Paradise Now

Director: Hany Abu-Assad
Year: 2005
Cast: Kais Nashif, Ali Suliman, Lubna Azabal.
Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)


Here I am, good five hours after watching this wonderful, thought provoking cinema taking a sip of warm coffee and a thought suddenly hits me. I had just seen one of the disturbing ending to a motion picture in recent past. The drama created (I don't know whether it's based on true events or not still the backdrop is totally inspired by real world situations) only helps the plot. Except for some needless cat-dog chasing coincidences, everything is spot on and nothing seems redundant. So unsettling that made me more of a pessimist (I hate to say so though) about the future of humanity, a value we cherished for centuries, the value that form the very basis of us being human. I started getting this feeling that an eye for an eye is going to make this world blind. Or has it?

Rounders

Director: John Dahl
Year: 1998
Cast: Matt Damon, Edward Norton,Gretchen Mol, John Turturro.
Rating: *** (out of ****)

Let me declare, I don't know squat about Poker. Check, fold, blinds, I don't even understand the terminology properly. Still I had fun watching this movie. Like Scorsese's The Color of Money. How a man gets sucked right in the game even if he thinks he's through. Here, Mike (Matt Damon) does it for a friend 'Worm' (Edward Norton). I don't think he did it for Worm, he got into this trouble for himself or for 'the love of the game'. Because by any stretch of imagination, supporting a friend like worm seems unreasonable.

A good film.

Vozvrashcheniye/ The Return

Director: Andrei Zvyagintsev
Country: Russia
Year: 2003
Cast: Vladimir Garin, Ivan Dobronravov, Konstantin Lavronenko, Natalya Vdovina.
Rating: *** (out of ****)

This is the second movie I have watched from Russia. There's a unique quality about both Stalker and The Return. The camera angles and movements seem to have something to tell, to convey. The cinematography by Mikhail Kritchman is chilling, with muted bluish, greenish shades. There is anguish, sorrow, frustration, insecurity that's engulfing Ivan, in those frames, supported by great background score by Andrej Djorgatsjev. It's not like today's modern Hollywood style with rapid flash editing which, by the way, I don't have any problems with if used to serve some purpose rather that disorienting the poor viewer. Anyway, it's like the narration flows with the camera not giving a slightest hint what is going to happen. I really am finding short of adjectives to describe the climax. One thing I can tell you is, this is compelling, haunting and unusual motion picture that will linger in your head for more time than you expect.

The Wind That Shakes the Barley

Director: Ken Loach
Year: 2006
Cast: Cillian Murphy, Pádraic Delaney, Orla Fitzgerald, Liam Cunningham.
Rating: **** (Masterpiece)

I'm really overwhelmed by this motion picture. It's exhausted me emotionally.

Events transpire in Ireland sometime around 1920. Presents a brutally true picture of Irish freedom struggle. IRA was formed to accomplish the dream of a free Ireland. Later IRA compromised it's principles and started talks with Britishers for something less than that (an Irish Free State within the British Commonwealth). The revolutionaries that saw the blood of their fellow Irishmen spilled feel the martyrs and their families are being cheated and decide to continue war themselves. Conflict. Dilemma. Those who stared off together become foes. Things unravel and lead to something utterly unpleasant and unexpected. Their every argument, every action, pain, suffering, every atrocity they face, you will feel it, you will be there right into that frame. Hats off to Loach and Barry Ackroyd , the cinematographer.

This is first Ken Loach movie I've seen and I assure you it wont be the last.

You Don't Mess with the Zohan

Director: Dennis Dugan
Year: 2008
Cast: Adam Sandler, John Turturro, Emmanuelle Chriqui.
Rating: Half Star (out of ****)

Oh Finally! I've just watch the worst movie I've watched in recent time. No, not Hancock, this one here. The last one would be Sandler's forgettable Reign Over Me.

I question the sensibilities of anyone who liked this film. I hated the movie with all my living guts. I hated the audacity of the filmmakers that someone can actually get entertained by such crap (and audacity of a filmmaker is not always a bad thing). I was surprised and anguished to see some reviewers praising this movie as entertaining as Sandler does almost anything to entertain us. Who cares? I don't. I'm sure you wouldn't either.

Adam Sandler is this Israel's super cop, Zohan Dvir having many super powers (from jumping from buildings to swimming like a super-fish). He is frequently used by the security agencies for specified tasks. He has this desire to become a hair stylist since forever. Off he goes to USA to follow his dreams. Falls in love with beautiful Palestinian girl Dalia (Emmanuelle Chriqui). Now, you may say, it seems fine. The problem lies in the way the filmlakers chose to make it. In such a vulgar, disgusting and yes, stupid way. Only sane thing he keeps on saying is, "but when will this (Israel- Palestine conflict) end?" Finding the solution of that conflict here will be like finding a sea pearl in a gutter. Although I don't think it was an intention of the makers. This half star if for a little fun I had watching well choreographed but very sporadic fight sequences. I don't want to say anything further as it's just not worth it.

Mumbai Meri Jaan

Director: Nishikant Kamat
Year: 2008
Cast: Paresh Rawal, Kay Kay Menon, Madhavan, Vijay Maurya, Soha Ali Khan.
Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

I recently watched a movie called Bloody Sunday. Directed by British director Paul Greengrass, it is a faithful representation (rather recreation) of what happened on the streets of Derry on 30 th January, 1972. It was a bright Sunday remembered in the history for the tragic incident leading to the death of 13 protesters for civil rights. The movie's documentary-like approach works making it a memorable watch. Anyway, as good movie as that was, the events were precisely reconstructed. Nishikant Kamat, who made a powerful Dombivali Fast, attempts something much more ambitious here. Someone with conviction and clarity of vision only could do. He uses the September 7 attack in Mumbai local as backdrop and creates a heart wrenching drama.

