|
|---|
Showing posts with label MORE MOVIE REVIEWS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MORE MOVIE REVIEWS. Show all posts
Must say, the other two films got it right dead-on. MBKD flounders in its frisky fusion of a love triangle and plea for an arranged marriage. Debutant director Ali Abbas Zafar knows the subtexts in his script well enough to conceal the rather glaring discrepancies in the storytelling.
The narration quite frequently relies on jump cuts, retro music and other external ploys to make the goings-on appear more involving than they really are. The recurrent use of R D Burman’s Piya Tu Ab To Aaja has no relevance after a point. It just becomes a tiresome inclusion.
The three main characters, played by three watchable stars one of them from across the border, manage to take the plot’s improbabilities into the province of the palatable. But the situational humour doesn’t quite have the delightfully disarming naturalness of Band Baaja Baraat.
But the characters exude a contagious warmth, more in their individual capacity than in combinations. For a film about love warmth togetherness and family bonding during the time of a wedding, the interative warmth between characters is strangely missing. Besides one memorable sequence towards the beginning in front of the Taj Mahal(a recurring cultural and sociological symbol in the film) when they share cold chai, there is little to suggest any serious bonding between Katrina Kaif and Imran Khan…or for that matter, between the two brothers played by Ali Zafar and Imran Khan.
Zafar who delighted in the satirical mode of Tere Bin Laden, returns with yet another performance that knows how over-the-top to go without toppling over. Yup, Zafar gets it pitch-perfect all the way. The same cannot be said of the film which occasionally slips into becoming a stretch.
What really redeems the film’s blind spots is Katrina Kaif who brings a very spcial transparency and dazzle to her role of a wild child who wants to have all the fun that she can before she settles into a comfortably arranged marriage with the rakish NRI Ali Zafar.
Fun, as it turns out, leading to falling in love with her brother-in-law-to-be. The turn of events may surprise the characters. We remain largely detached from the synthesis of celebration and drama.
“What will I tell everyone? That I fell in love with my Bhabhi?” the embarrassed and horrified brother-in-law tells his untamable Babhi-to-be.
That’s Imran Khan, playing the sweet-tempered benign do-gooder once again. Khan stays in his comfort zone while Katrina comes out of it to give herself and the audience the time of her life.
There is nothing seriously amiss in MBKD. It gets right the camerawork (Sudeep Chatterjee), music (Sohail Sen) and the outdoor locations in and around Delhi. What it misses out on is that element of unpredictability during the time of a wedding that Band Baaja Baarat and Tanu Weds Manu managed to capture probably because the couple at the helm was supported by any number of splendid supporting stars. Here the supporting actors are serviceable. Parikshat Sahnni and Kanwaljeet as the couple’s fathers try to be coic and filmy. They just looke jaded.
By the time the Brother walks away with the Dulhan we really have nothing we would like to say to them, except, what took them so long?
Eugenia Phelan (Emma Stone), affectionately known as Skeeter, is a young woman who forsakes the traditional route of marriage to a suitably wealthy young man and instead escapes to university. The story begins with Skeeter’s return to Jackson when she first starts noticing the blatantly horrible treatment of ‘the help’ by her friends. She then decides to write a book about their stories to help propel herself to her dream job at a major publishing house in New York. The story escalates as she is egged on by the head honcho at the New York publishing house, Elain Stein (a brief but effective appearance by Mary Steenburgen).
In her quest to break through the world of the help, Skeeter approaches Aibileen (played to understated perfection by Viola Davis), who works as a maid for one of her friends. Initially reluctant, Aibileen predictably comes around. The audience is then slowly exposed to the emotional stories the maids have to tell as Aibileen is joined by her friend, the indomitable Minnie (Octavia Spencer). Further gems include the overdone villainy displayed by the leader of the white ladies and primary supporter of the act to force non-white people to use separate facilities, Hilly Holbrook. Bryce Dallas Howard plays the villainous Hilly to shrill perfection. Celia Foote (Jessica Chastain) also has a very believable turn as the not very bright but large-hearted girl who desperately wants to be part of the clique of women who spurn her advances at every turn.
One of the most impressive performances is by veteran actress Cicely Tyson, who plays Constantine, the maid who served as a mother, friend, confidante and advisor to Skeeter. While Constantine’s disappearance is a constant theme of Skeeter’s narrative, she appears in a mere three scenes, all of which will move you tears.
Thanks to the power-packed female performances, The Help will play you like a finely-tuned stringed instrument in terms of inducing tear jerking moments, and laughs and cheers for the plucky characters. On the other hand, the men of this movie are as disappointing as cardboard cutouts. The male characters serve merely as plot devices (directing the protagonist to an important location when required), as remembered memories (Aibileen’s son, as she recounts his story) or as caricatures of domestic abuse (Minnie’s husband Leroy).
The white men are cut from the same mould, be it Skeeter’s suitor who balks in the face of what she has covertly accomplished, or Hilly’s husband, who simply cowers as his wife plots, schemes and screams.
Despite the somewhat predictable storyline, The Help is a movie worth watching, not just for the message it provides, but because it is filled with some of the best performances you will see this year. Despite running over two hours, the movie keeps you emotionally invested — so much so that you may find yourself sitting quietly till the end of the credits — as many were during this writer’s screening, unable to just casually walk out and immediately forget what we had just seen.
A Punjabi woman living in Chandigarh - Mummy (Kirron Kher) to most and Baby to a few - tries to raise her two sons and a daughter on her traditional, yet quirky values. She lets her girl loose, but puts a leash on her sons. Her children, obedient as they are, comply. Most of the times things don't go according to plan, leading to much heartburn for Mummy.
