"Being John Malkovich" (1999) - Movie Review

Ok. I need to be honest. I need to go to www.wikipedia.org to completely understand certain happenings in this movie. But as my friend Mathi has made me realize that art needs hard work to understand with respect to its true content and obscure meanings, it is worth it. I felt enthralled after reading and understanding some of the facts about it. It is not that the substance got lost in not understanding but some of the holes which I thought were in the movie got cleared. It is kind of relieving and fulfilled when we associate the realized factor with the sequences in the movie.

Craig (John Cusack) is puppeteer finding it hard to live with his wife Lotte (Cameroon Diaz). Their marriage is uninteresting. Still bound by the commitment, Craig finds a job in a strange office which is situated in 7 ½ floor in a building. It has very low ceiling. There he meets Maxine (Catherine Keener) and he is instantly attracted. She becomes a strange weird obsession for him. He comes out of his marriage bound mind and asks her out. She is not attracted to him. When this is happening, Craig discovers a portal in his strange floor. Curiously he gets into it and gets suck in to some one’s mind. From the people talking to him or the person inside who he is in that it is the actor John Malkovich. In exactly fifteen minutes he is thrown out of the mind and lands some where outside the city. So when he tells something like this strange phenomenon to Maxine, she should freak out right? No. Instead, she proposes a business offer of charging people to be John Malkovich. This is the world of writer Charlie Kaufman.

The movie does not try to dwell in to this weird fantasy or super natural force. Instead it uses it as an opportunity to narrate a love story inter twined unimaginably. Being some one else is human instinct right from the child hood. When I was a kid in my school, I wanted to be a high school boy. When I was a high school boy, I wanted to be a college guy. But there comes a point wherein there is a confusion of who any one really wants to be. For Craig he wants to be a puppeteer but does not know the means of achieving it successfully. This frustration and confusion is amplified by the experience of being Malkovich. At that moment he is in love with Maxine for no apparent reason. And the experience kind of gets him hypnotized for her. The obsession is powered up enormously. And the jealousy creeps up when he learns that his wife is having a strange affair with Maxine through being Malkovich. For Maxine it is impulsive and controlling. Opportunity is everything and she is experimental. She feels an amazing unusual experience of making love with Malkovich knowing Lotte is inside. But she is also put into confusion when without realization learns Craig took over of Malkovich. Now she does not know what to opt for. These three characters are disassociated and connected through the world of Malkovich.

Kaufman’s imagination is impetus. It is overwhelming to see the originality in the screen. And his imagination is filled with obsession over the mechanics of human mind. While analyzing it so scientifically and methodically, emotions and senses are the catalyst for this strange experiment. What would it be to be some one else? Well, it is common in Hollywood about that. But how about being yourself in some one else’s body when they are being themselves? I guess it is tough to explain. The movie does give an idea of it. It is definitely a unique experience. The appeal is more out here since the mind dealt out here is a celebrity. It would not have been enough to handle a screenplay with a person who is a clerk. But it cannot be said for sure on how interesting it would have been. Whatever it is, the idea of projecting the identity into a different mould with a life for itself is an experience.

It is often referred human body as a “vessel” for soul. The movie is based on that. It elevates the immorality purely on the level of one’s own thought process. It enlightens on the issue of how physical the nature has been in to the life of humans under the skin. The representation of the 7 ½ floor is an indication of how small we are and how compressed in between the ground below by the nature and the above by our self. There are clues of existentialism and presence of metaphysical attractions. Craig is obsessed with Maxine purely on her physical aspects. There is no solid evidence in their connectivity. Yet Craig cannot stop thinking about her. He becomes a person so cruel and monstrous with minuscule sense of being human. Even after achieving what he wants in life, he is begging for the sole attention from her. The experience into John Malkovich got him stuck in that. His instance attraction towards her becomes this permanently disguised form of love.

But oddly enough Maxine appears to be the “witch” character. She controls Craig as he does with his puppets. It appears that she is controlling Lotte but we witness her transformation of falling for her. She is not ready accepting her sexuality. She considers it to be experimental but later in her life comes to realize it. Realizing and not deciding on it. She understands the stature of body and soul. I mean as “body” and as “soul”. She opts for the soul. It is multifaceted character depiction of her. For example the film delivers the irony in her not entering the portal that a character who is open for experimenting. May be it is her fear of knowing the truth.

Lotte is another funny little character of distraught. In a calculated way she is not sure on where her life leads or at least on where it is being taken by Craig. She is definitely sure of something terribly wrong with their marriage but does not confess it. As Craig, she is caught into the experience. And her experience is unique of all. Her deepest denial becomes her. And readily accepts it as opposed to Maxine. One character ready to be herself.

If it is noticed that I missed the main character in the movie, John Malkovich. I guess this is exactly the movie delivers. While we are shown on every one being him, his identity is lost in it. He knows he is being controlled and it turns him nuts. While every one experience being him, he never does it with himself. And when he does that by externally inserting him in to his mind, it is chaos. May be he is upset by the fact of being with himself. It is creativity at its best on depicting that sequence. This is a movie about imagination as it poses. But it has so much more to offer than that. It offers humanity. It offers the truth of being you. It offers John Malkovich.

"High Fidelity" (2000) - Movie Review

Coming from a totally different culture and upbringing, the male and female relationships have a fixed definition for me. When some one starts going out, it is under the assumption that they will be getting married. That is the intention. That is my understanding even though it sounds rigid and stupid. Hence out here in US it sounds different. So I used to ask my friend Aaron who is American or rather pester him with how the opposite sex view about relationship out here in US. In the sense, “Will the woman want to get married with whom they go out?” or “Does every woman expect a serious relationship?” and at one point he said, “Your questions are silly.” Some what offended, I asked him why and he said, “You are trying to find a pattern out here and it does not work that way. It depends on the person”. And it hit the nail on the head, I am trying to get a pattern out of it and now I see “High Fidelity”. Rob (John Cussack) tries to find a pattern for his failed relationships. And it is silly. Relationships does not have pattern but entirely depends on each person.

Rob finds it hardly difficult to grasp his one another relationship shattered. He denies it although to us that this one does not come in his top five “most hurtful” break ups. This is Rob obsessed with music. He demands perfection in the quality of it and he wants the same in his life. Rather in his relationships. Everything needs to be pure as he terms. He invites Laura with whom he breaks up at the start of the movie. And asks whether she slept with the guy with whom she is now. The most prejudiced and shallow question any one would ask and it explains everything about him. As their common friend Liz (Joan Cussack) tells that “That’s Shocking” when she hears the reason for break up from Laura, we are shocked too. Because the Rob we have seen up till that point is a sympathetic guy who is confused in his life. We feel sorry for him but once the true things come out we go into the mode of whatever happens to him so be it. We no longer associate with him even when he talks to us through the screen all the time. But Rob does not deny it and explains his confusion further more. While looking at it, every male can relate to it. Or to be precise, every male who is in their stage of “what-does-it-all-meaning” phase as Charlie (Catherine Zeta-Jones) says in the movie.

Life is like a top five list for Rob and his record store employees Barry (Jack Black) and Dick (Todd Louiso). Barry is the outward condescending audiophile but Rob is the nice guy judging but not letting the others know what he thinks about them. I guess that’s the reason Rob does not like Barry’s actions. He is the worst of his form speaking out aloud and it is irritating. And that’s also the reason they work together well. There are movies which deal with the fear of commitment in both the sexes in a traditional sweet cake formula. This movie as might appear to deal with the issues of male commitment alone goes to other side as well. Laura is equally perplexed as that of Rob but the difference is she knows why. She knows the party is over and time to move on for big things. The confusion for her though is that she cannot leave Rob. This ambiguous tension between them pulls them and rips them on and off throughout the film.

John Cussack is the guy who could pull of the sweet irritating nag. He is strangely stereotypic but in a totally likeable way. His enactments seem to be familiar but still far away from it. His different sort of disturbance in every movie takes one more form out here. Since the movie has him talking to the audience and treats them as a character, there is lot of responsibility on him. And a character which needs to be hated and questioned, it almost would have been suicidal to attempt something like this. It is a binary result and it comes out winning.

This is a strange feeling of being committed. Or for that matter being in a relationship. This attraction and mystery in the opposite sex is compulsive especially for men. It is almost universal that a person alone is considered to have lost some thing but for all the more he/she may be happy. But this is not a movie about solitude. This is something about how Rob, who does not want to be alone, suffering from his depravity. The character of it remains in everyone but the way to handle it is what makes each of us the good or bad. Here all through the film Rob does not even consider it. Because perfection matters and it is not surprising from a person who is so accurate in data in music and exactly knows what he likes. Unfortunately he likes every inch of the details in music and fails to identify in his life. Director Stephen Frears adapts the novel of the same name by Nick Hornby to reflect those to Rob through his Records.