We meet four people from walks of society and come to care for them. A senior cop about to retire, Tukaram Patil (along with his subordinate Kadam), A techie Nikhil Agrawal, a journalist Rupali Joshi, a trader Suresh and a road vendor Thomas. All of them are affected by the blasts in some way and it changed their lives forever. Their tales are as affecting as the movie, if not more. Thanks to the writers. The film effectively depicts the resilience and audacity of a city which never stops, literally.

For me, the biggest strength of this film was that it tells us the things as ordinary people like you and me understand. Yes, it does falter at more than one occasions. For instance when Suresh is sitting in a hotel and Yusuf comes there and he suddenly starts talking about how he had gone to Shirdi and all. Why would a person we hardly (here, never) met before would all of a sudden start such a discussion? When Rupali (Soha Ali Khan) is talking a reporter about her fiance's death, the camera keeps revolving around her. Had the camera just panned into her, making us feel what she feels, it would have made a much more poignant scene. These small issues could have easily taken care of. That said, cinema is never about perfection. Here, it's about a team of writers and craftsmanship of a director to come up with something original and untold.

Tukaram Patil (Parel Rawal) tells so many insights about the system, knowing very well that he himself can't do anything for it. He's lost the strength to do it but always wished he could. In one way, he reminds me of Sheriff Ed Tom Bell of No Country for Old Men. There's an incident where a friend of Nikhil tells him about his life in US and he stares blankly. Mind you, blankly. There's no hope, none whatsoever. Maybe this vast empty space is our plain indifference to the horrible things happening around us. This is the country which came on streets for justice, for peace, for the philosophy of non-violence. That has now been replaced by irksome negligence. We are getting used to it. As his friend says, maybe our children will get used to this. This is dangerous.

Amant, L' / Lover, The

Director: Jean-Jacques Annaud
Year: 1992
Country: France
Cast: Jane March (as the Young Girl) and Tony Leung Ka Fai (as the China Man)
Rating: **1/2 (out of ****)

So what is your fantasy, you know what I mean, the fantasy? A strange land, a beautiful girl, a secret affair, a dark room….Sorry, am I going too far?

So here's the deal, there's rich china man (the credits mention him thus) and of course, there's a
beautiful young woman and there's the Indochina under French rule in 1920's. She is too young for him. She has a dysfunctional family and also has to return to France after school. Till now everything is as per our erotic fantasy, but Jean-Jacques Annuad wants to make this into some kind of a serious cinema, a coming-of-age movie about sexual awakening of a girl, that is enchanting, tragic and unforgettable (at least, it seems that way). Does he succeed? He could have, indeed, but he stops just when we want to know more. After some really steamy sex scenes, he suddenly wraps the things up. There is a lot of explicit sex, some really impressive close-ups. That's that. Why does he let her go if he really loves her that much? He could've used his influence, money, or at least could have tried. Why doesn't she say something if she really was romantically linked to him? Did they try to contact later? How? We get no answers. Sadly that eventually dilutes the experience for us.

Reservation Road

Director: Terry George
Year: 2007
Source: Based on the novel by John Burnham Schwartz.
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Jennifer Connelly, Mark Ruffalo, Elle Fanning.
Rating: *** (out of ****)

Accidents, extortion, child abuse, these crimes are rampant these days. It is rather more challenging to raise your kids safely in the present situation than before. So, naturally, movies about these subjects are becoming more relevant than ever.

A college professor, Ethan learner (Joaquin Phoenix) and his family is returning from a recital. Little did he know, the worst nightmare of his life is about to happen. His son, Josh, gets hit by an SUV when they stop on the way home. The SUV disappears in that darkness, leaving the family devastated. Police starts the investigation but couldn't get any breakthrough for about 3 weeks. Ethan gets increasingly impatient and furious about the tragic event, his eyes always searching the murderer. And, one day he finds him.

Based on a novel by John Burnham Schwartz who also co-wrote the screenplay with director Terry George ( director of Hotel Rwanda), the movie explores the psyche of a hit-and-run offender (a rather sensitive one) and also the deep effect family suffers. This makes a good character based drama maintaining the delicacy of the subject. There are certain problems. The way the accident happens is lame and over-used. Also, there are coincidences everywhere to the point that it's hard to digest. Acting is uniformly good. I've always liked Jennifer Connelly's work. The pain in her eyes makes Grace Learner believable. Mark Ruffalo and Joaquin Phoenix are good. Little Elle Fanning is adequate. When it comes to movies made on acclaimed novels, I have observed, they fail to translate the characters, their feelings, the overall setting elaborately described in words with such poignancy on the celluloid and lose pace in the middle portion.
Reservation Road is no exception.

Vivah

Director: Sooraj R. Barjatya
Year: 2006
Cast: Amrita Rao, Shahid Kapur, Anupam Kher, Alok Nath, Seema Biswas, Amrita Prakash.
Rating: *** (out of ****)

I like Suraj Barjatya. He is kind of cool and so funny. To the point that his movies especially Hum Saath Saath Hain will qualify as a fine comedy. Everyone is so freakishly goody goody that it almost seems spoofy. Still charm on some level. His movies are usually so out of this world, something we can't imagine in our purest dream, which is fine as long as there's no tone of pretension and self importance to them. Fortunately Barjatya never lied about his cinematic sensibilities. He made the 'stories' he believed in. And remains unapologetic about his cinema. Barjatya's cinema views the world in black and white, good guy and bad guy. Clear distinction. His brand of movies can't be called a work of art, unfortunately.

The female protagonists are level headed, intelligent and mellow and yes, very traditional. Not someone who is traditional by the family she was born but someone who knows what she is doing and why. You don't always like heroines stripping right away in an item song, do you? If the answer is yes, go for any Sanjay Gupta film (Kaante, Dus Kahaaniyan). Here you have someone who believes in flirting with her designated husband but in a different way. Like in Vivah, for example, when Poonam serves Prem Kadhi when he doesn't want any, or when she plans the whole thing to come on the roof to meet the guy confessing she actually wanted to come).