"Mummy" has its heart in the right place - it shows a clash of value systems and how a traditional woman copes with them. The problem is that its execution is not in sync with its intention. What you have thus is a long-winded, simple and caricaturised soap opera that you see on TV which has been condensed to two hours. The result is that in the relentless action in the film, there's not a second's breathing space.
This would have been all right, had it not been for a terrible script that tries to do too much. That suits director and writer Pammi Somal, who has written many soaps for serials. It, however, does not work for big screen audiences.
The only saving grace in the film is Kirron Kher, who despite very little scope in terms of the story and direction, does her best to keep the film together.
It is however sad, that one of the best actress on Indian screen, a woman whose full range of talents have been exploited in masterpieces like "Khamosh Pani", is given such caricatured roles in badly directed films. Bollywood can, and should, do better for her.
Kanwaljeet Singh, as a chilled out father, and Divya Dutta as a gossipy maid do a good job too. But the rest of the cast seem straight out of a TV serial with big-screen aspirations in their eyes.
Even bit roles done by the likes of Jackie Shroff, Satish Kushik, Gurdas Mann and Rohit Roy cannot save the film that plays to the gallery in a very predictable script and execution.
This is a case of a film that perhaps should not have been made. And if it had to be made, it should have been made as a TV soap. It would have turned out to be a blockbuster then.
In a mythical land, after his family is butchered by a mysterious warlord, a barbarian warrior Conan (Jason Momoa) sets out to seek revenge.
This film tries to go one up on the original, attempting to build a story and explain a lot of things that were left for the viewers to understand in the original. Instead of helping the story, it actually kills a semblance of one.
Compared to the original, the film has much more elaborate sets, better production value, better special effects and detailed action sequences. Sadly, mere make up does not make a film. It needs a soul, which is completely missing from this one.
The film tries to make up for it with gory violence. But the senselessness of it all actually puts one off.
If nothing, the original "Conan - The Barbarian" was a lesson in simplicity. With very few dialogues, no needless explanations, a gentle, even pace which is rare for modern action films, it gave you time to warm up to it. In comparison, this one is in such a hurry that it seems to be all over the place.
In the original "Conan", the film was carried forward by operatic music rather than dialogues and the focus was on actor's physicality rather than their acting ability (a perfect setting for Arnold).
These factors hid Arnold's inability to act and gave the film that rode on the visible strength in his muscles, a mythical proportion, which was only loosely based on the original stories of Conan.
The makers of the 2011 version, seems to have forgotten these simple facts. One glimpse into their Wikipedia page of the original film would have helped them immensely in making this new one.
In action films, the less said the better. Surprisingly, modern action filmmakers and writers of action genre have regressed from that cardinal rule. To understand how, watch the original version of "Conan", and the 2011 version.
This film went through a decade of production hell before being made. Perhaps it would have been better if it indeed had never been made.
Whereas last year we had "Dabangg", which despite its simplicity had layers into it, this year we are treated to "The Bodyguard" which isn't a patch on "Dabangg". Despite this, it has enough to hold the attention of festive audiences.
Bodyguard Lovely Singh (Salman Khan) is a nice, honest man of steel who is faithful to Sartaj (Raj Babbar). Sartaj, asks Lovely to guard his daughter Divya (Kareena Kapoor) day and night.
Lovely does his job diligently, but is unawares that Divya serenades him under a pseudonym Chhaya over the phone, and has fallen in love with him. Things get out of control when Sartaj's enemies try to kill Divya while Sartaj thinks Lovely is trying to kidnap his daughter.
"Bodyguard", conceptually, is based on the type of stories that have made Imtiaz Ali popular - sweet, gentle love stories, where the underlying theme being sacrifice for the sake of love.
Yet whereas Imtiaz Ali reveals in a certain quaint subtlety despite the melodramatic nature of his films, "Bodyguard" director Siddique does not have that much of skills to pull that off.
The result is a film that has its few funny, slapstick moments but the problem area is the surprise twist in the end.
It is an end that does not gel with the pace of the rest of the film and seems cooked up. That is especially true because director Siddique gives no foreshadowing or inclination before of a possibility of a character doing what she does in the end.
However, that would be a problem with urban audiences. As far as rural viewers go, the ending, fantastic as it may be, might actually work for the film.
After all isn't there enough elements of fantasy in the rest of the film like when Salman going in the opposite direction in a train, simply jumps on to a running train in another direction. If one can digest that, one can do the same for the ending.
A little more effort on the editing table would have eased a lot of things.
Salman fans, however, have much to cheer.
Debutante Rajat Rawail provides comic relief to the film not just with his antics but also the funny messages on his t-shirts like '6 Pack Coming Soon' pasted over his fat belly.
Salman is his well-chiseled self, and Kareena is as good as the script demands of her, which isn't much. The music is catchy, especially Himmesh Reshamiya composed song "I Love You".
Overall, "Bodyguard" may not have the chutzpah of a "Dabangg", but it pulls itself through to entertain viewers during the festive season.
Shabri (Eesha Koppikar) runs a flour mill, and has a drunkard father, a self-sacrificing mother and a wayward brother Bandya for family. She is angry at her circumstances and with her brother Bandya, who tries making fast money through seedy matka operations.
The breaking point in Shabri's life comes when her brother Bandya gets into trouble with the cops and eventually dies after being tortured in police custody.
Seething with anger and unable to bear this family tragedy, she kills a cop. Murad (Raj Arjun), a local matka operator who holds a torch for Shabri, tries helping her escape the law and the clutches of the local don. He, in turn, gets murdered and she vows revenge yet again. A movie with all the ingredients for a powerful storyline you would think.
