"Being Cyrus" (2005) - Movie Review

Frankly speaking, the movie did not strike me very interesting until the end. Once the end came through, it projected light on lot of intricate details discarded as irritatingly comical. Those scenes which did not make much of a sense made itself meaning either as a direct connection to the plot or as a distraction necessary for the film. The music, art and particularly the Indian actors/actresses speaking English projected it as a movie of complicated dramas and unusual relationships. Indeed, “Being Cyrus” is about that too but it has some bigger agenda apart from it.

The movie sketches the “funny” little characters of a Parsi family. The family is separated by location but share their bit of strained and doped relationships. The connecting factor in between these two is done by a character named, Cyrus (Saif Ali Khan) who comes out of thin air. He gets hired by a retired sculptor Dinshaw (Naseeruddin Shah) who hardly has any sense in his day filled with hallucinating himself with illegal smokes. Dinshaw’s talkative wife Katy (Dimple Kapadia) instantly strikes intimacy with Cyrus. The film is how this dangerous intimacy moulds into and how it sets itself for a nice convincing finish.

This is a style of film noir with sleek and necessary editing. The movie took its path through characters which were not given enough depth. Their actions and speeches are totally disconnected and some times seems absurd. But director Homi Adajania definitely gives out the reason for those very interestingly. This is one of the very few movies which appeared disappointing, ended with fine and satisfactory conclusion.

It is always edgy to show a character with dark images. In the arena of art, movies are considered one of the prominent entertainments. Due to its wider popularity among all varieties of people, it is expected good thing to happen in the screen. Good winning the evil. Even the people who appreciate those arts would like those happening in it. It is human to think like that. Sketching out a bad character taking the centre stage even though can be appreciated artfully would still linger into the hearts of people giving uncomfortable ness. This film does that too. It makes the audience feel guilty for slightly feeling happy for a bad person. The story telling does its job right out there. Another reason for the acceptance of it is due to the honesty of the protagonist character. The honesty in not hiding of what he did and how does he looks life ahead to the audience. Albeit his conversations with the audience being one way, his candid ness makes him friendly and acceptable.

I did think that it was unnecessary to have the movie in English. I felt that the authenticity and originality got lost in it. Sometimes it gave the feeling of small kids doing an English play in their school stage. But I guess that’s how any Indian with a back ground of the characters shown will speak. In that case, why do they converse in English which is kind of rarity to use it in their day to day life? I do not know what made the director to opt for English. When I say this, I am looking back the movie in my mind. And due to how it’s been projected, it feels not bad and not good either. But what felt really wrong now feels fine. Maybe this is the reaction; the director wanted the audience to feel.

The movie is a like a child trying to arrange a huge Jig Saw puzzle. The joy is not in getting the puzzle right but it is the child’s weird way of thinking to keep those in different places. Because the joy is watching the child play crazily, most of us will miss how the child finishes the puzzle perfectly. Only in the end, it gets realized. “Being Cyrus” is how Adajania arranged his Jig saw puzzle. While it appeared dark and gauzy, it came interestingly distilled and cleans in the end.

The film poses itself as an independent styled drama movie. The score is also set in such a way which plays it as a comical and funny drama. Salim-Sulaiman needs to be credited for this style of music which also forms the deception for the real picture happening inside the movie.

It is really encouraging and happy to see an independent drama thriller movie emerging out of India. It is also heart warming to see great actors and actresses accepting to do these characters for a project like this. I am not appreciating the movie stamping it as a great movie and have never been made before. It is been appreciated for its honesty on sticking to the concept and in the same time forming a nice convincing film noir thriller.

"Bowling for Columbine" (Documentary) (2002) - Movie Review

There is a very valid point made by this film which discusses the ambience of fear over the US. Even though there are parts of it which does not dig part of the certain tragic events which occurred, this film definitely takes those to essentially bring out the state of an average American. It projects that he/she is afraid of some x or y threaten the life of theirs and their family. It also shows some light on the business opportunity taken by the media which seems true even today.

The film circles around the main issue of the access of guns to every one and it has become a necessity in a world circling of violence. The winning factor of the film is the way it lays around the facts and problems in an engaging way. The movie brings out solid issues around a country clouded by a fear nested by media and also by the people themselves. Seeing should not lead to believing and in the fast lane of this mechanical life, there seems to be a convenient negligence in terms of not researching a potential issue. When a media projects the whole world as a place of evil residing 24/7, people believing in it without any questioning, is really sad. Instead of getting a weapon to protect him/her and family, it becomes the responsibility of them to have some outward thoughts on those issues. A community or society becomes one when each other have care and not enmity against each other. The film documents that it is a fear being invested unnecessarily and need clearance.

It made some bold and clear problems sorted out rather than complaining. The director tried to show light on how the “welfare work” defeats the purpose of it. This movie may be projected as one against gun culture but it is more of an awakening needed in the people. It addresses the fact that there is lot more issues than killing people in different countries. It says that the issues inside the country need to be the first priority of care than bombing some other place in a world. The manifestation of hatred towards people needs to be addressed and the film brings them with clarity and helps realize the real picture.

There appears to be lot of questions left unanswered. The reason it felt unanswered is that the film does not commit itself, in a good way. That is a subtle beauty in this documentary. Letting the audience ask those questions and determine what they want to do. They did not want to thrust in their suggestion which very well might have turned into propaganda. If they would have had those in the film, then it would have shadowed some cloud of doubts on dealing the issue with equanimity. That is the success of this documentary. It does not super impose with speeches but with the incidents and the resultant of it. With those, it pushes the audience in their emotional spot and asks them to think. They ask to think the responsibilities of them. It asks them to think and decide on what to believe and what not to. It assists in those thinking by the interviews, facts and situations prevailing inside the country.

There is no doubt that the culture of having a gun prevails. There is no doubt that the system of fear is in the back of every one’s mind. There is also no doubt that the media replays the worst violence and not the real issue of pollution and poverty. The movie clears all the doubts and says it is time for the people to filter those. There are problems in the film as to having contradictory factor coming out too. For example, Michael Moore, the director compares the statistics of the crimes in other countries and how they have the same scenario as that of US. So it essentially is the problem with the people’s state of mind. And the people constitute business men, lawyers, doctors, bus drivers, and software engineers, any one and every one in it. But there seems to be more agitation shown on the then owner of NRA (National Rifle’s Association), Charles Heston alone instead of making all the people stand up for it. I am not arguing that the insensitive behaviour of him is right, but circling him as the main issue seems slightly going away from the main problem. It could have been avoided.

There is a sequence in which Moore interviews the brother of Terry Nichols. Terry Nichols is one of the guys who were found responsible for the Oklahoma Bombing of a Federal building. His brother John Nichols says that guns are the way to defend ourselves and Moore asks; “Why not use Gandhi's way? He didn't have guns, and he beat the British Empire.” And the reply comes after a confused pause as “I'm not... familiar with that.” There is clear indication of comfortable ignorance in it. The film shakes it out in every one and pushes them wisely to take responsibility.

"Fracture" (2007) - Movie Review

It is pleasant to see a good thriller with interesting plot and suspense to make the audience feel satisfied. There are lots of pitfalls in the upcoming movies now a day, since there are numerous talents consistently creating plots, suspense, and tricks in it. That brings in the notion of whether those creativeness is exhausted. Added to that, the audiences are educated and start to solve the plot. They do not want to sit and be ignorant about what is happening and blindly believing. They sit along with the primary characters and try to find out the details before the director reveals. They achieve the pleasure of attaining success over the creator, so to say.

All the people watching this movie would try to find out the little “weak spot” of the immaculate planner and clever Ted Crawford who after shooting his wife, confesses and still able to challenge the people’s prosecutor Willy Beachum (Ryan Gosling). The attempt most of the films do is they dive in to outcome the audience’s guess work. Hence they lose control of the story and screenplay, and the material gets lost in this useless competition. Gregory Hoblit does not get into that pitfall. He knows that the audience knows that there is a small piece in the puzzle missing, which would be cracked definitely by the prosecutor. So he puts forward a film which deals with slight adjustments in spicing the ambience surrounding this prosecutor. Make him push over the edge and see how things go. And it works.