"The Majestic" (2001) - Movie Review

The term of “cheesy” scenes are prominent in movies. Basically my understanding goes in the sense wherein the emotions are over done to make it really sweet and explicitly try to make instant connection, but as the time progresses it is realized is all artificial. So does “The Majestic” have those cheesy scenes? The creators have used so much of those scenes previously in Hollywood productions which might get confused with the real emotions shown in this movie. The usage of dramatic emotions is right and in fact more than right, it seems perfect. When I say perfect, it is the perfection to make it sure that it is in a movie and still associates it with a smile on our face. It seems fantasy but real with respect to the events.

Peter Appleton (Jim Carrey) is a coming up writer who is waiting for his big break in to the A movies in Hollywood. His life is good with a nice actress as a girl friend and his write up very close to production. He has compromised a lot of his creations to achieve it. The first scene is amazing with respect to that. Everyone talk about the ending and decide it. Then they decide to ask the writer itself on it. Show business seems to be the same regardless of which era it is in. The film does not circle exactly on a year but it seems to happen around 1955 or so. Thunders fall on the dreams of Peter Appleton who is now being accused of being a communist. He gets summoned by the committee to explain himself. Depressed and distressed, and also drunk he gets into an accident. He gets washed away in to the shores of a beautiful but sullen town of Lawson. People are kind and are still grieving their loss of their sons in the war. How they greet Peter and how his life gets a totally different plane of existence is the rest of this likeable cute film.

There are clichés and there are sentiments. Director Frank Darabont has his way of providing those in a manner it does not seem to be thrusted upon. The emotions are calm and kind. It does not ride away totally into the melodramatic scenario nor does it contain itself to be a subtle experience. When the town is happy, we really feel the happiness. It is not cheap trick but really there is happiness. We know that everything is going to end happily and there will be a slight moderation near the end to bring everything onto clear. Still there is something mystical that the customary scenes are made to enjoy for what it is. Some where we realize this is how the scenes of “cheesiness” need to be handled to bring in the real thing out of it.

The film while bringing in the natural entertainment drama in it manages the enactment of a message too. It connects the romantic part of it but there is something to be learned upon. The revelation of a character and conviction emerging out of it nails the third act of the film. I am not exactly sure why this movie is set in the era of 1950’s. Maybe it is to bring in the situation of creativity getting hammered by the politics. Maybe it is also to provide those movie classics and remind us that those made the history of cinema. But I guess the town of Lawson is the main reason for it. While there may exist a small town like that but the acute emotions of losing their loved ones as a whole is something that era can only bring in. It is a town lost their future generation for a country. And Peter seems to lighten their hopes up for the time being to remind them that there is still life. That the souls lost remain depressed as the life they left for their loved ones is not being enjoyed. The film brings in those along with the medium of theatres which are diminishing very slowly. I am now able to get how much important Roger Ebert feels that the movies in his festival played upon in the Virginia Theatre, Champaign. It is congested but there is the history been attached to it for the people who watched and got inspired from the classics in those theatres.

Darabont manages to give something to everyone. A movie lover may admire the beauty of the classics and the theatre phenomenon. A war veteran and some one who lost their loved ones in war might associate their emotions with the town people. A relationship renewed for a one which remained hopeless which is in between Harry and his son Luke. This movie is not an epic or an extraordinary way of story telling. It is simply entertainment. An entertainment rightly termed as for movies. And this movie is in lot of way reminds the classic as well. Darabont pays homage to those classics through a different way of giving the used up emotions in a sweet way.

"Bloody Sunday" (2002) - Movie Review

There are movies which need to be regarded as a respect for the true events it portrays. It becomes difficult and extremely emotional to view it as a stand point of a critic and also as a regular movie goer. The content and concentration of the subject matter crosses those barriers and for the period of running turn ourselves in no more than shedding tears and sorry for the innocent souls lost, and also realize that it is the least we can do. The roots in the film making of “United 93” originates from “Bloody Sunday” both directed by Paul Greengrass. It is the empathizing loyal nature to the gravity of the event given by him which makes this movie powerful to make us believe it is not a movie. It is life and it beats up to the reactions of the people. This life is what makes this a movie more than a matter of substance.

The film is the events focusing right before and after the massacre by British troops over the people of Derry of Northern Ireland which painted the Sunday with blood. The movie is given mostly through Ivan Cooper (James Nesbitt), who organized the civil rights march on 30th January 1972. He is people’s person who believes in non-violence. Even though the troop’s head makes it clear in the press conference for an arrest on whoever participates in the march, this is something expected out of a protest. Any protest expects strong upheaval from the opposition to suppress it. Hence Cooper believes in going on with the march since it is a peaceful one. He expects no riots and wants appeasement throughout the course of it. The young bloods are not so passionate about the movement of softness. They need results now and they sort aggression to be their best choice of protest. It is the age of innocence and also the ignorance. It is the age of learning and hence they get easily bogged down by the fact of causing commotion as one way of showing their emotion against them being dominated by the oppressors.

Cooper aware of it tries to soothe them. In the midst of it is the involvement of Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) but Cooper gets their word for not using violence. In the meanwhile, the paras are in the notion of the breakout. They expect the worst and they want a cessation. A cessation to shut off the whole movement and bring it to complete rest. They start planning on attacking and taking as much key players in. They see this opportunity to cease all the actions and bring some rest. The film is not about whose cause is wrong or right. While they travel through those in the eyes of Cooper, this is the concentration on the whole day which basically marked one more question in the co-existence of humans amongst them. The docudrama mode of shoot is the key in bringing those horrific incidents to the screen. Handling something of extreme disturbing content needs enormous ground work with respect to enacting the events without any biased view even sub-consciously. But thinking about it, whatever may be the real act happened out there, one thing is sure that it is not something to cost human lives to justify it. The film strongly states that in a manner which can only been seen. There could have been a great amount emotion being lost if there was any back ground score in a docudrama like this. It is real and Greengrass does not add any sort of extra elements to make it unrealistic. His loyalty to the incidents is the justification of undertaking the project.

Watching this movie brings out questions of humans not being their self. Many believe that non-violence does not apply to a world surmounted by nuclear warheads. They believe blinking for a second is something any one cannot afford against an enemy. The fear of being existing and being eliminated. The battle in between these two causes confusion and over look the most important details in any agreeable situation. What happened on that horrific Sunday seems more than that. While the initial gear up of the troops could be a normal routine before any major riot causing protest, it is that which triggers them wild. While the loss of innocent people cannot be forgotten in any life time which marked the dark days in human history, it is even more depressing and cruel to have non-convicted souls after it. This cycle of violence does not stop until the people who think violence is the right mode of survival change and decide to drop their guns down; else there will be no one for them to shoot one day.

"Thirteen Days" (2000) - Movie Review

Kenny O’Donnell (Kevin Costner) out of frustration says “Communicate with the Soviets? We can't even communicate with the Pentagon. And they're just across the goddamn river.” This is “Thirteen Days” wherein President Kennedy (Bruce Greenwood) not alone was in dire situation to tackle the missile developments in Cuba by Soviet Union in the October of 1962 but also played a calm and composed leader in handling his Staff of Joint Chief. The movie focuses on those situations. The Staff of Joint Chief are in the mode to strike first before the Soviets make the first move. Their aggravation is the urgency to act fast and they believe that Kennedy is soft to handle a situation like this. The film is about those crucial days when not alone America feared the end of it but as the whole world would have entered the age of nuclear war.

As we all know that did not happen and hence the movie’s end is pretty much out. But what director Roger Donaldson shows is not about the end but how it came to that situation. While everyone know that the high authority tackling took place, the film shows how far it went in to play a vital role in bringing peace without any major destruction to the world. It convincingly gives the games of pressure and back door methods played to avoid any kind of act leading to war. It also shows how one needs to go against the values and morals to save the lives of millions. At that moment it seems right and even justified. The pace at which the movie takes place while may seem due to the screenplay, the events itself seem to have happened in complete randomness and chaos. Donaldson channels it in the right way to provide a thriller which is shockingly real and also the scrutiny of maintaining peace over war.

The movie is strong and appealing due to the fact of the three strong willed characters. President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy (Steven Culp) and the then special assistant to the President, Kenny O’Donnell. Their chemistry in real life was close and strong. The same has been maintained by the performers in this film. They do not compromise the characterization in order to bring in the drama. It is amazing to see how Kevin Costner lets him underplay which the role demanded. If at any point of time he enacted some kind of slightest authority as an actor, the momentum and the credibility would have been lost miserably. Instead he provides the fulcrum in between the brothers played brilliantly by other actors as well to anchor down the content of the battle in between having a war and a peace.