But wait. You want to show me reality? Then show it to me with the real colours of life. When Shabri fights with her brother for stealing her chappals, show me the blue of that Hawai chappal.
When Shabari lovingly reminds her mother that she need not work so hard making aam ka achar, show me the green of that raw mango.
If the whole canvas of the movie is painted in such a depressingly, dull brown colour, through which most people look ugly, you are forced to feel depressed. And no one likes being under that kind of pressure. That eerie background music does not help its cause either.
There are a few brilliant scenes in the film, which actually tempt you to get involved, but unfortunately the film lacks consistency. Koppikar as the tormented but gritty Shabri makes a good attempt. But her desperate effort to look plain and ugly shows.
She is made to look dark with inconsistent make up, but her eyebrows are perfectly plucked at all times. Pradeep Singh Rawat as the main villain is menacing, but his character, like that of the cop (Zakir Hussain), is ambiguous. Husain, however, makes the best of what is offered to him.
There are many questions that raise their ugly (no pun intended) heads here. Like how does Shabri turn out to be a pro shooter? And soon after getting out of the jail, how does she still possess a gun? What is the point of a cop hanging around her, asking her inane questions? And many, many more
Credit: Mid-Day.com
Put those things together, and you've got "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark," a goosebump-y haunted-house flick where the floorboards and the mattresses and the big old furnace in the basement really are hiding something deadly.
A remake of a fairly-effective TV movie from 1973 -- the monsters were cheap, but the suspense was smartly ratcheted -- the new "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" was directed by first-timer Troy Nixey, although you'd be forgiven for thinking it's a new movie from Guillermo del Toro, whose name gets the most prominent placement on the posters and in the advertising.
Even if del Toro didn't yell "Action!" and "Cut!" the movie bears his imprint, from his fascination with scary stories told from a child's point-of-view ("The Devil's Backbone") to the elegantly grotesque creatures (which bear more than a resemblance to the creepy-crawlies from "Pan's Labyrinth").
The child in question this time around is Sally (Bailee Madison), an unhappy young girl being shuttled from her unstable mother to go and live with her father Alex (Guy Pearce), who's in the process of restoring a gorgeous old mansion with the help of his girlfriend Kim (Katie Holmes).
Kim does her best to get close to Sally, particularly since the work-obsessed Alex doesn't pay much attention to her, but Sally resists. And while exploring one day, Sally finds a sealed-off room that Alex opens up over the warnings of Harris (Jack Thompson), the house's longtime caretaker.
And you can pretty much imagine what happens from there -- beasties get loose, Sally hears and eventually sees them, no one believes her. But Nixey (working from a script by Del Toro and Matthew Robbins) cranks up the suspense with each appearance of the creatures; as "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" progresses, we learn more and more about just what these terrifying imps have in mind, and why we should grip our armrest when we see them make off with a pair of scissors.
Strong performances anchor the film. In movies like "Bridge to Terabithia" and "Brothers," and even in the ludicrous "Just Go With It," Madison has proven herself to be an expert at tween gravitas, and she nails Sally's fear and hopelessness throughout.
Even Holmes gets the pitch of the film just right, juggling her initial skepticism about monsters in the house with having stepmom duties suddenly thrown at her. If Pearce registers less than his two co-stars, it's because the character he's playing is so inert that he can't avoid slipping into the background.
If there's one big flaw with "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark," it's that in 2011, there's only so long that we can watch movie characters face the perils of a haunted house without thinking,
"GET OUT ALREADY!"
Long after it should be thoroughly obvious to even the most hardened skeptic that something very unnatural is going on in that old mansion, Alex insists that they stick around, and there aren't enough plot demands to make his stubbornness ring true.
(As clunky as "The Haunting in Connecticut" was, at least the script made it clear that the family couldn't afford to move.)
But if you're a fan of Guillermo del Toro's baroque brand of horror -- there's a disturbing mural here that would fit perfectly into almost any of the Mexican filmmaker's movies -- you'll find plenty of fun scares and popcorn-box-twisting tension. (Reuters)
Wish Gill could use the same gumption to resist the sexual abuse that the camera constantly indulged in, through this film. Like a seasoned pervert, it sneaked into her skirt, rested right under her breasts and did a lot more unmentionable things.
At one point it got so outrageous, that I actually heard a gasp from a lady sitting behind me. Anusha wants to be a star and dresses up in tacky clothes. Justifiable. But what is not justifiable is the same tacky way in which the camera moves.
The story, obviously heavily inspired from the Maria Susairaj-Neeraj Grover case, had to be compelling. The gruesome murder of Ashish Bhatnagar (Ajay Gehi) and the body being chopped into many pieces easily makes for a gripping drama.
The scenes before and after the crime keeps you occupied, thanks largely to Deepak Dobriayal who does a fantastic job of playing Robin, the near obsessive lover of Anusha.
But by the time you reach the court scenes, the wavering hand held camera goes haywire and one feels giddy at points. I have been told that the camera was handled by some students of NFDC, a good attempt at novelty but unfortunately in most parts the film looks more like a student's project than a feature film. Gehi is good, Gill is just about average.
There is something that stands out in this film. The simmering unbridled passion between Robin and Anusha is handled very well. Even when what could have been an offensive love-making scene soon after the murder, seems justified in a strangely wonky manner, given the passion the two share.
While many might barf at the surprise climax of the film, I liked it, as it seemed like the extension of the mad passion that Robin feels for Anusha.
The film has some nice moments, only if it was not spoilt by the jarring background score (and to think Sandeep Chouta and Verma together had created magic in some of his earlier films) and oh yes, those designed to drive-you-up-the-wall camera movements.
