the first boy she could lay her eyes on and from there it has been jumping stones over the stream. What she has not realized is the chilly touch of the beautiful stream is the pleasure she is missing out. She says she has not lost anything as she has not had anything or anyone. To end this frustration which is neither extreme sadness nor a decisive depression, she stands on the ledge on a bridge busy enough to get a man (Daniel Auteuil) to converse. She survives and he recruits her. What is the job? We do not get to know for a while or we do not take the man seriously when he requests Adele to join him for his knife throwing business.

He is man who knows more than Adele knows herself. He can sense her in his sleep and far away. This is done with the literal instances of telepathy between him and her but it is more about the nature and law of attraction that exist. He knows it but treats it clinically while she does not understand it well enough. He saves her from further obvious tragedy of falling for men with warm smiles and cold hands. She cannot resists as it has become her addiction to follow the tragedy. Adele represents Leconte’s perspective towards the nature of women and many men will stand by him for that.

This is a movie about the wittiness of the script and the charm of the knife thrower Gabor and the infectious cuteness of Adele. Adele when we are introduced and before meeting Gabor has short hair with boredom in her eyes. Gabor takes her under his wings and begins to do a makeover. At the end of it, she blossoms of infinite aura tracking her wherever she goes and Vanessa Paradis is such a beauty that her character glows like sun in the twilight. Gabor is done with the maturity and command of Daniel Auteuil. He plays him with a man without expectation. He has given up on it and knowing Adele as he does with an impulse, she can walk out anytime and anywhere as many men did in her life.

The movie is completely shot in Black and White with immaculate cinematography by Jean-Marie Dreujou. It is an essay with flagrant description of its stage players and the props they use. Leconte did “Man on the Train” after this, one of my beloved films. I saw “Intimate Strangers” following that, another unpredictable work from the director. All these films have characters knowing their counterpart more than one would assume. As they go on, the bond only becomes stronger and trustful. Sometimes they would like to swap their life and sometimes they would like to simply listen and other times, they want to gaze the stars and rant about their lives. They can mesmerize you with it. All these films carry a poetry in pristine form of presentation and yet it appears to resemble an old nostalgic dusty photograph we all forgot long time ago.

Leconte makes a sexy film with throwing knives at the cutest girl. Gabor gets his skill to high perfection with challenges expanding with one performance after another. His newfound girl draws the same kind of unexplainable joy and terror as he does throwing knives at her. Both begin to suck that juice and go on from one country to another while testing their fortune at Casinos. They become the success they gave up hope upon. Still they are not completely happy with themselves. When they lose each other, even in their sorrow, they are charmingly sympathetic.

“Girl on the Bridge” will be those films drawing the most cheesiest form of romantic comedy, the great presence of chance, coincidence, luck and yet uses it with an apt sense of aestheticism. With its two magnetic lead actors, they provide a love story with comedy, magic and elegance. By the end of the film, despite your belief on fate and luck, you cannot resist the restlessness of these two people being apart.

"Protagonist" (Documentary) (2007) - Movie Review

Unconditional love for films comes when there is an impeccable evidence that it has spoken to you clearly and personally. Jessica Yu’s documentary “Protagonist” not only does that but humbles beyond you can accept. This is one of the best documentary I have seen and this is a film you deserve to watch for the sake of yourself. This is unbelievable film making with a study of humans through four characters and running parallel to the Euripidean dramatic structures. If you are wondering what it is, then do not worry because I had no clue about it either when I was watching the film. The only thing you need to know is to be open to the puppet show they put in which holds hands with the interviews and brings in a philosophical poetry to this film.

Jessica Yu chooses four men. Hans-Joachim Klein, Mark Salzman, Joe Loya and Mark Pierpont. Four men will tell their life stories and four men will put it in with great honesty, humility and audacity. These stories are moving, enlightening, comedic, inspiring and will reflect our own metamorphosis. Each of them have a rough past and the stages are given in the dramatic structures which brings smiles, goose pumps and sheer joy of getting everything right in this spectacular movie.

Hans-Joamchim Klein grew up seeing his Nazi father’s hate and a mother sent to a concentration camp as she was a Jew only to commit suicide. He has seen the horrific nature humanity can be on blindly abiding and idolizing the atrocious events on beliefs. He rebels and becomes a flag bearer for the movement of speaking up. He takes it up too far and before the time of realization, too much has happened and he can live only in regret and slow redemption. This is his story.

There is Mark Salzman growing up as physically small and fragile kid. Picked on by bullies, he needs a form of hope and self confidence. He finds it in martial art, the feel to be super human and be able to have that magical presence and respect. He forms a religion of his own through this and thrives to be the Zen he read about. He joins a martial arts school where the master is close to a mad man but is the one he aspires to be. He thoroughly enjoys it as he befriends the biggest bully in this process. But there is a corner to be turned and when he does that, everything changes. This is his story. I learned that Mark is the spouse of Jessica Yu which makes it an even bolder approach to her film and reflects on the great risk Mark took.