The film is the reminder of how easy it is to destruct than to create. If either party would have decided to go through with the attack, the result of destruction would have been equal and unimaginable. It would have been the crucifixion of innocence. Victory and courage are considered by the indication of the aggression and suppression. The world dominated most of the part by men believes in those rather than calmness and peace. This film is the example of victory and courage getting the recognition in terms of saving lives not in a battle field but in a real world embedded with energy of destruction rather than flourish.

The sequences of the nuclear missiles being built upon are given to provide the progress and also the intensity of the situation. The movie does not want to corner itself in four walls of constant argument of pressures but to expand itself outside it whenever it is necessary. At the same time, it does not cringe into the over emotional scenes of portraying each human beings’ fear to face the end. They draw the line where it is needed and play inside those territories. They do not fancy themselves with dialogues out of proportion but decorate it with substance and ingenuity. This is the movie which might seem as a perspective of US over the Soviet Union but it magnifies the problem inside the walls itself. The funny part is both parties disagreeing on the methods want the people to be safe but the approach is different. The difference is the movie of those tensed days when humans stood and for a second “blinked” inside the nightmares of destruction. Glad it was a blink.

"The Ex" (2007) - Movie Review

Naïve husband trying to be supportive and in the mean while being jealous towards an old ex of his wife who seems to go beyond weird imaginations to win her back. Adding to it, the husband does not get the respect and attention from his in laws either. Been there seen that. It is written all over the movie that director Jesse Peretz definitely want to give a casual and relaxed romantic comedy. He does not strain himself in bringing any new kind of elements to this clichéd story. Even with the entire repeated ness there seems to be some moments to laugh and get entertained a bit, I mean a bit.

Tom (Zach Braff) gets fired instead of a promotion on the day of his wife Sofia (Amanda Peet) giving birth to their baby. With financial pressure mounting up and to make her happy Tom moves to Ohio and takes up the job of being an ad-man for his father-in-law Bob (Charles Grodin). He meets the physically challenged Chip (Jason Bateman) who seems to still have a thing for Sofia from his high school days. Chip is the man of the company. He stretches himself far beyond to be the achiever. More than that, he does not like competition from any one, especially from Tom. He is the friendly successful guy for Bob and his wife who are not satisfied by Tom’s achievement in his career. All set and the games begin. Sabotaging, lying and spying. Sprinkle some nice awkward moments of fun and there it is the casual comedy. But wait, we have seen tons of those. Nothing is new and once the few funny laughs get over, it is time for us to wait for the movie to end.

But Zach Braff manages to bring in the boyish charm to enlighten this piece for a while. Jason Bateman tries too but even though they seem to center around him, there is not proper connection of his actions. He is meticulous and careful and why does he makes an unnecessary show at the end? Yes, they need to end the movie. Does not seem to be the character they show. While he is suffering from those character flaws, Sofia’s character is another ambiguous handling. They show sequences of Sofia getting bored with the life at Ohio too, but it seems unbelievable for not to discuss this with Tom. What is surprising is that the creators think that the audience can be taken for granted in these unexplainable behaviour. But they do not realize that even though the audience cannot pin point on what is wrong, they can feel the small nudge in them while the inquisitive heart of theirs beckons the explanation.

As I said earlier, the director does not intend to make a novel story line and definitely not a new style of film making. He wants to provide a light hearted comedy. This is the same attitude when Jay Roach made “Meet the Parents”. But it is an interesting movie mainly due to the unspoken yet cold chemistry in between the characters of Ben Stiller and Robert De Niro. The sadistic and cunning Jason Bateman’s Chip does not produce the charm and irritation by over possessive and spy eyed Robert De Niro’s Jack. Zach Braff is an obvious choice since he has come up with the same emotions very nicely in his TV Sitcom “Scrubs”. He adds in the committed husband to it and Voilà!

There is nothing wrong in making a casual beaten up comedy. It has been proven that the most clichéd stories can be made with different style and approach successfully. Moreover the cast brings out the creative weirdness in movies like this. There are those in these movies but does not come out well. It is not being applied for its full potential either. Charles Grodin is the one whom I could point out in that aspect. No one can forget his character in “Midnight Run”. They do not employ him to his caliber. It came for a moment and vanished way quickly. This is the movie wherein we do not get bored but when the movie is over, we ask, “So?”

"Hustle & Flow" (2005) - Movie Review

Working together as a team for any purpose gives a different kind of experience and satisfaction. Especially when it involves art and especially when it is making or playing music. It is always good to have a fight on whose instrument sounds better and fooling around without any clue during those strenuous and enthralling practices. I take some right on saying it because I used to be a part of my college band. We did not aspire as DJay (Terence Howard) but sure we had something to prove. Here DJay being a pimp asks the question to her girl Nola (Taryn Manning) what she wants to do with her life, but in a way he is asking himself.

There is always a borderline in all the movies with respect to showing the emotions. It is the balance which needs to strike upon being cheesy and being genuinely cheesy. “Hustle and Flow” is genuinely cheesy. This is of course a motivational movie about how a man so deep in a hole has a dream and begins to work towards it with all he has. While circumstances and his actions put him in a place he does not want to, he lives it as it becomes the addiction based comfort zone for him. He does not defend it. He realizes he is in a deep mess and it is high time to get his acts straight and do something.

DJay is the character no one can picture in a world of cities of niceties and comfort. He is caustic and yet he knows the way to talk something to be done clean and neat through any means. His work horse is Nola who does not have a clue on what it is but a girl at her position and state of mind, as she says “do not want to do this”. Its survival and they are used to it. They seem to conveniently put it back to get on with their life but it pricks every day and night. The same is with Shug (Taraji P. Henson) who is pregnant and is scared. She wants a life too and loves DJay. They think it is nothing but a dream of having a “normal” life and need to live with what they have to; DJay meets his old school mate Key (Anthony Anderson). Key digs the soul of DJay who gets his wake up call for his passion by the performance Key gives in Church. This is where everything seems right for DJay. He immediately follows his instincts and convinces Key. They believe that they can spin something phenomenal to make it to hip-hop music industry.

This is the momentum of the film. They utilize it right away and this is where they are genuine. They do not make it all happening picture perfect. It builds up slowly and steadily. The main part for a film like this is that to make the audience believe in the aspiring protagonist before even the film goes in telling their success story. Here they take their time. When Key hears DJay do some thing with the mini keyboard, it is not striking but the audience does not know how Key amplifies it as a solid recording. DJay puts in his effort in lyrics and Key gets how serious he is. The movie makes us believe that the effort is real. This is something which a movie like this might lose it. There are tons of motivational films especially in music. Where they fail is they spin the romance angle into deep that the real story gets lost. Here they have the romance come to tune right at the moment it is necessary and feels apt. And also the way they work in the session is a treat to watch. Sure they use lot of cheap trick here and there but it feels right. We do not mind those since at that point of time we want those good things to happen for DJay and his crew.

Another interesting aspect is the way they bring in the characters at the right moments. One of them is Shelby (DJ Qualls) who is this skinny white or “light skinned” guy. There always are these characters in any musical team. A hot headed but talented singer which is DJay, an extremely matured musician who wants everything perfect like Key and there is an anchor role which needs to be carried on by someone. That character is the one who takes on the responsibility of maintaining the truce and friendship in the band. And that is Shelby. It is not new either but here it is toned up properly.

There are results which are known. There are the emotions which are known. It has been done and done well too. “Hustle and Flow” does it well too. It is entertaining and realistic. It seems overly glossy but beats up the pragmatic side of it too. The situation and characters make this film for what it stands for. Theme upon music seems to be the passion for director Craig Bewer who uses Blues for his 2006 release “Black Snake Moan”. He employs those upbeat, soul bumping and energetic tunes to lift the spirit of DJay and his crew. It is tough to make a movie totally realistic and also tough to make it appealing to every different mentalities of the audience. Craig does it right with his cast giving an entertaining performance.

"The Edukators" (Language - German) (2004) - Movie Review

Social and financial divisions are often predominant and argued thing which essentially forms the bottom line for any issue. People take many forms to voice their opinion for and against it. Some take violence; some take non-violence while some take the path of what Jan (Daniel Brühl) and Peter (Stipe Erceg) do in this film. Jan lives and breathes against capitalism. Peter appears to be a casual guy who seems to be partially doing what they do for fun and also for the cause of it. Jule (Julie Jentsch) is Peter’s girl friend who has been directly affected by a rich person. The film is how these characters emotionally get involve while in the process of discovering their own philosophies through the opposite side of theirs.

