"Star Wars" (1977) - Movie Review

So I did it. I finally watched the “Star Wars” or its new regenerated title “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope”. Apparently it is the cult status of the American culture and all the Television series I have watched so far always has a reference to it. I have seen the film through bits and pieces in a garbled fashion in the cable channels back in India but never had the motivation to see the full feature. With my boss providing the first three of the franchise, it is long due and expectedly not great, yet was an interesting view. Because it has become more than a film and wandered as an element or gag for the conversations. It has become a common language and a bridge for the vacuous silence in different cultures and despite its suffocatingly cheesy ending, this was fun. This would also be a tough film to review as it has attained an enormous status than an ordinary film. But I sure had tons of issues with it.

Going through the story is a wasteful exercise. I am sure there are only few of my kind existing in this universe who have not seen this film. Anyways, to cruise through my qualms and the experience of connecting through the dots of zillions of Star Wars references till this time, I need to venture into the scenes and stories a little bit. So this young dude called Luke (Mark Hamill) is the farm boy been chosen to deliver this droid R2-D2 which has the information of the “Death Star” destructive ship to the rebel force. Rebel force is good as the preface for the film says. Galactic force which owns this weapon is “evil”. How one word suffices to create a villain is mind blowing but understandable.

The greatest thing about this film was the breathtaking effects. Hands down one of the best effects in those times to witness. It is purely a fest for the viewers. The down side though is that it is the only greatest part of the film. It has characters which typically are droids. They do their roles of active kid, outlaw self consumed warrior Han (Harrison Ford) and a spirited lead lady Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher). To complete the circle of these standing machines of roles are the deadly killer villain Darth Vader (voice of James Earl Jones) and the wise man Jedi Knight with “force” on his side Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guiness). The fun element for the film are the one liners which I believe seem to have stemmed and planted so strong by the presence of Ford. His molded character does not stop him from wiping that smirk of his face. His arrogant and stubborn pilot would have been a prototype for many many characters to have come after this film.

The Rebel force soldiers are bad shooters with a far more advanced laser gun while the Galactic force fighters are worst shooters. Thus Rebel force wins. But having Keanu Reeves do some of the incredible summersaults while shooting the “Matrix” security guards as he was rained with bullets from twenty people did not bother me. It of course biases me but it is way more cooler than the shooting in this film. It is also unfair to compare a scientific piece with a much more advanced technicality in the graphic department. I do that because “The Matrix” was the most influential science fiction film which bolted me through immense depths of concept in science and philosophy. “Star Wars” has no time for speech. It is an unadulterated piece of entertainment. It is a cookie in chocolate chip. Delicious but sugars you crazy.

George Lucas had a thorough imagination for this distant planets and the inhabitants in it. The planet of Tattooine where Luke gets his new droid friends is like our earth. Which brings me to the question of whether Luke, Leia and Han are humans? Or what are they? That would get many of Star Wars fans to flood my comments but will leave it out here to fill me on my ignorance on this.

There are amusing and reptile creatures loitering amongst the streets of a space port and a bar with strange looking creatures talking, bullying and of course not allowing the droids inside the facility (like not allowing pets). Then they talk money and how does that work? Again, let me leave it to the avid fans of the film to let me know that. The thing though is that it is a film carrying enormous imagination with the effects bringing it out to the screens with perfection. Of course there is nothing for the characters to do than go on with their mission with hollow souls and charged guns. Thankfully the romance track is played subtle. The duo of R2-D2 and C-3PO had the best chemistry visible in the film. Funny and for droids, they are way too close.

All said and done, it was fun. As a film it was not up to par for any classic. “The Day the Earth Stood Still” which came twenty six years earlier to this is a far more better Science fiction film than this in terms of story and depth in the details of the personas. But for the effects of something unbelievably novel and breathtaking, “Star Wars” is the film. It has limitless abundance on its screen with richness in colour, creation and care for action. I liked it for that and I could see how this would have been to be seen in the theaters. Some films are purely great for its experience. “300” was a shallow story but an experience to be seen in theatres. “Star Wars” is something like that. “The Matrix” is both an experience and a great film.

"Two Lovers" (2008) - Movie Review

Here is a film which approaches the identities of a day to day romance without inhibitions of the right and wrong in it. Its main man Leonard Kraditor (Joaquin Phoenix) with troubles from his past wants to have his options open. Thus he acts on impulse and never stops doing it. The dilemma’s on the certainties of relationships are pestering seeds of tempt and desire. And having been broken once, Leonard does not care about the consequences. This is “Two Lovers”, a film by James Gray which is an odd story of love and the deceiving feeling of it in its players.

We see how indecisive Leonard is as he drops himself into the bay and in struggling minutes rises up to ask for help. He comes home dripping wet to his home where he lives with his parents Reuben (Moni Moshonov) and Ruth (Isabella Rossellini). They know what he has attempted because it has happened before. He cuddles in the depressed state of letting down himself in his room. In the cycle of coming out of depression, he is still in state one and he needs another woman, and in this case may be two. In his Jewish family circle a relationship is prospected within through family friendships change to business collaboration and thus obviously forming new bonds in between them too. Here it is his father’s friend Mr. Cohen (Bob Ari) and he has a beautiful daughter Sandra (Vinessa Shaw). They are set up by their parents and Leonard has the mystique to attract her. She tells she wanted to see him because she saw him in an attractive cuteness in his father’s dry cleaning shop inviting his mom to dance with him.

Leonard then encounters a blonde neighbour Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow) and begin to wonder prospects with her too. Now he has two women and does not want to lose either because he is afraid. He wants to be right in his feelings. While he likes Sandra, there is a clear commonality with Michelle who we later find out is a mistress. Leonard has his depressing past of his fiance leaving him for some odd issue. Until the culminating scene where Leonard openly declares his love for Michelle and explains why, we have no clue on what feelings he is acting upon in juggling this two women.

Joaquin Phoenix brings an unparalleled face to Leonard. His Leonard is shy but a slight encouragement of his theatrics would cut him loose. He gets into the car with three women going for clubbing and within no time pulling that string of innocence and cuteness even at his age, he is the center man in the car. Phoenix does not let the audience inside his head but takes us comfortably through his convenience in concealing and sneaking around. We never understand where his heart is even though he makes extra effort to follow through Michelle. Sandra though is set up tactically by her parents and he does not mind her and in a way sympathizes her for being trapped in this family routines. But she is an alternative for him whenever he gets defeated with Michelle.

James Gray’s “We Own the Night” was a film which had various tones of emotions in it. It posed as an action thriller while had this string of family burdens and the guilt of putting them through of one’s actions well with Phoenix and his relationship with Mark Wahlberg and Robert Duvall in it. Here it is a mellow entry in to the minds of this young man beginning to act as his wish. He does not seem to bother about the heart’s he is going to break of Sandra and his family knowing about Michelle. With Michelle though he just hints he has a girl friend as the prospect with her always seems flimsy. What makes him to go beyond that string of guilt? That should be troubling whenever he does the positively definitely the wrong thing in the particular scenario we are not disturbed by it and neither worried. We see it as the mistakes with the care for the story. We particularly do not get fond of Leonard but the way the story is told we like it.

In the end, it is a soft tale of a man on the edge of break down begins to take blind steps . He encounters two gorgeous woman, Sandra especially adores him as he is the perfect match in family, business, religion and her category of taking care of him. Michelle sees him as the outlet of her chaotic mistakes in her own life. In between these two Leonard plays around to get the best and does not hesitate to shift lovers around when needed. Is it wrong? Yes but James Gray makes it a lovable film with an odd touch of truth.

"I.O.U.S.A" (Documentary) (2008) - Movie Review

Economy is not the strong hold when it comes to me in investments, stocks and bonds as I believe few others do too. Like the regular citizens of different age groups interviewed in the film “I.O.U.S.A” of the economic terms and condition of the country, I would not be more knowledgeable than them. I would rather go down below the curve and the very informative and properly used graphical representation of the debt history and the bleak future the film puts in, I was still muddled in this big wheel of finance. But it is simple math. You do not have money, you do not spend. Debt is an addiction and that is clear when the situation of the country in financial trauma is explained.

My dad on the other hand is a smart man. He was careful of debt and when he had one, he made sure to settle it. Most of those basic principles stuck with me, though I am not smart. I am lethargic and immovable. The drive to not have debt has got me decently in the current times so far. Despite my crazy spending on music, movies and travel, it has always been a method of spend what I have. That might be a indirect reason for not buying or owning anything. I spent tons of time in getting a new car and crisscrossing the possibilities and fatalities of having debt. Seeing “I.O.U.S.A”, it scares me a lot to buy anything big, which makes the “committing” items in the unstable conditions a threatening. And I am thinking of buying a small house which worries me a lot now.