The male lead is someone who is necessarily shy, a bit introvert and Mama's or Papa's boy - Prem (Salman Khan) in HSSH. A quintessential progressive traditional urban dude. Sounds great, doesn't it?
One of the comic sequence in Vivah peeks into my mind now. Poonam (Amrita Rao) brings water for a guest (this being her introductory shot in the film) and says "Jal". Who talks like this today?I was laughing like crazy. So was my friend who, by the way, hated the movie. Isn't this entertainment? Okay, he makes the kind of outlandish, unbelievably sugar coated, and sometimes so artificial movies but he never promised any classic. He knows his limits, the movies he 'can make', and makes them passionately. Here, the sign of a good director.

When everyone else curse him, telling how unbelievably lame he is, I find myself rooting for him. You might wonder, with all derogatory adjectives I've used for Mr. Barjatya films, why am I recommending them at the same time? Well because it's hell lot of entertainment, guaranteed. It always makes a good reason to visit the movies.

My Boy Jack

Director: Brian Kirk
Year: 2007
Cast: David Haig, Daniel Radcliffe, Kim Cattrall, Carey Mulligan
Rating: **1/2 (out of ****)

This movie is an adapted from a play by the same name and it's quite evident while watching the movie. Events take place in the play-like manner. Before watching this movie (and subsequent research), Rudyard Kipling to me was 'The Jungle Book' and the fact that he was born and brought up in India. I didn't know his life that well. Let me tell you, this motion picture isn't a biopic. This is a tale of a father, a son and the life in deep turmoil when a tragic incident happens affecting the entire family. If you are thinking there'll be something about R. Kipling's work (literary and political) or about his philosophy, I'm afraid you will be disappointed. There are brief war sequences when Jack goes for the battle of Loos. They are not bad but there isn't anything spectacular about them either. Unusual camera angles, kind of weird jerky camera is used to achieve certain impact of war scenes. I don't think that served the purpose that well.

My biggest disappointment was that the character of Jack Kipling never opens up. This was very important since this basically is the story of Jack Kipling. What does Jack want or think or feel? We never understand. That poor kid was painfully sidelined. It was necessarily his story. I won't blame Radcliffe for that as he is handicapped by a weak script and incomplete character.

It seems I have said enough bad things about this motion picture so now some good things. To the director's credit acting by principal actors is restrained and by and large effective, particularly by David Haig. There's a scene where Rudyard Kipling mourns his son's death (when he finally confirms the news) is captured poignantly. Though, actually, Jack Kipling's grave was only found in 1992, the Kiplings had accepted Jack's death almost immediately after the war. And the poet's life was never the same.

Note: Kindly try to find the song/poem 'My Boy Jack' and feel a father's pain.

1971

Director: Amrit Sagar
Year: 2007
Country: India
Cast: Manoj Bajpai, Ravi Kishan, Deepak Dobriyal, Chittaranjan Giri.
Rating: **** (out of ****)

Inspired by true events, the film revolves around six daredevil Indian soldiers who plan to escape from the Pakistani prison and risk death with honour and courage. The best thing about 1971 is it's uncompromising look at the grim situation of Indian soldiers at those secluded barracks in Pakistan. The story almost never loses it's track.

I have to mention the stupendous work of production designers, particularly the barracks recreated in Manali look strikingly authentic. Acting is laudable, all the supporting cast is superb. Chirantan Das' camera work is adequate. But, I think, judicious use of hand-held camera, particularly in chase sequences would have added to the impact. The only problem I've is director's use of voice-overs when they are not required. voice-over, I feel, is a technique that should be used only when required to facilitate the viewer with insight of the character and not to tell him/her the story. Here it looks manipulative and unnecessary. It makes the viewer aware that he/she is watching a movie. Perfect example of apt use of voice-over technique is the movie Jarhead.

Undoubtedly one of the best Indian films of 2007 along with Johnny Gaddar. I'm waiting for next film by Mr. Sagar.

Jarhead

Director: Sam Mendes
Year: 2005
Source: Based on a Book by Anthony Swofford
Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, Jamie Foxx, Scott MacDonald.
Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

Are the soldiers deployed at the front always at war? If not what do they do then? This question ever crossed your mind? Watch Jarhead. See, we have seen many war movies and each one of them claims to be different, but since all wars are same, so are war movies. Soldiers are different, enemy is different, circumstances are different but still war is war, it's cruel, it's demanding, and one not only has to survive but stay sane too. Jarhead focuses on the psyche of a soldier who is struggling to find a purpose, a meaning to his existence rather than the war.

Based on bestselling book by a former marine Anthony Swofford (played by Jake Gyllenhal in the movie) about his experiences in the Desert Storm, this movie explores what it takes to be in the unforgiving Gulf and keep oneself ready for war. Cinematography by Roger Deakins and production design ( Gulf was recreated in the desert of Mexico) is breathtakingly spectacular. Jake Gyllenhal's Swof is humane and believable. I'm saying this since what happens in certain war movies is that soldiers are presented in a heroic way who care for whom they kill. They are not some heroes fighting with saintly moral values and all, they can't be. Their job is to kill.

A History of Violence

Director: David Cronenberg
Year: 2005
Source: Based on a Graphic Novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke
Cast: Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, Ed Harris, William Hurt, Ashton Holmes.
Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

Mr. Cronerberg's movies were never personal to me. Still I always feel immensely fascinated by them. One of the peculiarities of Cronerberg movies is it's leisurely speed. He takes time to get us in the groove. Some like it, some hate ( I don't say 'dislike'). I fall in the former category. Having said that, some scenes seem stretched. Watching his reminds me of another talented director Sam Mendes. Like his Road to Perdition this one is also based on a graphic novel. Cronerberg disappointed me in Crash. His repetitiveness in Crash irked me a bit.