Joe Loya had a perfect life of joy till the age of seven. His mother died due to cancer after which his father loses his control. He becomes abusive towards his kids and Loya could not help himself or his kid brother. Growing up believing in the Christian lifestyle, these change him into a violent raging youth. Soon the lid is off and he becomes full fledged bank robber getting off on the high through rage. That becomes his life and his way of control. This is his story.

Mark Pierpont grew up as the odd man in his family. Being extremely sensitive, his friends and family saw him as this weird kid not belonging anywhere. His only relation became God and for that he sacrifices his identity. Or to be precise, erases and castrates his identity of being gay. Every thought about male attraction became his greatest failure and the only way to deal with it is to become the minister propagating Jesus, love and no to homosexuality. Soon he is the face for successful conversion from gay to being straight. Yet there is only so much one can hide from themselves This is his story.

These four men will navigate us through their troubles through their story. Their waking moments and the blindness, their love and the idea of love, their certainty and their loss of control are layered with a confident precision. While their life has traumatic experiences which many of us are fortunate to not go through, their lessons in identifying themselves cannot be more identical than ours. We are them and that is where we gel into their stories and become protagonist ourselves.

“Protagonist” uses the Greek play into these men’s interviews. That becomes a commentary of these stories. The beautiful structure in which Yu takes us through makes this a documentary of more emotional appeal than any other I have imagined. Seeing this film, I was reminded of Michael Apted’s Up documentaries. Apted’s film is about his life project of tracking a group of people in UK right from the age of 7 and revisiting their lives every seven years. The last film was “49 Up” and in that and every other previous films, we are moved and delighted by their growth towards life. There is reflection of it which baffles our mind of how we will be or we were like them continuously changing and learning things far and beyond. This film gets those in a single take.

Being moved in a documentary is more real than a fiction film. Hence in the fear of sounding harsh and mean I would say evoking sympathy to their characters in documentary is not a challenge because being human is to sympathize and empathize. I have greater appreciation for fiction film to bring that out as it needs work and effort. The reason is that the objective of both these mediums are vastly different. In “Protagonist”, Jessica Yu uses her documentary as an art project and into a human study and finally a self revelation. It works as a poetry, a story teller and life with such a love for its subject.

These four people are audacious in telling their story with passion and truth. Their pain and suffering to grow up in this world and to be accepted and exist becomes a tool to analyze our childhood. They spring to the ring with the topic of who we are and how we shape ourselves into this adult. The ripe and moldable age of youth beckons and demands a strong and firm answer. Once found, it becomes the matter of pride, ego and their purpose to live for. Soon the confrontation happens on the realities of those philosophies and values. Some keep on going with the arrogance and some learn the humility. These four men does the latter. This is a film which along with many other qualities slaps you with gentleness and humbles you, to yourself.

"MacGruber" (2010) - Movie Review

Is there a dignity in making a foul mouthed disgusting comedy? There is dignity in getting laughs from its audience no matter what pushing boundaries. That is “MacGruber”, a film made out of an SNL sketch. Reprising his role from the TV, Will Forte goes for it and there is no way in hell to stop him. With his sidekicks Vicki (Kristin Wiig) and Lt. Dixon Piper (Ryan Phillipe), he is going to pull stunts, rip throats, make idiotic moves and whenever he gets chance pull his pants down and offer to suck his way through to get back into his mission whatsoever.

The traditional action comedy belongs to the mid 80s which spilled over the top in late 90s. The action era spanned with some glorious entertainment and produced classics out of it few of the times. Then it pushed its luck too far to bring up disaster after disaster in pairing up great actors and fizzling into set patterns of boring jokes and cruise control plots. Couple of years ago Edgar Wright did something special with this genre by both spoofing and homaging it in a single event called “Hot Fuzz”. The genre has invited many spoofs and got it marginally right or terribly wrong. “MacGruber” falls in the former.

Val Kilmer surprises me even more than Nicolas Cage in his choices. He can do terrific acting and take risks like no other actors. Then he plunges out of the radar for couple of years in straight to DVD pictures and then gets to play a spoof villain in this comedy flick? He is Dieter Von Cunth, the arch enemy of this bad hair douche bag MacGruber. Val Kilmer’s character has only one use in the film for his surname used as the punch line for several references MacGruber uses.

I have to say there are stupidly hilarious moments where you are in disbelief of what just happened. One instance will be the involvement of a celery from a garbage can and the another involving MacGruber’s best stunt skills of ripping throats with bare hands. In both instances we are befuddled by the actions on the screen yet cannot help ourselves from laughing. The human mind’s funny bone sometimes is seriously twisted and jumps up from the dark now and then.

These recent times of comedy films will make itself in film history when they pushed their limits in explicit content and manage to emerge victorious in the laugh factory. Director Jorma Tacone’s “MacGruber” will become as reference for that time. It will no way be a cult but will become an image in the montage that will be prepared to show case this era.