What the film does though is to try to explain this big mess bred and brought up early on from the founding times of United States of America. Going through wars through recession through everything else, the current state is how a nation got hooked on debt. A debt which never got repaid and when you owe big and owe as a nation, apparently you can get by for a long long time. The long long time though has ended and it is now current and the next generation getting hit directly on their head with the hammer of the mistakes done for so long. Now understanding the problems requires a film with limited release not reaching the wide audiences and then at the end though even they cannot suggest a solution. Of course they cannot because it comes to the responsibility of each individual.

But what does finance means to one amongst the personal and emotional needs? A lot of course to fulfill those. This huge and complex system got framed and for so many years and decades we have eluded that there are people above taking care even if they were doing the job badly. As long as we are not visibly affected, we can use the offer we are proposed. Credit Cards, the magic of spending came in and it is indeed a great thing in terms of not carrying cash but it also encouraged the slow addiction. And then came lending money for houses and now people in the hopes of a lost future payment understand the irresponsibility of the establishment but more than that their own. Too late for regrets but not too late for the people in stands to sculpt a responsible economic cycle.

“I.O.U.S.A” is a film as passionate as “An Inconvenient Truth” was about its cause. This film though takes inventive steps to acknowledge that since this is not the favourite topic to talk about. Not because of “I told you so” subject but plainly it is boring. In this they separate the deficits the current US has and goes in a calculated depth one needs to know and not get drifted away by the details. It properly lays down that the country is spending more than what it gets, does not manufacture its own resources and of course the leadership has to be pin pointed. But stopping a war and regrouping with stimulus package in triggering this economy alone is not the solution and tells how much of a small percentage it addresses. With the film stating US in 8.7 trillion in national debt, the current figure shows 11.1 trillion. That is 2.4 trillion increase in such a short span of time.

If I talk numbers, then the film has done its purpose. This education on the history of the blunders, slow but definitely effective is something that needs to be followed in the day to day life in handling the currency. Talk whatever on the system, to exist in it there needs a particular form of contribution and responsibility owing to it. Either we do nothing and suffer the trend and more deadly pass it on to the next generation cussing us or do something personal, a little bit to it. “I.O.U.S.A” will educate, scare and point the finger at you to do something. The least is to act a little responsible when coming to spending.

"Observe and Report" (2009) - Movie Review

Jody Hill’s “Observe and Report” is a curious work, fair to say. It has a strong liking to the character it developed and tries very hard in projecting his perception to its audience, and fails by a long yard. Seth Rogen as an actor has built up his maturity for roles like this and worked out pretty well while occasionally comes through does not appeal is the weeping cop doing the deeds after excessive violence and countless inappropriate behaviour. He is the security guard in this mall and takes his job as his values and principles of his life.

He is Ronnie a cop with serious psychological issues and is under prescription. He has his colleagues whom he heads up and assumes the position of head of security probably because his boss gave the title to stop him from coming to his office. Ronnie as he is, disperses orders and conducts his cop like atmosphere in the security office towards his subordinates. His right hand man Dennis (Michael Peña) speaks like a grown up Fez from “That 70s Show”. And there are two Asian twins John (John Yuan) and Matt (Matt Yuan) sharing the enthusiasm for guns with Ronnie. Then there is the kid (Jesse Plemons) who is brought in by persuasion and an odd intimidation by Ronnie. This group establish themselves as the protectors and enforcers of the law in the mall after its customers being put to trauma by a flasher in parking lot.

Ronnie who have been humiliated and seen as a joke for so long really has a case and an opportunity to prove to himself that he is not a nothing. So I sit through when it goes through the positions of embarrassment and ridicule nature Ronnie puts him and others through. Director Jody Hill splashes the screen with the abnormalities stretched in each character. Soon we get into this serious film which now explores the struggles of Ronnie trying to see the situations around turning into ups and downs making him to go the same in his behaviour.

He gets the pinnacle of his enthusiasm when his hot throb Brandi (Anna Faris) gets a peek in to the flasher pleasuring himself in front of her in the parking lot. Things are in the right place for him to take the stand and get everything he has been hoping for. To become a hero. He is while irritated by the intrusion of a Detective (Ray Liotta) in to his territory begins to see himself as cop and enrolls. He kicks ass when dropped in a bad neighbourhood by a set up done by the Detective being fed up by Ronnie’s bothering. And he gets into bed with Brandi while she is inebriated. Anna Faris is strikingly fascinating in making herself this disgusting drunk and making the process a method to show how glamorously pathetic one can put them into.

It sometimes cannot escape the formula of a comedy film resolving into this predictable ending with its bloodiness and offensive nature. “Observe and Report” has tough time finding its position not in story but in its characters. Whether to laugh at them or care for them? The only person we come to care for is the cashier clerk Nell (Collette Wolfe) as she cares for Ronnie and you know how she will be that casual beauty when Ronnie is alone in the end. We also have trouble in whether to be seriously offended to root for a guy who clearly has instability of his mind as the only stable thing in his life. So when his alcoholic mother (Celia Weston) comes and tells him that she is shifting to beer as an effort of change for her son, it seems to make sense both as a funny and emotional scene. The film overall does not work that way.

So this flasher is the running gag for Ronnie’s motivation and when he indeed finds himself chasing the guy, it is beautifully shot. A naked man running with a full frontal amongst the people in a crowded mall with Ronnie running like the world is going to come down with the song “Where is My Mind” by a band called City Wolf, it is the most surreal, funny and motivational thing happening in the film. In a film which I did not enjoy much, this becomes a weird scene of perfect surrealism.

I have not seen the debut film of Jody Hill called “The Foot Fist Way” but this film definitely makes me curious to watch it. “Observe and Report” while often makes you laugh becomes into a rolling ball of teenage confusion of what is happening with me attitude. It goes through a mid life crisis and in the end throws its hand up to surrender for the mediocrity of formula film. It is original in many and has clearly a taste for using excessive violence and random acts of people but it does not fly high enough to make it into the league of the comedies.

"Vicky Cristina Barcelona" (2008) - Movie Review

I learned a very valuable lesson not a while ago about tackling emotionally tangled issues. Never be proud that a solution you thought is the perfect one for it. Logic is far from it and quite honestly, it is for a good reason. If it is logical, life would be extra boring than usual. These unpredictability of human mind makes a good ride if there is a pursuit to come out of it for sanity. These ups, downs, further downs and depressing downs are the paths not to find meaning but to sustain and endure for a wonderful ethereal memory which melts you for another illogical emotional mistake. Still beautiful though. Such is one what Vicky (Rebecca Hall) in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” makes with the charming artist Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem).

My first Woody Allen’s flick and it is ease at its best and complexities made crystal. The world of the people Allen takes us through are confused, distorted and quite unsolvable but we see through it. We see through it because of the narration, normally for telling events is used to explain the state of mind, philosophies and outlook of the characters. Not because of the failure to emote it but in this film it is essential. We got to know their emotions well laid out before they speak out to their lovers.

Vicky and Cristina (Scarlett Johansson) come to yes Barcelona for summer with a nice middle aged couple Judy (Patricia Clarkson) and Mark (Kevin Dunn). Vicky is an art lover but not too artsy to separate her from the cycle of current structure of society and Cristina badly needs to break out from it. They enjoy the town, wine, restaurant, architecture and finally the same man Juan Antonio. There is no need to tell how voluptuous and a walking lust image Johansson is and when Javier Bardem comes as Juan offering a plane ride to a town they have not heard and openly proposing for a pleasure of food, sightseeing and making love, how much more cinematic and impossible it could get? But well, they are indeed Javier Bardem and Scarlett Johansson doing a great bit of acting making it casual from director Woody Allen. It works cliched but more than any one could ask for. Vicky of course disapproves of this Spaniard and sticks to protect her friend even so in the societal way of obligation. Secrecy is the last resort Allen opts for in how Vicky will be the one getting seduced by Antonio first. The moment it contrives upon is more than how-to approach because Juan means and says what he really means and says. And with the dark liquid of bold and passion ignites their night while Cristina is recovering from her ulcer.