This is a film which is thoroughly entertaining. Yet they do not plunge into the normal thrilling moments any movie of this kind would lead to. They do take the natural path of triangle love story as expected in the midst of all these clashes of opinions. But how they portray is something to be watched. I am mentioning this even before any other things due to the fact that this is a very thin line to walk upon and they do it admirably well. This is a movie for and against capitalism. It focuses on the whole structure of the world designed unfairly. It is true that most of the product is done in remote parts of a country wherein a child is working as a cheap labour fighting for a decent living. It is also true that there are capitalists who directly or indirectly involve in those. What these three youths forget to focus is the consumer seems to be everyone. Sometimes people take a path like this to escape their own misery. Or they want some one to be blamed and they feel content in these actions. But these are also triggered by their instincts too which is visible in how Jan finds every conversation to route back to this. He is the man of principles. He wants to protest but do not want it to be violence. But it should also be aggressive and chaotic. So they ride the lightning. They carefully analyze and select a villa. Then they break in, but they do not steal anything. They paint their chaotic protest. They leave their signature with trade mark phrases. Jan feels this is an action which would instigate the people who are glued to TV. What he does not understand is that there is enormous opportunity using the same media. He believes it is masked by the capitalists too. Jan is the youth of ambition but some where gets lost in his belief and actions.

Peter is the lightest character of all who speaks seriously when he needs to. He wants to have an average life style but still wants to contribute to the cause. Unlike Jan, he believes there needs to be some casual approach but still carry out the process. He wants to relax and hence has a girl friend while Jan does not. He trusts his friend more than anything and loves his girl friend the same. Among these two characters Jule is the one who becomes the cause for a more uproarious plot event. She is in deep debt due to an accident with a rich man whose car got totaled. She is paying the high priced car with her low priced income. While she deeply believes that the person is entitled the money, Jan argues that it is sheer petty cash for him who should consider it negligent and pardon her. In these casual serious talks emerges love. We think this is one another story which becomes stereotyped but it takes a deep dive. I will not reveal the exact happenings but it needs to be watched to experience the thrill they bring out of a normal camera work.


There is a deep agenda in the film. It seems to take sides at various instances but stays neutral. While the first half deals with the argument of Jan, the second half is dedicated on how it could totally be perceived in a different direction. The movie tends to bring in these two opposite social forces together over a dinner table conversation. It tries to sort out things in between them and accept the reality. The reality of course is what the viewers define. The definition depends on what we look as possible and convenient. This is something unique from a film. It makes us to take sides at different ends but when the movie is over, we are standing where we were. But as the film says, “The Best Ideas Survive”. The idea of seeing the both worlds of opposites and realizing that all it needs is a communication. The end maybe negative but entertaining. It might seem the movie did not finish on right conscience and note. But it never promised it. That is clever about this screenplay. Any film which discusses serious issues like this might not give answers but make us mould ourselves to believe in one part. Here they oscillate us in both the direction and leave the end for entertainment. They also leave something solidly stated as well. They say that the characters may change or not. They may change their beliefs or deceive each other but end of day it is what they are. But it does not stop us from changing.

"The Pianist" (2002) - Movie Review

Survival. A word very commonly used in the wild life. It also gets used in the middle of nowhere with death any moment and nothing to do. In present world, many compare it as the struggle to survive in these tough and mean surroundings. Wladyslaw Szpilman (Adrien Brody) survives the holocaust. His means of his end and what does it reflect is the core substance of this film. This is a movie about the movements and happenings. This is the journey of the pianist who had the best of the worst to survive. He is not clever or smooth handed to get in the good books of German officials. He is the man at the right time in worst possible places but more importantly amongst some very good people.

This two and half hour movie has hardly any dialogue. It is all in the events and the people in their mode of running, hiding, suffering and hopelessly crying. It starts with the pleasant land of Warsaw slowly getting into the modes of destruction and tragedy. The movie translates from bad to worst possible conditions. Killings without mercy by the Germans and due to hunger are predominant. The Jews are collected and put into a confined society. The means for their earning is limited. Most of them make the best out of the ridiculous and tragic position they are in. Others succumb to hunger and thirst. It is sadness everywhere and people don’t know what to do. When Wladyslaw’s family gets separated from him and head towards the expected, he meets with his restaurant owner. He hides along with him and asks about Wladyslaw’s family and he tells the obvious and the response from his boss is “Perhaps they're lucky. The quicker the better.” And yes, he means it and in a way it is true.

Wladyslaw known for his playing the piano is now on his own. He is left in the ghetto. He knows the end is near and it is time to act. He acts and the journey continues. While his feelings are for the sufferings, he is indifferent to the opinion against Germans. He does not know where he stands in first place. The fight is there but where does it lead to? The place he is in right now will be the German’s in future. What is the remedy for this? Is there any end of this cycle? But he is too scared to think about this. He is too tired and everything which is in his mind is to be alive. He does not kid himself on the ambition of his family members being alive. He knows the truth and accepts it. The sorrow is always within him. He is a man who keeps everything to himself. This comes into test when his survival depends on his capability to be invisible, unnoticeable and no sign of his presence. Silence becomes his company and music is the only solace in his mind. This is the very existence of human being. When everything is lost, there is art to hang upon. Wladyslaw already an art loving person has more reason to stay alive. And for him there are good intentions in all the people he encounters. These intentions are his survival.

This is a film which does not move around having moving dialogues. There is every possible opportunity in this, but this is not something about various people. This is about one man. A man who rarely spoke and rarely spent his days in silence and rarely was separated from his loved ones. He is put into ultimate test. When something like this happens to any person, there comes a point of time wherein there is a question of why to breathe. And why to undergo this ordeal wherein he does not have any identifiable purpose. When we think about all this, the passion of his music is the driving factor. And tragically he never gets a chance to play his instrument. He plays in thin air. And when he gets the chance, he explodes his emotions through it. While we reside with his comfort in a peaceful sleep or quenched hunger, this is where he keeps the moment to himself. May be we enjoy the music he plays and may be understand some of the emotions he brings out of it, but it is his ultimate peace and war. For so long he has kept himself contained. From the start of the movie, he is being portrayed as a calm and terse person both in behaviour and in playing the piano. He does not strike high sounds, rather he plays for some one or other. At the near end, he plays and it is for himself. There is one audience who very well might kill him. For all the time he was hiding, this is the moment he does care about dying. For those few moments, he is devoid of fear and other natural factors which would eat him alive. This striking point is the movie. An unusual audience, an unusual situation and an unusual pianist in an unusual place. But in these unusual elements, it is the humanism which is common and usual. The scarcity of it is the punching chord of this film.

Adrien Brody physically and mentally strains himself to play the character of Wladyslaw. It is his master acting and would be tough to recreate it. It is equivalent to the character of Chuck Noland in Cast Away. The only difference is Chuck is a free man in a prison island. There is a definition in his boundaries. Wladyslaw on the other hand is a prisoner in a land of unknown definitions. It still is.

"Mallrats" (1995) - Movie Review

I liked “Clerks” and “Chasing Amy”. I liked “Jersey Girl” too. I missed this second directorial venture of Kevin Smith. So what can I say about a movie which can be pointed out into numerous occasion that it does not fit to be on screen in first place? There were times when I was about to stop the movie and be done with it. I sat through the whole to write my opinion. I guess this is one of the toughest of being a reviewer is to sit through the worst of all movies. As much as I love watching and writing about it, some times there is regret sensed in all directions. The only redemption is to analyze about why it failed and what could have been done.

The film style is typical Kevin Smith movie making as that of “Clerks”. He combines the lively mockumentary style pictorial along with the comical nature of the characters to bring in his style of presentation. The start could not have been any worse. T.S (Jeremy London) getting dumped by his girl friend Brandi (Claire Forlani) decides to hang out with his another loser friend Brodie (Jason Lee) who got dumped by his girl friend Rene (Shannon Doherty). They feel “The Mall” will be the ultimate place to shed their sorrows away and relax. Having something so trivial is not surprising since Smith stunned with even more slimmer situation with his “Clerks”. Not letting my hopes down, I wait for something out of ordinary to happen. Disappointment grew in exponential terms. While there seem to be something builds upon the nothing, the dialogues appear to be built upon some casual dumb talks with nice sounding words. It appears to be clever and interesting, but it does not ignite the interesting conversations. In fact it appears seriously surprising how come Rene was even dating Brodie. There seems nothing motivating or even funny about what he says or acts.

