Srini at the Movies

Drive (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:17:00 +0000

A series of images is shown to you, each held by the auteur on a string, releasing and pulling back, toying with your interest. Pause and silence are tools that are as old as cinema itself. The silent era makers mastered it and many legendary film makers have used it since. ‘Drive’ transports you to a mythical nether world, where time and space has its own meaning, an artistic take on a visceral subject.

The unnamed Driver in character is a bit like Jason Statham’s in The Transporter. He is only interested in the job, not in the context. But he is quieter and deeper, rarely talks. Driver works at a garage, whose owner tries to get him to be a race car driver, by arranging for finance from a gangster Bernie Rose and his doubting parter, Nino. He befriends his neighbor, a young mother Irene, whom he falls in love with, but withdraws upon learning of her jailbird husband, Standard, who is to be released.

When Standard comes out, he promises to go clean but is forced to do one final job to pay an old debt. Wanting Irene and her son to have a safe life, Driver volunteers to drive the getaway car for Standard. When things go wrong, Driver needs to figure out who is behind it and how to protect Irene.

While the story is fairly plain, the usp of Drive is its outstanding screenplay by Iranian writer Hossein Amini. He succeeds in creating a film about longing, set in this small little world of five to six people. Nicolas Winding Refn, brings Amini’s words to life and plays with pace and silence in creating moments that leave you on the edge, in anticipation. His depiction of the romance between Driver and Irene is more about what is hidden, than what is shown.

Ryan Gosling’s performance is superb. It’s very hard to play a role that requires you to convey more by doing less. His chemistry with the charming Carey Mulligan is excellent. She effectively portrays a sad young woman, holding on to the feeling of love, while being aware of the reality of her life. Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman as the gangster bosses lend good support.

‘Drive’ has depth. A good watch.

Moneyball (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:12:00 +0000

Moneyball explores the classic battle of right and left brains and concludes one thing: you need both. It also shows us how to maximize returns when you have the constraint of investment. But along the way, it shows us the courage of Billy Beane in experimenting with a system of rating players that enabled him to build a baseball team with limited means, that would go on to have the longest winning streak in American League history. And it does so with little fuss.

Billy Beane is the General Manager of the Oakland Athletics, a team that is losing key players and unable to afford good new ones. Beane is himself a failed Major League player and divorced parent, who chose to forego a study and play scholarship from Stanford to enter the League. Frustrated with the traditional approach of the team’s scouts, Beane proceeds to negotiate with the Cleveland Indians to exchange some players and stumbles upon Peter Brand, a Yale Economics graduate who works as a researcher for the Cleveland Indians. He is intrigued and impressed by Brands espousal of a sabermetric approach to rating baseball players, that aims to provide an objective view on player performance.

Beane hires Brand and proceeds to fight numerous battles with the team scouts, team owner and the team coach, who do not seem to understand Beane and Brand’s choice of players. The A’s manager, Art Howe does not start any of the players picked by Beane and Brand and is ultimately forced to do as Beane sells players to push Howe into a corner. Beane’s gamble pays off as the A’s enjoy the longest winning streak in history. It gets Beane the biggest General Manager job offer ever from the Boston Red Sox. Will he take it or think about taking one more major decision in life for money or follow his daughter’s advice to ‘enjoy the ride’?

Written by the screenwriting pair of Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zaillian who have individually written films such as A Few Good Men and Schindler’s List to name a few, the film plays down a lot of the drama that is normally associated with sports films and sporting moments. The focus is very much on Billy Beane and his colorless life, his unfulfilled baseball dream and a broken marriage. The A’s progress is seen through Billy’s eyes more than it is on the field. This provides freshness to the treatment of a redemption story, while not going overboard in taking Beane to Deliverance.

Bennett Miller’s direction gives us several special moments in the film. The best one being Beane walking up to Peter Brand’s desktop in the Cleveland Indian’s office and asking him ‘Who are you?’ repeatedly until Brand is stripped of all his defenses and revels his true role. Miller’s filming of Beane’s fear of jinxing the A’s by attending the game and his sensitive relationship with his daughter make the film a lot more emotional than the title would suggest. The interspersing of Beane’s failed past as a player with his experiences as a General Manager has been done well. The conflict between the objective and subjective views of sport has been shown realistically and understandably left unresolved, with a subtle hint towards using both together as the Red Sox intended to.