Anyway, here he has made a brilliant film with such talent as our own Mr. Mortensen at hand. The film is effective and seldom seems dragged. There's lot of sex and violence in here too as is Cronerberg's hallmark and it's all worth. The violence is on your face and it's never lame, so are the sex sequences. It sure isn't gratuitous. Viggo Mortensen is a great actor. He pulls off Tom/Joey with great power and his vulnerability as Tom, the gentleman with a family is a real achievement for the actor. Ed Harris and William Hurt shine in small roles, particularly Hurt is chilling as the bad guy 'Ritchie'. Remember the last scene, Joey looking at his wife with guilt and misery, his eyes explaining everything, as the camera pans out. That reminded me of Cranerberg/Moretensen pair's last venture, the unforgettable Eastern Promises. Remember the horror in his eyes?

Joey's son Jack picks up the gun before he realizes the truth about his father. The legacy passes on. The History of Violence. It wasn't really a choice, was it?

Sunshine

Director: István Szabó
Year: 1999
Country: Hungary
Cast: Ralph Fiennes, Ralph Fiennes, Ralph Fiennes, Rosemary Harris, Rachel Weisz, Jennifer Ehle, Mark Strong
Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

We, Indians, have seen our loved ones suffer in partition. It was a cruel culmination of Indian freedom struggle. Jews, on the other hand, have seen such cruelty many times over, in different parts of the world, at different times. Anti-semitism is a harsh lesson history has taught the world and has affected millions of people.

Sunshine is lots of passion, lots of history, lots of characters and lots of reel time. A film that runs just four minutes shy of three hours and chronicles three generations of a Hungarian Jewish family, the Sonnenscheins (later Sors).

I have to tell something about the actor who is so vital to the film. He's there for almost the entire length. Ralph Fiennes is a sincere actor. Sincere, that's the word. It seems to me that you give him anything and he'll pull it with utmost sincerity. His eyes will tell you that.

It reminded me of The Godfather as this too is all about family and also of Scorsese's marvellous The Age of Innocence in terms of the mood of the film. There are many twists regarding love and relationship. The film is grandly made. But the director seems interested in telling the story of the Sonnenscheins rather than focusing on the characters at hand. The problem of the film is that it is too ambitious. It tries to do so many things and never dwells on one character. It still does all this with great honesty. It's like a child chasing something he deeply feels for. He runs through a narrow lane with all his power and stamina ,we see it ending there and then there's another tiny lane and he chases on. It's a tiring but rewarding saga. István Szabó has made with great love and care. So much so that sometimes it feels autobiographical work of his. As I watched this motion picture late night, I felt a deep connections for the Sonnenschein or the Sors. Ignatz, Valerie, Greta, Adam, Ivan, Hannah, Gustave, even Kato. I wish they had freedom. I'll watch it again whenever I miss them.

As Ivan observes, "Nothing will surprise you in this family."

A fascinating film.

Reign Over Me

Director: Mike Binder
Year: 2007
Cast: Adam Sandler, Don Cheadle, Jada Pinkett Smith, Liv Tyler
Rating: * (out of ****)

Post 9/11 was a difficult time for the U.S. Everyone was affected in one way or the other. The story of Reign Over Me revolves around one such victim of the attacks. Charlie (Sandler) lost his whole family to one of the air crashes. He doesn't want to remember any of that ever again and so lives a secluded life till one of college mate Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle) meets him. Alan understands the situation and comes to a conclusion that Charlie needs help.

The story seems fine but the problem lies in the direction. Neither the characters nor the story generate any interest. In the second half, it becomes unbearable. Being a character based drama the story demands much from it's actors. Charlie played by Adam Sandler is not only hollow and plain but also irritating. If he wants to try serious acting, he will have to dig much deeper. Don Cheadle is fine. Jada Pincket Smith is wasted. We almost never sympathize with Charlie which was essentially a major requirement here. If you want to experience movie depicting the trauma of losing someone, better go for 21 Grams or even a Reservation Road will be much better. So finally what do I think of this movie? A boring dud.

Last Life in the Universe, The / Ruang Rak noi nid Mahasan

Director: Pen-Ek Ratanaruang
Year: 2003
Country: Thailand/ Japan
Cast: Tadanobu Asano (as Kenji), Sinitta Boonyasak (as Noi)
Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

We meet some people in our lives who enrich our lives. Touch our souls. Help us to come out of misery, give a new meaning to life. Show us the path, directly or indirectly and then quietly walk away.

The Last Life in the Universe reminds me of two great movies I've had the privilege to watch. One is Sophia Coppola's Lost in Translation and the other is Scorsese's Taxi Driver. The Thai girl, Noi, reminded me of Scarlette Johansson in Lost in Translation and the guy, Kenji, a Japanese guy reminded me of Travis Bickle. Both alienated from this world, live in their own respective worlds. Noi loose her sister in an accident due to her own mistake.Kenji is suicidal in nature. "This is bliss", he writes in his suicide note. Upon trying to kill himself many times, he meets Noi on the street of Bangkok. She watches her sister lie on the street, lifeless. He consoles him, as any passerby would. Visits her home and stays there. All this is shot with great leisure. At a point I thought, why am I watching this? Leisurely speed should be used (by a filmmaker)when he has (and he can, of course) something to say that can't be described in words. Here, what we see is he roaming around in the house, washing dishes and all. But it's all worth. The friendship between the two is not instant but is effortless and completely believable. In one of the scenes, when they are together, he asks her whether she is sad. She simply replies, "who isn't?" And then smiles. This incident speaks volumes about the emotional numbness. Through such moments the director succeeds to develop a strange, life affirming bond between the two. In it's own way, this film is a harsh comment on humans losing sensitivity (in the first half only).

Then there is a plot. And, there, it stays behind the afore mentioned two films. The direction, although a little flawed, is smooth and confident. The film chronicles the sorrows of urban, suave people trapped in mundane and sometimes meaningless lives and does exceedingly well. Most importantly The Last Life in the Universe creates two characters we come to care for. That is, above all, it's biggest strength.

xx/xy

Director: Austin Chick
Year: 2002
Cast: Mark Ruffalo, Maya Stange, Kathleen Robertson, Petra Wright.
Rating: **1/2 (out of ****)

xx/xy. Cool name for a movie. What do you say? No, don't worry this movie is not about chromosome theory. Anyway.