Willy is in his last days at the DA office and is about to launch the career of his life. He has got an offer from the well known private corporation. This is the situation which messes up his head. Every one does it. When some one is leaving for vacation, they take things easy and rest of the colleagues understands it too, even though it is not right. It is the people’s perspective that the damage is never one unless it happens for real. The film does not project him as a winner. They project him as a winner of opportunities. He knows how to play around to get things done properly and still legally. He underestimates his last case and his submerged conscience gets the treatment to re-evaluate his own advancement in his life.

Ted on the other hand is already a successful career man owning an Aircraft Corporation. He is brilliant and super confident. This makes him stronger and smarter. He has planned this whole play very carefully and with enjoyment. He starts moving his coins properly right from the moment he comes to know about his wife’s affair. He is wicked in every sense and does not hide it to Willy. His overestimation does bring him down.

The film covers all the base in the plot, not for the record but the screenplay is structured demanding those properly. Whenever the audience think of an act by a character is stupid, the film clarifies and confirms it as stupid. This runs smoothly and without notice for all kind of actions and consequences of those. Couple of these instances places the audience in the right frame of mind on what exactly the movie is going about. Nicely done.

While the trailers suggest it as court room drama, very minimal sequences happen inside that place. The movie is more about the question of choices and finding justice irrespective of the situations and personal preferences. It does not fancy itself into digging and research the character of Ted. He is a man who wants revenge over his wife’s affair. His revenge is cold and planned to precision. It is wrong. Willy wants a career of his own to settle his financial constraints and his conscience mixed with his ego wants him to pursue this case. The film outlines that; every margin of conscience runs along as picking the right choices and sticking up to it. Whether Willy makes those choices right? Yes and No. The film justifies that.

It is definitely an entertainer and in that genre, it works. Most of the films work well in those but a real entertainer comes when it is done right. It is executed right so that at the end of the movie, when the audiences leave the theatre, they can leave with satisfaction of getting a right entertainment and not guilty pleasure. The only letdown is an unnecessary intimacy between Willy and Nikki Gardner (Rosamund Pike) without which the film could have done all the same. Apart from that, “Fracture” plays nice with a screenplay intact and interesting to produce the entertainment in the right way.

"Disturbia" (2007) - Movie Review

There is a beauty in giving a clichéd expected series of frames interesting enough. There is a terrible mistake if the audience started predicting who is and not going to come out of the door in a thriller movie. In all the frames wherein the main character Kale (Shia LaBeouf) opens the door of his home, one thing is sure that the one he expects will not be there. And every one knows it. Which makes it, what do they say as “boringly predictable”.

Teenage kid Kale is still not able to get out of the tragic accident which resulted in his father’s death out of his mind, even though the character does not show any kind of depressed condition. He causes trouble in his school by punching his teacher who brought his memories of father in a bad way. He is been put to house arrest with a beeper which informs the cops if he goes out of the border of his yard. He enjoys it like a vacation and also spies on his entire neighbour. Enters Ashley (Sarah Roemer) who moves next to Kale and expected, he falls for her. The dumbest dialogue happens as the “supposedly” romantic lines he passes to her when she questions his stupid “ruining her party” act. And yes, before I forget, Kale also suspects one of his neighbours Mr. Turner (David Morse) to be a serial killer. When this point comes it is already one hour and thirty minutes.

The trend of “no one believes” the guy who sees the real thing does not work here. The film tries to bring in all the element of entertainment but they do everything in the worst way possible. The screenplay goes aimlessly on what to concentrate. Kale looks very ordinary and fine. He does show moments of tragic in his face whenever he enters his dead father’s room. There need not be any kind of extreme emotional stress in his face, but there are no evidence shown of inability to handle the situation. He manages only to punch his Spanish teacher since he asked a reasonable question. If he is suffering from domestic handling of situation, why do they need to put him in solitude? Does not he want some one to talk out his inner depression and unnecessary guilt? Well, it would have been tough if a reasonable judge did that and shot the dreams of this movie project.

Ashley is another unexplained character introduced so that Kale can deviously spy on her. Also it adds the “glamour” factor to this partial teen movie. As expected, she has her father and mother not “caring” enough or whatever she supposedly says to Kale to spend some time spying along with him. And the most confusing character is Mr. Turner who is very reasonable at every point of time. I was surprised that the movie made me to feel that way because it might be surprising when the truth comes out. But interestingly I never felt any kind of surprise at all. In fact, director D.J. Caruso believed that making the audience doubt Kale would be interesting, but the movie side tracks the main plot (the plot trailer shows which is the serial killing neighbour), I started hoping the movie to end soon. As the end slowly started to come, I was hoping to get a base ball bat myself and beat the crap out of Kale and get this over with.

If Mr. Turner is shown as a smooth operator, he is a bad serial killer. Oops, did I just say that? Sorry, but I guess I spare most of the audience the pain of wasting nearly 104 minutes. Anyways, let me see why he is a bad serial killer. First, living in a very closely packed neighbour hood wherein a teenage kid can easily spot him taking someone and making dolls out of them. Also chasing Kale in the middle of the street with a knife in his hand. His character is micro thin.

There was not even a single moment in the movie which I can pin point to say that this movie is worth watching for it. It becomes an ordeal to sit through the movie. Finally, to conclude, since I do not want to sound harsh, I choose my words carefully to summarize the movie, “This Movie Sucks”.

"The Lives of Others" (Language - German) (2006) - Movie Review

How often does any one see a movie which appreciates art in an artful way? There have been many direct appreciation of art in a movie, but how to go about a person who spent his life believing in one system tends to shift to the other side of spectrum? This film which starts as a revolutionary story takes a turn in appreciating art in an unusual environment by an unusual audience member. In the process of presenting it, they share the emotions, betrayal, trust and the love around their life of art through the three interesting characters.

It is 1984 in East Germany and the Stasi are monitoring potential candidates for expressing Western leanings. The department assigns the best man in force who walks talks and express without any emotions straight as an arrow, Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler (Ulrich Mühe). He is introduced when he addresses a class of interrogation officer aspirants about the nuances of the skill to extract information without any physical abuse. There is a shadow of doubts towards the popular and successful writer Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch). He lives along with his girl friend, Christa-Maria Seiland (Martina Gedeck) who also performs in his play. The Stasi in suspicion over the writer allocates Wiesler to have surveillance on Georg’s house.

What starts as a career upgrade mission for Wiesler turns into a life changing expose to art and love he has never seen. His suppressed emotions are unlocked by the words and love of Georg. His surveillance turns into a do-gooder for these two people. His life of loneliness is the complete opposite of the characteristics of Georg. Georg is a man of people. He wants continuous contact with another human being. When he is not getting it, he writes about those memorable gatherings and the unspoken love. Christa on the other hand is an ambitious career actress and one who dies inside every time she cheats her love. She goes of a sexual affair with the Minister who very well allocated Wiesler through his superior to watch Georg. This troubles Wiesler and wants to do something. What triggers him is not explained but maybe his empathy for a cheated soul. But he is amazed to see the reaction of Georg about this and his understanding of the love and reasoning of Christa. Wiesler gets touched emotionally and from there on; he takes the extreme dangerous risks to make these people’s lives better.

The movie does not act on scenes fast enough for a script which poses as a cat and mouse game in most of the parts of it. It puzzled me and kind of a slight frustration on why to show case such a thriller as an emotional ride. But when the near ended and the members of the audience know that this is crossing the stage of a normal struggle of revolutionizing a nation, it all started make sense. The movie is not alone about the struggles of a writer finding it hard to put a two face to sneak his creativity to his audience. It is also the unspoken and unknown bond of these three characters. In a way, no one ever characteristically sees each other clearly. Wiesler of course is the clear physical absence in front of these troubled yet loving couple. Georg is not able to grasp the instincts and the inner confusion of career vs love vs life of Christa. Christa knows this but does not want to open up clearly about this to Georg. Some where she is not able to create the trust in him. Georg on the other hand believes in trust bringing his love back which is true but it needs more words from his mouth than on his paper. In these three characters that are connected by their love towards art, forms this to be an interesting piece of presentation.