Brad Pitt serves up another serious acting performance that won him an Academy Award nomination. As Beane, he often as a wry smile on his face as he takes on the A’s set methods with persistence and patience. Jonah Hill as Peter Brand who won a nomination delivers an earnest performance as the talented economist who is unsure of his place in the world until Beane finds him.

Moneyball is a mature sports film.

Agneepath (2012)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:17:00 +0000

From the first frame to the last, Karan Malhotra’s reinterpretation of this classic revenge story takes you on a voyage through the high seas of hatred steered by a single minded pursuit of death. So much so, that once you are done with it, you realize that ‘Agneepath’ circa 2012 occupies its own rightfully earned space as a story dipped in smoldering intensity.

He keeps the basic nature of the plot the same as the original. An avenging son, Vijay Dinanath Chauhan makes it his life mission to end the life of Kancha Cheena, a man who converted his village Mandwa to a drug haven after killing his noble father Master Dinanath Chauhan. A young Vijay runs away with his pregnant mother to Mumbai and befriends a gangster Rauf Lala and wrests control over the drug scene in Mumbai from him and starts negotiating with Kancha, who is keen on plying his wares there. In return for Mumbai, Vijay wants back his beloved Mandwa. Will that be enough to get ready Kancha for a face-off?

In setting the film in the early nineties, Malhotra helps his cause by using a simplistic environment for a story that has a fairly one dimensional structure. No cell phones, no internet. Just good old fashioned fixed line phones and an ear to the ground providing people with information. In such an environment, an island called Mandwa off the coast of Mumbai can be a fortress ruled by Kancha Cheena, and yet be dipped in intrigue without being Googled or Google Earthed or even covered to death by a raucous media.

The usp of this film is the effort spent in characterization and several influences can be seen. Sanjay Dutt as Kancha Cheena is Satanic, dragging people off, after judgment to be hung on a banyan tree at the edge of this island, a ritual inspired by many folk tales we see in Indian and Western literature. His devilish persona is very well etched and is uncompromisingly black. A fantastic performance by Dutt. The music and background score by Ajay-Atul are extremely evocative and compliment the action superbly.

Rishi Kapoor as Rauf Lala, the human and drug trafficker who is used by Vijay to get ahead is calculative and menacing as the head of a mafia family (complete with the stereotypical combination of a loose cannon and a mentally challenged son – Godfather and Angaar). Vijay’s love interest Kaali, played by Priyanka Chopra seems to be the only misfit in this film as she does precious little to move the story or the character forward and is ignorable in the side part, underserving of her top billing. Glimpses of Godfather and Parinda are seen again as the love story turns tragic.

The most difficult part for the makers was re-creating Vijay Dinanath Chauhan. The writer has moved the character far away from the one played by Amitabh Bachchan. The new Vijay is less noticeable in a crowd, quieter and more intense. He is shrewd and will use anyone in order to get closer to the one objective of his life-kill Kancha and avenge his father’s death. Hrithik Roshan plays the most difficult role of his career as recreates the iconic character in a different way, thus making it interesting for the viewer. His brooding intensity in this role and the eruption of his anger show us the progress he has made as an actor over the years.

The flip side of the film lies in the fact that we see Kancha only sparingly. After his gruesome act in the beginning, he is heard of only in references until the second half. Perhaps it was done to create more intrigue about him, but he is missed during his absence and one wonders, how he is plotting things at his end. There are inconsistencies in the look of the young Vijay and the older Vijay. The young Vijay looks darker with brown eyes while the older Vijay is fair with green eyes. Cinematic license should not be taken too far in today’s time of perfection.

Agneepath is a good watch. Even if you are tempted to compare it to the original, you will find that the remake holds its own.