The screenplay is so hung upon the style of the movie which is not sleek or new but the feel of it. The different repetitiveness of the same incident in numerous scenario (Silent Bob played by Kevin Smith himself breaking in accidentally into different dressing room where Gwen played by Joey Lauren Adams) is boring and predictable. The main key of this style of film making worked for Smith previously because the characters were not trying to comical but were being what they are. Here the character of Svenning (Michael Rooker) is blatantly made express weird funny emotions. It is evident in every sequence of him trying to be funny in actions since there are no funny dialogues for him. The irritating part is that his actions are not funny either. While this seems to be out of proportion, the characters of Jay (Jason Mewes) and Silent Bob are even more pathetic. With all this happening and when I am thinking that there could not be any worse scene, there comes the sequence of “topless fortune teller” just put the icing on the worst possible cake ever made.

The buddy being the bad one infiltrating the good minds to do the unimaginable things is a beat up routine and also a best routine. A routine which forms the core concept of any comedic feature. It is a strange fact that in real life, we need a friend as we might call him to instigate things which one might not try out. The friend should be in such an impressive form of character to make his buddy do anything. This cleverness in a believable way makes it funny. Ferris Bueller in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”, Kumar in “Harold and Kumar goto White Castle”, Stifler in “American Pie” and lot other movies. Brodie in “Mallrats” is not funny but pestering and annoying without any slightest sense of comic attached to it.

It is true that a director cannot be at his top notch in all his movies. It is also true that he can be in his bad days in some movies. It is also true that the technical and acting department might let him down too in some of those. But this is the movie where everything fails and when I mean everything, it is everything.

"Spider-Man 3" (2007) - Movie Review

Seeing a third part of a movie automatically puts up lot more expectations for the viewers. I did not have any kind of expectations for “Spider-Man 3”. With that, it should have been easily entertaining and in depth view of Spider-Man’s dark side, but it fails. It is the phase of super hero again finding himself in the midst of all hell breaking loose including his relationship in turmoil. It is happy day in life of Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) who is having fun balancing his two worlds with understanding girl friend Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). So things starts to get bad and getting bad with lot of villains to tackle and sort out his relation ship problems.

Peter in his all elated mood forgets to associate the reality Mary Jane is going through with her career. He feels everything is fine and reacts with positive energy to her. Mary Jane on the other hand expects a relation ship wherein her other half reacts with reality. Adding to this, Peter is slowly gets into the celebrity mode. At this very bad moment come three villains to cause more trouble in his Spidey World. There is clear indication that there are lots and lots of sub plots. The film is not able to concentrate properly on one to bring in the necessary element it thought it brought. And with all that there are some very bad uncommitted performances which are horrific factor for some one to be so easy going on an important film the audience expects. It seems surprising how come they did not notice those in their editing or the first run of the picture. Or maybe they expected it to be fun and accommodate the humour scenes of Spidey. The sequences which goes bad (and there are many apart from this) is when Peter/Spidey gets the new suit of a black creature getting into him and turns into this negative character. Tobey Maguire is the perfect candidate for playing the young and innocent kid but being in the shoes of negativity is not his territory. It is totally weird and sad to see those sequences. It is the perfect opportunity for some one to live that deepest fantasy of being bad and nothing more than the super hero turning totally into a new outlook. Here it looks like a kid aspiring to be that character and supposedly exhibits “style” and “wicked humour” which looks like a funny game of stupidity.

Apart from that, there seems to be lot of confusion in the characters. The character of Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) has nothing to it. There is no proper justification of emotional change towards Spider-Man. He does not seem evil from the start and the “humiliation” he mentions is not been shown at all. If he is taking revenge on Peter for his career demise, then it does not fit the screen properly. And the character of Flint Marco/SandMan (Thomas Haden Church) seems to show some depth into him but comes unexplainable in the end. If all he needed is to talk with Peter, then why did he attack him with Eddie? The only clean and lucid performance as well as a character is from James Franco as Harry Osborn/New Goblin. He is the one which gives the right attitude for the movie.

While the characterization department failing miserably and which forms the crux of the movie, the screenplay and the content is disappointing in different angles. The plot required for this third part had lot of solid content to it, but as said earlier, there seems to be confusion in it. Peter still dealing with the event of his Uncle’s death is the key. This is the chance of his complete cleanse of his soul. And it comes in the character of Flint Marco. The vengeance he has for him is the same what Harry is having against him. This is the area the film should have concentrated or in right terms, produced interesting frames from this. It is understandable that the personality exploration and the shift of Peter to his next step in life need to be added with the action sequences. But it should not be a baggage bringing down the main plot. Here, the idea of bringing in the black material which brings in the dark side of Peter is to make him feel the opposite side of his values and principles. A chance to tell that every one gets to ride close with the evil and gets the proposition to join it, and yet decide to go the hardest path, the good ness. This is the bottom line the movie wanted to bring out but gets lost in the story telling and the unnecessary action sequences.

It is surprising how “Batman Begins” handled the vengeance clearly and how “Spider-Man 3” faltered in it. Bruce Wayne goes through the same phase of revenge and learns a valuable lesson. Spider-Man has a basic flaw in it. He does not get help at the right time in the screen. There should have been a solid incident or a character which should have directly connected his anger with Harry’s against him. With the heart of the story not getting the attention and with sloppy performances, this film suffers the consequence in the eyes of audiences. In the end, they wanted to put in all the speeches in to a window of ten minutes and at that moment I got bored already.

"Lord of War" (2005) - Movie Review

How can right and wrong be defined? How can there be a straight forward way of identifying it? Is legal right? What is law? Is Law right? There will be so many questions which will be asked by any one more than what Yuri Orlov (Nicolas Cage) sells guns to his customer in this movie. He is a businessman. His business is selling arms. It is quite ironical and symbolical whenever Yuri asks favour from his brother Vitaly (Jared Leto), saying “brothers in arms”. Having no country as themselves and world as their playing ground, these two enter their age of youth in to selling guns. The pair is good and effective. One do the talk and other watch their backs. When movie goes like this, the feeling is that whether this is about the rise and fall of a great arms dealer? Of course it has been taken like that. It is expected to be like that. It is an open plot left as it is. The most expected is when his uncle Dmitri is about to start his car. Then what makes this a wickedly entertaining and provocative movie?

In the past few months of my vigorous movie watching, the movies which impresses as the best are the ones which are honest both in script and in character. It is irony that Yuri Orlov is honest, in telling the truth to the audience. The film is the narration of his philosophies and rules in running a gun business. This honesty is the script’s honesty. It is what makes the film a strong and solid effort on unleashing the evils of any individual. Yuri as he says is doing “business”. In fact it is the same concept adopted by “Thank you for smoking” which sounds similar to this but has its own way of making it deep and interesting. It is the argument of any individual. Unless they pull the trigger, the blood is not in their hands. Physical representation plays a vital part in escaping guilt. It is the same what Yuri follows. And when he gets the encounter of it, he goes berserk. Is he evil? Blaming him as evil is no good. Or does blaming the people who operate the machinery going to help in it too? The point is not that alone. The film is the symbol of humanism. The film explores it with blood and hatred. It is in every one of us. The film is about the exploration of how things far ahead in demoniac nature above every one are spinning the wheel of death. So does it mean that to blame the government? But government is the people? But what comes out of this film is something ethereal. Some thing which needs to be condensed as in the minds of human. Loss of soul is intolerable. It can be direct or indirect, but when it comes to the mortuary table, there is the dissection of conscience. A dissection which needs to be done with every one of us.

Addiction is a strange behaviour. Anything which brings in the curiosity of human mind can be addictive. The driving force may be money, sex or hate, but after a point of time it becomes them. Selling guns is the addictive behaviour of Yuri. He knows he has crossed the point where in the driving force is nothing but the addiction itself. He hunts himself during this around the world tour of gun shows. His hunting involves his achievements in carnal pleasures with wealth and sins. Nicolas Cage gives the character a single emotion throughout the film. An emotion of not being emotional. The film never brings in the feeling of him being evil in a direct punching action. It is strange that his actions are sinful enough but there is no emotion against him. He loves his wife and kid. He wants his brother to be good and his parents to be happy. He does not hate any one. He is the great business man who happens to sell the steels of death. But at the very end of the movie, he becomes emotional, for a moment. That moment multiplies itself to be lord of his own war. Cage once again proves that he is capable of anything and everything.

So the question comes in a person that, what can be done? The film is the door to realize the worst of things happening around the world. It is not alone because of Yuri but also because of him. Because, he forms an element in a society of individuals who wants peace. And he supplies the needs to destroy it even though he does not pull the triggers on all the people who got their life taken by his equipments. It is not about how can we stop about all the killing around the world, but is about the individual action of stopping something next to any one. The worst thing the movie could bring in to any one is the complacency. It is that the far worse things are happening in wretched place than an individual does or does not do in his/her near proximity. But the silent agenda is not that. It is pictured using the character of Agent Jack Valentine (Ethan Hawke). He may fail every time against Yuri but there prevails some thing out of reach in his eyes. The eyes free from war and have witnessed hell in Yuri in the final sequence. End of day it comes to individual and their choices. It is the sense of guilt and conscience remotely present in most of the people. It is in Yuri too and it is the story of identifying it and making him human. That is the punishment he gets for rest of his life.