But I am getting way ahead of myself. This seductive man has a seductive and violent history in terms of relationship. That would be Penélope Cruz as Maria Elena. She shouts in spanish and as much as clear she sees Juan that is the same reason she hates the life. She cannot stand the people running away from the truth they are standing right on. This knowledge drives her to hate the world around and of course goes on performing unsuccessful suicide attempts. I will let you see the film to understand how Cristina, Maria Elena and Juan end up together but when Cristina comes up with her news of leaving them, Maria could not stand it. Juan on the other hand as the light headed, cool, laid back and living in the moment guy, well you see what I am trying to say his reaction towards it.

What are these circling thoughts in our head which tells and dictates the values, structure and the habit of living along? We know we could not resist it or stop from thinking but it is a non-stop ferris wheel and we are stuck in it. We say one thing and think another. We are the perfectly flawed machines of emotional wrecks. Yet we survive. We are civilized and we keep the insanity to ourselves believing how much of a freak we are. For some, the thought that every one are crazy is a little consoling and for some it is the denial which helps but for rest it is the inability to control. That scares us. What is this has to do with the film and why am I going on like shrink? The characters in the “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” carry on this different styles of life and wondering on the change they could bring or to end the quest they have been searching. Yet it is a revolving door and depressing it may sound, routine is a part of life we come to embrace for orderliness. We may hate it but that keeps things in control and we want to be in control.

The film is not as serious as I might make it sound but it ignites the thoughts. That is the intention and rightfully so, you got to absorb it. It is funny when Maria Elena speaks in Spanish in front of Cristina which we think she does to irritate her and maintain secrecy but soon we realize that she cannot keep it in her head when she is emotional. Juan and Maria are obviously as the film stresses are the perfect blend of life but also the perfect mistake for long run. They both hate routine and when the pair becomes that chore, it is a catch-22. Woody Allen while concentrates on these four characters - Vicky, Cristina, Juan and Maria takes through the side line parallels of their situation through Judy and Vicky’s fiance, Doug (Chris Messina). They are product of this great human world with complex feelings and irrational logic. Society is the best medicine we could all find to live along but it also defeats the free flow of the living.

"Hacking Democracy" (Documentary) (2006) - Movie Review

Watching “Recount” was comically entertaining but it also runs the portrait of depressing phenomenon in the system of democracy. “Hacking Democracy” has only the depressing part though it is not documented for entertainment. Most of the home video amateur spy mechanism from the lead championing lady Bev Harris is not for theatrics but for real evidence. There is a genuine attempt in their quest for the truth. They do not want their process to be flawed as the system they are pointing the problem. Hence despite its damp presentation, the effort has an integrity which thankfully put forth the issue properly.

The embarrassing 2000 US Presidential Election is a cry to go through the cracks of this method which failed the boasting democracy of the country. Having worked as a code monkey and just entering the realms of systems, I could see the “bugs” in the secretive software. What amazes is though the haphazard attitude in getting by with it in the name of classified information. In the electronic voting which is prevalent in all the elections which has happened, the company Diebold Inc., has been supplying with an inaccurate and flawed security system as Bev Harris the founder of the non-profit organization Black Box Voting claims to state. The film goes through in analyzing that if not in depth but with computer professors and scientists trying to break it with no difficulty.

Beyond the allegations and the counter arguments of Diebold, there is indeed a problem. The scary and shameful fact is that even after the debacle in the 2000 elections, there is no proper investigation to get the source of this mistake. Clearly something happened to clock negative votes for Al Gore. And in the last demonstration of the film wherein Harri Hursti, a professor from Johns Hopkins University embeds a hacking system in the memory card which records the votes from the electronic system, it is more than obvious of what is happening out here. Irresponsible development and authentication of this machine and since the federal seem to be less bothered, it is more easy for blame and escape. I had to laugh even though it is sad when they open a simple MS Access database to alter the votes for different representative.

The film though could have been more thorough and very importantly sharp. Not sharp as in the unnecessary confrontal acts but the editorial skill of giving this in sequential details. Instead there is a linear single tone narration of this active investigative war run by this self motivated and passionate people on getting to the bottom of this wide gap in the democratic process. While the film is informative, clear and honest, in terms of presenting for the art of medium, it could have been lot better and precise.

While thinking about the accusations, the thought of this humongous and laborious process of maintaining and organizing this event of churning towards the race to decide the fate of the country made me to overlook their mistakes. But no, that makes it the most important and more responsible beckoning program. For better or worst, there should be a fair way of electing the representative of the people. Either its Bush or Gore or Obama or McCain or Cheney or Biden or Palin, there needs a respect for this process and that right for the people getting abused and manhandled is plainly wrong.

In this hunt for finding the root cause of the failure, Bev Harris with her team goes state to state and city to city and dig the trash on the outside of the election departments of the county. Weird and unnecessary as it sounds, they find the disposed official counting tapes signed by the executives of the election which got over a few days back. More so it differs widely from the official counting tapes they were given. More than favouring a particular party, it is an exemplifies the lethargic nature of the officials. But then again there is a disciplined official Ion Sancho, Supervisor of Elections allowing the team to see the optical system failing right in front of him and he is astounded.

Directors Simon Ardizzone and Russell Michaels empathize with the vigour and agony of Bev Harris and thus use the video in its simplistic fashion to get the points across. Which indeed it does but the flair or spark never gets to materialize. The pain and enthusiasm the people thrive on the film and want the rest of the citizens to share does not transpire and motivate to act. “Hacking Democracy” is very informative but not inspirational.

"Adventureland" (2009) - Movie Review

“Adventureland” is not the comedy I was expecting from the “Superbad” director Greg Mottola. It has more serious story than the advertisement projects. It happens in 1987 though the colours and disco are the significant props we would be noticing of but it becomes a theme too in a very good way. It follows two characters tied in the fate the parents have generated and fall in love without the whole hunt and ritual of virgin deflowering. The simplest drama comedy is the best thing one could ask for and “Adventureland” is one such done in a very beloved manner.

The seasonal fair as the name implies brings in a seasonal elevation of happiness during the course of time we surf through it. Because every one knows why they are here. To have fun. Bars, clubs might get people to have fun but there are way too many purpose to the visit. Get girls, get guys, wipe their sorrow and may be a little too happy to spoil the scene. Theme park is a different thing. Family brings immediate safety and there is a lot of budding innocence around. The purpose of fun is very clear that the people are levitated in it. But if you are stuck in that environment day after day and worst, work there, how will it be? Suffocating. James (Jesse Eisenberg) has no other choice to do a summer job as his dad gets some career setbacks. This cancels his Europe trip and hopes to get this done fast so that he can pursue his literary academic in New York with his best friend from school.

He begins the job he is already hating and finds that there is a reason to go. Fellow worker Em (Kristen Stewart) begins to talk to him and thus as the desperate guy, hopes to get somewhere with her. Em is an angry girl and unable to stand the societal obligations her new step mother puts through and the father going along with it. She vents out that through falling into the arms of a much older and a married guy Connell (Ryan Reynolds). Connell is the maintenance personnel of the theme park and is the big brother and coolest dude to hang out. And with such a finesse on women and men, it is bound for James to feel privileged when he talks with him and more than that to follow his advice on dealing with girls. Connell is a man of problems with himself and thus routes the game as he wants in subtle and genuine speeches. He makes the wrong seem so right to conveniently blamed on the nature of behaviour. Reynolds in his guest performance does the sleazy guy and when the time comes for James to see the man behind the mask, the scene is with maturity of the actors and especially the director.

Jesse Eisenberg did a terrific job as the kid affected by his attitude hooked on condescending outlook of his father in “The Squid and the Whale”. Here he comes off as the naive and sweet guy wondering what is going wrong with him and woman. He seem to know the signals but it is coming every time he talks with a girl. In the film though except for the first break up, the two prominent ladies in the film Em and the bomb shell Lisa (Margarita Levieva) want him for actually who he is. Lisa though wants to try something different but with Em he begins to feel home and appreciates her. And Kristen Stewart whom I resented in “Twilight” is effective indeed. She brings the maturity and the dumbness for the Em of that age with the anger and silent rage under her lovely appearance.

What Connell says about the wiring up of men to trigger their erotic senses is a serious comment. It is how convenient and inconvenient it becomes to roam around with perplexed opinions about the opposite sex. The delicacy to deal with that feeling to tell or not to screws up for an obvious mistake. It makes James worried on the chances he gets and the opportunities he would miss to finally do something of his romance life. Sometimes the most rightful thing would be the glaze over the eye in viewing the tempting wrong. That is what makes the choice so wonderful to pursue and get it exactly to the horrendous awkwardness. And “Adventureland” a posed comedy actually addresses the tone of that change in both the sexes.