Irma la Douce (1963)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:47:00 +0000

‘Irma the Sweet’ is probably Billy Wilder’s sweetest film. The master of satire paints a beautiful love story against the backdrop of the sleazy red light area of Paris between a prostitute and a simple loving man. He wants to keep her off the street and she wants to stay on to earn enough for both of them. Therin lies the problem.

The story revolves around Irma, a successful prostitute who struggles to remember the faces of the many men that she beds. In trying to bust this prostitution ring, policeman Nestor Patou loses his job because his own Chief is a regular customer at the brothel. Penniless, but with a heart filled with kindness, Patou impresses Irma, so much so that she moves him into her apartment and promises to take care of him by working the streets harder.

Patou wishes to earn to keep Irma off the street, but she doesn’t let him. Along with a bartender across the street, he devises a plan where he disguises himself as Lord X, a wealthy English gentleman who becomes Irma’s regular customer and pays her 500 Francs per meeting, which occurs at a regular frequency. Patou’s challenge is that the 500 Francs comes to him/Lord X from the multifaceted bar tender called Moustache, goes to Irma and comes back to Patou which he gives back to Moustache. The ploy works for a while, until Irma decides to elope with Lord X!

Satire is a very difficult genre to master. At its best, it leaves the viewer somewhere between being aware of the innate sadness in the situation and being happy with the comedy that is built around it. Wilder’s genius comes out in this film as he manages to sidetrack the inherent sadness of Irma having to sell her body for money and Patou’s inability to get her to stop, with some brilliant situational comedy with witty dialogue and quirky characters. Based on Alexandre Breffort’s French play, the story keeps you entertained right through with the delicious exchanges between Patou, Irma and Moustache. The only let down was the climax which seemed watered down, after such a good build up.

Jack Lemmon as Patou/Lord X excels in a fabulous role. He is an expert at portraying suffering characters with an innate goodness in them. As Patou he is his archetypical self, but it is as Lord X that he delivers a master class in using costume and accent to convincingly become a foreign character. Shirley McLaine as Irma is wonderful as the nonchalant mercenary of a prostitute who likes to wear green stockings. Never considered a beauty, she wins you over with a clever mix of charm and wit. The show stealer is Moustache, played by Lou Jacobi as he gloats about his prowess in everything from being a soldier in Dunkirk to a lawyer and a Professor of Economics.

Irma la Douce is a wonderful film that shows us the sweetness of simple emotions that often go missing in a cynical world.

We Are Marshall (2006)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:30:00 +0000

At first glance ‘We Are Marshall’ comes across as the soppiest sports movie ever. But, on closer examination one can relate to a situation, where turning up on the field is in itself, victory. And for a university that lost its entire football team, coaching and support staff in a tragic plane crash, turning up took a lot of tears to be put aside.

The story begins exactly at the opposite point, at a time when nothing other than victory mattered for the ‘Thundering Herd’. In losing this team the University and the town of Marshall, lost the spark in their lives, a reason to smile and a reason to believe that the athletic program needed to be continued. With the efforts of a few surviving members of the team, who could not be on that ill-fated flight and the persistence of the President, the program is continued with. After many a luckless interview, Jack Lengyel, an odd man who walks in an odd way and says odd things takes up the challenge of building this team from scratch; a challenge that many before him have turned down.

Facing severe talent shortage, owing to competing schools, he gambles with a strategy of building the team with freshmen, something that needs the Dean to get special permission from the NCAA. He picks freshmen from baseball and basketball and builds a team that he calls the ‘Young Thundering Herd’ (a great lesson in positioning). But the road to being a competitive team is filled with emotional pot holes, with the scar of loss still very fresh in the minds of the players.

It takes a while to get used to the mood of this film. Usually sports movies are about redemption and often have a subtext of personal or professional drama underneath, which finds its resolution in a sporting finale. The first half of the film is spent in the sorrow of loss and only in the final quarter of the story, does one see the hope that many a sports film seek to inject into the audience. Many of the exchanges between the principal characters fail to evoke the underlying emotion that they carry and the build-up is tepid.