Who should you go with? The woman you had a steamy history and still feel the same about you or the woman who looks out for you, who is always there for you, understands you more than perhaps you do and accepts you as you are. Sometimes not complaining at all isn't noble. People start taking you for granted. This is what happens with Claire (Petra Wright), long time girlfriend of Coles (Mark Buffalo). Her eyes reflect wisdom. Coles is a wannabe movie director. He had this fling with beautiful (she really is) Sam (Maya Stange) and had a threesome with Sam and their common friend Theo(Kathleen Robertson).

Now this Coles guy is a person who can't stand up to anything, always carrying that smirk on his face. Such people need partners with greater understanding capabilities. Coles has found this very quality in Claire. They are (at least seem) happy together. Until Coles accidentally run into Sam one afternoon and all those memories rush back. And the fate of these three people arrive at crossroads. What happens next is xx/xy for you. A romantic (non-comedy) film.

So how was it? Well, not very special if you ask me. I mean, the quality of romantic movies that holds you is depth, of emotions, of visuals, of the longing. That depth is missing. Story doesn't have anything to offer either. The characters are developed fine.

Roger Ebert says, " Jerks are often the most interesting characters in the movies, and sometimes the ones most like ourselves. "XX/XY" would be dismal if the characters all behaved admirably.' Well sir, this is not my problem that these people are jerks and I totally agree these they are most likely to reflect human spirit with all it's exuberance but the way characters evolved was least convincing for me.

All said, I appreciate the makers of the movie for it's courageous ending. It made my two hours worthwhile.

Adaptation

Director: Spike Jonze
Year:2002
cast: Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper, Tilda Swinton
Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

Adaptation is like a simple, pure, beautiful and mysterious thing that keeps on adding these fascinating layers around itself. Amazing us with insights about this little journey called life. The plot kind of grows on you. It's up to you how much you can take in and digest. It's about ordinary people like you and me, telling their extraordinary story. Strangely the films I've loved lately have been about pathetic losers, about timid but genuine people. Their naked vulnerability kills me. I feel bewitched body and soul.


Something strange but fascinating starts happening in the second act. The philosophical journey turns into this tale of mundane characters. The characters you loved so much disappear into darkness. The character of The Orchid Thief seem neglected in the second half of the film. Maybe that's what happens in life. After all life is no fairy tale. Things change, trying to 'adapt' themselves as Charlie Kauffman would say. This movie is not about the orchid thief and it's hard to tell what it is really about. See, sign of a good film. It sure amazes you with it's effortless charm, innocence. As Ebert says, the movie is wickedly playful in it's construction. It never takes itself seriously. Well, why should I? It does work for sure, it's audacity, it's mistery.

Arranged

Directors: Diane Crespo, Stefan C. Schaefer
Year: 2007
Cast: Zoe Lister Jones, Francis Benhamou
Rating: *** (out of ****)

"L'enfer, c'est les autres", translated as "Hell is other people".
-Jean-Paul Sartre

Rarely do we see a movie that has a rather big point to make but nothing to preach about. Something sensible, pure, tender and effective. A movie that peeks into that very delicate fabric of American life, wait, any life and illustrates if we show patience and have good intentions, any contention is not beyond our reach. Be it Brooklyn as in this case or any place else. It never harbors the hostile approach or hatred towards others, rather follows the path of tolerance and understanding.

A movie that tries to understand human spirit and values and therefore should be hailed with all our hearts. And this movie comes at a time when we are hell bent on changing others, blaming other religions, waging wars against each other and what not?

Watch it for the two lead actors. Particularly Rochel Meshenberg (Zoe Lister-Jones). She is the kind of girl I would love to change myself for (which I think I'd hardly do for anybody else). I'll give up all my bad habits, if any! I swear.


Note: Here she is.

Butterfly Effect, The- I & II

Directors: Eric Bress, J. Mackye Gruber
Year: 2004
Cast: Ashton Kutcher, Amy Smart.
Rating: *** (out of ****)

There are movies when you are supposed to be in a confused state when you are done watching them. As if it was shown that way and was perfectly intended. I believe The Butterfly Effect lies in that category. Having travelled through all the versions of virtual reality of Evan, I felt disoriented. A feeling of discomfort crept in my mind. The same thing I experienced while watching Abre los ojos (Open Your Eyes) for the first time.

But my question is, do you have to be a victim of dementia to be experience this feel this desperate need to change things you deeply regret ? We all do that sometime or the other. The director duo have made a fine movie nonetheless. A well written, finely paced, a bit too flashy but still a true movie. I wish they had done it with more subtlety.

Director: John R. Leonetti
Year: 2006
Cast: Eric Lively, Erica Durance.
Rating: ** (out of ****)

A sequel is and should be usually made when you have something to tell, an extension of the original, a step further. Not with a trifle idea of making money riding on the popularity of the first one. Hollywood has this tendency to go about making sequels with the sole commercial purpose (Remember Saw, I Know What You Did Last Summer). This one here is, I believe, both. It's like you have a tested formula, you just replace the characters with new one in a different setting. It was a diary in the first and here, they are photos. Story seems like an afterthought.

The 'story' is necessarily the same as The Butterfly Effect (of course with more sex and flash-editing) and the climax heavily influenced by the recent If Only. As for the film, I still stand by what I thought about The Butterfly Effect ( There are movies when you are supposed to be in a confused state when you are done watching them). Still I would recommend it to those who like thrillers. It'll be a good bet for them, only for them.