People who expect to see a hilarious raunchy comedy would get some but not as they would love to get. Instead the film gets them inside it through those jokes and then puts them in to the places of these two young people in the verge of seeing their adulthood through in passing cloud of floating chances. It would make the men feeling they are getting out of the shell while women realize that there is a wrongness in the perception towards men and themselves. This is something really wonderful the film attains with a composure questioning whether you witnessed a comedy or a serious drama.

"Sunshine Cleaning" (2009) - Movie Review

The well paying business of crime scene clean up in “Sunshine Cleaning” is not used as a catharsis for the sisters Rose (Amy Adams) and Norah (Emily Blunt). Director Christine Jeffs thought it did because Rose explains that her work makes a small difference in the left over lives of the houses they clean in a baby shower. An awkward fall of Norah in to the mattress drained in blood or bodily fluid and Rose sitting with a widow unable to bear in erasing the rested place of her husband are the few points of interest in the otherwise mediocre and mostly a good marketing intriguing plot of this clean up service.

Rose is the aspiring go-getter and self help book thumping woman loosing herself in the high school days of glory. She takes pride in the hard work she does and takes it as a license to be the self righteous snob to her sister Norah. Norah on the other hand is a pothead taking similar washed up pride in being that antonym to her elder sister and the outcast of searching the non-existent uniqueness outside of her mind. Each think the other one is pathetic but when left in a restroom and a mirror, they see the truth. In between them is the bond of family in terms of Rose’s son Oscar (Jason Spevack) and their father (Alan Arkin).

Rose is so into her cheerleading days that she still sleeps with her high school sweet heart. He is a cop Mac (Steve Zahn) having less of a trouble in bringing the quarter back stardom persuasion towards Rose when she begins to wonder the after class stays in a road side motel. The classes she takes are for becoming a realtor while her current job of cleaning service only tears up the wound of being failed herself. It reaches it pinnacle when her client is a high school friend with the ideal yuppie life. She takes up the off hand reference what Mac told about cleaning up a crime scene to put her son in better school.

Is there now a rule book for independent films? Apparently there is because a ravishing yellow colour, trying to find comedy in the dreadful places and right down to the back ground score there is a step book approach. And a lazy adult’s inability to explain the proper usage of radio in the van is another sappy fiasco to let Oscar and Rose talk over to “Heaven”. While the film is full of independent cliché's, a particular instant became this deciding factor for removing myself from the film. After hearing that Mac’s wife is pregnant through her sister, a couple of shots later we see Rose filling up soda in a fountain machine. Out of nowhere I thought, “So this is where she has to see the pregnant wife of her lover and then while staring would overflow the soda in her cup” and bingo, there they were with a very made up stupid follow up by that character to Rose. It takes such a confrontation from a character we never see of to Rose to shake her off the emotionally charged illogical behaviour. Talk about unconvincing scenes.

Amy Adams should consider changing her way of laughing wide. It reminds me of all the cherubic characters she played. In this film there needs to be that dark layer of the character being drawn to this mistake of sleeping with a married person. The scenes with her and Steve Zahn while is devoid of emotional understanding does not also have the physical charge of their attraction. What drives these two people to go after each other with a clear understanding of their behaviour?

Rose is getting dragged down by her sister and the surrounding system where she works on. From couple of stories I have heard myself, the school system in US always identify a troubled kid with naming psychological mumbo jumbo and load them with drugs. In that Oscar’s case seems valid but in the following scenes, a put up and non-fitting sequence is given to establish his intelligence.

But more than anything the debacle of the film will be the approach in the sisters looking on the crime scene. It is gruesome, gory and of course gross to puke them out. When they enter the first crime scene there is blood spattered over the bath tile. The crime is a woman shooting her partner’s finger. Without that explanation there is an absolute terror and it gets subsided by the cause coming into light. It is too dark of a place to find comedy and the connection which is supposed to be the turning point for these two ladies does not vanish but it never appeared to start with.

The film begins with an unknown man entering a gun store with a load and pops himself up. There we see Mac and another cleaning guy mentioning the money involved. Without this scene with Mac telling about the opportunity the audience would have believed the money in it as a simple arithmetic calculation. I know why they put it so that there is sense of confusion, thus a curiosity. Of course it it was done right. The manual for the film making is followed precisely and thus cleaning the originality of it. And never let a irresponsible character for a crucial clean up and never ever provide them with a matchstick in an empty house.

"Fast & Furious" (2009) - Movie Review

The current dangerous world we live in today consist of tough jobs. Researching in the deadly cold lands in polar regions, fire fighters, being a realtor in the current economic condition are all can be considered toughest jobs as many say right now. But the toughest will be of Vin Diesel playing Dom Toretto in the “Fast & Furious” and with a sincerity delivering those dialogues takes quite a tough comedian to make fun of it as tons of crap has already been poured on itself. So they say there is a big argument amongst the “fans” of this prequel, sequel and interquel issue in the film series and that would be the second worst thing to waste your time on next to Justin Lin’s flick.

There is fury in the camera to bury with enough dirt, smoke and dark. And with custom fitted suit runs Paul Walker as Brian O’Connor jumping buildings and kicking bad guys. One name would connect the old buddies Brian and Dom. Dom though is mourning his dead girl friend Letty (Michelle Rodriguez). She was murdered and Dom is a walking Hollywood vengeance. With his stony body, our baldy guy takes his time to get in position as David Caruso does in “CSI:Miami” and say those awful lines. But he cannot beat Caruso though. That TV series is a ser-com (Serious Comedy) by itself.

What does the location of the character signify in this film. For a moment Dom is shown living in Panama City and then a phone call brings him back to States. Before that they pull off something in Dominic Rebuplic which gets the title for itself. The broken love of Brian and Dom’s sister Mia (Jordana Brewster) wherein some open ended questions resulting in “I Don’t Know” will be answered with hardly thought replies on some one suffering from writer’s block.

So I know many of you are questioning what the hell has gone with this reviewer in looking for story in a film like this. Well the action scenes except for the heist of stealing the oil in the first scene (which of course has its own share of comic implausibilities) have no real energy and kinetic force to give the feel of a roller coaster ride. But what can you do with just car chasing each other. They invent a tunnel on the US-Mexico border and now you are in dark wondering who is driving which car. It returns for a climax where the hopes are lost.

If “Fast & Furious” was taken as five separate short films comprising of the chase scenes in each, I might be a little intrigued. No purpose for the characters other than to drive obnoxiously with deafening sounds and shifting gears maniacs. So I would not worry about the fillers being an insult to the medium. And I can relax after fifteen minutes of action scene to come back for more with no qualms.

Of course the film will be a great appeal to car enthusiasts and blockbuster blood thirsty audience. It has the “MTV Grind” ladies with skin as their costume to roll over the metal and makes us wonder what do they think about all this. They are the wasteful props as the main characters. Then the suspense. How much work did they invest upon to reveal the bad guy. Who cares? No one does and that is actually their expectation as such it is a brainless action film.

Why does film which I enter with such a clear expectation annoys me? Wherein I know that the labour of watching it will only result in another wasteful time of mine to write one and half page review about it? It is the same with many romantic comedies for which I can lip sync the predictability of the lousy plots. Yet I go again and again with the hope of something better coming out of it. In this current economy I feel there needs a judgment call for films like “Fast & Furious”. But then again there is always a possibility of a good film in the string of horrendous exhibits.

"The 39 Steps" (1935) - Movie Review

It is an interesting thought to see a film of a classic nature today seventy four years later. How will the people would have thought of their art be at this point in time and how will it be perceived of this old piece of antique? Alfred Hitchcock’s “The 39 Steps” is that time with the thriller having a lot of unharmed adventure, a little bit of hard romance and a lot of comic tone. The characters have a way of saying things of the simplest expression. They do not ask the name of a lady, rather they say “Am I allowed to know your name?”. What a line and what kind of gentlemanly tone with an air of sarcasm and respect it poises the tension between them.

A man from Canada, Richard Hannay (Robert Donat) attends a special show of a man with brain as a sea of information readily accessible. He can tell the exact distance from Montreal to Winnipeg and he is sensible enough to not reveal a woman’s age. In the midst of that a chaos followed with gunshots and our young lead is exits with an encounter with a mysterious woman (Lucie Mannheim). Mystical and diabolically beautiful, he does not question when she asks to cling on to him to his apartment. The night is young is what resides in his mind but paranoid is following him as a woman. She carefully hides herself in his apartment before he switches on the light. Some one is watching. Why are they watching and when she tells that she was the one who fired those shot to distract from the killers pursuing her, things seem to be far from reality. Of course it is a thriller and things happen. She tells a little bit but enough for the film to take the suspense on before she dies on his lap in the middle of the night with a knife on her back.