Having said that, the on-field sequences and the climax is very well choreographed and shot by director McG, of Charlie’s Angels fame. Here he makes a film with more heart and substance and manages a passable version of what could have been a deeper exercise.

Mathew McConaughey as Lengyel does inject some life into the film with a seemingly studied character portrayal of a real person. His efforts are sadly not matched by many of his co-actors, barring David Strathairn as the President and that does not help the cause of the film.

‘We Are Marshall’ is a true story with a lot of steel in it, but the silver screen version has more tears.

Midnight Cowboy (1969)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:30:00 +0000

The dichotomy of the portrayal of innocence is that innocence is accompanied with a belief that the world and its ways are understood. But in reality, the belief ends up becoming a fallacy. ‘Midnight Cowboy’ is an exploration of the innocence of Joe Buck, as he believes in his innate ability to be a hustler, a male gigolo who can make it in the Big Apple. His experiences and his friendship with a street smart cripple, who becomes his pimp, teach him otherwise.

When Joe decides to quit his job as a dish washer in the local drive-in and dons a cowboy outfit, he leaves behind a past that shows an upbringing by his grandmother, a serious relationship that ends in rape and tragedy and a stint in the military that ends with the death of his grandmother. Enamored as a child, by the image of a cowboy, one of his grandmother’s many boyfriends, Joe believes that he is the ‘true stud’ and has the physique to be a hustler and wants to make money off rich women who would pay him for their pleasure.

Joe comes to New York, quickly runs out of money and is cheated by a rich woman, a gay youngster and a Bible thumper. He befriends an ailing cripple, Rizzo who moves Joe into his run-down apartment and as his pimp. Rizzo, the son of a shoe cleaner has only seen a life in the dumps and dreams about going to Miami and living off beautiful women who abound there. Rizzo sets Joe up finally with a woman, who will be Joe’s entry into the business, but falls terribly ill soon after and asks Joe to take him to Miami, as a panacea for both their problems.

The story is really a series of vignettes, or seen differently, a series of mirrors, each either reminding Joe of his past or making him realize the inadequacies of his present. Waldo Salt’s screenplay is a superb psychological exploration of Joe as he goes back and forth, stumbling at each step and learning nothing right up to the end when he realizes the true nature of his heart. Rizzo’s character serves in part as a balance to Joe’s seemingly self-destructive journey and in part as a nudge that makes Joe take the direction he was meant to take.

John Schlesinger, who would later go on to make Marathon Man shows the stark contrast of this simple country boy in a big bad city, who is out to be someone that he cannot. John Barry’s wonderful soundtrack headlined by Nilsson’s ‘Everybody’s Talking’ provides a reflective backdrop to the viewer as he taken through this misfit’s journey.

Jon Voight as Joe Buck plays out his finest role as the lost boy trapped in a cowboy outfit. His character portrayal evokes sympathy for the tragic life of this young man, who seems to be escaping to a far worse future than the past he is trying to leave behind. Dustin Hoffman as Rizzo brings to the table, his own incredible performance as Joe’s conscience and the beacon that leads him out.

‘Midnight Cowboy’ is a very moving film about life’s about-turns.

Don 2: The King is Back (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:00:00 +0000

Don 2 is a pizza made with toppings from James Bond, Mission Impossible, Oceans 11 and even the Dark Knight. The crust is not rich enough and toppings are bland. A disappointing offering from a Director who set the standard for intelligent cinema, made within the commercial framework. As the title suggests, the film is so much a homage to the character that it makes the rest of the cast look weak, a move that costs the film much needed balance and makes Don’s challenges look quite easy.

The story starts with Don giving himself up to Interpol in Malaysia, a strategy employed to get Vardhaan out of jail, so that he could give him the key to a locker that has a tape, that can be used to blackmail Diwan, the VP of a European bank called DZB, that has printing plates for the Euro. That is the entire first half. The second half is dedicated to a heist, where Don and Vardhaan have to break into the high security DZB to get the printing plates. The additional challenge is for Don to escape the Interpol led by old love turned foe, Roma and double crossers that he accumulates as he plans the elaborate theft.