There may be definite doubt over the change of course on Wiesler. He is shown as a person who has technically kept his emotions out of the equation over any kind of his actions. He some how has spent so much time in interrogating people and understanding their deepest secrets, he lost his own sense of character in it. Till the date he witnesses an art performance his life is devoid of any feeling. Or his feelings were either shatter by a failed love or demand of character by the job. He gets a slight gentle shake to wake those emotions up. He wants the same kind of love shared in between Christa and Georg for him. He does not envy their life but appreciates it. He wants the same to be his life. He tries it with a prostitute who as expected becomes methodical and numb. He realizes that his life has gone and does not want the existing relations to shatter by his reporting to his authorities about the real plan of Georg.

The film renders the emotional wave of frames for the final twenty minutes. The previous two hours forms the base in which the audiences are comfortable and expects shaking hands and hugging with tears to happen in between these characters. What happens is a poetic and artistic expression of one’s love and enormous indebt to the other. There is a sensation of comfortable drunkenness in a help getting recognized and also leading the life in an unappreciated way. Whatever it is, sacrifice does have its content and enjoyment. Wiesler is in the state of that sacrifice with the sensation of it. Every one will have a theory on why Georg does not want to go and shake hands with the man who saved his life. That’s the perceptive conception left intentionally by the director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. What becomes essentially the movie’s cornerstone is the final two minutes of Wiesler’s honest expression of his emotions. That one line to the book store guy is, “The Lives of Others”.

"Bommarillu" (Language - Telugu) (2006) - Movie Review

The movie making varies widely from country to country. And in India, it even varies from one state to another. This is the diversity in the language and in fact lot of sects and different form of inter societies within a big society. Love marriage is still considered a rift between parents and their sons/daughters, but people do get used to the fact now a day. So after marriage the couple lives with the family and hence the family needs to like the girl as much as the boy does. Having said that, “Bommarillu” deals with that and is no different from any other movie which has addressed the same previously. Still, there is something more to this than the usual.

Sidhu (Siddharth) is a frustrated kid due to his possessive/protective father, Arvind (Prakash Raj). He believes what ever he does is what his son likes. What he does not understand is that Sidhu brings in good smile in his face even if he does not like what Arvind gets him. He sheds off his frustration with his friends and booze. Choosing his life partner is done by Arvind too and Sidhu is being pushed to the edge. He does not talk out here too. As expected he falls in love with innocent and talkative Hasini (Genelia). If you think, I have exposed the plot; I have not, because every one almost knows the first half. It is become more of how to bring it with fun and flavour the very same scenario in different movies. Hence there are nice fun moments and unnecessary songs to complete it. Different approach is attempted in the second half of the movie.

There are lots of unanswered emotions through out the movie. The problem with movies like this is that they want to cover the entire genre of audience. More than genre, they want to address the whole different age group. They do it nicely. Definitely and very wisely put in different wonderful places. It does not work when they put tons of emotions in whole some junks at different places. When there is happiness, there is tons of it, every one gets enough of it, but the very same time, when there is sad ness, it is given in tons. A film achieves its striking point by the ensemble of these varied emotions in different scattered manner, subtle if needed and some times recommended too. It does not happen that way out here.

Every one knows that Arvind is dominative, the man of the house and the “control” guy. Every one may see their own father out there, but may see for all wrong reasons. Similarly some may identify their son with the character of Sidhu and for all the wrong reasons. They do try to come clean in the end. They do it very well and they drop it at the next moment too. As I said earlier, kilos of same emotions within a compressed time emanates those tight moments in thin air.

I did enjoy the movie during lot of moments. Genelia as the cute and innocent Hasini is a definite winner. They made sure that her character is all flowery and colourful. There was a doubt whether she will be able to transform the same flagrance into a tense moment and she did very well. The second half of the movie entirely depends on her and she shoulders it in the most likeable manner possible.

I guess when they shot, it got realized that two hours and thirty minutes already got used up and hence need to tell whatever the original idea they wanted to. Everything expressed are truthful and honest. There is nothing bitter and scary than a silent warfare from anyone’s mother towards her son. There is nothing more horrific than any one’s father speaking unspeakable things and still not understanding his son. There is nothing more painful than any one’s love being rejected for acting the way they really are not. The film emote all kind of messages within 15 minutes. This elevates and dumps it within that time period.

While the above takes away the amazing moments shown in it, the songs and score takes away the remaining. Or rather the placement of songs in the most unnecessary situations when the movie is tight and gripping. Devi Sri Prasad needs to come out of the monotonous sentimental back ground score and rap songs. A movie’s back ground score defines any sequence to next level and here, it does takes it to next level, couple of steps down below.

The factor to be taken is that director Bhaskar faces a community and society wherein movie making is not only a big political business but also the people respecting film still only as an entertainment and not as an art. Still, there are movies which are box office hits and critically acclaimed. It is a good start for Bhaskar and it depends on where he is going to take off from here. Whether it’s going to be one another lollipop story or a bold attempt of what he thinks. The question is will he leave the money aiding hands and stand up on his own leg of creativity.

"Waiting for Guffman" (1996) - Movie Review

Comedy is best when the particular party generates by doing the material of dumb ness with sincerity and loyalty to it. The best humour is generated when it is not thought as a joke by that particular character. “Waiting for Guffman” is a mockumentary evoking those humour if at least for while. The promise it generates during the initial parts of the movie are of course great and impressive. The ways the characters and definitely the “characters” are introduced are extremely funny. This definitely brings up the expectation of further parts and fizzes out very early for this 84 minutes movie.

The whole fictionalized Blaine community in Missouri State gathers to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the town. They hail the great “talented” Corky St. Clair (Christopher Guest) who is going to give them the show about the Blaine history. The film deals comically on the audition and the journey to the final staging. The film equally concentrates on all the characters. The strength of the movie is the loyalty to which the actors/actresses stick to the concept of it. I am sure they would have had round of laughs after doing every serious enactment of the characters.

The problem with the film is that the loyalty of the mockumentary presentation in the plot was not followed in the later part of the movies. The camera work and the style remained with respect to the satirical filming but some where in the middle they really wanted a “plot”. The film expected to produce the eagerness and the disappointment of the characters to be humour. Unfortunately it becomes a dazzle on whether to take it as a serious dramatic scene or a humour frame. The politics in between the music teacher (Bob Balaban) and Corky could have been developed with serious “talent intricacies”, that the characters often expresses. It seemed they hurried up the later part to arrive to the main theme of the show (By the way, the show is enjoyable and in fact not funny at all).

The performances of Eugene Levy, Fred Whillard and Catherine O’Hara are enjoyable. Keeping aside the concept of satire over these people, there is some interesting serious factor with respect to the making. The environment of bringing the small town scenario is authentic and original. Having studied in a university town myself, I guess there is every chance that this would have happened out in the next small town nearby. The sincerity and faith in each people including the Mayor of the Blaine town showing towards this show are interesting funny. Also at some point of time bringing the close ness to the reality crosses its limit and makes this as a comedy tending to drama material, which threw the fun apart.

“Waiting for Guffman” is inventive and funny at times. It is even interesting at various initial frames but tends into a serious bland dramatic “trying to be funny” movie at the end.

"Harsh Times" (2005) - Movie Review

Some one said “Idle mind is devil’s workshop” and I have seen it happening. Trying to convince the loved ones that they are doing the best they could to get a life in this life. Managing to avoid the eye contact with them and once the foot is set on the streets; it belongs to the other people. The mind gets easily manipulated and hypnotized for the time period out of the house. Conscience kills and everything comes back the minute the foot stepping back in to the house. “Harsh Times” brings back those haunting memories for everyone. May be they would not have cruised in the most horrible and dangerous streets of L.A, but the mood of slacking off would have definitely been there. It brings back those dark memories of many people’s days when they were on the streets with some people who did not know what they were doing.

The theme of course runs deeper than that and it attempts to. Jim (Christian Bale) is an ex-army ranger who still gets the nightmares of some of the brutal incidents which happened to him in the war zone. He wakes up shivering in a small Mexican village home with his girl friend Martha (Tammy Tull). He packs up and gives a good bye any girl will remember. And the next frame there it is, Jim all wicked and dark. Getting the suspicious hate look from Sylvia (Eva Longoria), he grabs her boy friend Mike (Freddy Rodriguez) who is his best friend on to the streets. Mike is job less and busy boozing with Jim. His intentions are over shadowed by the manipulations of Jim. He goes behind Sylvia’s back and roams around the city’s crooked places.