With a dead woman and a clue of 39 Steps, spies and a man to meet in Scotland, Hannay has nothing left to do than catch a train. The whole Scotland Yard is behind him and he is jumping trains. It is truly unrealistic but it is a classic of unusual imagination with characters shifting themselves from seriousness to wit remarks in a jiffy. Hannay a man searching for nothing but an arrow to point to Scotland uses his common sense in every aspect through by standers. Some help others come as Pamela (Madeleine Carroll). She is kissed by him in the train for another try to escape from the police only to be told dutifully by this stunning beauty. He is irritated as the classic heroes were towards a strong and bold woman and their fight forms an uproariously funny and romantic scene later in the film.

How these works are immortalized by the technology to provide a pristine images of those early works is comforting. When seventy four years have passed, what will be state of the current world of cinema? Whatever it is, there always needs to be a story with words that make sense, emotions and a hell a lot of imagination and there always will be the duty of able actors to speak out those dialogues being faithful to the writer, director and an element of their own conviction. More importantly will be the existing technicians and added future invented field of art labourers to make this medium work as they intended to. That will always be the same.

This is the film when the idea of moving images itself was a great feat to watch. In it Hitchcock tries to surpass the best. A brilliant in car shot which comes out of the characters as they speak and swings by to follow it outside and steps out to see it going into the long winding road immersing and disappearing into the shady nights. Definitely a trick shot but put in out of the love towards that scene requiring that particular view to complete it.

It is an adventurous film with various locales and characters of doubtful eyes and helpful hands. Hannay comes across an old crofter (John Laurie) and identifies his subtle greediness immediately and the softness and fear in his young wife (Peggy Ashcroft). When he is assisted by her to escape, he kisses her and it is a kiss of friendship, acknowledgement and love all delivered in that one act in an effective hurry. Bits like that make me to revisit to notice the missed scenes of such execution.

“The 39 Steps” has one of the more sensible and plausible suspense. It connects the end to the start with a tune which does not gets out of the head of our hero. And when he does, it all comes to place. And they finish with a dying man and holding hands of one with a handcuff and other with a velvet glove. While I might not know the status the current best films would carry in the distant future but “The 39 Steps” will always be the entertainer, thriller and a witty comedy it is at that time of technological excellence.

"Tell No One" (Language - French) (2006) - Movie Review

The French film “Tell No One” is a thriller with real characters. The cliched usage of real characters is unavoidable because it really is and at the end of the film we understand the pain of the protagonist Alex (François Cluzet). He is the typical wrongfully accused husband of murdering his wife Margot (Marie-Josée Croze). He does run away from the law at one point in the film but it makes sense why he does that. It is foolish but his motivation is truthful. When was the last time there was an approval of a stupidity in a character driven solely by the emotion? Nothing I remember lately.

Alex and Margot lie naked on the deck of a Lake devoid of people. It is dark and it is imminent that danger is taking a dip with them. That is why when Margot swims across alone in it, we feel that there needs to be a miracle for something atrocious not happening to her. Still when Alex hearing the screams of Margot comes piercing through the waters and attacked, we fall along with him in the waters. Eight years have passed and he poses happy face for his patients while silently grieving for his dead wife. He gets that cryptic mail coinciding with the day of his wife’s death. It shows a live webcam wherein he sees Margot staring right through him. He is troubled. Then with that he does something silly of asking Margot’s father about whether he saw bruises on his daughter’s face the day he identified her body and gets kicked out. In the meanwhile they discover two bodies by the same forest and a key from the crime scene opens a safe box which reopens the Margot’s case. Alex who was already suspected is back at the center of the investigation..

In a thriller like this, the obligations are dime a dozen. You need to have a police officer with some common sense than others to solve a case. There got to be side characters to doubt, the trust turning to mistrust and vice versa. “Tell No One” faithfully does the obligations, steps over the characters of dubious nature and then comes clean in its transparent pages of its screenplay. The film based on a novel by Harlan Coben gets written for the screen by director Guillaume Canet. There is no hurry in getting the plot and absolutely no confusion whatsoever in the manner of its unraveling too. There is curiosity on so many unknown nameless characters doing things which does not make much sense. And then they have this little snippets of information given as simple memories and then some through investigation Alex does when he is on the run.

In “The Fugitive” which is supposed to be my first “conversational” English feature film, while the thrill is on the run of this innocent man, do we really understand the agony of being blamed of a crime punishing him further adding to the loss of his love? May be a little for the sunken face of Harrison Ford with his confused eyes. But the anger in finding the real killer fails to come across and the factor of him missing his wife gets washed down in the action scenes. Not that I did not like the film but seeing “Tell No One”, I realized what was missing in Ford’s flick.

Alex played by François Cluzet does the grieving husband trying to hide his sorrow over his work. When a film pushes forward the time lapse, the characters need to accommodate it. Surprising enough that we do not take much close look on it of what the time period does to the characters in films. The fading sorrow with a faint but dangerously effective pain looms over the face of Alex here. And Cluzet has no trouble in bringing it to his Alex. Even the cigarette he smokes is burnt with a sense of depression and carelessness for the surroundings around him. Many might easily miss his performance in a busy screenplay.

For a film which rides on the hope of big suspense, “Tell No One” comes so close to be a failure due to its own original and itching build up. What is so good about it is that the perspective of Alex is made positively sure would be that of the audience. The concealment of the details to reveal the truth is something Alex and ourself hear it for first time. It is not the greatest suspense of all but it does not try to be one. When the path they arrived was so entertaining, suspenseful, emotional and most importantly beautiful, the reasoning should coincide with its rest of the structure. I might call it doing a fair game in untying the knot but that brands it as a film satiating the genre of thriller. Rather it is a original thriller with characters we come to sympathize. When Alex breaks into tears in the end standing in the spot he came along with Margot right from his childhood, we want to give him a shoulder to rest. That tells a lot about “Tell No One”.

"A Wednesday" (Language - Hindi) (2008) - Movie Review

“A Wednesday” does not pose an inconspicuous act when the unnamed middle aged man (Naseeruddin Shah) asks the police commissioner Police Rathod (Anupam Kher) to assemble four terrorist in exchange for the location of the bombs he planted in the city of Mumbai. It in its first act has the smug and attitude of a hindi film high on pedestal but it also does not loiter on it too much. If it could have skimmed a little more and maintained its crap free script right from the start, it could very well would have been a solid thriller and of course the need for explanation for the acts in end. The speech is not a message but an outcry from a Mumbai citizen on the shadow of fear the person has to live through.

A simpleton in appearance is this mystery man. He sips his home made coffee at the terrace of an under constructed building. He carries a bag of grocery and promptly gets a call from his wife to get rice pudding. This can be seen as a boast or smirk from another actor but with Naseeruddin Shah we see an average guy in appearance with dangerous motives inside. If the film survives on its best part it is because of this man. While the dialogues are an edge to this when the audience are emotionally sucked in both instinctively and obligatorily, there should not be a spoil sport played by over done acting.

Bollywood with its cheap affairs and Hollywood with its very cheap affairs have made completely aware of the routines by Indian Police, FBI, CIA, RAW and all the security organization in their searching procedures. So if director Neeraj Pandey could have avoided that unnecessary whole nine yard of showing the sniffing dogs and numerous security personnel searching the public places, we would have reached the better ending faster. My admiration for “The Bourne..” series is great but damn that film for showing its team tapping the keyboards to pieces. Damn it for getting the top in the line big screen television and one of a kind cool animation to blow up the terrorists in their cool get up. Damn the Indian films for taking that as the mark of suavity and weigh a film based on number of gadgets used by the characters in the film. But no no, damn the stereotype hacker and the worse characterization to flash the oomph factor. Do they really have to have a very young kid, college drop out, stupid hat, calling babe over the phone and irresponsibility written all over his bad acting necessary for a hacker?

When Jimmy Shergill as the icy cold terrorizing cop Arif Khan is introduced, it did not smell fishy but terribly nauseating for the expected made up one liners. But Pandey had senses in using that characterization to keep him silent most of the time which gives him one point for not fooling around for sleek and style. Then we get an immaculate police force for our commissioner and every one of them do not care about the bomb they are going to dismantle. Apart from doubting their sincerity, they should be scared crazy but they walk in as Captain Vijaykanth in our tamil films ready to kick ass.