Will Forte does some crazy things and he is a darn good in delivering straight faced dialogues which are pure and simple disgusting dumb things. MacGruber is told to be the deadliest force and legend along with several unusual credentials. His instincts are to save himself and always dresses Piper or Vicki as himself. Yet he jumps right ahead to take throats off. He is peculiar and that becomes the leverage for rambunctious moments for laughter.

Ryan Phillipe and Kristen Wiig do their best to support this weirdo. In spoof films with idolized undeserving heroes, their mistakes will result in unexpected heroic actions and there will be no one around them to clearly see through it or generally the film does not allow it. One good thing about “MacGruber” is the character of Ryan Phillipe’s Piper who time and again wrestles with full power with the man and knows the dangerous fool for what he is. Kristen Wiig’s Vicki is plainly adorable and a loyal teammate keeping the ego of the man to sky high.

The film goes far and far into the realm of foolish comedy and emerges half successful. The plot in these films are nothing but tag points and it is no wonder it does not hope to satiate that part of the movie making process. Hence it becomes a series of good SNL sketches and never attains to be a complete film. We witness the extent at which this guy will go in embarrassing himself in unexplainable and unpredictable way. I got through the film but it does not add up to become a fulfilling experience.

"Robin Hood" (2010) - Movie Review

Does not Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott not aware that they are making a film which have no purpose to be told? May be they did and went through it anyway. In the business of film making, there will always be situations where things need to be done against one’s wishes. This is for Crowe and Scott. Not that they show their despise in their execution or performance rather the story itself does not have any kind of life to it. It is supposed to tell the origins of this beloved folklore character and the legend has not lived with great glory in many of the films which beckons the need for the genesis. Hence the film becomes unnecessary.

Robin Hood before becoming the man the stories were formed, was a warrior with best skills in archery in the army of Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston). His real name is Robin Longstride as the film says and him with his buddies flees the war when he realizes that he has gone through enough with this crusade in the name of god. There will be plans of France invading the English and there will be traitors and Robin will be hunted and all that stuff.

The man is known for his characteristic of robbing which is a bad deed and distributing it to the poor. Such a fruitful territory to explore the reasoning he gives himself to do this and we never get to see that. True that the predecessor films would have explored those but this is where he got the idea from. There is one robbery in this film which happens out of necessity. After that when the film ends with him being outlaw, he automatically becomes this noble thief without any further explanation. He is a man seen wasted wars but the destitute in the society is a far reach until he sees it close enough and realizes the need to arise. Here he provides one speech on the notion of faint memory and his father’s word when he was a kid to become the sole flag bearer of rebel.

Russell Crowe is old but determined to work for this character. We like Robin only because he is Russell Crowe. The charm and charisma we have is for the actor rather than the protagonist. The film does no justification in portraying him for what he becomes. It is definitely magnificent to see Crowe dawning up the armour and the whole nine yards again for Ridley Scott. He can be the good man with rough heart just by those but it withers away after few minutes. The rest relies on the story and screenplay which is penned here by Brian Helgeland. Helgeland known for his writing skills does not come out shining.

Watching it I never felt the urge to know about Robin and the other characters surrounding him. He wanders with no goal and the goal he is given by a dying man is a plot request. He has to follow it to see Cate Blanchett as the widow Marion of that dying man. Cate Blanchett being who she is should not like this smelly man from the long journey. There is though an old father-in-law (Max von Sydow) after hearing the name of Robin identifies it from long time back to provide the history for the man. He asks Robin to be “upgrade” for his died son and bonus prize, marry Marion. You cannot say no to marrying Cate Blanchett and you never ever say no to a blind old man. Robin obliges.

I am not even going to bother explaining Robin’s clan and the vicious plans of Mark Strong as the bilingual Godfrey. Nor am I going to spend time on the young, arrogant and stupid son of Richard Lionheart, Prince John (Oscar Isaac). William Hurt, another capable actor spits out shouting dialogues through his beard and realizes there are no audience. Many other becomes fallen soldiers to this predictable show from a great director.

“Robin Hood” could have simply be an entertainer. It could have skinned out the miniscule need to be obligatory for detailing out the origins of this legend and gone with the usual stuff of arrow, graphics and pure war. But I guess it would have got slammed by me for the same reasons which brings back to the point I mentioned earlier of the need to make a film about this. “Robin Hood” is so out of energy and so out of passion.

"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" (2010) - Movie Review

If you are following Roger Ebert’s blog as I do, you would probably know about the battle he fronts regarding how video games can never be an art. While I understand his passion behind the argument, sometimes it surprises me the extent he goes to defend it with every inch of his life. I do not get to read the hate mail he might get in tons from the teenagers in gamers. I had my times to be addicted to this game in PC version and this will be the one that shattered me with gaming experience and Ebert forbid, I got the best artistic and entertaining experience from the game of “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time”.