To start with, the story is too one sided. The objective to glorify the intelligence of Don could also have been achieved by improving the capabilities of his adversaries, especially Interpol and also of crooks, who have worked with him before. Instead we are subjected to more than 2 hours of tributes to the legend of the character, while the action leading up to the dialogue just doesn’t match up. The action sequences, such an important part of this genre, all seem lifted from a variety of mainstream Hollywood films and hence lack originality, at least to a discerning viewer who has been exposed.

The characters all seem too stupid or too lame to do anything to stop Don. Vardhaan is constantly bickering and playing catch up: Roma and a guy who wants to be her boyfriend, not to mention the rotund Inspector Malik round up the intelligentsia of Interpol. Farhan Akhtar has revealed that the story came from two fans who came in to his office with the idea. He would have done well to help them polish it for the screen. Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy’s music is peppy and does well in the only major song of the movie-Zara Dil Ko Thaam Lo, which is shot well.

Shah Rukh Khan does a great job of portraying the street smart, charming yet menacing character. He lights up the screen with his trademark snarls and chuckles and makes the rest of the characters look pale-too pale. He is sadly let down by the lop sided character balance. Priyanka Chopra as Roma and the talented Boman Irani as Vardhaan are wasted, while Om Puri should take a cue from his equally talented contemporary Naseeruddin Shah on choice of roles and slipping into character.

Don 2 is disappointing. Strictly for fans of Shah Rukh Khan.

Fire in Babylon (2010)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:30:00 +0000

For someone like me, who learnt about the Richards and Lloyds and the famed pace quartet, their size, shape, menace and excellence through first-person tales from my dad, ‘Fire in Babylon’ gave me a glimpse of what was behind arguably the greatest team to have played the game of cricket. The film shows us how they used their talent in the game to create a voice for the racially suppressed, to strike a blow for their people against the assumed superiority of the white colonial masters.

This is a cricket documentary, but the game is just a brush to paint a richer cultural and racial overtone. The narrative starts with the concept of Babylon, a term in the Rastafari religion that is used to describe regimes that have suppressed and racially vilified the black race. West Indian cricketers like Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards, Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Dereck Murray, Colin Croft and Joel Garner recount almost in rhythm, the shame that had been inflicted on their race by England and on the cricket field by England and Australia and the pain they shared with their brothers around the world and especially in countries like South Africa, where the aparthied was at its peak.

The ‘Calypso Entertainer’ label was worn very grudgingly by this generation that inherited the title from a previous generation that saw cricketers like Gary Sobers, Wes Hall and Lance Gibbs to name a few, win global acclaim but were never considered world beaters, just good entertainers. The journey begins in Australia in the 75-76 series that sees the Windies lose 1-5.The on-field loss and the on and off field racial sledging hurt their pride, which led Clive Lloyd to say ‘Never Again’.

In 1976, India was the first victim of the Lloyd’s new strategy, of aggressive, dominating cricket albeit played within the rules of the game. I remember Gavaskar writing in his book 'Idol's about wanting not to get killed, a sentiment shared by many of his team mates. The West Indians took this strategy to the English shores, where they were further instigated by South African born Tony Grieg’s racial comment on making them ‘grovel’. After decimating England, the Windies return to Australia, where they display their new brand of cricket and stun the Aussies and every other team in the world right up to 1995.

Stevan Riley’s direction provides a unique mix of perspectives – cricketing and cultural. The cricketing commentary in the film is provided by the cricketers themselves, laced with cultural undertones. The cultural commentary is provided by an array of musicians, authors, researchers across the Carribean ranging from a member of Bob Marley & The Wailers to a groundsman.

With Bob Marley’s famous tunes ranging playing in the background, the footage is an interesting mix of match recordings, advertisements, interviews and still photographs expertly put together to create an environment of chaos, similar to what the opposition faced when they crossed swords with this team. The intensity and passion in the voices and the fire in the eyes of these West Indian cricketers is something that the current team should see and imbibe if they have not done so already. Their association with the pain of slavery, of the historical looting of Africa is obvious in the way they speak about the green, gold and red colors as depicted in the Rastafari symbol.