Of course I knew the whole plan of our mystery man on bringing the terrorists. But I guess the director knew about audience guessing it too. May be that is the reason he asked the over the top music by Sanjoy Chowdhury to play it down when the supposed suspense is revealed. The best part of the film is the final thirty minutes without any interruption. Even the cliched encounter of one of the terrorist with our Arif Khan made a little sense with the right amount of cinematic element.

The reason “A Wednesday” appeals enormously to every one because of the voice of the citizens coming aloud from a character in the end. The fear is real and mainly as said the fear has become a part of the process to cope upon. I remember when I was in Bangalore last July-August, there were series of bombs all over the city. We cancelled the plans to go out and stay put. The next day after hearing from many people it is fine to come out, we took a ride. It was business as usual. We were not sure whether to be happy about the way city came back to its sense so fast or to be depressingly sad on how well that has become a part of the daily life in a resident. It was a mixed feeling.

Is there a solution to this atrocity and the permanent scare amongst the people? We can blame zillions of ideologies, people, organization, irresponsibility and of course the common people. As in the film “Knowing” the character says “Sh*t Happens”. It is tragic, heartbreaking and unjust. If there is a solution, it would have been in action and visible enough too. “A Wednesday” does not attempt for a solution but a strong emotion coming at the right time in the film. I would have liked to sit and talk with this mystery man a little more, but then again that is what keeps him interesting and empathetic. The best part of this whole deal is when he is honest about his actions and delivers the quintessential answer for the question put forth by Rathod on “for what religion he is doing this”. He replies “I am doing it for myself” and gets away without any selfish and insanity attached to it. That is where “A Wednesday” takes itself seriously and becomes a better film.

"Man on the Train" (Language - French) (2002) - Movie Classics

Patrice Leconte’s “Man on the Train” is a silent symphony of yearnings and longings. It is one of those french films which has a class without condescension. It lives on a throne but does not boast on its richness. It is in its abundance of subtleties manufactures the tenderness amongst tough men and the courage in the sublime. The parallel in two person’s life of opposite styles of existence which sometimes reeks of loudness than silence does not murk this feature of such a study. It has two men envying the other. The small steps in their irreversible lives are documented in this lovely film, “Man on the Train”.

In a town where night life is a stroll in a pharmacy store comes a stranger (Johnny Hallyday). He asks for aspirin and coming out realizes he needs water. Another customer (Jean Rochefort) invites him to his house. Does some one do that to a stranger? We realize that the old man Manesquier has his reasons to do that. Nothing underlying but coming Saturday he goes for a major surgery. He has lived a life of routine. Immovable and the boring routine of normalcy has left him to the rusted property his mother gave him and the students who has lost interest in poetry. He talks as though silence would make him cry. In comes the stranger who does not ask questions, does not refuse help and carries a silence and loneliness close to his heart. Both are yet startled by each other. The stranger departs and returns with a closed hotel. The old man says he knew and the stranger does not get angry or annoyed of him telling that before. Each understand the purpose of that. Manesquier did not want to impose and the stranger the same but both are glad in their own way.

The stranger named Milan has come with guns. He wears a leather jacket with an eye that looks with a command and electricity. He has a purpose for his visit. Manesquier does not ask but knows it. He wears Milan’s jacket and plays cowboy in front of mirror, then smiling content with a little embarrassment and awkwardness at his own presence. When this is happening, Milan meets up with his accomplices and scouts a local bank for a Saturday hold up. Each men at their wrinkled skin forming another fold as the day goes stand at an uncertain future. Last wishes are not said but done as though saying it would bring the tragedy to reality.

We live a life of unfulfilled dreams and regrets in the blinks. The art that never took off, the instrument that was never played, the game that was never mastered and the women (the end is intentional). Instead there sprouts experts at jobs they never loved, commuters of the road sinking an inch with the marching of the crowd and return back without a millimeter of sidestep to the locked door in to the safety of boredom. The thrive to be secure has driven the lives into the claws of washed up stability. While that is been done, there is an awe in the concept of “The Matrix” because there is a desperate cry for freeing up from an event bigger than the whole world. That is the only way these shackled chains of routine can be powdered. There needs a reason big enough beyond the world to do something outrageous. That is the adventure life Manesquier seem to have missed and longs. He fantasizes a bank hold up where he has been a customer for forty years. Of course he would do it without any blood sheds because the guilt would eat up the adrenaline fun. His heart still beats faster hearing new sounds at his house and asks his gardener why he is not used to his visit even after twenty years. He has dined in a restaurant for thirty years and has put up with the ruffians who visit now and then. Look the time frame Leconte poses through the character who says to himself on the regularity he has learned to live and accept.

Milan a curt man also unleashes the sword of naked truth sporadically. He is often restless but begins to be amused and amazed at the loudness of Manesquier’s talks and the calmness of the his house, job and silence. He sees the book, piano and the invisible cracks in the wall. He has lived through a duffle bag and wandered through the country. Women on the go and guns to marry, his legs are tired of boots and beckons slippers. Manesquier gifts him one and tells it does not suit him but Milan does not care. He understands Manesquier’s frustration while Manesquier empathizes the same with him. Leconte does not waste scenes in flash back but relies on these two actors. Their bond which develops with few words ends in an eye flash of fantasy fulfilled in a moment of unrealism.

“Man on the Train” which in my first viewing three to four years back began as something of an action film and ended with the same yearning the characters get. Years passed and now it instigates the same. The music of Pascal Esteve is one of the weirdest score I have heard and also one of the most nostalgic and classy too. When we first hear it as Milan sits in the train, we are puzzled by this odd rhythm. It sounds as a discord of tunes but then it forms a shape of everything these characters go through. Brotherhood, loneliness, adventure, care and longings forever.

"Knowing" (2009) - Movie Review

“Knowing” is the science fiction film we have been missing so far. When the death of the genre was ironically cremated by the overloading of CGI and less effort on telling the story, the hope was lost. At least on personal level I gave up that there is not going to be another awestruck films what the classic sci-fi came up with “The Day the Earth Stood Still” and of course the Spielberg ventures. And Nicolas Cage is a strange actor who does couple of trashiest films possible like “Bangkok Dangerous” and “National Treasure” sequel and then surprises with “Lord of War” and “The Weatherman”. So when the publicity rolled down for this film with him in the lead, it instantly fell into the former category of worst films. But this is one of the most visually visceral with a PG-13 rating and a story of pure science fiction saw through successfully till the end by director Alex Proyas.

In the year of 1959 as the typical Hollywood scare kid tactics comes Lucinda (Lara Robinson). She writes crazy numbers and that is put in a time capsule buried in front of a school marking its establishment. After fifty years, it is unearthed and the number sheet lands in the hands of Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) the son of MIT Astrophysicist John (Nicolas Cage), a man who has lost his wife to a fire incident a year back. Now he lives coping with his geeky son and hitting the bottle while delving into the sorrow and peace to the music of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 (a detail I was able to acquire from a nice reviewer in iTunes). The same Beethoven’s music comes to a dark poetic drive in the end.

Numbers are a disciplined form of poetry. A poetry which seems methodical and defeating the free flow of art but it is one of the greatest mystical and crystalline vision from the human. Numbers attract logic people to prove the illogic and vice versa by the illogic to convince themselves of the sanity they have. And it also attracts bad scripts and thus worst films. Here being the man of science, John finds the connection and it seems too good to be true. His principles and beliefs are disturbed. All the sequence of numbers gives the date and death toll for the past fifty years. Three have not happened and John wants to do something about it. He sees the hotel fire accident which killed his wife in the numbers too. His drive becomes more to prevent these catastrophes.

Thankfully and very very immensely thankfully this is not in it entirety used as a play ground for thrill rides and CGI rains. While of course it uses the CGI effects, its attention to the story remains unperturbed. John continuously and laboriously watches the television to see any disaster events matching the prediction. Failing to see it, he thinks to realize his errancy and goes to pick up his kid from school when he gets stuck in traffic. While leaving apologetic message to a friend and a colleague he got mad at for ridiculing his story, he realizes the unaccounted number to be something else. He is in the spot of the disaster and the disaster which happens in front of him blows your mind but terrorize the hell out of the viewers. In a single shot, we see John being inches away from the happening and then goes into the chaotic scenery of people suffering from burns. He is in to the core of hell in those moments and we are put through that ordeal. A magnitude of such accident happens in a subway which is another scene giving chills.