The game invented the acrobatic stunts. Suddenly what used to be a very simple 2D game at dawn of simple graphics, became more than keystrokes. It had the best sword stunts and mind boggling puzzles to solve. It had ambience like no other providing spectacular feel of being in that magical world with awe, surprise and scare. Adding to all of those, it had characters with the titular character Prince himself who gets the name of Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) in the film and the Princess Farah who is Tamina (Gemma Arterton) in Mike Newell’s movie. It was a tough game which took myself and another friend to complete it. When the game got over, the final scene made it clear that this is no longer a game rather a soon to be art in itself.

Hence when the film version of this phenomenal experience comes, you know that bias is written all over it from this reviewer. But do not worry, I will swing by everything and make it worth the read. The film leaves the gargantuan ambience to the game but uses couple of instances to give that feel. The greatest strength of the film are the stunts replicated from its source. They add the parkour technic to the Prince and the chase scenes becomes what “District B13” did to its audience.

In the film, Prince Dastan’s orphan past is revealed and how the King of the Persia adopted this boy without royal blood for his courage. There are two elder brothers Tus (Richard Coyle) and Garsiv (Toby Kebbell) do not minding their adopted brother. Then Sir Ben Kingsley as the uncle and advisor Nizam is over casted in my opinion. Nevertheless the story begins with right fashion and dives on without a pause. We get to see that the Prince follows the saying of “Work while you work and play while you play” to his heart. He respects his brothers and appreciates the gracious nature in which he has received this fortunate family. But this is no family drama as obvious it can be. It is about the graphics, adventure and the stunts. It is there, there and there and fulfills every expectation of it in the first one and half hour. Then it exhausts itself and becomes a drag.

With that said, a gamer would not be satisfied because this is not a game. A movie goer will get what they want with those choreographed stunts and a plot that is not so predictable but not so unique either. A film critic might be looking for some more flesh of dimension in the characters but it is just enough to kindle the tension between the Prince and Princess and more than enough for the brotherhood and glory.

When is the last time we saw some good Arabian story? Not that I know of and here comes the rightly adapted film of the game. Director Mike Newell could have cut himself short on extending this film but the initial setting of the story and characters cannot be more perfect. It hits it marks and moves on swiftly and enigmatically as the Prince moves through the streets and buildings of this ancient city. Jake Gyllenhaal does some real good flexing of his muscles and swings through his swords. He gives the much needed subtle sarcasms and the boyish charm required for this first segment of what is going to be a series of films.

Much as the game trilogy, I am expecting the second one to be darker and more violent. But as this film, I am not sure whether the franchise will take that leap to be this R rated film. The best part about the game is that the ending could not have been more perfect. It left us longing but still fulfilled for getting that treatment from the creators quite unexpectedly. It is indeed foolish of me to expect the same in the film as the obligation to end with kissing lips and holding hands is what the summer blockbusters are all about. “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” will entertain its audience but not surprise them as the game did.

"A Prophet" (Language - French/Arabic/Corsican) (2009) - Movie Review

A masterpiece is what “A Prophet” is. It has a central character Malik (Tahar Rahim) entering the worst place at the age of 19. He has no family or friends outside or inside this place called prison. He is there to exist and serve his sentence of six years. Then what? If nothing would have happened to him as the film shows, I am not sure what really he would achieve getting out. But there is something he would like to go back to the world for. The fresh smell of air and the simple existence of a society is the only thing he appear to linger for. When he leaves in the prison van to the place he has to call home for next few years, director Jacques Audiard shows his viewpoint between those grilled vehicle windows. Everything is that close of a reach and it is going away for a long time. He sees those wistfully.

We do not know what he is in for but we do know that most of his childhood were spent in Juvenile Center for Corrections. Now that he is old enough, he promotes to high school of prison. He comes and stays aloof. Does not speak up much and does not ask questions. When someone beats him up for his sneakers, he goes and beats them back only to be laid down again. He moves on. He does not appear to hold grudges. He only sees opportunities. That is his instinct and nature.

Two gangs in prison. The Corsican Mafia head Cesar Luciani (Niels Arestrup) controls the den while the Arabs are the next major gang who do not have much power other than to belong with each other. Malik is an Arab by looks but he does not give a damn about it. That is the last thing he needs at this point of time. The Corsicans threatens him to take up the job of killing a transit inmate Reyeb (Hichem Yacoubi). Reyeb is there to be a witness in a trial and henceforth the need to kill. Malik is a petty criminal from the looks of it and is scared straight to do the job. He gets training, intense and up close. The training is cruel, bloody but he has to do it. No other choice. Kill or be killed. The moment to that scene is one of very many that will chill the bones and generate the tension to the nerves.