The documentary is very clear in its focus only on Test cricket, with Tests being the highest form of the game. However, if they had chronicled the West Indians’ One Day International (ODI) record during that period, they would have seen a similar dominance that included 2 World Cups and a 5-0 blackwash of the then newly crowned world champions India and a Win-Loss record of 172 games in 267 played. The omission of the Windies’ rivalry against Pakistan in the 80s and the closely fought series against Australia in the early 90s is conspicuous by its absence.

‘Fire in Babylon’ is a wonderful depiction of the almost mythical stature of a group of men, who made an entire generation of African-origin people across the world, believe in themselves and raise their voice against racial oppression.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:47:00 +0000

Brian De Palma’s Mission Impossible started a series that has not managed to live up to its basic identity of an intelligent espionage thriller. The series stumbled with John Woo’s stylized slowmo romanticism and continued to slide when JJ Abrams’ pushed it further into soppy revenge realm. With Brad Bird, a director known more for his animation work such as The Incredibles and Ratatouille, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol sees a revival of sorts as it goes back to being an espionage thriller, but misses the intelligence of the first and gets stuck in the Russia bashing stereotype of the cold war.

The story revolves around a now single Ethan Hunt, who is out to save the world again. This time, a Kremlin bombing which took place at the same time as that of Hunt’s mission there, sees the IMF being disbanded because of Ghost Protocol, which the President has initiated. Hunt is told that the blame for the US-Russia standoff and the bombing is blamed on him and is offered a helping hand by the IMF secretary when he is handed a mission to stop the perpetrator of the Kremlin bombing, Cobalt from arming and deploying a Russian nuclear missile.

Hunt has the help of a new crew – a vengeful chick, an Englishman and a remorseful ex-agent and a basic set of supplies that he needs to use to chase Cobalt and prevent him from getting all that he needs – launch codes and a Russian satellite to relay the codes to a Russian nuclear capable submarine. How he goes about completing this ‘impossible’ mission is what we get to see.

First up, the thrill is back. The screenplay is racy, the action-inventive and pulsating. Then there are the Burj Khalifa stunts and car chases in a desert storm that are breathtaking. But the writers, Josh Applebaum and Andre Nemec have a serious problem with logic and imagination when it comes to the story as they rely on clichés such as rogue Russian satellites and chances of nuclear apocalypse. Bird’s direction misses drama in the subtext which involves Hunt’s team having an ex-agent who was careless enough to cause the death of his wife and the lady-agent becoming an avenging angel for her agent-boyfriend who is killed. Dramatic moments fall flat and the post-climactic mushiness is tremendously irritating.

The characters are bland – the English pencil pusher turned agent, the penitent ex-agent turned chief analyst and the avenging angel just don’t grow on the viewer. They don’t visibly progress much in the course of the story either, a key ingredient of good story telling. Neither does Cobalt, whose views seem to be loosely modeled on Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove. He is portrayed as just another trigger happy thug and that takes away the balance of the story.

Tom Cruise is back as the man of action, a departure from some of his dramatic efforts in recent years. He is as convincing as Hunt as he was in the first leg and does a very good job with a character that is thankfully more about the mission than about romancing a gal or protecting a wife. Jeremy Renner’s acting intensity is wasted as he sleep walks in analyst cum agent mode. Simon Pegg as the lovable pansy does not endear himself and neither do his Brit jokes. Paula Patton has a perennial frown on her face which forms her standard response to anything that is thrown at her, including an incredibly wasted Anil Kapoor, as a billionaire playboy who also has access codes to a Russian satellite. Kapoor should have signed on a David Dhawan film and stayed in character than do this.

Watch MI4 for the thrills, but if you want the real deal, go back to the first one.

The Dirty Picture (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:34:00 +0000

‘Water Water everywhere, but not a drop to drink’. ‘The Dirty Picture’ brings out the paradoxical existence of the celebrity, someone whom everyone wants, but no one loves, a springboard for many ventures when on the ascent, but a sinking stone in the depths of anonymity when out of favor. The film is a hard hitting tribute, but is more of a mirror held to the grime behind the celluloid, that is so often applied on those that want to make it big and also fuels the age-old debate about cinema-entertainment or meaning?