It is tough to understand Jim and in fact it is not even remotely possible to grasp his actions. His devil always lies on the surface and Mike does sense it, but does not want to believe it. Both have high hopes in life. The sad fact is for some reason as long as Jim gets his career right on course, he consciously or sub consciously brings down Mike with him. It is the feeling everyone goes through when they do not want to be the only one labeled loser. Jim exactly knows what he wants in his life. Of course Jim wants to be a cop so that he can bring Martha into US. He is a character been messed up by the environment he was and is in. He plays close with those dangerous emotions of seeing blood in his hands. His buddy does not know that for real until it emerges out of him in a shocking manner.

Mike might appear in the same league of Jim, but knows his limitations. He knows to say “No”. But the sad part is he does not say it to his buddy Jim. Jim drags him every way possible with the tag of friend ship even though he means it. Mike is the typical “good” street guy who does think good intentions but does not have the authority or the “male ego stupid action” destroys those completely. He is the “idle mind” and the “workshop” too but Jim brings in the factor of devil.

The movie gives the feeling of walking over a land mine. It gives the feeling of these stupidly dangerous characters going around the craziest nook and corner. It is stupid because when the same time they are talking about their careers and life, they play with a gun and smoke illegal substances in the main places. The reality is the ambience they grew got into them so deep; it becomes a daily routine for them to mix it both. There is an uncomfortable wary ness in the audience whenever they have a happy laugh. It rides on the edges of the bridge when they play with their guns. The movie symbolizes the culture of owning a weapon and the control over it clearly. The environment through out the movie is scary and constantly reminding the dangers which might any time engulf them. There does lie a peaceful moment. Moments not sub consciously placing the fear in to the viewer’s mind as they do all along the movie, but the pure relaxation of those personalities with their beers in the perfectly natural setting of Mexico. That place and the talk seem right, not only to the audience but also to the characters. And the film takes the wide spin of the devil waking up in Jim’s brain. All hell breaks loose and the viewers pretty much expect the happenings. This is the frame of let down in the film. I guess the director; David Ayer was not able to conclude on a right note. Sure that Jim is all good and has been terribly affected and mentally deformed his character during the war, but apart from being not left alone in the trashes of “job less” why does he wants his best friend to go through all the risks along with him from the start. His panic attack may explain his act of aggression and violence but not the act of deception on his buddy. His dark ness spins off in a different mood when he is around and I am not able to understand his actions towards his friend on this.

Apart from the improper signoff, the film is a battle ground for Christian Bale and Freddy Rodriguez and they fight off every single frame with amazing smooth ness and down right execution. The film brings in the nativity and authenticity of L.A mean streets to the screen. It also brings in the haunting wounds of violence promoting violence and how it murk the mind of a person. It shows these are the times when a man is in the wrong place and amongst the wrong time with brilliant mind crooked out all wrong. It is the story which gets the right treatment but slightly confuses itself in the end. This confusion inhibits the clean right out message it may have had. While there seem the signs of it and also the gripping screenplay to keep the audience engaged all through the movie, it never struck the right ending note which it should have. Or may be it is this murky feeling a viewer might get is the sullen voice of it.

"Monster's Ball" (2001) - Movie Review

The phase of a person molding up depends on the surroundings and mainly the actions of their parents. It is human instinct to make the loved ones happy, even sometimes hating some one. Packing all the emotions of good ness inside him is been Hank’s (Billy Bob Thornton) life. Act of showing some kind ness to the people is considered the sign of weak to the family of Grotowski and that is how Buck (Peter Boyle) has brought up his son, Hank. Sonny (Heath Ledger) is different kind or rather one who is not afraid of his emotions not as of Hank. The introduction of Sonny is good enough on what he is missing of in his life. Sex and Love. Hank on the other hand demonstrates his state of doing the right thing through his job. A job which would drain out the last bit of hatred from any one; orchestrating the execution in the department of corrections. Ironically, in a way Hank gets clean whenever he is inside the death house. He does not let out the animal of ferociousness inside this place. He understands the strong and fragile moments in an occasion like this. As soon as his job gets done, his internal engine of hatred and anger fuelled by his upbringing triggers him. This leads in confronting brutally his son for a mistake Sonny commits during the execution procedure of an inmate Lawrence (Sean ‘P.Diddy’ Combs).

Lawrence is spending his last few moments with his son, Tyrell (Coronji Colhoun) and his wife, Leticia (Halle Berry). Tyrell as Lawrence says is the best of him. Lawrence spends his Monster’s Ball (The fare well feast given to the prisoner before their execution) with Hank and Sonny. With financial squeezing in, Leticia with her son who as his father relaxes by drawing realizes they need to get on with their life.

I guess if I understood it right, the night of Monster’s Ball connects these two different frames of character and hence comes the title. Unknowingly these linked in people meet by fate and find something soulful to make their life a little better for the while they are together. The film polishes with the style of sleek camera work by Roberto Schaefer. It is nice to see films such moody and independent as this gets a stylish look. It seems it would seem awkward when it is written out here but it really strikes the combination at right notes.

The film is about how the upbringing and constant control of a person with an attitude of racism bring in. At some point of time in their life, every one hits the threshold of doing the wrong thing and fall down. Whether to lie there helplessly and die or to get up with being hit upon and start a new life is the question. Hank picks himself up and does the right thing. For once he listens to his inner cries which got numbed by his father’s improper preaching’s and also the job which put the added pressure on the battle inside him. His regret is unexplainable and that’s the reason he cannot articulate his emotions properly while confiding with Leticia. The action of his son shakes him up but he puts up a stern face to the public. The public which is his father. When he does the right thing of lending a helping hand to Leticia he gets struck by the kick of having a clean soul. This drives him further and tries to continue it.

When the resultant of these heavy feeling in Hank is expected, Leticia is not able to understand her state. She is a nice mother who wants her son to be happy. Her tiredness got bigger as the time went by waiting on what is to happen to her husband’s end. A sour unimaginable expectation of the hopeless eleven years and as expected, to see her husband’s execution. She does not have time to think about this because there is another life ahead. An innocent child getting to know the world and she needs to prepare him. Already in the deep hole of misery, she loses the final member in her life. She does not know how to react after the sad ness gets over by the loss of her son. The losses dries her inside and out and when Hank questions her on what she expects him to do, the confused emotions over come her.

The characters in the film are made to walk on a line and also twist and turn when the line takes its way erratically. Handling those sketchy and tightened up beings is brought up in strong sequences. Hank and Sonny, Hank and Buck, Hank and Leticia, Leticia and Tyrell, all of these have their strongest moments. In those moments, there is an unexpected result. The strongest moment of course forms in between Hank and Leticia and there by becomes the final frame of the film. The strongest becomes the most peaceful moment in the whole film. And the only peace which emerges out of it is from the butchered and tainted past forgotten for good.

There is a consistent mood of balanced dull emotions set in this film which is disturbing and restless, that the audience feels the moment of burst getting bigger and realize that the result is going to be extremely devastating. Elongating this tension throughout the course of this movie and making the audience numb to the deaths constitutes further more pressure. Adding to all this is the melancholic and somber element of music score which makes it even more chilling and gloomy. With all the character of an intense drama, bringing in the expected as unexpected is a skill and director Marc Forster plays it to perfection. And in “Monster’s Ball” he brings in the unusual peace in to these sad characters.

"Seven Samurai" (Language - Japanese) (1954) - Movie Classic

When a film is made at particular time period and the future generations get to watch it, there is lot of details and scenarios which goes away with the time passed by. If a movie not only retains it originality and novelty, but also transforms itself unintentionally along with the time passed, then there is a classic. Akira Kurosawa’s “Seven Samurai” not only invents and show cases the techniques which are getting followed till date, but also stands tall with its concept and film making unique ness.

The villagers are going to get attacked by the bandits after the harvesting and they hire seven samurai to defend them. One line. That’s it. That’s all I took to summarize the story. It is extremely tough and I would go ahead and say almost impossible to generate an interesting and unique three and half hour movie out of it today. The film starts right off from the first frame with the bandits setting themselves the time to strike the village. One farmer overhears and then the village people get advice from the patriarch to hire Samurais to defend them. Four villagers set out to hire their defenders for their village.