We are not here to witness the redemption of Malik. He is a crook with a moderate conscience. The thing is he knows it is a game of survival. He does not plan and builds on the small opportunities he gets through. His mind works in such a way that anywhere and anytime there is a need to push the right coins, he does it without any difficulty. Audiard does not punctuate it and lets it flow because the clever and smart actions are the characteristics of Malik than the film. Before we know it, Malik becomes the main man for the audience to root for though there is every chance that he is going to go down. A man cannot be that successful and sharp minded forever and with every instance.

Malik does the job and does not become the immediate soldier of Cesar. Cesar and his crew treat him as a servant as he still is “Dirty Arab” to them. Malik knows that and keeps his head down. He does things and does not emotionally express his feelings. It is of no use and no one cares for it, even himself. His first victim Reyeb mentioned couple of things before he sliced him up. He says how it is important to read and how prison has schools. He takes up that advice and begins class. He befriends another Arab inmate Ryad (Adel Bencherif). Ryad get out of prison early and he becomes the only friend, family and accomplice for Malik.

Malik slowly works around Cesar and does not plot anything. A law rules Corsicans to transfer them out which leaves Cesar alone and vulnerable. Cesar still has power over guards but his personnel are down. Even then he promotes Malik but keeps him at bay. Malik learned Corsican and that helps him out. Serving three years now, he is eligible to leave the premise for a day. He becomes from errand boy to senior errand boy. When these happens, he works out another deal with a hash dealer and uses Ryad’s connection on the outside to begin his business. This progress will sneak up and we sit and wonder how this guy spins around everything and everyone without notice.

Tahar Rahim is a fabulous actor and his Malik never ever shows a sense of being cocky. He does not get arrogant nor does he associate himself to any group. When any one asks him whether he works for Cesar, he answers that he works for himself. That is the truth and he takes it to the heart. Surprisingly he speaks truth most of the time and hides the essential truth. He never lies and never fights back a confrontation. He gives in and let the opportunities roll around him when he grabs it with an impeccable timing.

"A Prophet” is not a simple prison crime story. It visually brings a raw form of the prison and then takes a surreal sequence of hallucination or dreamy state of Malik into such a careful art. Oh boy, I loved this film. This is what “The Godfather” or “Eastern Promises” versed itself with beauty, cruelty and bloodshed packing together. Then it makes it a poetry and takes the film into something else. This is one such and deservingly so to be placed in those high cadres of those mentioned great movies.

"The Salton Sea" (2002) - Movie Classics

Val Kilmer arrived to the “Inside the Actor’s Studio” show and seeing him as a person outside of the films was new. He was shy and kept going off tangents interestingly in his answers. He was at times not looking at James Litman. He was not offensive or snobbish but he is a character of himself unlike what I imagined him to be. With most of the actors, there is their own personality which spills into each of the characters they portray. The way they smile or the mannerisms, even the slightest one sticks through. It is hard to get it wiped out. Even the greatest actors cannot avoid it and most of the times that might be one of the reason they are successful. They bring in a little bit of themselves. When I saw Val Kilmer as Val Kilmer on that stage, I realized how much of a true actor he really is in shedding and shredding every little piece of himself to be someone else. Here is Tom Van Allen or may be Danny Parker in this film. When you see this film, you will know what I am saying.

I saw “The Salton Sea” six or seven years back. It had a scene which went as the best memory of my previous roommate. The great “Kujo’s Big Heist” scene literally made him fall out of chair laughing. I am sure that no one else would find that funnier than we did. Before I go into detail, let me tell you something about the film. This is a story of a man taking a grief, guilt and revenge simultaneously. Kilmer’s character is with the group of junkies and shapes him up to be one of them. On other times he is a snitch ratting out hardcore drug sellers to this sneaky and slimy cops Gus Morgan (Doug Hutchison) and Al Garcetti (Anthony LaPaglia). And the small time he gets to spend with himself, he is Tom Van Allen.

Danny Parker has a past, tragic one of course. In one of those romantic trips to the land of nowhere, his wife (Chandra West) gets killed while he is wounded and watching helpless through a bullet hole of her demise. His inability to save her and the revenge he seeks are served with witty sarcasm and a noir Tarantino would have blown out all over. The director of the film D. J. Caruso takes a small portion of that director’s technique and invents his style along with it.

Kilmer’s character has gone through the drain of drug junkies for a long time in the hunt for his wife’s killer and he comes home occasionally to remind himself of who he is and was before Danny Parker. He keeps telling that he is Tom Van Allen and he is a trumpet player. He begins playing the instrument with a tune that carries a sadness and lamentation to make us weep for this guy. He has pushed himself through the wall hard enough and punished himself for the inability to save his love. Here he is clueless and lost unaware of how to get his revenge.