"sex, lies and videotape" (1989) - Movie Review

When some one cheats over her/his loved ones, the action is not the main factor to instigate the extreme anger on other party but the thought of doing it. The thought of betrayal, the thought of thinking for a considerable time that the other party is insignificant and negating the mode to communicate and discuss the issue to be solved. Relationships are hard and sustaining it over a period of time needs enormous work from both parties. When one of the person has been totally shunned out of the real world and when he/she comes in contact with a real person in that world of the same character, there ignites mystification and curiosity. They might want to play around with the fire even if it is risky and betrayal of conscience. The thought of doing it and actually doing it is the difference. The difference is also the attempt to talk about it and solve it. The thought and action is this film.

Every one has regrets and every one wants to change. People take an effort to change and design themselves to be right. Some people do it for some time and give up. Others try so hard and work towards it that there is a considerable effort visible in their simplest of actions. This is Graham (James Spader) whose past is unknown but definitely he has done lot of mistakes. The film presents him as a cleansed man. It is strange to get that feeling out of his character. I guess it is because of the way he carries himself. He is so honest and candid that his peace is evident. Sure he does have problems but the tranquility in his mind is visible and that is prominent. He does not keep himself into a shell as Ann (Andie MacDowell) and at the same time does not test the limits in actions and speech as Ann’s sister Cynthia (Laura San Giacomo). He is the “Zen Master” as Cynthia refers him in one sequence. It may be intended to tease him but there is lot of truth attached to it. He is alone yet he is friendly and open. He does not drive away people by unexplainable actions but his truth does.

I guess any one would be paranoid when they see video tapes at his home and his acceptance of taping women speaking about their sexual experiences. This drives Ann away who gave her the sensation of being real. She is married to John (Peter Gallgher) but does not know whether she is happy or not. Her therapist listens but I guess she needs guidance. This is provided in a subtle way by Graham. The main reason Ann opens up for moments with him is his non-judgmental eyes. Still she does not want to accept those. She is conservative by choice. She has been the big sister and the superlative control of it confuses her. It does because she is not the person who is right now talking unusual thoughts to a therapist. While Cynthia is the total opposite of Ann, she of course hides her true character too. She is outspoken and “loud” as her sister says. She wants to hurt her sister and feel good about it. She does it by sleeping with John. In between these two John does not give a damn about anything except sex. His emotional inclination is next to null. He is all smiles and inviting but his lying skills dig deeper than that.

These are the four characters and their lives of course get new dimensions. The film could have been yet another dramatic and sympathetic story of a house wife getting cheated while opting for the affair. But this is the strangest and lucid way of handling those complicated situations. Of course Ann drives John to an affair and she expects it too. What one cannot accept is the lying which goes behind it. A movie with a title of “sex, lies and video tape” cannot be more self explanatory. It gives away lot of things but it is a new way of handling it. Strangely enough there is little to nothing nudity in the picture. But the movie talks a lot about sex. At the end of it, sex is everything and nothing. It is the passion which drives people over their mind, but it is also the unifying character of bringing right people at the right place. There is something so solid and truth attached to what Cynthia says during her tape session with Graham. It reveals her and explains her affair very clearly. It is crude and yet honest and emotional.

Steven Soderbergh stirred the world of independent cinema by this movie during the 90s. The title is self absorbing and it seems he wrote the whole script in eight days even though he had the thought of the story for a year. It is clear on how much content and thought process took him to sketch it out to specifics in eight days. The style of sound of the next scene coming at the end of the current scene brings in some new movie experience. And the editing is innovative. For example the final scene wherein the tape is getting viewed, instead of showing everything on tape, they shift to on the scene mode in it. I do not know whether showing it in the TV screen would have been more appealing, but switching to on the scene is more explanatory and demanding. It is the scene wherein everything comes to light in an emotional and sexual way. That needs more than TV screen. It is thoughtful and risky at the same time.

There is a beauty when John says the most “crushing” thing to Graham. It can be true since everything is done or it can be a lie, since he is used to it and wants to hurt Graham. But the truth is, it is does not really matter to Graham. Of course it would have brought some cringing muscles in his face but the man he is, it is nothing but lines. It does not matter what happened nine years ago, because he does not give a damn anymore.

"Hot Fuzz" (2007) - Movie Review

I still remember my child hood days when I was crazy for toy guns. The toy guns especially due to the action movies both in my native language Tamil and Hollywood flicks. Even the weirdest illogical movies inspired not only me but lot of the kids during that time to get into the game of “gun fighting”. Whenever our six cousins get together, it will be the game of “gun fight”. Of course it is the fun of being cool and having a strange sensation of heroism and definitely not the fun of killing some one. I have outgrown those movies but still enjoy if it is made with niceties and logics. And I cannot imagine some one coming up with the same concept in a movie in a funny/serious way.

Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is the man of perfection. He adheres to the law and its procedures with dedication and nobility. “In the name of law” is what he yells when he needs to break glasses of a shop to catch a killer. He is been put in a totally remote and peaceful village of Sandford. He is suited up with partner Danny (Nick Frost) who is a great fan of action movies. Nothing happens in this village and thus the story goes on. This is not new but the fast cut editing style makes it funny and entertaining. The technique of fast cut shots could have been fatal of overdoing it often, but Edgar Wright knows it and his editor Chris Dickens knows it as well. They use it at right moments. They use it when the story looks to fade into slow mode of normal clichéd movies tend to.

Many people feel that comedy films are easy to make. While it is getting off their mind now a day, creating a comedy movie is as tough as dealing an emotional movie. There can be lot of liberty which can be taken in these but the same is the limitation. A sequence has wafer thin line of being stupidly not funny and ridiculously funny. It is the biggest challenge of any movie maker of comedy films. Edgar Wright had the same kind of it in his previous films “Shaun of the Dead” (which by the way has the funniest scenes in the first half of the film) and he started to falter in the end. He did not know where to take it from an astounding start. In the end he aims for a serious plot to it which does not work the way it supposed to. Now in “Hot Fuzz”, the movie slowly gets into the very same mode of it but came out with brilliant concept.

This movie is the homage to the action films every kid has grown up for. Wright uses the two main movies for this, “Point Break” and “Bad Boys”. The style and usage of action sequences are well in it, but for me it is the “Broken Arrow” and “Face/Off”. I may sound silly but those are the two movies for me which defined the style of the action sequences. I guess for Wright it was those two. Everyone wants to enact the same if given in real life with no loss of blood and do it for the fun of it. Wright brings their dream on to the screen. It is fun to watch the final thirty minutes of the film. Nicholas gearing up his bullet proof vest and loading him up with the weapons and the cooler shades he wears and slightly lifts up his head just enough for light source to reflect on it. Amazing and an enthralling enactment! I need to mention about an actor at this point of time. Rajinikanth is considered literally a god in the southern Indian Cinema. His movie has lot of ridiculousness but people go crazy for him because of his style. He brought in the flavour of the onscreen charisma with respect to how “style” can make a big difference. I am sure whoever has seen those can definitely identify his style with this movie.

So does it mean that “Hot Fuzz” has lot of ridiculous stupid scenes? Yes, of course, but the beauty in it is the honesty of it. While lot of movies say that they are different and try to say that these are classically made to have emotions attached to it, “Hot Fuzz” says that it is stupid and have fun along with it. It is this honesty to the script which makes the movie one hell of an entertaining ride.

The movie added to it has solid characters, so to say. Nicholas character is one such which is another best part about it. He is good in his job and they present it in terrific scene sequences. They do not make him a clown boy as in other comedy movies like “The Naked Gun” wherein the main character is stupid but ends up as the praised one in the service. There is no compromise in his character for the sake of the comedy. Even till the end, he remains faithful to his values and principles. Similarly they do not give silly explanation of strange happenings in the events of the story. They narrate it to much perfection that it becomes a dramatically serious movie for certain moments. But they pull the carpet from the audiences’ feet when it is about to get intense. That is a sheer joy to be enjoyed.

This is the film which can be watched over and over and over again. And every time it is been watched, the funny sequences are expected and will be laughed out with the same zeal and enthusiasm. Wright proves that it is not necessary to make the characters and story stupid to bring out an action spoof/homage comedy. Nor does it need lot of blood and gore (even though it has couple of bloody sequences which could have been avoided) as that of “Planet Terror” to pay homage to the genre of movies it reflects. It does not also need the ridiculing the audience in the end by the strange explanation of strange sequences. All it needs is the right creativity and honesty to the script. It will never be the same again when I put on my cool shades. It may be silly but my internal film is running 24/7 and the audience is only me.