“Knowing” does not hold suspense. The “whisperers” the kids hearing and seeing does not need any explanation. If anything the sci-fi genre has taught us, it is to identify the human like characters to be not human at all. It is not a ghost story but a horror film in the imminent events of calamity that could cause annihilation with a reason if you want to. As the film goes into its stages of explaining the happenings, a moment of small words leaves it completely better and best from not going in details about the predictions. It becomes immaterial at that point.

We live the life thriving for purpose and reasons. Does “Knowing” advocates theism or atheism? Honestly it does the politically correct in a very convincing fashion of being agnostic. But that is the integrity of the script wherein labeling and deciding is not possible with such a small particle in the cosmic being of us. Nothing becomes the best answer to the existence. It resolves everything. The meaning and purpose are defined by the emotional discovery we make through the life. Many have it in different forms in the most appreciative and of course the most sickest way possible too. The hunt for the reason can only take some one to a certain distance to keep them going but beyond that, it is all left to the moment, the precise perfect single second of our existence which might instantly dismissed in fractions and disposed permanently.

Hope as bright and cheesy it sounds is also as “Red” in “The Shawshank Redemption” says is a dangerous thing. You do not drive yourself into insanity but stay peaceful within the realms of one’s mind. But again how one’s mind will be judged and there we go again into this infinite circles of thoughts till we expire it. “Knowing” does not say much but makes you wonder of these possibilities. It also does not relish in the mad and stupid chaos of the whole world. It centers around on its primary character who seem to be a good blend of nice traits. A scientist with a pastor father and who has seen loved one departed from him. His journey into preventing and finding answers are thrilling, terrorizing, puzzling and with an answer of no answer. Fate, becomes a unsubstantiated reason and evidence for the beliefs one holds but also an information one do not want to know if supplied. Its existence helps in moving on for the one’s who has lost something immeasurable out of no fault of their own but it is also something that keeps one from not moving on of the general crowd who see it as a purpose of life. The last film which made me think so much into complex sentences was “The Fountain”. And “Knowing” brings more than that reaching wider audience and was a great movie experience in the genre of science fiction for me.

"Duplicity" (2009) - Movie Review

Any con film is a test for a screen writer. Because the writer knows the game and instead of hurrying up in telling it fast, it needs an uncanny way of putting it such that it segues. As the trick of magic in “The Prestige”, it is a play of fooling wherein the audience needs to be enthralled to be fooled and laugh with the ingenuity of the magician. Concealment is allowed if it is put in such away that we are not insulted by it. “The Sting”, “Ocean’s Eleven” are a play of those and win its audience with a great cheer and applause. “Duplicity” is not a great cheer but a smart con film which would have sounded as the twist of the twists on paper. It always lets us know when we want us to know and finally when the rug is pulled under may be we are not as thrilled as they want us to be. Still it is charming. Why? Because it has two dazzling players for its tango and their chemistry and the paranoid doubts filled in their relationship makes it lovable. Diplomatically mushy but lovable.

Two spies have fronted a con far ahead and deep in the undergrounds of the corporate battle front, which is between two CEOs ready to kill each other. One being Howard Tully (Tom Wilkinson) and the other Dick Garsik (Paul Giamatti). The enmity of them has come to hands and knees as the title roles up with their super slo-mo fight, that we get it without bullying, sarcastic and raunchy cussing at each other, they wrestle. Their business strategy is of such secrecy and clandestinity that they hire ex-spies to get their security tight and sink below the levels of cheapness beyond our imagination. They monitor, track, steal, divert and do ultimately the sickest imagination possible without bloodshed in this case. Gilroy is pretty careful in that aspect to not migrate to his previous film “Michael Clayton”.

The spies are played by Clive Owen and Julia Roberts. Their first meet ended in bed while the other drugged to get the information. Remember they are spies. While we think about Owen’s Ray being sloppy, we would understand why he followed his instincts and cross the line of spy rules once they formulate plans and sustain their relationship as the film furthers. The acts are revealed step by step going back in time to piece the puzzle so that we only know the information we need for say the next twenty minutes and then comes the next flash back. Like this it keeps us on bay not irritably.

Obviously the plot is convoluted and one can hardly imagine the turmoil, coincidences and the time machine they would have needed to foresee their plan perfectly. The formula for the con film is make it bite its own tail many times and of course make sure the audience do not realize it. The thing about “Duplicity” is the cleverness of the twists. While I called most of it, I loved where they were going. It is like unpacking a gift which you know and love to have. In that the script works sweetly and we deliciously slip in to the sips of balanced concoction of smirks and plays.

Each while being in the plan together working as a team always encircle with trust issues. Both acknowledge it but it is like a constant thought process which they cannot stop. This acknowledgment only worsens as it gives a free pass to stretch out the extreme plausibilities of one screwing over the other. Each are afraid of cheating in their con and still the test of it gets them all along through the end. Their nature of the trust in the shambles and liking them after it reveal how much they want each other, or may be this is a game to get the final lot by themselves. You never know.

Clive Owen does something different. Not in acting but in shaving regularly for once in his films. Julia Roberts does her usual thing which is to dominate the screen and her other half with star power. But Clive Owen would be the only one to withstand it like the manliness he is known for. He takes the hit and falls ground with a hard smile and gets up with mud stubble to take the lady back to his place. This affinity gets the spark going on between these couple forming the story.

Tony Gilroy has the last laugh though. He would have been a contended film maker seeing his work. But why the feel of being enjoyed and not completely fulfilled encompasses us. The finishing which is the rug pull off is totally suspense, not cheating and no cheap tricks. It is a clean pull and we buy into it. We never look back but why there is a sigh that it could have been a little better. May be we have always seen the winners ahead and want the players out of the con safe. May be the reflection of the star images have make us to root for the couple in winning their fortune and live happily ever after. They do win but a film like this have always played the material gain over emotional. Gilroy wants that to cross barriers and it does. You will like it for sure but whether it would be the memorable fun ride needs sometime to think over.

"I Love You, Man" (2009) - Movie Review

Is it like a gold mine discovered by the clan of Apatow in finding the genre of seasoning of tune forking the bond between two straight men? Looks like it because the genre is hitting it right on target every time. While Apatow has nothing to do with this film, his fraternity buddies Paul Rudd and Jason Segel add their flavour to make “I Love You, Man” not only a great comedy but also a tender seriousness very much the blood and soul to its story. Paul Rudd comes off as the coolest guy ever in all the films he has been in and it is hard to believe to see his Peter Klaven in this film to have no male friends. But soon enough we understand the zero chemistry he has with his fellow men and despite his coolness in giving comic lines, his character is a man of random words.

There was a reference from a reviewer I cannot remember for “Knocked Up” saying to have the front men characters played by Paul Rudd and Seth Rogen in that film to get a room to be irritated by them. I found it odd of the reviewer because there is no men in the world who would not have empathized with those characters. And for once there is a genre for men, straight and gay. How better can it get? The talent which goes unrecognized in these comedy flicks is their finesse in following a formula and still coming out creative and artful as it can be. That surprises me every single time.

Our man Peter Klaven just got engaged to Zooey (Rashida Jones) and the series of events of his depravity in having male friends puts him to the hunt for a best man. The opportunity to make it the crudest and most exploitative scenario goes smooth, funny and feel sympathetic towards Peter. He is getting set up for “man”date by his mom (Jane Kurtin), his gay brother (Andy Samberg) and his fiance which goes unsuccessful. He has a great time with his mom’s choice Doug (Thomas Lennon) only to be french kissed in the end. His brother sets up his gym colleague Lonnie (Joe Lo Trugillo) who is up all over Peter’s face and has an odd high pitched annoying voice. His fiance’s friend Denise (Jamie Pressly) tries to make her jerk of a husband Barry (Jon Favreau) to hang out with Peter. That turns out to be the worst when a drinking challenge drains Barry with Peter’s puke.

Peter a realtor arranges an open house for the “Hulk” man Lou Ferrigno’s house where he bumps into Jason Segel’s Sidney Fife. He is the most laid back character you could find but still alive and kicking in his cool sort of way. He is honest and says his real venture into this posh house is to get free food and pick up single divorced women. He calls on immaculately on a client of Peter’s who precisely times his art of fart. Peter is impressed and one thing leads to another, they begin to hang out with each other.