An opportunity invites him to have a proper set up with the killers to get his score evened and get a closure. For that he has to deal with the maddening and dangerous Pooh-Bear (Vincent D’Onofrio). Pooh-Bear has no nose and wears a funny rubber nose. He is not trying to be villain but he loves being the unstable personality. Kilmer as Danny Parker has a discussion of buying drugs and begins negotiating a price. In that scene, D’Onofrio begins describing the end which was of violent nature his previous dealer met with because of underestimating and showing signs of cheating the man. He effortlessly says it as an obvious thing. He informs that he placed that man’s head in a vice and took off his brain to store it. Throughout this scene, we know and is established that this splendid command and performance by D’Onofrio is what it makes it work. There is no doubt on that but look at Kilmer’s performance as the feared and scared man. He puts up an unnerving face to Pooh-Bear but is so communicative to his audience on the level of freaking out he is inside. The scene belongs to Vincent D’Onofrio but Val Kilmer makes it excel and gives a character for his audience to share the feeling with.

“The Salton Sea” is a comedy which travels through almost several territories and whenever it stays out there, it behaves that way as a nature than an exercise. It has a modern style which takes up inspiration from that time of film making and takes the best part about it than becoming a cheap imitation. Even its most hated characters are unpredictable and we are curious to know their fate, however bad it is going to be. And in Val Kilmer’s performance along with several others, it becomes those films which begs to be watched again.

Watching this film again and realizing that the director of this film went on to do some seriously stupid and horrific films frustrates me. Caruso shows such a depth in his presentation and seeing him make “Disturbia” and “Eagle Eye” is a tragedy in itself. There are film makers true to their passion and they venture upon the bizarre and unconventional experimentations. Even if it is their worst attempt and offensive beyond imagination, we can disregard those based on their nature to be true to their making. Seeing those two studio backed blockbusters, it feels like he has made a bad deal. Whatever the scenario that put him to take those projects and do as studio asked him to, it should be over after two films. The director that made this film is a talented person and more than that is an honest presenter and an audacious venturer for his first feature film. Written by Tony Gayton, this film will be in the best films of the decade personally and will remind me of this once a creative director named D. J. Caruso. Hope he comes back.

"Trucker" (2008) - Movie Review

My colleague’s opinion on the reason for several divorces in US is that people are too selfish. This generation has that firmly rooted because the idea of being selfish has been legitimized and part of it is good. In the traditional old days, the expectations were set with laid out method that was proven to be successful. It indeed was until the eventuality of the human mind to break through the fallacy of this cage. The trend now seems to be spiking or more to the fact of being comfortable to that independence which results in more lonely hearts. The female trucker in “Trucker” is a prime example of it.

Michelle Monaghan is trucker Diane. Stopping for breaks and sex, she has a set life. A neighbour and a long time friend Runner (Nathan Fillion) to flirt with and punch around and an extended independence of doing whatever the heck she wants has been her way for the past several years. Past is the tattoo you do not notice it until the mirror is held closer. For Diane it comes through Peter (Jimmy Bennett), her 11 year old son she abandoned along with her ex-husband Leonard (Benjamin Bratt) ten years back. Leonard has colon cancer and Diane has no choice than to take care of him.

The forgotten sons and daughters with their estranged and unknown parents have been a treat for screenwriters for a long long time. In this version, the female lead comes as the regular drink with a twist. Monaghan peels off her charm, beauty and smoothness to be the hard earning truck driver. Even after all that, she appears too beautiful and elegant to be a truck driver. The toll of the physical labour will be so immense that taking care of themselves becomes a painful labour. Despite that, Monaghan is truthful to her Diane and treats her with toughness and respect.

Peter is adamant as any 11 year old and the added anger of abandoning mother makes him to be the tough kid. There is the usual ride along with the unusual job and then the text book method of losing the kid and panicking are staged. The discovery of each other and the good moments between mother and son are staged too. But writer/director James Mottern adds these supporting characters and they point out the flaws and adamance in Diane.

Runner is played by Nathan Fillion and he gives the nicest guy. He is the best buddy Diane could ask for while she keeps tagging him along forever. Runner is married and both him and Diane are waiting for the moment to happen. James Mottern shapes Diane’s character through that possible moment to push for a change she has denied all through her trucker life. Fillion’s Runner adores and loves Diane but we do not know why he wants to cheat with a wife we see once. Regardless he becomes the true friend to draw the final straw for Diane to turn around her life.

“Trucker” in the old and dusted independent tradition holds the values of being steady and calm. It does not amplify any of the scenes and avoids lot of obligations. At the same time he withdraws himself and becomes cautious. Being his debut, he appears to care for his film safe enough but not beyond it. He has written a screenplay of a potential performance from a female lead dutifully done by Michelle Monaghan and a subtle happy ending taking it home for independent feature. He gets all of it without the riffraff but he strikes himself without a lasting impression.