The movie builds up so much on its foundation, detailing the process of defending a war is an ordeal and it brings the real feeling into the audience. Akira excels in the introduction of each character with finesse and precision. This is the strong point of Akira; making the character friendly and earn respect from the audience as the other elements in the film does. He did it in “Red Beard” with another totally different surroundings and situation. Here it is with respect to bravery and clever ness. The introduction of the central character, the one who will be recruiting the rest of the six, Kambei Shimada (Takashi Shimura) is the trend setter for an unusual out of the way situation. He asks to shave his head and pose as a priest to save a child who is been held as a hostage by a thief. That sequence is enough to draw out the personality of the character. He is bold, caring, clever and ready to give up his life for a stranger. In the very same manner, with the introduction of each character, there is this employment of showing the in depth characteristics of them and also using the same situation to the advancement in the screenplay as well.

While the movie goes along smoothly with all the six of them very composed and diligent, Akira introduces the funniest yet wild character of Kikuchiyo (Toshirô Mifune). He is animated and at times mad too. Even then he shows interest in assisting the most meager paid and dangerous assignment. An assignment where in death is almost certain and still he goes for it. At the right time, the character shows his agony and anger. A peek in to the madness of this unusual personality. Akira’s movies are by far technically advanced in those periods and still it is. The slow motion, contrast balance with most of the movie shot in natural light and the editing are top notch.

Apart from ahead of time technical improvisation in the film, there is tons of information embedded and explicitly available. For any film, the time taken to describe and emphasize the antagonists is enormous. Sometimes it becomes the revolving factor for many of the successful movies. In this film, the whole concentration is on the villagers and the Seven Samurais. The head of the bandits get two dialogues in this three and half hour movie. Still there is no gap felt. In fact this is another unique technique of story telling. With so much focus on this handful of characters, Akira gives romance, humour, action, thrill, philosophy and brilliant locations.

The film is a classic and there needs to be no more detailed explanation. The usage of natural elements has always been a trademark work in Akira’s and here Asakazu Nakai proves how it can be presented in black and white. The movie carries rain, wind, sun light, amazing water falls, dense forest and the hill side view of the village with clarity and amazement.

There is a particular sequence wherein one of the Samurai, Kikuchiyo tries to ride a mad horse. He some how gets on it and goes victoriously. All the villagers cheer him and he rides with pride. He goes through a series of huts and the audience does not see him as the villagers. After the hut passes by, the horse alone comes running while Kikuchiyo breaks his hip and walks humorously chasing the horse. This sequence is by far the most predictable part in the movie but this is where it was born. When I think about it, I cannot stop laughing and admiring the same time.

“Seven Samurai” as I said in my first paragraph show cases and transforms itself with respect to different generations. When the first viewers would have watched it, they would have been the optimist. They wanted all the Samurais to survive. They would have been hit by tragic and would have empathized with the rest of the characters. Now in this generation, every one is pragmatic and they know that there is going to be loss. And this time, the suspense of who is going to survive drives the viewers to get into watching the movie. But I guess both the generation came out with a slight smile mixed with tragic emotions, yet with some pride in watching the master film maker’s brilliant movie presentation.

"The Sacrifice" (Language - Swedish/French/English) (1986) - Movie Review

A film which may not answer all of your questions might still be intriguing and also may be some of the sequences, life changing philosophies coming out of it. Yet some times the very same will be extremely abstract which might not supposedly deliver what it is out there, if there is something in it. “The Sacrifice” is the last film directed by Andrei Tarkovsky and the first film I am seeing directed by him. In that sense, this might be a big leap off the blues, but still there are some perplexing and riddled puzzles unsolved at the end of this movie. But on the other hand, there might not be anything to be solved at all and it is all in the perception of each viewer. While it is something which can be said for any movie, in this film it is intentional and draws the lines fair and straight from the audience.

It takes extreme patience for any viewer to sit through the whole movie. But it is the curiosity which drives the factor of insanity with the abstraction embedded into it. One of the extremely technical applications in the film is the use of the camera and its operations in the most slow and definitive way. The initial sequence of the movie goes continuous for more than 6-7 minutes and it is hard to notice it explicitly but it is felt. I guess this is the reason; the movie is been praised and applauded by most of the critics and fans of Tarkovsky.

The film supposedly mentions about the end of the world by a war which most of them assume as “World War – III” while I would term it as any war. It happens on the Birthday of the protagonist, Alexander, a journalist and philosopher. The happenings of it are depicted by loud thundering shrieking sound of an airplane or a bomb which shakes the whole building. Phones go out and electricity goes out too. These are the indications of a war which is supposedly going to destroy the humanity. To arrive this point in the movie, it takes an hour or so. Even those are in a pace set with Alexander voicing his opinion on this life and his actions till this birthday to his son referred as “Little Man” who is recovering from a surgery which temporarily does not allow him to speak. What can be derived about the character of Alexander? Before answering this question, I have not thought about it and the following is the flow of my thinking about the movie. Alexander is a man who has seen and studied it all. He tries everything once and does not hesitate to give it up, if it does not make sense. He is a man of lot of words and suffers to make a point solid enough to penetrate the other party which is the reason why his relationship with his wife is not so tight. At the same time, he is a man of intense affections towards his son. His appeal of appreciation towards art is high. He is good in making friends within a short period of time as that of his Postman Otto. Having said all this, is it the feeling that the film has delivered what it had? But sadly no or at least for me it did not suffice enough.

But I can see where other directors like David Lynch and Michael Haneke get their inspirations from. The style of making is something stands out for me. This is a movie which is totally dependent on individual perception. I did not expect any kind of surprise ending or even an explanation of unknown actions by characters. What I was expecting the least is a small amount of experience of getting something very mystical yet riveting as per the content per se. Unfortunately I did not read it close enough. Maybe someday when I watch it after several years, maybe, just maybe I would be able to appreciate it for what everyone is saying. But right now, I am waiting for the next Tarkovsky movie to see and hope I can read it properly and understand the greatness of this legend.

"The Weather Man" (2005) - Movie Review

Life is not easy and it is the nature of it to be hard. Other wise there would no taste of having happiness. Defining individualistic personality may be easy but accepting the fact that some one really messed up due to it, is unacceptable, at least to them. Dave Spritz (Nicolas Cage) is the weather man for local television channel in Chicago. He works two hours per day and gets paid an unimaginable huge amount per year. He does not live with his wife and people throw things at him. This is his life and it is not easy.

There is a pity in his lifestyle, but in reality, he is rich and as one person who identifies him says, “You are in TV, bro”. What else one could ask for? A person can be famous and rich, yet a screw up, a clichéd truth. There is a single line of difference between things going wrong and things you mess up due to own actions. Dave jumps on both the sides. His actions are sometimes irreparable and still he has the hopes. He thinks things can be worked out. He believes everything would fall in place and more money is the answer he arrives on. When he gets interest in Archery and becomes good at it, along with Dave, the viewers does hope that this is where he lacked his concentration. This is the focal point of his failure and it is the time to get it all back. It does not happen that way. Life is not easy. He knows he is wrong.

What is so interesting and mesmerizing about this film is that the presentation of a man who spends his time thinking about solving it while not exactly taking the right actions for it, in a manner everyone would do in their life. It is the beauty of the slick Chicago with his complacent ignorance of reality. Is it the combination of the place to the right people? It might seem I am kidding but the movie matches up so perfectly to believe so.

In the middle of all this hell breaking lose or as he thinks himself, Dave’s father Robert (Michael Caine) is the man of right words. His deliverance of sentences is meticulous. Of course he is a Pulitzer Prize Won Writer. But he is so definitive and clear, even when he curses. It is like he knows why he is saying this and what is the impact of each syllable will be on the other party. It is Michael Caine at his touch of versatility. He is a dying father who knows life better than his son. While Dave is continuously fighting for his recognition, he spits with truth on his face. Dave respects his father and so does Robert about Dave. The concern for each other is mountainous that they take so much time and energy to tell it in a subtle manner. Robert even though is clear about the happenings, stores it for his final hit. The film plays around with it all balanced. The audience expects it and they give it and they do not even realize it. After the credit rolls and do the thinking like what Dave or Robert says, they realize the facts. The film excels in this of the sudden enjoyment consecutively and the viewers get immersed into it. It takes time for them to wonder the actual events which happened in front of their eyes.