Credit: Mid-Day.com
We never see the character. But it remains the single-most expressive performance in a film suffused with deadpan performers who seem to have traveled all the way to the idyllic British countryside for a vacation.
But then they decided to make a quick thriller to supplement their holiday expenses.
The film exudes a kind of stock-slickness…The rugged castles and the verdant outdoors are well shot. The plot ? Ah….now that is another story…Rajneesh Duggal (know him?) has two lives to portray.He does the needful with the expertise of a trapeze artiste with a sprained ankle.The trip, as they say, is pre-destined.
Adah Sharma’s hair and caps suggest she’s auditioning for a bar waitresses role in a London-based sequel to Madhur Bhandarkar’s Chandni Bar. She’s supposed to read minds and predict the future. Wonder what she would have to say about this film!
The film is about a husband’s search for his missing wife (played by one Roshni Chopra who provides an all-new definition to a listness debut).
One evening the Duggal chap is supposed to join his wife for dinner at a restaurant. She just doesn’t turn up! If she didn’t like the food at the restaurant why didn’t she just say so?
For the rest of the film Duggal wears the expression of a man who can smell a bad odour. Sharma keeps getting flashes of what’s to come.
The only engaging moments in the narration occur when the film’s editor rewinds the plot to get a supplementary view on the goings-on.
That apart protagonist’s search for his spouse makes none of the impact of, say, Mani Ratnam’s Roja where Madhoo’s husband was abducted by militants during their honeymoon in Kashmir.
Phhir has neither the political or cultural specification to make the man’s search for his wife poignant or even interesting.A Pakistani cop is of no help.
To the aggrieved husband, or to the film.Pravin Bhatt’s lucid cinematography and Manish More’s savvy editing salvage what looks like a case of a missing spouse who could remain where she is for all we care.
Indian television has had a very few serials it can honestly be proud of. Office Office was surely one of them. Pankaj Kapur as the hapless common man Musaddilal Tripathi managed to evoke the right sentiments in the audience, undoubtedly making him one of the most loved characters on TV.
Episode after episode, he went around fighting against the system and corrupt government servants to avail of his basic rights.
You empathised with him, wanted to fight his battles and felt vindicated when he emerged victorious after his arduous crusade. There is a nice nostalgia attached to this serial of yesteryears... then they go ahead and make it a movie and spoil it all for us!
While what made Office Office popular was its portrayal of reality, ironically that very essence is missing in the movie. Consistency is a huge issue here. In some parts, the movie seems real enough.
But several scenes are absurd and downright unbelievable. Some episodes are handled so casually that it comes across like play-acting by children. The serious issues are not given their due. Being humorous and being casual are two different things.
Musaddilal's (Pankaj Kapur) wife dies, thanks to a kidney racket. Even when Musaddi and his no-good son (Gaurav Kapoor) are off to visit holy places for the final rites, back home people from the pension office declare him dead and promptly stop his pension.
The story revolves around Musaddi's fight to prove that he's alive, and of course against corruption.
The movie meanders and is all very predictable.
In short, it looks like a brilliant episode of Office Office was taken and stretched beyond limits to make it into a film. The climax is boring and a tad too simplistic. Pankaj Kapoor is brilliant as expected. Even in the silliest circumstances, his angst and helplessness is palpable and touching.
Gaurav Kapoor as the son is very good. The rest of the cast -- the corrupt gang of Asawari Joshi, Sanjay Mishra, Deven Bhojani, Manoj Pahwa etc. -- perform well.
The intention is right, but not nearly as engaging enough as the cult TV series to hold you down for those 100 odd minutes.
Episode after episode, he went around fighting against the system and corrupt government servants to avail of his basic rights.
You empathised with him, wanted to fight his battles and felt vindicated when he emerged victorious after his arduous crusade. There is a nice nostalgia attached to this serial of yesteryears... then they go ahead and make it a movie and spoil it all for us!
While what made Office Office popular was its portrayal of reality, ironically that very essence is missing in the movie. Consistency is a huge issue here. In some parts, the movie seems real enough.
But several scenes are absurd and downright unbelievable. Some episodes are handled so casually that it comes across like play-acting by children. The serious issues are not given their due. Being humorous and being casual are two different things.
Musaddilal's (Pankaj Kapur) wife dies, thanks to a kidney racket. Even when Musaddi and his no-good son (Gaurav Kapoor) are off to visit holy places for the final rites, back home people from the pension office declare him dead and promptly stop his pension.
The story revolves around Musaddi's fight to prove that he's alive, and of course against corruption.
The movie meanders and is all very predictable.
In short, it looks like a brilliant episode of Office Office was taken and stretched beyond limits to make it into a film. The climax is boring and a tad too simplistic. Pankaj Kapoor is brilliant as expected. Even in the silliest circumstances, his angst and helplessness is palpable and touching.
Gaurav Kapoor as the son is very good. The rest of the cast -- the corrupt gang of Asawari Joshi, Sanjay Mishra, Deven Bhojani, Manoj Pahwa etc. -- perform well.
The intention is right, but not nearly as engaging enough as the cult TV series to hold you down for those 100 odd minutes.
Caesar, a genetically modified ape who's been secretly raised by a scientist Will Rodman (James Franco), grows up with an intelligence exceeding human's. After being confined with other apes, like the Buddha he witnesses injustice for the first time. He unifies other apes, and rises up against the ruthless humans.
Hollywood has a history of action films full of computer generated imagery (CGI) but lacking basic imagination. ROTPOTA is surprisingly good in almost every department making it one of the most perfect commercial films ever.
