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.