The film concentrates on the unusual bonds and the circling of the same knowledge passed on different generations. It is the mirage of life gets going without any effort, but in actuality it is all effort. It reflects the attitude of a person who is in a comfortable position financially, feels everything might just work. The style of the film takes the viewers in and for a while be a part in the everyday life of Dave. They are placed as the third person with respect to their convenience. Sometimes they do want to throw stuff at him and the film provides the opportunity. Sometimes they do want him to get his autograph and get snubbed by him. It also facilitates that. Strange and comfy feeling of being in a movie without their knowledge is the improvisation; a viewer might get from this film.

Gore Verbinski makes an impressive film in the arena of independent comedy drama genre very strongly. As the movie itself centers on a man of predicting weathers, the film happening in the middle of a cold winter is right utilization of the theme. This reminded me of “American Beauty”, not because of the character serialization of the primary element in the film losing the sense of touch with his family, but how different both movies depict something so similar in a totally different and brilliant way.

The film seems to have weighed and estimated the capability of viewers and feeds them with the right emotions at the right time. I am sure it is not intentional to do that but as moviegoer, there comes a tendency or putting it on a positive note as “knowledge” to predict subconsciously on what the story might provide. This might prove fatal to the experience and fortunately it has made me to identify the good and bad movies correctly. This film made me forget that fact during lot of moments. I guess with respect to that, “The Weather Man” did predict the right results. Do you think there is a variance? Let me know after watching the film.

"Talk to Her" (Language - Spanish) (2002) - Movie Review

Marco Zuluaga (Darío Grandinetti) cries for an emotionally stunning dance performance but shies away when he was asked to express his feelings to his comatose girl friend Lydia (Rosario Flores) by Benigno (Javier Cámara). Benigno thinks they can hear and very well react to them even though scientifically they are in a state of sedation. In fact he has been doing that with his patient/love Alicia (Leonor Watling). “Talk to Her” is the film of how different people handle their loneliness, love, rejection and also their obsessive affection over other person.

With the above gist of a small situation, the film is good enough to be left unsaid. There are cob webs of inter related broken hearts in the story. The characterization is done with care and detail. Marco is finding it hard to get out of the relation he had been bearing for a long time. Something about Lydia strikes him during a television interview of her. He is puzzled by her that he takes up the assignment of interviewing her who is a bull fighter. He is a man of soft skills. He does not force or even show signs of aggression unnecessarily.

The movie shows different angles of loneliness. Each angle is through the viewing of the three main characters. Marco, Benigno and Alicia. Lydia is the only one constantly in touch with a partner but finds it tough to accommodate the softness of Marco and having her mind boggled in previous relation. Marco is the guy who gets absorbed by every one but lives inside his pain of losing the loved one to some one else. He does not share it with any one and that forms the strained relationship with Lydia which is not been shown but observed by me.

Benigno is the cheerful lonely man. He knows deep inside that he does not have a dialogue with any one and in a way does not want to. As the psychiatrist says, his “special” adolescence gets missed. He misses it because he took the responsibility of taking care of his mother at a very young age. His mother dies and his ogling love becomes his object of untold obsession. Alicia learns dancing opposite to his house and she gets into coma by an accident. It is the field of Benigno, to be honest. He enjoys the four years day in and day out taking care of her. It is the purity of love he shares with her and painting it in the screen is amazingly done. He is tormented by the unreciprocated soul of her but gets consoled himself. His character is full of energy and does not shy away as Marco to express himself.

Alicia partly in her bubbling dances and a two line scene impresses not only Benigno but the audiences too. Those two sentences are the life of Benigno. He lives the life for her. He finds enjoyment in it. The film does not shed unnecessary sympathy for Benigno rather depicts hope and joy through him. It is not mentioned whether he is the one who raped Alicia or not, and leaves it to the viewers. Either way it becomes obsolete since the character is so pure for the love towards Alicia. The feeling is not making the action right but it is neglected as it gets comfortably super imposed by the emotions of him. Marco does not question him of this and this is where the movie takes its time to beautifully lay out the love in between these two men. The final meeting in between these two is the best sequence of friend ship filled with love and sympathy.

The film’s impressive ness lies in the performance and artistic transformation of it. Performance in between Darío Grandinetti and Javier Cámara forms the crux of this movie. The way they carry their character’s emotion and empathy makes the piece a subtle love story of two men who are not gay. It is kind of getting mandatory in movies to explain a relation ship between two men if they are not sexually intimate. While it is sad, if the movie demands it, it becomes necessary. This movie has delivered it with such terse ness and intensity that nobody cares about it. There is no reason to explain the emotions of two human beings as that of shared by Benigno and Marco. Pedro Almodóvar has given the new definition of depicting those through this film.

As for the artistic transformation of the movie, it is the way the pace of the movie gets it agility and beauty. The screenplay and editing needs to be high credited, since it picks up as an independent movie and races as a thriller at the end. But the writer/editor did not get held up in negating the emotions and subtleties. They glorify it with this speeding story at the end and thereby accomplishing the impossible, an independent/fast paced thriller.

The film can be viewed with multiple tones of pain. A person insanely in love with another person loses his hope when it was the most crucial time he should have had it. Benigno losing himself for the love over Alicia. It is this pain which may affect a viewer. A person who is insanely in love with a person does an action of love which is so touching and tragic. Another angle of Benigno showing his affection over Alicia. This is another reason for the pain which may affect a viewer. A person who forms an unusual bond with another person who is his complete opposite in every aspect and he continuously loses his loved ones now and then. Marco losing his last contact of being loved, that is Benigno. This is another deliverance of pain by the film. But of all, it is also the hope which exists in between Marco and Alicia, whom after so many ordeal and torment have some thing in common and “Talk to Her” opens it up to the viewers.

"Omkara" (Language - Hindi) (2006) - Movie Review

Tragedy strikes the point of ripened interest for any movie maker. When the audiences leave the theatre, if they leave with a heavy heart, then there is some kind of satisfaction achieved by the director, as any one feels. The truth is, grief is deeper than happiness. Vishal Bharadwaj having already adapted two other plays from literature in his previous films “Chatri Chor” (from Ruskin Bond’s “The Blue Umbrella”) and “Maqbool” (from Shakespeare’s Macbeth), both of which I need to see yet, comes with his third adaption from Shakespeare’s “Othello”, as “Omkara”.

The film’s story is aware to most of the audiences even who are not an avid literature reader. The story which is open to majority of the viewers and to overcome the non-elemental surprise to his movie would have been the challenge Vishal would have faced. There are hiccups for sure but coming out of it successfully is a craft learned by experience. The story essentially boils down in between two characters. Lago in Othello being done as Langda Tyaagi (Saif Ali Khan) and the protagonist Othello as Omkara (Ajay Devgan). The trust and the betrayal are handled in between these two characters.

The film is not about justifying or questioning their action they do for their living, but it is the internal ruined relationships. The beauty of this story is that it can be adapted to any situation and applying it in the place of gang in a remote village of Uttar Pradesh state in India suits even better. Taking off the concept of complete stage set play and adding the nativity and authenticity for the location, the film is a perfect example of how a literature need to be placed rightly and precisely for a modern day world.

Omkara is a man of power. He is been guarded and worshipped by his two trustful men, Langda Tyaagi and Kesu Phirangi (Vivek Oberoi). And at the start of the movie, they do not have any problems except a marble game being won by Langda. Omkara steals the love of Dolly (Kareena Kapoor) and hence gets the wicked words from her father, of a woman who can betray her father can very well betray any one. Those brutal words do lay some bad seed in him. Still he gets it wiped off as soon as he sees the beautiful Dolly. His perplexing mind of whether to believe Langda or his innocent love is killing him. This confusion could have been better enacted by Ajay Devgan but he decided to take the “Company” Mallik face whenever he is in bad mood. When there is a doubt in his acting skills, he comes with a bang in threatening Langda to bring proof and the final sequence of being beaten by his mistakes of suspicion. He redeems his mistakes in the end as Omkara himself.