Action films are not simply the display of violence. They are essentially about humanism and feelings whose subjugation finds expression in physical violence. Thus, the violence outside becomes a metaphor and a physical representation of the violence inside and is a statement against the rampant injustice that causes it in the first place.
External violence is thus shaped by internal conflict. Most filmmakers don't understand this and though one does not need to know this to like an action film, the disproportionate nature of internal vs external violence makes for a far less satisfying film.
Director Rupert Wyatt understands this perfectly and though he could have gone overboard, considering the potential the story presents, he exercises restraint making ROTPOTA that much more enduring.
Despite its predictable plot, there are so many parallels, allegories and metaphors in the film that it's a delight for discerning viewers. In Caesar we have the representation of a typical revolutionary and unlike many real revolutionaries he displays rare humanism and regard for life.
The true core of Caesar is love for his ape-kind and not the hatred of those who brutalise his kind. Thus, the fact that the ape Caesar is more human than most people is a satire on entire humankind.
When he refuses to kill even when he can, he rises higher in his morality than every single human in the world who eats animals that are as living and feeling as humans are.
Frieda Pinto tries hard to imitate the accent of a South American. Thankfully, she is meant only to be an eye-candy. James Franco, expectedly, is good but the winner is CGI.
All the apes in the film exist only on the computer. But to get right so many facial expressions makes all the difference in the film and brings the apes alive in the viewer's imagination. It is Caesar's expressions that give representation to the fact that his humanism exceeds his superior intelligence, again unlike most humans.
In terms of the Planet of The Apes franchisee, it is similar to the fourth film - "Conquest Of The Planet of the Apes". Those following the film closely will see a foreshadowing of the first Charlton Heston movie, which will perhaps follow ROTPOTA, either immediately or after a few films.
In essence though, this has the humanism of "The Elephant Man" and is the closest any film in the franchisee has come to the basic premise of the first film, revolution against injustice and the stupidity of humans.
Without the least display of pity or preachiness debutant director Nila Madab Panda creates a world of infinite hope and minuscule joys for his precocious unlettered but smart protagonist Chotu.
The wispy but firm-handed narration weaves through Chotu’s relationships with various characters in his life…his uncle the dhaba owner Bhatti (played with endearing warmth by Gulshan Grover), the jealous Bachchan-crazy recruit at the dhaba Laptan (Pitobash, natural in his unsophisticated meanness), the free-spirited French tourist Lucy (Betarice ordeix), and above all, Chotu’s rapport with the Rajasthani royalty Ranvijay Singh (Husaan Saad) a kind lonely aristocrat boy who eagerly befriends Chotu to share his luxurious but solitary life with.
The shared moments between Chotu and his motley crew of compelling characters are tender and genuine. The characters are never slotted or allowed to become stereotypical. They convey a kind of free-flowing casualness that makes them real and yet dramatic in a subtle undefinable way.
The film’s social message of education-for-all is underlined but never italicized. It’s left to the boy protagonist Harsh Mayar to bring out the theme’s inherent message without making the plot heavy or didactic. Mayar with his unassuming swagger and artless smile brings to the film a rare intelligence and humour. National award, did they say? The boy deserves much more.
The first-time director tends to over-simplify the complexities of the plot towards the end when in a quest for a flashy climax he collects all the characters at an extremely manufactured crisis point.
The clumsiness of some episodes doesn’t take away from the film’s intrinsic warmth and gentleness. The narration glides through Chotu-Kalam’s adventures with ease and fluency creating the fantasy-driven hopeless world of an underprivileged child without pity of sentimentality.
The last shot shows the ‘Prince’ and the ‘Pauper’ traveling happily together in the same school bus. Socialism has arrived. Abdul Kalam must be smiling at this Utopian dream of finale. But then isn’t that what cinema does? Offer hope, create a dream world and exchange the harsh reality of the outside world with a magical alternative.
I Am Kalam does all of this. Must be watched for its sincere effort to carry forward the world of the child with the same mellow maturity of vision as the recent Stanley Ka Dabba and Chillar Party.
Trying to escape the stupidly evil wizard Gargamel (Hank Azaria) six little, blue, happy creatures called The Smurfs are transported from their magical land to New York. They land in the home of marketing executive Patrick (Neil Patrick Harris). With the wizard close on their heels, the Smurfs have to find a way to get back home, and quick.
One of the strongest elements that a film with a predictable story needs to have is some unbelievably adorable characters. This film has a 'Smurf' full of these cuteness.
The usual suspects, the six Smurfs are obviously cute. Yet, the funniest one of the lot is the evil, laughing kitty. Never after the cute cat in Shrek, has there been such an adorable feline in filmdom. Pair him with a dumb-witted master who is supposed to be a wizard, and you have a laugh riot blowing.
The sub-plots and twists in the tale are expected and though there is a very high overdose of 'smurfy' terms, its delicate handling by director Raja Gosness ensures this does not get to you.
Though a film that stays literally true to the one created by the writer of Smurfs, Peyo, (like in a popular animated series of the '80s and a film) would have been wonderful, this one - a mix of live action and animation - works as well.
There have been a decent number of films with the mix of live action and animation in recent times like "Alvin and the Chipmunks", "Garfield", and "Hop", all three directed by one man - Tim Hill. Yet, this is the best of the lot and a welcome addition to a sub-genre that saw its peak in the '50s but seems to have lost its sheen in recent times despite advances in CGI.
"The Smurfs" is a fun film meant purely as a family entertainer with the cuteness of a "Home Alone" and "Babe" where everything is gimmicky and beyond proportions. And just like in these two films, the director knows his limits and 'where' and 'why' and most importantly, 'how' not to cross over those limits.