Lot Like Love, A

Director: Nigel Cole
Year: 2005
Cast: Amanda Peet, Ashton Kutcher
Rating:*** (out of ****)

Just few days back I happened to watch a movie called Shallow Hal. As the name suggests, the movie was even shallower than Hal. Unbelievably unconvincing. A lot like love, on the other hand, is a subtle, charming and touching tale of love discovered after much hide and seek with destiny. The credit should go to both the lead actors particularly Amanda Peet. She is this grey eyed beauty with a strong screen presence. I had liked her even her minor role in Syriana. Here she presents Emily in as believable manner as there could be. Much to our delight Ashton Kutcher pulls the shy, lovable guy equally well.
Yes, regarding the story, Emily (Amanda Peet) has just broken with her boyfriend and met an introvert Oliver (Ashton Kutcher) on a plane. In that immature age, they end up having sex without even knowing their names. And then they keep meeting as the destiny plays it's games and that is pretty much that.

The constant shifting of timeline, a little overdone, would have ruined everything (you know, after six months, after three years......). But surprisingly, it doesn't. Like When Harry Met Sally, they just keep on meeting but sometimes either he is focusing on carrier or she is engaged with someone else. Anyway, these very moments make the movie all the more worthwhile. A good film.

Life Before Her Eyes, The

Director: Vadim Perelman
Year:2007
Cast: Uma Thurman, Evan Rachel Wood
Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

Watching The Life Before Her Eyes was quite frustrating experience for me. It was like going through the dense jungle with a hope to find something but it just becomes darker and darker. If you feel the same, wait some more. It reminds me of some other movies with guilt ridden protagonists. Both of them I liked. Make it loved, but for different reasons. I wouldn't go into details here. First is David Lynch's Mulholland Drive and the other is Atom Egoyan's The Sweet Hereafter. These movies, including this very film are not only about Survivor's guilt but also about survivor's fear.

Nishikant Kamat, director of Mumbai Meri Jaan told in an interview that he came very close to the 1993 Mumbai blasts and could not speak to anyone for a long time ( Madhavan's character of a techie who experiences a close shave with the mayhem. He can't make up his mind to aboard the train after that). That fear of Kamat ultimately became the inspiration for Mumbai Meri Jaan.

The film starts with Diana (Evan Rachel Wood) in a college, taking her classes. A horrifying act of mass killing occurs in the same college (reminiscent of the recent Virginia University incident). Showed chillingly here. This trauma grips Diana. The shadow of that terrifying event never leaves her. Now she is happily married and having a daughter but her past still haunts her. The film's constant shifting between past and present became a bit cumbersome to watch. But I guess Vadim Perelman had to do that to make us feel the agony of Diana, taking the journey with her, as she remembers it all. If you have watched the film, you would agree.

Anyway, Diana here is a victim of the post traumatic disorder. Director Vadim Perelman choose to pay attention to the visuals (with all the close ups and all) to show the agony and fear. His visuals convey a lot more that words throughout the film. At times, I was irritated by Uma Thurman's acting. It seemed hollow (makes me wonder what someone of Naomi Campbell's might would have done). She is constantly insecure. About her daughter, her marriage, about herself. And then comes something I couldn't imagine. Anybody possibly couldn't have. The slow motion sequences spread throughout the movie suddenly start making sense. A study of a heart filled with fear and guilt. A dream lost, a life destroyed, a perplexing requiem, recurring trauma. The life before her eyes.
"Heart is the strongest muscle in the body", Diana's professor had said.....The weak had to die.....the fear moves on..... fear of losing the loved ones..... the fear that happiness may be just an illusion..... the guilt of being alive is eternal..... the guilt of being a weak heart..... feeling of being unworthy of any happiness.....Such people die every moment.....it's not a feeling, it's a phenomenon, it's eternal.

I've invested myself so much in this motion picture, I need some sleep. I need to lie down. It has been painful.

Heart is the strongest muscle in the body.

Teeth

Director: Mitchell Lichtenstein
Year:2007
Cast: Jess Weixler
Rating: ** (out of ****)

Here's some trivia for you, 'Vendata' in Latin means teeth. You will know the significance after watching the movie. Moving on, there's a girl called Dawn obsessed with chastity and abstinence. Supposedly, she's taken a vow or something. So she teaches girl students about saving their 'apple' for 'the father of their children'. So everything is going fine till Dawn falls for a guy but then she realizes her mistake. The guy tries to force himself on her and something really weird happens. And the chronicles of teeth begin! Once Dawn realizes about her 'incredible gift', she starts using it against the people she hates (Ha Ha ...Surprise! It works according to her will or mood, probably).




This could be made into a good thriller, you know but the writer and director here don't even come close. Every incident is laughable, almost all of them. Hollywood is seriously running out of ideas now. "Mutation of female genitals", come on! Will you please get over that mutation stuff already?

It all becomes so ridiculous at a point when you may think it's indeed a comedy, particulrly the climax. I was actually laughing at the end.

Go for it, may be as a black comedy but never as a thriller.

Elegy

Director: Isabel Coixet
Year: 2008
Cast: Ben Kingsley, Penélope Cruz, Dennis Hopper, Patricia Clarkson.
Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

When a person is young,he is carefree, jumping from one relationship to other thinking he has still got it. Things gradually change as he discovers something is missing, that pure feeling of love, admiration, camaraderie, that gentle touch. That makes one realize it was the testosterone talking. There's more to life than that.

Based on a book 'The Dying Animal' by Philip Roth, is a story of David Kepesh (Ben Kinsley) is a renowned cultural critic. He has everything but at this age (around 60) he could feel an emptiness. This is the time when he is bewitched by one of his Cuban student Consuela Castillo (Penélope Cruz). He falls for her 'elegant austerity', as he puts it. After the grades are declared, he meets her at a party. There are some beautiful moments between them here. Very carefully captured. A sexual tension filled across every frame is palpable. Things progress and his world is filled with that love he was looking for like forever, I guess. He has a friend George O'Hearn (Dennis Hopper) older than him with whom he usually plays squash and share the feelings.