Langda is man of foul mouth. The power of control does take control of him and makes him do things in the most evil way possible. His machinations are so cleverly crafted and executed that little does naïve Kesu or the blind faith of Omkara will shudder those. He knows his actions are wrong and is beautifully given when he calls himself “serpent” and “chameleon” when his wife Indu (Konkana Sen Sharma) says there is an animal inside him. Saif Ali Khan proves that he can be the anchor of a film. He does not shy away from this down to the bone evil soul of Langda. Langda is confused too and not able to understand the actions of his leader. His immediate anger goes to the new “General”, Kesu whom Omkara elected. He attains consolation out of his machinations. In the end, he too is not sure of the truth and lies. It may be seen as an excuse but it suits well to the downtrodden uneducated Langda who believed everything is Omkara and felt insulted and neglected by him. His obsession is the result of his evil conception to burn down Kesu. It is the role any one would love to do and Saif has played with the same passion to fulfill the character in place.

Kesu is the calm player in this whole game of snake and ladder, unaware of it. He is a flirter, rage filled yet calm college kid who is in a different confusion. He does not understand the anger of Omkara towards him nor does he identifies the pit Langda is continuously ditching him in. This character is the most underplayed and yet projects lot of character. It is too bad that Vivek Oberoi gets minimal time for his Kesu in this movie. Unfortunately there is no evidence of his loyalty or passion towards Omkara. It is plainly said and believed so. It is even stranger that Langda gets enough time to project his disguised trust and loyalty towards Omkara. It is either a depiction of improper balance of characters or a notable art work.

Dolly is the innocence in this whole drama. She is blindly in love with Omkara and waits for the marriage to happen. She gets solace from Indu when she gets dark yet silent tortures from her love. It is not through merely confiding with Indu she gets ease but the happy face of Indu is what keeps her going. Kareena does justice to the role and brings on the required pathos and glamour to the film. While Konkana Sen Sharma brings in the subtle comedies and support to the role of Langda’s wife.

The film is the portrayal of tragedy. A tragedy of how power, misunderstanding, lust and betrayal can occur so powerful. The film top notches with the underlying point of executed and lost souls. The movie while moves at a very slow and cinematic pace at the start do justify those in the final hours. It does build up the momentum slow and steady to be hoisted high up in the air. Still there could have been easy elimination of couple of unnecessary songs. Vishal who also composed the score and songs of the film show cased couple of bad and brilliant pieces. The score during the first encounter of Omkara with his enemies is the worst theme music being used which on other hand could have been a true moment of musical execution. Disappointing in it, he came out with blazing guns and at the same time tears from the strings in the final sequence. Couple of short and smart re runs could have trimmed those bad patches.

Nevertheless, this is a movie stuck so loyal to the play structure and still adding the necessary flavour of art and authenticity of film work to it. “Omkara” is a work of art with solid message of tragedy. While the movie did adapt the best tragedy the literature has produced. It is sheer excruciation of losing innocent beings and that produces the best tragedy. Of course, nothing is more tragic than a loss of an innocent soul.

"Reign Over Me" (2007) - Movie Review

It is really surprising to see only director Mike Binder identifying Adam Sandler’s talent from “Punch Drunk Love”. Maybe there are lots of financial and personal constraints attached to opting a more serious role by Sandler, but he nails down the character of Charlie Fineman in “Reign Over Me”. Grief does not come in installments most of the times and hits any one very hard that it is no more possible for them to get up from the pain.

Charlie Fineman lost his whole family in the disaster of 9/11 and his depression is immeasurable that when his college roommate Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle) spots him after several years, he is not able to or does not want to remember him. One can only imagine the pain Charlie goes through. His in laws does not understand his outbursts. They want the only member of the family left by their daughter. Charlie finds it hard to come out of the tormented past and seeing their in laws reminds him more of it. He needs some one new and some one who does not judge him for how he appears or behaves on certain instances. Alan is the right candidate who is still finding it hard to open up with his wife even after two kids.

The film is predictable experienced drama plot. I had an idea on where it all leads to. Even then, it is portrayed interesting enough to keep the viewers occupied and entertained. Alan is trying to find he free of being tied upon completely by the marital responsibilities. Charlie is without any attachment and apart from helping him; Alan has a new friend to be single again, if only for a while. The film is a classic school book example of a part indie part commercial drama to be handled. Unfortunately when everything is going completely engulfing the viewers, it dips into unnecessary court room melodrama in the final twenty minutes. The movie if had been reduced by those twenty would have been the impressive story about two individuals who influence each other, but instead they want the viewers to have more and more sympathy for Charlie. This definitely proved to be fatal for the movie.

Apart from that total mishandling of the story during the final instances, the movie belongs to Sandler. The sequence where he finally confides with Alan is a piece of attention to all the performers in the industry of what he is capable of. It is so sad to see him play the comedy roles most of the times, but he has the potential of an amazing character artist. If only Hollywood uses him further more in a proper way to bring the best out of him.

“Reign Over Me” is an extremely emotional movie and they had the beautiful vase painted and carefully crafted. They took it to the highest building showcasing it all the way and then dropped it straight from the top floor.

The movie also misses the relationship tension in between Alan and his wife Janeane. I guess it was not show cased intensely mainly to not over shadow the main plot. The film definitely picturizes the internal pressure of Charlie and if may be for those couple of hours, the viewers get a small portion of those. It also puts out the question of what can be done for him. While his in laws are trying to help him, what can be the consolation to a soul who got terribly beaten by life? The film may not provide all those been answered but it is a trade off in between two friends to share those and get a life out of it.

Adam Sandler is out there and he needs to be utilized properly. And when I think about it, I remember the trailer I saw for his next movie, “I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry” and the plot line from IMDB is “Two straight, single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits.” While the movie may be extremely funny, wake up Hollywood, Sandler has more than that.

"The Namesake" (2006) - Movie Review

In a film, most of the occasions, the pace defines the flavour of it. Breaking it at any point of the film may definitely fall in different places thus ending up either a non-entertaining or extremely gripping piece. In those aspects, “The Namesake” rides on a tight thread high enough on the ground, to walk over it, but not damaging it. There has been lot of movies exploring the cultural differences and also the influences on the people. Those movies mostly ended blaming one culture and finally emerging the rich traditional one the winner. Mira Nair’s film does not go on that path but tend to at some point of the film. It explains those with unraveling of maturity and some steps taken by varied generation to end the movie and mark the beginning of a new cultural birth.

Irffan Khan has always impressed as an actor in Indian serials. It is too bad that I was not able to watch his “Maqbool” till date. His enactment of Ashoke is so subtle and underplayed. He brings in that calm ness along with the open mind. He has concerns over his son Gogul (Kal Penn), but he knows time will answer those. He does not worry himself and nor does he make his wife Ashima (Tabu) worry due to that. He is subdued even in showing his slightest hint of anger and within seconds sheds off to make up for it. His portrayal of being a responsible father and an understanding husband makes the film dance upon smoothly. To compliment his character is his better half Ashima. Confused and concerned in a strange land, she is taken back when Ashoke gears up to prepare tea for her. She is taken back because it is the responsibility of a wife to take care of her husband, as the cultural/traditional Indian system says. It takes some time for her to understand the nuances of the extremely independent cultured America. Yet she is ready to go that extra mile to get it.

For these beautiful couple, arrives the expected westernized son Gogul, who beats himself for agreeing for the name at the age of four. He is pulled up in between the traditional values his parents thought and what he wants. He is curious and does not get fussy. Instead he enjoys the moment and tries to live in it, internally questioning his ultimate aim in life. He realizes his responsibility but does not kill himself over it. He decides to make up for it rather than weep about it.

This is the underlying game of this movie. It dwells upon each character but never lets any one get any more inside than they ever show on the screen. There is no assumption involved in enacting the characters. The viewers do not expect any predictable and also unpredictable reaction from these three characters. “The Namesake” teaches how living in a different place with a culture at the opposite end of the spectrum is not a big deal. It may take time for any one and especially it takes more time for some one culturally brought up from child hood. The fact is there are goods everywhere and end of day it is one another person with different back ground to know about.

As I was in the mid of the movie, it took a wild same road many have taken and it made me worry. Why do they want to do the same which is not true? But I was proven wrong at the latter part of the movie. The tone of the movie appears in a lonely environment. It gives the viewers the feeling of being a house wife in a strange land. It is not easy and yet some how, most of them manages it and find their destiny in it. Times have changed and so are the people. This is what the film tries to give out.

The soundtrack is been employed for majority of the film and it does not hinder rather it elevates the flavour of it. The film has lot of directorial significance. Especially using the tree to give a time period or the rituals to mark the occasions are some instances to mention. It is a nice application of technique.