Bubble Gum is about a middle class housing society in 1980s Jamshedpur when there was no net or cell phone and life's aspirations were simpler and pace leisurely.
The society has its bunch of young boys and girls, one of whom is Delzad Hiwale, a 14-year-old lad. Delzad has a few issues but he has found a purpose in his lonely life in a 13-year-old girl, Apoorva Arora, who has shifted to the same complex. He has fallen in love. However, as at home, here too he has a hurdle to face.
At home Delzad feels neglected since his older brother, who is deaf and mute, is sent away to a hostel, for such students get more attention while he is just taken for granted for being normal. Similarly, in his pursuit of love too he has a competitor with all the traits of a '80s film villain in Suraj Kumar, a year older than him. The boy is Reggie Mantle to Delzad's Archie, only more sinister and devious.
Delzad's troubles mount when his deaf and mute older brother, Sohail Lakhani, comes home for Holi vacations and not only gets all the attention from the parents but is also responsible for Delzad having to stay at home all the time, forced to keep his brother company.
Delzad's so called social life comes to standstill as does his pursuit of love. His arch rival, meanwhile, uses all the ploys and plots to get ahead in the race. The centre of all the activities is the Holi festival while the favourite pass time of the girls as well as boys is playing kabbadi, something that may seem out of sync to today's generation. After all the enmities and family misgivings, the spirit of Holi prevails and each realises his/her own misplaced priorities.
The best part about this film is its casting, gathering raw, young talent from across India; all the actors give natural performances with the prototype villain, Suraj Kumar coming tops closely followed by Sohail Lakhani and Delzad Hiwale. Apporva Arora and Azeen, along with veterans Sachin Khedekar and Tanvi Azmi, are apt. The director has stuck to exploring the innocence of that era which today's parents may identify more with than the children. Music is situational.
Bubble Gum has its few cute moments but it is not the kind of venture to sustain at the box office.
The balance that needs to be struck between headlines and their cinematic interpretation often tends to get lost thereby defeating the noblest of purposes and the best intentions of conscientious filmmakers who look at the cinematic medium as more than just entertainment.
Ajai Sinha who has his roots in meaningful television entertainment , boldly takes on the theme of khap (community) justice in rural Haryana whereby any marriage between two individuals of the same gotra (clan) is punished by local village panchayats. It’s a powerful subject that needed a singlemindedly uncompromised treatment.
Sadly Sinha dilutes the theme with dollops of formula-baazi. There’s a teenybopper love-angle featuring two relative newcomers who need a crash-course in basic acting and grooming. The young love-birds chat online with what they feel are sweet cute and funny lines.
If only they knew! The entire treatment and development of their romance is redolent of amateurishness. Precious time is frittered away in gawkily composed and choreographed song and dances where the love birds coo sweet-nothings into one another’s ears.
You feel like pushing these two campus wannabes out of the way to watch the impending drama in a village of Haryana where the panchayat is a law unto itself.
The interweavement of characters into a dramatic circle embodying outdated customs and their clash with contemporary mores, could have acquired a greater validity if the narrative had focused more on hardhitting rural prejudices rather than jejune urban affectations.
Om Puri as the village sarpanch is the pick of the plot. He gets the meatiest part with the best emotional graph. He doesn’t need to make much of an effort to make the part his own, and he doesn’t even try.
Nowadays a kind of laziness has crept into distinguished actor’s repertoire. It’s wonderful to see the talented Manoj Pahwa grab a pivotal role. Pahwa was hilarious as Ayesha Takiya’s delusional suitor in Wanted.
Here he sinks into the role of a village elder who once watched his daughter being slaughtered for the village honour.
Ajai Sinha’s antecedents from television make themselves evident in the way the drama unfolds in episodic overtures covering huge time-frames with soft punctuation marks.
The film would have worked better with a more confident cast of younger plays. The elders can only take the drama so far. Khap is finally betrayed by the wimpish and awkward portrayal of the urban young and by too many attempts to draw out a soap-opera-styled drama from situations that seem to plead for more finesse in presentation.
Nonetheless Khap should be commended for attempting a socially-relevant theme with some amount of detachment and equanimity. Should love between cousins or people from within one family be sternly discouraged just because the village panchayat feels it is damaging to the social framework?
Last we saw, it was Rajeev Khandelwal playing the anti-establishment cop’s role in the brilliant Shaitaan. This time it’s a huge star getting into khakee. Meet Ajay Devgn as Bajirao Singham an honest-to-goodness cop who believes he has been given the law-enforcer’s job and he better take it seriously.
Hurling through a cavalcade of regionally-flush references Singham is the kind of rustic boorish kinetic action thriller where a cleaner social order is seen to be brought about by the power of the fist. Give or take a gun. Or a Devgn.
Devgn playing the one-man army invests the clichéd role with a kind of cultural specificity which allows him the leeway to get verbally regional without losing a pan-India flavour. That’s the magic of mass entertainment cinema that this film celebrates with panoramic verve.
We don’t need to comprehend Marathi to get the powerful subtexts of Devgan’s virulent attack on corruption. Fortunately Devgn isn’t the kind of actor who needs to scream to make himself heard. He effectually offsets Prakash Raj’s theatrical villainy bordering on bigtime hamming.
It is significant that the entire cast comprises Marathi actors, giving to the frenetic rustic proceedings a sense of arrogant chauvinism. Only the villain palayed by Prakash Raj is a South Indian actor of tremendous histrionic range. Give him anything to do. And he does with impassioned concentration.