"Holes" (2003) - Movie Review (Screened EbertFest 2007)

There is a block in most of the people’s mind when opting to go for any movies. Some may not like the actors/actresses in it. Some may not like the directors in it. Some for some reason may not like the name of the movie itself. And some will not even know the reason for avoiding it. “Holes” has been marketed as children’s movie. That is the block it placed in movie goers. After seeing it, overall the film is meant for all audiences. It has a multi dimensional plot and racing screenplay. It is not the fairyland most of the kid’s movie would constantly provide. The movie runs deeper and for that, this one clearly is an overlooked common genre movie. Roger Ebert caught it and screened it in his film festival.

Having realized that, the movie is a decently well made material which loses the grip on the common audiences at the end. I guess its aim as the kid’s movie needed a finish like that. When I say that, it is not the ending of “everyone lived happily ever after” routine, but the way it got presented. There is a clear indication of the transformation from its tight dialogues to a complete fairyland place. The commanding villains lose the control. The control out here means the control in their character. It takes a hard time for some one getting out of a harsh and ego centric character. Here they do not change into good ones but they lay help less and pathetic which is fine tuned principled ending of kid’s movie, a kid’s movie with a cheesy ending.

The film excelled in collaging the multiple stories in a smooth fast ness. If all that the movie or the story would have shown the struggles and hard ship of the boys digging holes in harsh dry conditions, it would have been one another young boy’s tough life in prison movie. But this film is about fantasy, adventure, friendship and hopes. The idea of combining those in the right way is the positive element of this film. Jon Voight as Marion “Mr. Sir” Sevillo is the funniest and interesting comic character played by him. I have either seen him as the high ranked administrative guy with evil plans or just an old guy with evil plans. Here he brings out the comical nature with the same demoniac eyes and the serious ness too. I enjoyed him walking fancifully and stretching his face unimaginably and frightening the boys more than the lizard which comes in the film.

The ending as I said stands outside of tone, presentation and dialogues from the rest of the movie, in a bad way. This did not stop me from enjoying how all the puzzle comes finished convincingly. This is a movie wherein on a fresh morning, any one with his/her kids and also their parents can relax and watch it with curiousness. Another part I had fun was the soundtrack. Very light and catchy. It is the dessert special. It removes the hot and humid conditions which emanates from the screen. The film sheds out those weather conditions out of the picture frame into the audience. The songs makes the audience gives the pleasure of enjoying the hot cold environment. Brilliant song selections appealing to all audiences.

The film talks about patience, friendship, love and family. These are the right ingredients for any movie and it is surprising that it has been labeled in a different way. The movie is definitely not an extra ordinary material. It had its flaws as any other entertaining movie. Some times there need an adjustment from various departments. The adjustment of course needs to be carefully analyzed and weighed against all other options. In “Holes” it had its adjustment when it finishes. Andrew Davis, the director took the movie as serious as his “The Fugitive” but also provided the fun necessary for it too. This is definitely an overlooked film. Watch it for the fun “hole” digging.

"La Dolce Vita" (Language - Italian / English / French / German) (1960) - Movie Classics (Screened EbertFest 2007)

What can you say about a movie filled with internal poetry and external strong dialogues through out the tenure of its screen time? It is sheer pleasure to watch a movie which is antique in its authenticity and far ahead in its content. To start a movie with an amazing helicopter shot carrying Jesus Statue is the instant message all the viewers would get the grandiose and the effort the material is going to contain in the next nearly three hours.

This is the movie which takes immense patience to sit through for sure. The initial 30 minutes feels like an hour to sit through. But the true fact is that the characterization takes those thirty minutes. That is when there are subtleties in the personality of Marcello (Marcello Mastrainni) which is getting sketched. It does not mean that there is a detailed example of how he behaves, but it explains his job nature. The job of being a reporter, which involves invading and exploring the privacy of famous and interesting people with the advantage of intimacy. The characters which surrounds him is consistently educating on what life is and of all what he is and how needs to get himself into the reality of his originality. Every one knows he is in a continuous process of finding his true identity including himself. It is weird that the earlier movie I watched in this Ebert Film Festival, “Come Early Morning” deals with the same. I guess most of the identity search movies will have the influence of this master piece.

The film has multiple layers of abstraction bonded with realism and poetry in it. The particular sequence which marks the movie’s high point is the party with Marcello’s friend Mr. Steiner (Alain Cuny). That is where most of the truth of life is being clearly explained with clarity. It gets the clarity due to the lucidity of Mr. Steiner. It seems as if he has lived his life for full and it is the matter of time to pass it on to some one else who is struggling from the same trauma as him. It seems that he is the perfectly stable character in the movie but the audiences are struck with his demise. When the moment passes, even though there is this sense of shock in them, the shock is overcome by the reasonability that this character definitely showed those characteristics. It is at that point of time that the viewers realize that this is what he meant, quite a while ago to Marcello. In fact this is one more frustration and agony adds upon on Marcello on not able to notice those at the right moments. This is one sequence which needs so much observation and concentration to entirely get what the director Federico Fellini is portraying. The whole movie is filled in with these tons of instance which needs enormous energy and work any one needs to spend to completely grasp those. I guess that is the reason I felt the exhaustion in myself around the end of the movie. It is of no surprise.

I have been constantly enthralled by the technicality of Akira Kurosawa’s movies. This is my first Fellini movie and I am dumbfounded by the technology which has been employed in this. The initial helicopter shot, which marks the definition of the enormity of this film, is the perfect example. The screenplay and editing is another achievement in the same department. The film is the different fragments of Marcello’s life and the characters he meets. It is sometimes disjoint and sometimes intimately connected. This connection of disjoints has been mingled with delicacy of art and costume to provide the flagrance in this black and white piece. Thinking about it, I guess Fellini would have opted for black and white even if he would have shot this movie in 2007. The reason is that the colourful energy it brings out of this binary toned picture consistently reeks out so much of it which may have been an overload in real colour toned images.

The film discusses right from sex to the superstitious beliefs of people. One moment we see the beauty of the women and next moment is the dissection of religion in subtle sequences. The diversity of the contents in this movie is beyond words. The technicality of concentrating on the surrounding characters of the protagonist and thereby explaining his reality is something even the directors of this age could not possibly depict it with accuracy. We meet the father, friends, lovers and unexplained enemies of Marcello in different segments. Each segment is an encounter of Marcello with his strange and distantly intimate acquaintance. At the end of every segment, he gets closer to reality and far from his personality. His search for his soul is endless. The film is the various phases of his incidents and accidents which try to mould him to be the person every one wants him to be and him as a person want to be too. The movie of course does not lead him to that destiny. This is perplexed Marcello and this is the unique film making of Fellini.

“La Dolce Vita” definitely tests the patience but with intelligence. I did not feel the pinch of it until the final party scene. I felt there were some easy five minutes which could have been eliminated. But I guess during some point in my life, when I watch it again, there may be a birth of another philosophy out of that five minutes sequence. The ending cannot be better than poetry. Connecting the first and final scene with signs and sounds of nature and leaving it to the perception of the viewers is the moment I will be cherishing for a long time. Since it is the perception, I will finish this review with mine. In the initial sequence when Marcello talks from the helicopter to the women on the top of the building, the women understand what he says but he does not get what they are trying to say to him. In the final sequence, the same happens in different situation and this time Marcello is still not able to understand the sign language of the opposite sex. It is a direct depiction of how he never gets the opposite sex. He mesmerizes them with his charisma but never quite understands or translates it into a long lasting relationship.

"Come Early Morning" (2006) - Movie Review (Screened EbertFest 2007)

Roger Ebert said about the movie “Black Snake Moan” as “Such movies defy all categories.” “Come Early Morning” falls slightly into the category of such. The film is about the identity crisis the lead female Lucy Fowler (Ashley Judd) is going through. We see her escaping from the bed with a stranger in a hotel. Usually it is the other way around. There is a lot of definition of her character in that sequence where there seems to be an unknown issue with this female.

Lucy living with her room mate Kim (Laura Prepon) is the financially independent and emotionally lost person. As with most of the movies with deals with emotions, she does not know what she wants. Or to be precise, she does know what she wants but substitutes with short term escapes. The film is about herself being identified and accepting it. There is nice portrayal of her character. There has been a thorough study in it which is going around lively in the back ground. If it can be noticed, most of the men she knows are very good people. They care for her and they appreciate her. Of course the main person which needs to provide those are her father (Scott Wilson) who for some reason does not let her inside his place, literally. Having no place to turn and losing all the balls in the juggling of what she is and what needs to be sacrificed.