There's no particular tone to the film in regard to the professor's life. You know what I mean? The film does not dwell at a particular aspect. Is it about a person's desires in second innings? yes. Is it about his unusual friendship? Yes. His obsession for the girl? Yes. No one answer. Still it says much more. All that is happening to him is an elegy, a requiem, a mourning. A very apt name for this creation. The one thing he loved beyond anything, and the destiny strikes. I won't divulge any further.

The beauty still lies in the narrative finesse and strong performances by all the principal characters. It took about a day for me to come to grips with this film. I hope it will be as memorable for you.

Fahrenheit 9/11

Director: Michael Moore
Year: 2004
Cast: George W. Bush (Him and him only)
Rating: ***1/2 (Out of ****)

One word to define this documentary, in my opinion, is Anti-Bush. Moore stresses the point heavily throughout that Bush is incompetent, naïve, manipulative, and sometimes plain stupid, president. My knowledge here may be inadequate, but I thought this was one sided. Let me tell you, I can't defend this point. If someone comes to me telling he liked it and this is the complete story, I might agree. See, knowing the whole story is not the point here, I think, trying to project an unbiased picture is. This surely does not happen here.
There are some utterly devastating instances where I couldn't control my emotions. One where an Iraqi woman cries for the death of her family. There's another heart-wrenching scene of a vehicle full of corpses of innocent Iraqi people and one man handling a child's body. An eye opener indeed.

To end this disturbingly effective documentary, Moore quote George Orwell, "It's not a matter whether a war is not real or it is, victory is not possible. A war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. A hierarchical society is only based on poverty and ignorance." Read it and read it again. The more you read it, the more sense it makes and the more unsettling it becomes. It has to stop somewhere, isn't it?

Crash

Director: David Cronenberg
Year: 1996/I
Cast: James Spader, Holly Hunter, Elias Koteas, Rosanna Arquette, Deborah Kara Unger
Rating: **1/2 (Out of ****)


What turns you on? For some it's shoes or nails or scars or your favorite perfume, some even have great sex in seemingly dangerous situations. Apparently, for some crashed cars and ghastly wounds due to the crash are a turn on. While the crash we witnessed in 2004 was about human lives crashing into each other, this crash is about car crashes and it's effects on sexual behavior.

As the opening credits start, you will hear a haunting score by Howard Shore. I was reminded of the opening score of Stanley Kubrick classic 2001: A Space Odyssey. It creates apt atmosphere for what is following. The graphic images of accident wounds, uncomfortable close-ups of car crash may scare some viewers away. But that's quintessentially Cronerberg stuff. Sometimes Crash will remind you of some of David Lynch movies, or at least it's ambiance along with background score create that feel. Sans the surrealism, of course. The idea behind this movie is novel, no denying that, but it ultimately gets down to sex. I understand the point of the picture is people getting off at a crushed car, still Cronerberg fails to add some interesting angle to it.

Let me make this very clear, it is not for everyone. This is weird stuff. I mean, they look at a car and they are aroused, they look at a car accident wound, they get aroused, man! After such a promising and original idea the narration loses the track completely. The explicit sex shown isn't gratuitous, but after a while (once we get the point) it becomes boring and uninteresting.

Cloverfield

Director: Matt Reeves
Year: 2008
Cast: Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas, T.J. Miller, T.J. Miller
Rating: ***1/2 (Out of ****)

This is, arguably, the best creature flick since Jurassic Park. I say Jurassic Park because I liked it for the same reasons I like Coverfield, novelty and creativity. We are there in the middle of a major crisis and for some time we even don't know the cause. The digital hand-held shaky camera achieves what it is set out to, the claustrophobic feel of an imminent danger bubbles us with cast members. Thus achieving the very intention, I think, of the filmmakers. There's this guy called Hud whose camera capture the entire movie. It's hard to imagine how a person can film everything when such an horrific attack is under way. But, hey, it's for you to watch. It's like your window to an alien attack

The production design is exquisite even if the camera understandably can't capture it completely. But the devastation is crated stupendously, much better than much hyped Godzilla. The special effects are excellent either but, you see, this movie is not about special effects, nor about the monster who attacks Manhattan. We even don't know what happens to the two survivors. I still believe I didn't quite understand the point of making such a movie but it works, it really does. This is very innovative effort, nothing short of a cinematic achievement, a movie not to be missed!

Dead Man Walking

Director: Tim Robbins
Year: 1995
Cast: Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon
Rating: **** (Masterpiece)


Let me tell you first, as a convict is led onto death row, the prison man shouts, "Dead man walking, dead man walking here."

A man named Elmo Patrick Sonnie (Sean Penn) is convicted for murder of a couple and a nun, Helen Prejean played by Susan Sarandon (She has become a leading American advocate for the abolition of the death penalty) accepts the job as a spiritual advisor, and there are many questions. Was he guilty or was implicated? What prompted the nun to help such a person? Atonement, salvation, redemption, spirituality, these concepts are trickier than we perceive them to be.

Director Tim Robbins take this material to a different level altogether. He sometimes surprises you, sometimes leaves you speechless. None of this is manipulative. There's no formula, no melodrama, no shortcuts used to garner sympathy, what transpires on screen is, believe me, pure brilliance. Oh God! That pain, utter pain that as if it renders your fate hanging with his. A true spiritual odyssey. A must watch.

Babel

Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu
Country: USA
Year: 2006
Cast: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Rinko Kikuchi, Adriana Barraza, Gael García Bernal
Rating: **** (Masterpiece)

My dictionary tells the meaning of 'Babel' as 'a confused medley of sounds'. Could it get any more close to the essence of this gem of a film? I don't think so. This world is filled with confused souls, shouting to get their 'sounds' heard. We all have become so judgmental by nature. We are always all set to judge others making us oblivious of our own mistakes. This movie doesn't do that, for one. It opens it's big heart for all of them, understands them and most importantly, loves them for who they are.

On a different note, I would have loved to see one story from India too. After all we have enough 'life' going on here. But I believe India is largely unknown to the western world. Some academicians and Noble laureates notwithstanding.