A lot of the lines that the politician-villain is compelled to utter bordered on self-parody. Chunks of the action and drama are cannibalized from the Amitabh Bachchan’s ‘angry’ series , without the bridled indignance of the central character.
Yes, Singham is frustrated and embittered by the corruption that’s crept into the socio-political system. But he lacks the vitality to transmute the cop’s impotent rage into a potent cinematic language. e don’t feel for his concern for a clean social order. We just wonder whom he will thrash next, and how.
Partly, it is to do with the kind of shallowness that Singham’s love interest portrays. Jaya Bhaduri in Zanjeer and Smita Patil in Ardh Satya made a brief but telling impact on the way the enraged hero looked at the seedy world. Newcomer Kajal Aggarwal is a bundle of shallow take-away expressions, the cinematic equivalent of a home-delivered pizza, without the spicy toppings.
What sustains the narrative’s velocity is Devgn’s uncalculated moves as an action hero. He brings a kind of reckless inevitability into every blow that he delivers on the goons. There are some entertaining supporting performances, Sachin Khedeker as the heroin’e cellphone-fixated father is a hoot.
In all fairness the action sequences (Jai Singh Nijjar) are entertaining and humorous. The fights don’t take themselves seriously.
However the homilies on a need for integrity in the civil services seem like unwanted concessions to self-importance in a film that seems to revel in a kind of free-floating message on how to stay clean in a cesspool of corruption. Yup, Rohit Shetty packs in a punch.
You can’t but smile at the infinite pleasure which the director partakes from the age-old language of commercial Hindi cinema in all its flamboyant glory.Singham is a cops film with balls.
Fukunaga mostly remains faithful to the novel, but chooses to start the movie from the middle of the narrative. In the opening scene we see Jane, played by rising star Mia Wasikowska, escaping from her room in Thornfield into the wilderness and encountering some kind strangers: St John Rivers (played by Jamie Bell) and his sisters Diana Rivers (Holliday Grainger) and Tamzin Merchant (Mary Rivers). In flashbacks, we come to know about Jane’s childhood as a free-spirited orphan living with her late Uncle Reed’s family. Then Mrs Reed sends her to the Lowood Institution.
Surprisingly Fukunaga’s little experiment with the narrative structure works very well. It hooks the viewer and gives the adaptation a modern touch without spoiling the story. Moreover, the excellent cinematography creates an almost haunting effect on the screen.
The main part of the story focuses on Jane’s first job as a governess at the estate of Thornfield and her infatuation with Edward Rochester, the mysterious master of the house.
Orson Welles’ unforgettable acting as Rochester in the 1944 movie is no doubt the most powerful rendition of the character, making it all the more difficult for any other actor to do justice to this role. However, Welles’ superb performance also meant that he overshadowed Joan Fontaine, who played Jane Eyre in the movie. Marlon Brando had the same impact in A Street Car Named Desire, when he stole attention away from Blanche DuBois (Vivian Leigh) as a very strong Stanley Kowalski. When people watch these movies they watch Welles and Brando instead of Fontaine and Leigh who were supposed to be the main characters in the text.
In Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre, Fassbender adds an element of sheer masculine attraction to the cold wit and gothic demeanour of Rochester. Fassbender does not try to imitate anyone, and succeeds in leaving his individual mark on the character. More importantly, he does not overshadow Jane, the heroine of our story, and gives ample space to Wasikowska who does justice to the much-imagined Jane Eyre.
Unlike previous incarnations of the character — including Fontaine and Charlotte Gainsbourg — who made for very attractive Janes, Mia gives us the Jane that is closest to the one portrayed so beautifully in the novel by Charlotte Bronte as ‘small and plain’. The chief attraction of the movie, undoutedly, remains Mia Wasikowska’s exceptional acting as Jane Eyre. Unadorned and unassuming, Mia’s unyielding posture and tight-lipped expressions portray Jane’s unwavering moral strength and her longing for independence. She has captured the chilling reality and resilient spirit of Jane in her splendid interpretation of this extraordinary character.
This movie had me take up the novel after years and read it again. If you are a Jane Eyre fan you don’t want to miss this movie.
First the good news. "Zindagi…" is one of the most nuanced, evenly paced and well executed films in commercial Indian cinema.This cross between "Dil Chahta Hai" and "Sideways" is funny and honest, but it is marred by one fundamental flaw - it has nothing important to say.
Yes, to a select few, neo-rich one percent of its audience who find nirvana swimming under Spanish seas or for whom freedom is feeling the wind in your hand from a high speed car, the message is loud and clear - you only live once so live it full.
But one has to wonder, should a commercial film be made keeping just one percent of the audience in mind?
Yes, it is a message that everyone else needs as well, but should that message ride on a pleasure trip through Spanish landscape where there is beauty but no 'zindagi' or should it have been closer home, in the squalor and madness and 'life' of this nation.
Three old friends - Arjun (Hritik Roshan), Imran (Farhan Akthar) and Kabir (Abhay Deol) - go on a three-week bachelor's road trip through Spain before Kabir's marriage, only to come face to face with their own fears and insecurities.
Globally there are too many road-trip films for Zoya Akhtar to bring anything new to the cinematic table.
What she could have done was to have enough emotional pull for the viewer to empathise with the characters.
But would you empathise with the fatherly, marriage-related and heartbreak problems of three rich men who really have everything going for them? Besides its one percent audience, the rest would find the existential angst of these three men, a creation of their own vanity.
Yet, besides its many flaws, dishonesty is not one of them. It's an honest film about the type of people the filmmaker interacts with daily. Sadly, that is perhaps the only cross section of society that Zoya Akhtar has known in her urban living.