She meets Cal (Jeffrey Donovan) who can be the most adjustable and appreciating guy any female could find. But she as usual goes to her usual routine. The movie surmounts slowly into the rising point. The poetic intimate scene in between Cal and Lucy. In most of the movies, the scene in which the couples get intimate props the uncomfortable ness, but this is the pinnacle of the movie. Here there is the sense of Lucy finding herself shy and emotional in front of a man, maybe first time in her life. Cal knows it and brings it in beautifully in her.

As it reached the pinnacle, Lucy sobers up but the film kinds of dulls down. I will not say that the scenes are put forward wrong, but the flavour and magnetism in the mid thirty minutes does not sustain till the end. People like Lucy are slightly predictable when it comes to her confrontation with her relative or trying to reach out to her dad. But still those are laid out well. I guess some where the reality took some turn in to the emotional highway in Los Angeles.

There are two performances which needs special mention out here. Ashley Judd of course as the protagonist who has given her best till date. The other performance by Jeffrey Donovan is the one which stands out clearly in front of Judd. His gentle ness with the right amount of emotional gestures makes the Cal, a character. While Scott Wilson is known for his subtle performances, I guess Donovan supports the character of Lucy very well.

The back drop of Arkansas does add a lot to bring the feel of small town. The regular bar, the trailer constructional site and cramped cute neighbourhood is etched out well. After the movie was shown, the discussion with Adams and Wilson took place. The interviewers brought out some interesting points. The first one is that the emotional wake up of Lucy and second one is not showing the Christianity preaching “Cartoonish”. I would agree with the both and it comes in the mid part of the movie. I guess that was the high point of it and slightly went in a slope after that.

"Half Nelson" (2006) - Movie Review

It is quite tough to bring in the feeling of dizziness under the influence through out a movie. In the sense, the process of the movie going forward can bring in the same feeling of being crappy and not able to continue the day to day routine. Any one having too much drink and got swallowed by the influence of alcohol can relate to that feeling of being rest less. In a much simpler term, having the worst hangover. The whole day would be ruined and when the clouds clear, the exhilarating feeling is refreshing. It is a “MasterCard” priceless moment. But can you make the hangover enjoyable? “Half Nelson” is the answer.

The film is simple enough to state. A teacher is finding it hard to separate his drug habits from his school. Dan Dunne (Ryan Gosling) is the history teacher the kids love to learn under. He is witty, influential and rightly knowledgeable. As a kid, any one would like to get to know him. He is the teacher who knows the boundaries and speaks the voice of the students. He does not draw the line in between him and the students. At the same time, he maintains the aura of the authority not through rigid ness but through his ease of transferring knowledge in the most effective and interesting way possible. There would have been an influential teacher in every one’s life or at least an enjoyable funny teacher who may not know the subject, but knows the mentality of the kids. Dan Dunne is the best of those both. This is the positive energetic side he shares with the students. This is where he is strong and confident. From there on it’s down hill for him. He is under the control of drugs. His sleep is bothered and his energy is tightened up. When a person knows a lot, the obvious tendency is to share it a lot. He needs the like minded people to discuss and have the dialogue of the knowledge. His students are too young to do it and the few adults he knows does not grasp those. Topping that he is in his dream world most of the times. This is the dissipation of a knowledge radiating to nothing and destroying itself.

Comes Drey (Shareeka Epps), Dan’s student and also a basket ball player. And of course Dan is the coach of her losing team. Witnessing the eloquent and confident teacher of hers who is laying help less in the rest room, she is puzzled. May be that is one of the reasons she starts to connect with him effectively. Dan is puzzled too. He is writing a book about change and it’s an irony. He gives up hope and wants to find it in another let down being. He feels obliged to make the life of this young kid fine. He does not know how to do it, but he knows he has to do something. The film may not explicitly state these things, but conveys it effectively through expressions and that is the film making one would not witness regularly in this industry.

The jittery camera, blurred faces, terse replies, subtle expressions are some of the very few differential features of this movie. The film is the exploration of a person who does not have the hope, believes the hope in other person. There is no surprise that Drey is instantly gets close to Dan. What surprises is how Dan gets himself in the right frequency with Drey? In any other motion picture, this would have been given some bad identity putting some artificial emotions, but it is not even in question. The character definition is written in bold and underlined letters that it is purely an ethereal connection of finding the right ness in their messed up lives.

There are movies which dive in instantly into the main section and with the light mood; it blossoms into an intriguing emotional journey. There are other movies which takes sufficient time to explain its characters and then formulate the actions of those characters to present its embarkment into the plot. This film does take its time to define the characters and at the same time rides on the main flesh of the material. Alright, it has been done previously but this is special and unique. The moments are patient and hidden. It runs on a tone which the previous movies with the same characteristics did not invent upon. I know I do not make much sense, but read this paragraph after you watch the movie. I am sure that you would definitely not understand it then too, but will get what I am trying to say. The Ethereal Connection.

I cannot end this review without quoting the performance of Ryan Gosling. He got nominated for the 2006 Academy Award for Best Actor in Leading Role. Forest Whitaker won it for “The Last King of Scotland”. It is an unwinding debate on comparing the performances. Yet, the award missed Ryan Gosling.

"Swimming with Sharks" (1994) - Movie Review

It is cruelly brutal to grasp the ending of “Swimming with Sharks”. Never have I felt so let down with respect to conscience in any movie. Or maybe I do not want to accept the reality. Or may be I am expecting a fairy tale ending. Whatever it might be, there seems paper thin layer of explanation for an action unspeakable in this movie. Not being in the industry and also reading that the rumours about the character of Buddy Ackerman (Kevin Spacey) based on some real life bosses in Hollywood, may be the ending is very much possible.

The film is the story of an assistant fighting finger to the bones in satisfying his boss’s needs. The assistant is Guy (Frank Whaley), who has high ambition and one having some promise of doing the right thing. Buddy is the worst nightmare any one working under might see. He is mean, cruel, sadistic and cunning. Guy on the other hand believes that a proper communication in between the employer and boss flourishes the work. He says this and gets literally thrown stuffs at him. This is not calm environment with nice people. Ethics do not play out here. This is a jungle. A jungle wherein there is only one king and it is Buddy.

It is unbelievable and “dismay” to say the least about the environment George Huang shows. The movie is told in bits and pieces of old happenings when Guy is at Buddy’s house for pay back. The movie never sleeps around and is always in business. The screenplay is so tight and dark. This never lets any one to turn their head away from the screen. There is no doubt that the film is gripping and interesting.

But there is something outright wrong out here. There are lots of character gaps and most of all doubts. The film gives a heavy feeling due to the fact that it seems very much possible and who knows would have happened already. May be this appears a more shocking, since I wrongly expected some clean cut way out of the mess, Guy has put himself. One can imagine the competition and manipulating people in this business, but is it really about getting what you want with blood in your hands? Is it really that much worth in getting something and doubting the entire concept of conscience and good will? Frankly, the movie made it so believable; it seems people in the business are obsessed with something which is momentary and with ghostly characters. When I think about the characters in the film, is it showing the bad seeds in Hollywood? But Guy comes filled in with conscience and good ness. He in fact shows all the signs of it, even in the end. Then what is missing out in this puzzle? And also why Buddy buries his sad story of his ex-wife which is the only empathy left in him for himself? Is this his way of dealing his sorrow? But why does he pass this curse on to his assistant? The curse and the selfish lesson of minding their own interests and no one else. I am left with these open ended questions with no answers. I do not empathize for any of the characters except the one who lose their lives. There cannot be any justification for a soul ripped off which may have been for a sin or a pure misunderstanding.

A movie can be dark and have disturbing ending. “Requiem for a Dream” is the darkest of all movies I have ever seen and the ending could not have been any more disturbing. Yet out of that there is a strong message and conscience coming out of it. “Swimming with Sharks” does not give those. I do also accept that the characters do exist, but why does some one want to make a film about those? Is it necessary that a character of good will turn the complete opposite to make the best over dead bodies?

The talent in this movie is great. I have no doubts about it. Music by Tom Heil, editing by Ed Marx, screenplay and direction every thing strikes the right chords for a wicked tune. May be Huang wanted to deliver that there are people like this too who are ready to do anything for an opportunity. Doesn’t every one know about that?

It is too bad that an interesting movie like this causes uneasiness in the most unimaginable manner. Huang definitely shows that there need not be much blood or carnage to make you uncomfortable, but leaving a soul without conviction, that is crueler than that. I need to give him that for sure. I don’t know what Huang is trying to tell through this movie, but I do definitely appreciate his talent in this film. With all guilt, I do need to say that the movie kept me interesting, of course apart from the end.