“Trucker” is a gentle film being a cautionary tale of the independence taken more seriously than one needs to. Some point in every one’s life the act of selflessness happens through a family. It begins with sharing their life with someone apart from them and then losing completely their soul, body and mind to their offsprings. To take that plunge and the rapidity at which it hits them is nothing short of rude awakening. Some stay hating their decision but eventually settling for the future they never planned, some accept it immediately and move on while others restrain themselves from running into that situation in first place or worst walking out with life long regret. Diane gets a chance to wash off that regret but before that she has to feel it.

"Che" (Language - Spanish) (2008) - Movie Review

Che Guevera as equally and ironically presents as a complex person as any human being. An idealist consumes his life for the perfection that could never be achieved. Yet that is what makes them the glorified and the infamous. They are the aberrant in the chaotic society. Every one perceives this personality with different notions. Called as a murderer, terrorist and what not, Guevera is a symbol regardless of one’s opinion. A person choosing the method of violence, one would imagine any director would dissect the mind of this man in a biopic film. And any director given the independence to provide two films to expand on the details would go through the bits and pieces of information. Steven Soderbergh though is not any director.

In this two part film spanning together for 261 minutes, contains the most intense performance by Benicio Del Toro as the controversial icon and a series of scenes which gives an illusion of going nowhere but always on target about the persona. The first part begins with the invitation from Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir) to join forces for the Cuban revolution. Soderbergh even before going to the film provides a sense of geography. He lays out the map of Cuba and marks the territories and divisions which would become a legend to the audience watching the film. He does the same in Part Two withe map of South America. Che takes up the offer and the journey begins.

While the various steps of the revolution are set up and Che goes along serving his values as duties, Soderbergh takes through the interview of Lisa Howard (Julia Ormond) did with Che in 1964 when he was in US attending UN general assembly. This becomes a guide to Che’s commentary of the his life from March 1957 till the end of Cuban revolution in the Guerilla warfare alongside Castro. There is no reference of his personal life apart from Aleida (Catalina Sandino Moreno) becoming his city guide and eventually his second wife. Even their involvement or interest in each other is nothing different from his relationship with the every soldier in his column.

The film thus becomes a history lesson going up and close with Che’s column. He builds a society within the confines of the bushes. Being a doctor, he automatically becomes a medic and reaches out to the peasants nearby to render his services. Most of them have one common disease, malnutrition and hunger. When others around the fire pit perform amateur entertainment to their fellow soldiers, Che calmly on the distance reads a book and smiles noticing the small fun his compadres have.

It is a film with neither a participation nor a close observation on this man. It becomes detailed and clinical as a documentary. It does not pose it as any war and moves away from the controversial tones towards Che. It treats the man as he is while not becoming aware of it more than they want to. Che is shown as a personality with a strong belief on literacy. He is particular about his crew being able to read and write. When they are exhausted and starving for several days, he asks a soldier to bring his math book for some exercise.

Another fascination in this film is how much his asthma attack played an intense part in this struggle. Entering into the jungles and going towards meeting Castro’s group in Cuba, he barely is able to walk and rests for support on his rifle. In the Part Two, his health becomes a critical game changer when he forgets his medicine and suffer from it while slowing down the group. He beats himself up for that. Beyond these, he survived the war and the atrocious ambience the forest posed.

“Che” will not approach its viewer. Neither does it invite them. Steven Soderbergh does not take grandeur in approaching this film. It is not the pumped up emotional cum war drama every one would expect. Instead it makes you take the journey alongside the man without becoming his soldier. You see him discipline his crew and condition them for the worst while keeping his focus on the purpose. He is sarcastic, comical and when compassionate, he can melt any cold heart.

Clearly Part One has more energy than Part Two as the former is a success of the protagonist while later is a failure of the same. But both the films are approached with same sincerity by Soderbergh and Del Toro. Part Two in the end evokes unexpected sympathy from us. Throughout the films we are kept aside of knowing the man as a person or we feel that way and when he is ready to be executed, we are clouded by strangest sense of sadness. In the process of making us assume that we are distant from him, we were indeed exposed to his personal life which is his revolution and liberation itself.

The film takes the distant stand away on the issues and as Che himself never denies its participation in the violence. It goes through this stubborn personality in his march for matching his ideals to existence. It takes a sympathy to the personality in the end but any human being killed has to be sympathized when you get to know them. We do not feel for the tons of army men he kills because this is not a film about them but we are moved when he meets his end. And the way Soderbergh gives it is not exploitative rather sadly poetic.

It is a film to be patient and do not expect a goal out of this. There are no explanations. It is a statement and the aspiration to portray and depict it to the facts than kindle melodramatic grand exercise that generally comes forth in a biopic. The two films regardless of the time it takes sails through with combination of some strong flurried supporting actors and spectacular cinematography by Peter Andrews in the process. The great job of aligning these immense information in two films requires some properly laid out work in screenplay by Peter Buchman and Benjamin A. van der Ven based on the diaries by Che Guevera.