Peter has no problem in gelling with the women around. He feels home out there and never panics a heart beat. And the initial conversations he tries to strike with men and then with Sidney is not only funny but you can feel the awkwardness in a way how one would associate with a regular schmuck who goes speechless with women. Here he blabbers continuously. Ends every conversation trying to come up with something cool and blurts not only the most uncool thing ever but makes no sense whatsoever in it

Soon he begins to venture out a ride he seem to have missed out in his life. He jams up music session and drools over each other in a concert of their favourite band “Rush” while Peter pretty much ignores Zooey. The whole nine yards of that wave is nothing to be newly encountered but the Rudd and Segel combination is intense and is hysterically funny.

Segel’s Sidney is not only easy going but brings the best and unseen character in Peter. He makes Peter loosen up and also draws a rule very much open and acknowledging of the bond they have. We have seen this in “Superbad”, “Knocked Up” and traces in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” and here it is clear and open on the table of taking the whole perspective of male friendship with a great affection. Comedy films are also tough to review as it is easy to lose yourself and forget about putting the judgmental hat. You lose opinions and have fun completely. While deep drama and emotional films have their feat of their own, comedy films makes you care less and irresponsible for that time. “I Love You, Man” does that and at the same time live the characters to like and care for them. That makes this the first funniest film for the year and it is purely entertaining.

"Iraq in Fragments" (Documentary) (2006) - Movie Review

The land of different nations interviewed by few in a documentary is a narrow view but it is at least a view. People from various nations question the culture, trend, practice, philosophy with curiosity and assume an image. I always get an uncomfortable feeling that the projection I make of my country is seen through the opinions of mine. It is not the representation of that and that bothers me. It is unavoidable because a single person’s experience is limited, hearsay and of course does not encompass an enormous nation. Thus is with every other country but this flavour of diverse is mistakenly seen not available in US. While it is true that the variation is incomparable but the strata of culture is there in this country. I am digressing, anyways a documentary is as such though and with the trend of war, betrayal, chaos and injustice from the front of American towards Iraq came in many films. Some were brilliant, others mediocre and now it has become tiring. But “Iraq in Fragments” which came in 2006 can be said as a very true attempt in giving an Iraq in breadth and ground reality.

Yes it has people complaining how the tyranny of Saddam has been replaced by Bush’s insolent positioning of troops and force but that is the emotion floating around that nation. Also it is not used as a tag line of exploitation and arrogance. The film is split into three parts. Each part has a narration by a resident. In two of the segments it follows them around while in the “Sadr’s South” it is the environment of the place. The differences in approach of the chaos and problems from diverse citizens. It is a religious nation as most around the world are and the concept of god takes its form to the perspective of the facilitator to get their opinions across for their advantage, both good and bad.

Longley’s camera work is more than a strength to the film. It becomes a soul. It has filters and tints added for the clarity and effects but does not suck out the naturalness of its locations and situations. Either it is a protest or following a little boy around the school or capturing the plume of black smoke masking the ray of light from the sun at dusk, the imageries of those are quite stupendous. Thus is the editing and the theme of the music.

It uses the narration from the people to avoid any sort of disconnect in obtaining as much truth one could possibly get out of this wide variety of places, people and politics. In the first segment we see a little boy named Mohammed. He is eleven and is working in a mechanic shop run by a father figure, the owner. The man whoops him and teases and embarrasses when the boy is not studying well. While it would be seen insensitive and shocking to American viewers, I could relate to it quite well. Because the fear in the elders that the chance to condition and correct a kid need to be done at any cost. And that is truly effective to give a picture of the future of a degraded and destitute to them and point it out pinching their senses. Despite that the boy says he loves the man and works and studies under his guidance. Having that as the main story, the film goes behind him in the streets with shambled buildings and chaotic setting. It is congested and the people are filled with anger, frustration and in many cases a big sigh of representing their loss of hope.

The second segment is terrorizing, powerful and gives the layer of the Iraq which is at the edge of waging a war and they do carry out in certain ways. There are group of people who believe in the civil disobedience and proper election to prove their governance to the Americans and win that way. Others under a leader are ready to be kindled, lured into the destruction and violence where they need some one to shower their anger. This contrast becomes the segment with chilling images again not exploiting but giving what is happening in the country.

The third segment follows the Kurdish area and a family producing bricks and herding sheeps for their living. The spring is hiding in the corner and the change in the weather becomes another beauty for the camera of Longley. All the three segments carry a great thing among the films which come out focusing on this country. It for once looks at the people in a way very equally without making them sympathetic. We empathize with their frustration but the difference among them is a problem existing in many nations especially in India. While they loathe the America’s nosy attitude, they have their own problems to figure out before they get to real roots. Watching the country suffer in many ways and listening to the supposedly leaders, the raged citizens and the noble bystanders, the song of REM played again and again, “Living Well is the Best Revenge”.

"10 Items or Less" (2006) - Movie Review

The odds of a Hollywood big shot like Morgan Freeman meeting a regular store clerk in a grocery shop are far less and far less is the interaction they have. Keeping aside the cynicism “10 Items or Less” is a simpleton film. It is that easy drive on a Wednesday afternoon. While the busy bees drool the cubicle cages and the empty lanes are packed with housewives in Walmart super centers, the roads are sparsely filled with an air of reeking laziness but an odd sense of relaxation too. That is the day the nameless character played by Morgan Freeman and Scarlet by Paz Vega take a small drive around the suburbs of LA.

A known veteran actor rides along with a fairly young and casual man Packy (Jonah Hill) on a typical van suiting a low budget film. That scene is the most important for the film which follows through as it becomes the tone for rest of the film. While Packy clearly digs the actor and the actor who loves his job kind of acknowledges it. He has not worked in four years and wobbles on committing to this project for an young director, the cousin of Packy. Whether Freeman plays himself does come up but he definitely takes the trait associated with him to this film. Packy plays a cassette which is an audio book with a very similar voice to Freeman. The actor denies he did it and does with a good reason. See he is the voice of “The Shawshank Redemption” and he tells how the reader in the audio fails the content and rhythm. He does a sample and it is a spoof, a parody, a tribute and a brilliant comic moment to kick off the film.

While being dropped off in a neighbourhood he has no idea of, he enters the grocery shop and begins to capture the characters he see for the film. He sees a disgruntled but smart and fast clerk on the 10 Items or Less lane. She knows she is too good for the job and vents her frustration on this menial job towards the customer. She looks at the basket and taps fast on the old and breaking cash counter to come up with a number. If she has miscalculated, she can always get them to buy a milk. This obviously attracts the actor and he begins to converse. She knows who he is and with a couple of nice observations and free judgments he makes, Scarlet the clerk while not giving the strings begins to continue the conversation.

The actor is a man befriending everyone and becoming every one. He is smooth talker and a friendly man. He accepts the remaining stardom he has and not really proud of a block buster again using the Freeman real life actor in this. There was a time when he did multiple of films of similar nature with Ashley Judd and they use it for the script. Everywhere he stops by at the video section of a gas station or stores, he sees his film in discounts and two for one sale. He hides them behind. Having knowing the philosophies of life, he has not seen a thing on the real world. He stares at awe at a Target store and does not have a clue whom to call when left in the grocery shop. He is a man of every one with not knowing any one deep enough. He has been too busy enacting other characters that he missed their real feelings towards him. Yet he says to have managed a good marriage with kids but cannot find the beat in his string of long gap in his career.

The regular toughness of the livelihood becomes the story of this film. Both are in troubled world of not too much happening and the missing drive to get things done. The actor sticks in to study her and in a way likes her as he says that he sees him in her. That is not the formula line of a fatherly figure but a serious observation of a seasoned actor and a problem existing in the young crowd of coming days including me. Thirty is a big deal and the decline of mental age is so steep. Whether it is the life finishing off seeing way more things than necessary or the early acceptance of the death of youth before even it gets started are few reasons I could think of. Scarlet represents that generation though she is in more financially backed down situation than the norm crowd. But financial constraint is just a part of the problem. The real problem is the miscellaneous expenses we put to tally the account. That expense is the waste of the precious time life provides for us.

I make it sound way more serious film than it actually is. It is a very light hearted and casual film which was shot in 15 days. It has a formula which becomes a far better film by the acting of Freeman and Vega. It becomes a much better film in the writing and direction of Brad Silberling. The working charm of “10 Items or Less” is that it sees life very seriously but also takes it lightly as it comes. It is comforting, careful and correct in its depiction beyond its cinematic routines and doubtful coincidences.