I liked “The Namesake”. It appeared to be a typical “American Indian” movie and it totally came out of it right from the initial frame. The film specifies that, regardless of where some person lives, their character and emotions are universal. While the cultural back ground may aid in instantly identifying some one but to get the emotion of understanding, care and trust, it takes a lot more than that. It also says that time does make a difference and the generation who were left behind by the insinuation of the bad parts of some traditional thoughts might very well understand the good ness in a foreign environment. Similarly, it is the same value of time, the current generation should give them to come up and understand each other. “The Namesake” is an enigmatic feeling of living in different parts of the world.

"Grind House" (2007) - Movie Review

“Grind House (n); A theater playing back-to-back films exploiting sex, violence, and other extreme subject matter.”

The movie opens with the above lines. It clearly says that the following two features by Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino are going contain some extreme gore, sex and violence. Most of the audiences including me are aware of it, but I was expecting the good out of the dust. I was expecting the elements of those glorious days in those movie theatres which I missed, along with the creative talents of these two talented directors. While I do not believe much in expecting something, the trailers and advertisements sub consciously set those. I walked in with the idea of getting an amazing cheesy spoof with the right mix of that “tarantinized” version of those exploited movies. Tarantino drives on the line while Rodriguez painted the most unimaginable gross I have ever witnessed. I have not watched the “real” Grind House movies but I have the idea of how it is. But being gruesomely loyal to those gory details is the fact I did not expect. It is indeed my bad.

“Planet Terror” had its moments as the first feature in the movie. I have never understood why there are gruesome and stomach churning graphical movies. Some how my mind does not able to pull away as “everybody has their own taste”. I have a strong feeling that no one will enjoy watching someone’s private parts being cut off and being collected as bunch. I do accept the fact the Zombie movies need some special effect to promote the intensity in it, but is it a competition on how much one can make the audience flinch or even throw up seeing something like that? Since the movie boasts those as their remembrance to the director’s days of Grind House, I guess Rodriguez wanted to stick to the loyalty of it. I am trying hard to think of some good lines or cheesy scenes or maybe even story telling, but it is an “exploitation” movie and hence it is the way it is. I did not enjoy all the parts of the parts flying around or blood drooling, which concludes I did not like “Planet Terror”.

As I was anxiously waiting for the flesh feast to end and give my senses back and also expecting some real stuff from Tarantino who disappointed big time with his private parts melting in “Planet Terror”, the fake trailers gave some relief. They were the most I enjoyed. The trailer “Don’t” will remain the winner of all those. It is not surprising when I learned that the trailer was made by the director of the movie “Shaun of the Dead”, Edgar Wright. The rest of the trailers gave the effect the “Grind House” demanded. A special mention to Rodriguez for using some of the real mishaps which would have happened in those Grind Houses and they bring the authenticity to the feature.

Having been burned up by the first feature and brought back to the screen by those trailers, Tarantino’s “Death Proof” opened up. It can be only Tarantino, who can think of a serial killer using his car as weapon. Kurt Russell as Stunt Man Mike is sleek, stylish and viciously real. He rules the frames when he comes in. The film goes through the girls partying and also having some Tarantino’s classic conversations. When I say classic, it says it is a trademark Quentin touch. Is it interesting? For a while, yes, but it dies with the time. But Quentin shows how it can be done. He put back the faith of having some real solid invention out of the dirty old garbage. Taking the elements of those comedies of errors, he sprinkles his formula. While Rodriguez’s piece stays as “typical” Grind House movies by the definition, Tarantino flairs with his style of presentation. Definitely a watchable feature and can be enjoyed for its moments of Kurt. While thinking about it, the question is, whether he nails down the feature and pays the real nostalgic with their creative tribute to those films? Maybe not. The feature’s first segment had a promising start. Kurt impressing all way had his ammunitions ready to blow it apart. But the mileage driven was not till the end.

One of the best stunts I have ever seen is the car sequences of this feature. Heavily interesting and nail biting chases providing the essential ingredient for a thriller. It is the indication of how a horror is not alone in bringing tons of blood, but some nice inventive thinking to make the audience come to the edge of their seats. Quentin excels in those and proves that he can make a “bad” good movie.

Of all, given a chance, I would not want to watch “Grind House”. It is due to the fact that I don’t like flesh and blood all over the place and also that the real nostalgic frame in those can be watched in a streaming “you tube”, which are the trailers.

"Boys Don't Cry" (1999) - Movie Review

Life is most of the times pre-programmed. In many countries and societies, it is destined to do the certain booked up things to come up in life and if some one show any sign of own interest, it gets dismissed instantaneously if it is not prosperous enough. While a normal career decision will be scrutinized, it is extremely critical and fragile when it comes to sexuality. The sad part is that, it is the taboo everyone ignores but smashed upon ground inside four walls. If some one takes a movie of a girl’s soul stuck in a man’s body, it becomes comedy. While the true story of Teena Brandon a transgender takes on the screen it is no comedy and it is full of emotions crucified on every instance of the frame.

Teena Brandon (Hilary Swank) is a born woman, who as he says is in “sexual identity crisis”. Disguises as a boy, things start to fall in place for Teena by living a life in Falls City away from his hometown Lincoln. Befriending the guys over there he falls in love for the young Lana (Chloe Sevigny). How life can be torn apart due to living a life away from his/her appearance is what “Boys Don’t Cry” is about. There seems to be a casual approach of Brandon not understanding the consequences of his actions. As Brandon’s cousin constantly getting fooled by consistent instinctive actions of Brandon, it is tough for some one to cope up with his behaviour. Probably the feelings are far from understanding the reality for Brandon. Considering being at the age of twenty, for any usual kid, it is the age of reality popping up. But for Brandon, it is the age of confused reality. It is under his skin that things may not go as he intends but still not afraid of the consequences. He accepts the risk hoping to get the happiness of the present.

As the movie progresses, it invites the viewers into the world of a complex emotions but a simple mind. Strange enough, he is bold and outspoken in expressing himself. He goes around bars and woos girls. He does everything to be accepted into the “guys’ world”. The unfortunate thing is that he enters into the world of bad guys’ world. John Lotter (Peter Sarsgard) and Tom Nissen (Brendon Sexton III) appear as a junkie but there lies a deep hatred in them which never comes out initially. The final thirty minutes shows their blind hatred and the person they really are. How a person is driven by hatred where he forgets how close he got in with some one and how it totally brings out the dark ness in him when there is a concept not grasped by them.

The viewers are consistently placed in a dull environment. It may seem how some one can get an enjoyment out of a place so screwed up and shoddy. The reality for Brandon was there in Falls City and where he found what he wanted. The tight romantic tension in between Brandon and Lana is the high light. They both fall in love out of instinct. When Lana first kisses Brandon, the suspicion is shown in her eyes. In fact her suspicion is almost confirmed while they make love but she denies it. Brandon falls for the right person to be loved. The viewers definitely know that there is going to be an eruption of anger in all of the people around Brandon, when the truth comes out. The most would be out of Lana but she embraces Brandon for who he is and continues her affection limit less. They truly love each other.

The film appears sullen and cranky during the first one hour. It happens to grip the throat of the foolish hatred ness during the final thirty minutes. The actions are so atrocious and shown with naked brutality, it takes some moment to come out of the frames. Swank won the 1999 Academy Award for Best Actress in a Lead Role. Her enactment of Brandon formed its beauty by the supporting cast of Chloe as lady love Lana. Their chemistry worked the magic for this tragic story. Sarsgard and Sexton form the same chemistry for their enactment of those confused evil souls.

The film does not flag around any message but reminds that there exists hatred for being true to one self. It is granted that Brandon should not have lied and should not have built up piles of further more, but those are the results of a soul, fearing rejection. It is sad that Lana was not powerful enough to save the misery being caused upon Brandon. It is equally sad that the men powerful enough were not ready to save him either.

The film brings out the question on what can be defined as normal. Is there anything wrong with what Brandon felt for Lana? Apart from conning his way through, is brandon’s actions are so bad to be brutalized? After these series of questions, there is nothing called normal as it is termed. Kimberley Pierce directed “Boys Don’t Cry” is the clear depiction on how “out of normal” gets its treatment and how one stands for it till the end.