What does this man to me on personal level is the question every one asks at the end of these two films. He is inspiring and driven beyond I could imagine. He had so much character and at the same time had resorted to violence with such a self proclaimed justification. He is systematic and original and never has been misunderstood by any. I guess this expose of his character is the reason he appeals to many and contradicts in several of his actions. I think he exemplifies the dilemma of a regular person and chooses quickly on decision. He does not carry a regret or at least in Soderbergh’s version and becomes practical when essential. Regardless of the controversial position he holds in the history, he is as simple and straightforward as any next person and as complex in his actions as any next person. Soderbergh appreciates that aspect and provides a life in this epic presentation.

"The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" (Language - Swedish) (2009) - Movie Review

The quest for the murder mystery has its absorbing power. It sucks in several individuals to mull over this faceless killer and leave them with broken families, faces and grisly images. Generally there is an underlying emotion, correlation and drive to these investigations and when the confrontation with the culprit happens, there it is, the result and the ultimate moment they thought they would never reach. Though most of the time they are in the victim’s chair and in fear. Everyone in the audience knows that there will be a saviour behind the curtains. Every thing is in there in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”, which is the first in the adaption of the Millennium trilogy novels by late Stieg Larsson.

“Zodiac” in 2007 by David Fincher followed the people obsessed with the task of finding the killer. The amount of work is colossal. Patience becomes the mantra and frustration becomes the side effect of it while constantly keeping the focus and wide awake eyes for details. The novels and films are evasive about the time spent by characters in uncovering the truth behind disappearances and the murder mystery. “Zodiac” precisely took that to miniscule details and laid it out. The life spent by a particular individual on this cause is immense and laborious. Mostly met with false leads and inconclusive results, it is an addiction.

Most of the mystery films except “Zodiac” did not do that but it depends on what the object of attention is. Here it wants to finish a meal and then desires for more. The film has a female lead with an untold dreary past and provides a complete thriller for a Sunday evening. Yet it does not has its investigative characters figured out completely. Hence there is a good chunk of thirty minutes which seems unnecessary but there are two other films to be seen after this and those might become the foundations for those. Either way, this reviewer is reviewing only this film and hence after the revelation we do not necessarily care for Lisbeth (Noomi Rapace) and Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist).

Mikael is a well known journalist and he gets framed by a big corporation. He gets guilty verdict for defamation and is scheduled to serve his sentence in six months. Meanwhile there is Vanger corporation representative runs a background analysis through Goth girl Lisbeth. Mikael gets hired by the CEO of Vanger corporation Henrik Vanger (Sven-Bertil Taube) for finding the killer of his brother’s daughter Harriet. The case has not been solved for forty years and Henrik is an old man dying to find where she disappeared and who made sure she disappears. He suspects everyone in his family who has everything to gain by killing Harriet. Mikael takes up the job while gets snooped by Lisbeth. You know what the purpose of this film is after this.

The director of the film Niels Arden Oplev has a firm grip of the film. And the appeal is the female lead by Noomi Rapace. If you are in a coffee shop and she walks in, you know to stay put. She might be a feared girl inside but her exterior is a statement to be wherever you are and keep your conversation to the coffee. Lisbeth is on probation with a dark past we gets glimpses of. Good that she has impressive hacking skills and a job to feed her passion. Even after she is done with the background check for Mikael, she is drawn into him. Maybe he is so clean that in the line of work she has to deal with the men she has seen and met with does not have a pretty picture. She hacks his computer and watches for activities. She wants him to be dirty so that she can move on with her belief that the men in this world are nothing but rotten perverts. Mikael proves otherwise and the curious case of Harriet gets her piercing wet. She dives in.

This film does not settle itself and the clues they find and crack are clever and quick. At least we do not sit along with them when they have to peruse through thousands and thousands of documents and photographs with details that does not carry a soothing light read. The film does most of the things right till the point they find the killer. Then it becomes obligatory. Any investigative hunt for a murderer is as good as in making them potential characters as well. In this the ritual of killer conversing with Mikael does not carry the fear, tension and psychological pounce the film had through out. We do not fear for the death of Mikael and that is a serious flaw in a thriller film.

Before Lisbeth joins forces with Mikael in the case, she has to deal with her deeply disturbed and twisted old new probation officer. He begins controlling her financial in return for sexual favours which gets nasty leading up to rape. Eventually Lisbeth gets her control but the point of that exercise in going for deep graphic detail does not attribute to the grand scheme of the film. It does not take a dive into the minds of Lisbeth and may be it will in the upcoming films but here it is not essential other than to root for Lisbeth to cause some serious damage to this horrific personality.

I will though recommend “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” because despite those details, it is a seriously entertaining murder mystery and its execution is best on the procedure than the findings. Noomi Rapace especially gives an ominous performance of Lisbeth. She is ready to spray terror over her attackers but has a tender inside which lasts fraction of a second. That is enough to get involved with Mikael. I am eager to see where this girl takes her journey on the second film. Maybe the extent in which Rapace put herself through in that unessential rape scene gets some justification in those.