The problem with the film is thus the problem in the worldview of its maker, which is extremely limited in scope.
And that is a shame because Zoya is a nuanced and refined filmmaker. She could do wonders with a story that is real and about real men and women.
"Zindagi…" thus actually ends up being like a big-budget film with the heart and audience of a small-budget indie. And that mismatch will perhaps do the film in at the box office.
Cinematically though, Zoya does try desperately to transcend the obvious, to mean the message rather than say it, like say a "Sideways" or "Lost in Translation" does. And though she knocks on the door of this transcendence, she is unable to pass through.Commercial filmmakers in the past, either came from the grassroots like a Mehboob or Guru Dutt, or were concerned about it like Raj Kapoor.
Their films hence reflected - sometimes directly - and often in the films written by Zoya's father Javed Akthar, allegorically, the angst, pain and the struggle for survival of the nation's teeming masses.
Sadly, as their world ended up becoming cocooned from life around, the connection their kids had with reality, became limited. The result are some really well made films, but ones with 'zindagi' only in their titles, not in their guts.
God knows this film about the devil-unleashed, surprisingly written by a woman (Shagufta Rafique) needs that little of sunshine. It is a desperately dark film. The characters are wretchedly unhappy. No matter which side of the moral line they are positioned they are standing screaming into the abyss that is suburban life. These people need serious help.
This then, is the world Mahesh Bhatt has bequeathed to us. Take it and bleed it.
Director Mohit Suri who earlier took us on a jolting trip through the world of prostitution, pimps and desperate cops in "Kalyug" takes the same route again. On this occasion the journey is far more ruthless and rigorously implemented to create horror repugnance and hatred for a word that we've created for coming generations.
In the typical Mahesh Bhatt style "Murder 2" doesn't waste time in back-projections and story build-up. He goes straight for the kill.
With trenchant immediacy director Mohit Suri (back in "Kalyug" form after the misfire that was his last film "Crook") tells us the story of a psychopathic killer who kills prostitutes with the pleasure that makes your stomach churn and look anxiously towards the future about your daughter who is just stepping into the big wide world.
Who knows if the man sitting next to her in the movie theatre is a closet-nutcase with a collection of hacksaws in his house, and not to carve up the Christmas turkey.
Prashant Narayanan as the psychopath plays the character at such an even pitch he makes your blood freeze in fear and revulsion. Here's a man who could be that ghoul who butchered all those kids in the Nethra killings and then ate them up without a burp.
The 'hero' in "Murder 2" is a burn-out suspended cop who makes money out of criminals, stays sullen and haunted throughout the film except when he goes for the kiss, and offers his girlfriend a wad of notes after making love. To buy the fridge, he says. Naturally the lady freezes.
Force of habit, we say. Hashmi has done this kind of a role repeatedly. The kissing and vigorous bedroom activities are quickly taken care of in the first 15 minutes. Wouldn't want the lovers of the serial kisser to feel they're being cheated in favour of the serial killer.
The wacked-out killer in "Murder 2" doesn't eat his victims. He just cuts them down to sighs…and groans and shrieks of pain and records their dying voices to get his rockers off….
The plot seems original. The narration is clenched and the characters driven by a desperate urge to assert themselves before death rings their doorbell.
The savagery with which the college-going call girl (Sulagna Panigrahi) is brought to her gruesome death becomes a metaphor for the loss of innocence and the triumph of diabolism that is often garbed in designer labels these days.
"Murder 2" is not a pleasant film to view. The psychopath's killings are done in graphic detail. The storytelling offers no respite from the brutality. Most of the time we are looking at happenings that we would rather not see. But see, we must.
"Murder 2" is a mirror of our amoral venomous times when no relationship is sacred anymore. Mohit Suri remains in command of the murky material and traumatized characters. While most episodes hold together in a riveting rhythm of life's most unsavoury truths, the sequences featuring Prashant Naraynan work better than the rest of the film. He lends the proceedings a credibility that is unsettling.
The film opens with each child character being individually introduced through their traits, helping you familiarize with the Chillar Party from Chandar Nagar society. When Fatka enters the society as a domestic help with his mutt-mate Bhidu, after the initial friction, the boy and his dog become inseparable members of the kiddo gang.
Soon a scheming politician comes up with a drive to get rid of stray dogs from the city which endangers the life of Bhidu. The society members want Fatka to leave with his dog but the Chillar Party stands up in support of their friend. Together they attempt every possible trick from signature campaign, chaddi march to spreading public awareness to save their friends.
The reason Chillar Party connects with you instantly is because it is honest and has its heart in the right place. The child actors are neither sugary sweet nor cacophonously cranky. They are pleasantly natural and absolutely believable. The chemistry and charm of the society kids bring back memories of Mani Ratnam's Anjali (1990). Every kid in Chillar Party has an interesting characterization that gives them a unique identity.
Writer-director Vikas Bahl and Nitesh Tiwari attempt to delve into the psyche of the child protagonist and thereby we get to see the entire film from the children's viewpoint. The writing is imaginative exploring both, the naughty and the innocent side of nascent years. Scenes showing the society kids being influenced by Fatka's tapori lingo or the ones where the Chillar Party is trying to get a grip on news headlines are hilarious.
But while it primarily works as a fun film, Chillar Party has some very poignant moments that bring a lump in your throat. The scene in initial reels where Fatka is in search of his dog and their subsequent reunion can make the stonehearted go soggy. The unadulterated camaraderie amongst the kids and their selfless solidarity simply touches your heart. Also the heroism that they exude is so endearingly effective as compared to the synthetic bravery of adult actors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