The story, told through a narrative by Abraham, a film director who loves to hate vulgarity on screen, begins with a young girl Reshma, with stars in her eye, who runs away from her mother’s protective care to Chennai. Here she tries her luck at becoming an actor and a dancer, but meets with failure time and again. Her hunger due to poverty and lack of work is only matched by her hunger to make it big, no matter what it takes. She finds a niche for herself when she discovers her innate oomph and sex appeal and brandishes it boldly to catch the eye of a producer Selva Ganesh. He names her Silk and casts her opposite an aging yet powerful superstar SuryaKanth, whom she beds to further her career.

As her popularity rises, so does her disillusionment with the way she is perceived, something that her starry eyes never cared for in the beginning. She is always the sidekick and never the bride. The lack of love and acceptance from the men in her life and the insults from an industry that also benefits financially from her sexy avatar, finally begins to tell as she distances herself from her supporters through acts of frustrated brazenness. As her body begins to lose shape and the booze takes over, her attitude plummets as do her film offers. She finds a new soul mate in her worst critic, the meaningful filmmaker, Abraham, who tries to salvage her sinking ship. Is he too late?

The structure of the story is clearly demarcated by the struggle, pinnacle and decline phases on either side of the interval. The screenplay by Rajat Arora is commendable for the energy it possesses, backed by hard hitting dialogue, bold costumes and in-your-face cleavage. The unsung hero of the film is Vishal-Shekar's soundtrack that transports you into the 80s with, hold your breath-Bappi Lahiri and the background score that makes you really feel every moan, grovel and gyration. Kudos for a neutral Hindi accent portrayal of South Indians, an undeservingly lampooned section of the population in Hindi cinema.

Milan Luthria attempts a dream subject for a director as he captures the rise and fall of arguably one of the biggest stars of the 80s, while being careful not to judge her, a very important factor in a biopic. He shows a mirror to the hypocritical view of skin show on screen, and to industry and media for the opportunistic manner in which they treat their golden gooses. However, he leaves the story imbalanced, by not focusing enough on the parallel track to Silk’s story, that of director Abraham’s conversion from a staunch proponent of meaningful cinema to a masala mama.

One loses track of the countless Oscars and Golden Bears won by actors playing troubled, faded, fading and dead stars and celebrities. Vidya Balan stakes her claim to every major acting award in a performance that should set the gold standard for character acting in this generation. Everything about her seems transformed – her physicality, body language, suppleness and attitude. She is Silk and to portray Silk, she needed something that most actors in her generation don’t possess-guts. Naseeruddin Shah as Suryakanth, is superb as a lecherous old man, who believes in his own immortality as a star. Emraan Hashmi and Tusshar Kapoor just about pass muster as Abraham and Ramakanth, Surya's younger brother.

‘The Dirty Picture’ is a superb and hard hitting tribute and tickles some reflection too.

The Odd Couple (1968)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:28:00 +0000

Felix and Oscar united in 1968 to create a comedic combination that propelled Jack Lemmon and Walter Mathau to be counted alongside Laurel & Hardy, The Three Stooges, Gene Wilder & Richard Pryor and Mel Brooks & Gene Wilder to name some of the best in the business. Based on a play by Neil Simon, they add pressure cooker intensity to comedy that has you sweating as you laugh.

The story revolves around two single men, one divorced and rich sports writer, Oscar Madison and the other a recently separated devoted family man, Felix Ungar, who come to live under the same roof when Oscar offers to take in Felix into his 7-bedroom apartment, because he has nowhere else to stay. But there is a problem. Felix is obsessively clean and Oscar, compulsively sloppy. Little do they realize that what could have been a guy’s dream bachelor pad turns into a marriage of a different kind.