I think this a coming-of-age movie. It's about a Ukrainian village boy who is indulging in voyeurism, about a mute-deaf Japanese girl who is yet to come to grips with the 'outside world' as well as her own desires, about the mistakes of a average Mexican boy, and a dysfunctional American family rediscovering the relationship. But eventually it's much much more than it all. It's about the cries of confused and tormented souls, misunderstood (or never really understood) by others.

Fortunately Inarritu does not choose to leave them hopeless here as he did in his first installment of this powerful and engrossing trilogy, Amores Perros. He gives them hope, hope to stand again, share their grief, their pain, their feeling of entrapment.

Trois Couleurs: Rouge/ Three Colors: Red

Director: Krzysztof Kieslowski
Country: Poland/ France
Year: 1994
Cast: Irène Jacob, Jean-Louis Trintignant
Rating: **** (Masterpiece)


Ever wondered why a set of numbers repeats itself in decimals e.g. the value of π. As if the it has nothing to tell you. Our lives, oddly enough, have the tendency to repeat itself in some form. No, it's not déjà vu. No. It's more than that. Einstein said, I don't believe God operates this universe by throwing dice. Indeed true but then how? Is there any pattern to our existence? Do certain incidents or maybe images in our lives recur? If they do, why? Kieslowski is no ordinary director. By 'ordinary' I mean the following.
To certain filmmakers Cinema is entertainment to others just fun to some it's life. To Kieslowski it's all the more than that. It's a platform to question our behavior, our existence.

In this small universe we all are very far, out of our reach, like islands that desperately need intimacy. We are covered by some glass we can't break. A sense of isolation (that we experienced in Babel). A man's (here Kieslowski's) inner self is painfully fortified from others to reach. I personally have been experiencing it for as long I remember. That's something beyond words. No one reaches there and that empty void seems abysmal.

Here, in the end of this trilogy Kieslowski provide some hope. A hope that things will get normal, that the creator does believe in compensatory action. An act of balance. The three colors Blue. Red and White each defining some virtue of human existence namely Liberty, equality and fraternity. A window to explore existential ideas. Double lives and recurring images have always been central in Kieslowski's work. In Double life of Veronique, he dealt with the issue of double existence. I would request you to watch these movies with audio commentary on a DVD. It's a beautiful shot-by-shot explanation of elaborate use of light, symbols, sound and of course colors by Kieslowski and cinematographer Poitr Sobocinski. An intelligent explanatio by film critic Annette Insdorf. But don't go for it in the first viewing as it may be distracting.

Black Friday

Year: 2007
Country: India
Director: Anurag Kashyap
Cast: Kay Kay Menon, Pavan Malhotra, Aditya Srivastava.
Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

Before I forget, there's a shabby sequence midway through the film where two police constables humiliate a mother and her daughter in front of the father. Such a disturbing scene, thinking of which alone shakes me to the core. Rakesh Maria tells journalists, these animals (the 93 blast suspects) will open their mouth only when their loved ones, especially children, elders and women are humiliated. This immensely powerful picture is filled with such barbaric truth about police investigation. The film almost always manage to tell us both sides without bias and that's what makes it a great movie.

Movie starts with investigation and shows criminal investigation proceedings of India's largest criminal case with accuracy and balance. I can not praise Anurag Kashyap enough for it. It takes a genius like him to depict every sequence with this much care and never losing the track or being biased. Truly commendable. But Kashyap does not stop here. He goes back to the Babri demolition and tries to explore the events those eventually led to the infamous riots and then the blasts. The writer director who crafted everything so brilliantly till almost 75% of the film then goes on to show file footage of a Pakistani minister and affected people thus trying to find a solution or at least to show us the cause of what happened in those communal riots. Now, I'm really not sure whether this is a good thing or not. Firstly, I personally don't like real documented footage used in a feature film. If somebody needs to know about that can read the book by Zaidi. Secondly it takes the attention away from a wonderfully built drama and suddenly becomes heavy-handed. I think, that was unnecessary.
I don't know how sure am I about this comment so probably I should stop but not before heavily recommending this tremendous motion picture by debutant director, an artiste to look for. A must watch.

Gandhi

Year: 1982
Director: Richard Attenborough
Caste: Ben Kingsley, Alyque Padamsee, Roshan Seth, Martin Sheen, Amrish Puri
Rating: **** (Masterpiece)



It is indeed safe to say that independent India is seeing the second generation now that failed to understand both the Mahatma and his principles (and I include myself) completely. This movie is a compelling not only because it's painstakingly made, but also the man it represents, his life, his sacrifices, his selflessness. However naive this may sound nonetheless, it is true. Those of you, my friends, having the slightest of doubt whether Mr. M.K. Gandhi was merely a leader, revolutionary, politician or he was truly a mahatma, I beg you, watch this movie.
The more times I watch this marvelous cinema, the more unsettling experience it's becoming for me. This piece of writing is a result of that. To my misery, I don't seem to understand the reason. The political scenario in India, losing identity of once glorious rural India, slowly diminishing values like honesty, simplicity and morality from Indian society, I don't know. I really don't. Sometimes while watching the movie, I ask myself why do I need things, more things. All means of sense gratification. Nobody seems to care for others, except few honorable exceptions. This has to stop somewhere. This is not the India our fathers wanted, Gandhiji wanted, is it? ( This maybe Christopher McCandless(Alexander Supertramp) in me talking.)
I ask myself, what am I doing? What have I done for my country, or humanity for that matter. But these are all words and words only. One need to stand up and start working, for equality, justice and most importantly for truth. And then I find an ounce, however small it may be, of that great man called Mahatma Gandhi in me, if I can show the audacity to say so. My tiny heart does not seem to contain him...
Ben Kingsley is mind-numbingly brilliant. Here's an adjective I never thought I would use for an actor's work. Only problem is that he isn't Indian. So the accent, at times, seems to be the distraction. Everyone else is apt and adequate. A perfect piece of cinema. Thank you Attenborough.