The film in setting stays close to a play. Most of the action takes place in Oscar’s apartment with very little outdoor footage. The claustrophobia felt by Oscar, brought about by the sultry New York weather and Felix’s obsessive cleaning frenzy is brought out superbly in Neil Simon’s screenplay and filmed with a lot of dexterity by Gene Saks, himself a great stage director. Like in all classic comedies, the laughs only serve to hide something deeper inside. Felix and Oscar are dear friends who are close. They are also lonely men, who look for company in each other, while reflecting on what went wrong in their marriages. While you laugh at their plight, you also feel for their situation.

The dynamic duo are at the peak of their powers. In a tribute to Lemmon at the AFI Lifetime Achievement Awards, Walter Mathau spoke of him as an actor who makes you see pain and suffering through the eyes of someone very close and familiar. Those words are resoundingly true as Felix shows pictures of his children and his ex-wife and breaks down, realizing the enormity of what has hit him. Walter Mathau plays the reactive role, with Lemmon taking charge with his histrionics. He masters the New York accent which pronounces first as ‘foist’ and his trademark deadpan responses and quippy one-liners are a perfect foil for Lemmon’s balderdash.

‘The Odd Couple’ is a landmark in comedy.

Grumpy Old Men (1993)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:58:00 +0000

“Putz, Shmuck, Moron..”, the list of insults exchanged between the love-hate cousins, Jack Lemmon and Walter Mathau keeps you in splits as they re-ignite the chemistry that made movies like ‘Odd Couple’ and ‘Fortune Cookie’, classics. ‘Grumpy Old Men’ is one of the last comedy duel films, something of a rarity these days. It tides over the simple plot line to give you charming moments, good laughs and some pulls at the heart strings.

The story revolves around two grumpy neighbors, John Gustafson and Max Goldman, who can’t stand each other. They use insults for pleasantries in a war that started in the 1930s. The bone of contention between the two is a woman, who both wanted, but who chose John. Max felt cheated despite marrying an equally wonderful woman. Both spend their days ice fishing, where John spends time with his 91 year old father and suffers an inferiority complex to Max when it comes to snaring fish. With both men widowers now, and John claiming to not have had sex in 15 years, a beautiful widow enters their lives and moves in across the street. The turf war begins again. Will Max be denied again this time?

Films like ‘Grumpy Old Men’ rely a lot on the cutesy nature of the characters, funny and quirky interactions and witty 1-liners. There are plenty of them peppered right through to the end, making the lack of a solid plot bearable. Donald Petrie’s direction subtly unveils a subtext of loneliness that is shown delicately in the film, albeit with a light touch. At the end of the day, John and Max are lonely old men, who have their TVs for company while eating a ready to eat dinner, who envy friends who die in their sleep as being ‘lucky’. The film also touches upon the last grasp, the yearning for another shot at a relationship, at some thrills and at 70 years, an orgasm. Guess what ‘taking the old one-eye to the optometrist’ means!

The acting honors go to the incredibly funny duo of Lemmon-Mathau, each a great actor in his own right, but with distinct styles. Lemmon is a nervous, edgy actor and Mathau, a slouch sloppy mover with a dead pan expression to kill for. The surprise packet is the 91 year old Burgess Meredith, famous for playing Mickey in the ‘Rocky’ series and Penguin in the ‘Batman’ TV series. His character, John’s father’s obsession with sex is portrayed superbly by Meredith as he implores his son to ‘mount her’ because the first 90 years of his life have passed by in a flash and it might be too late to do it. Ann-Margret as the love interest is dishy enough at her age to attract two over the hill men.

‘Grumpy Old Men’ is good clean laughs.

GoodFellas (1990)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:02:00 +0000

‘GoodFellas’ is very different from the brooding Greek tragedy that was ‘The Godfather’ series and the guttural stylized gangster’s life in ‘Scarface’. It offers a matter of fact look at the lives of gangsters and explains why they do what they do. Scorsese’s triumph is that he opts to look at the world through their eyes rather than look at their lives and the outcome from the outside.

The story revolves around Henry Hill, a young man who starts the film by saying that as far back as he could remember, he wanted to be a gangster. It traces Henry’s fascination with these men, the power they had at their fingertips, the money that they could throw around and the respect they command from the community. He defies the belt-whipping of his father to embrace the world of crime and quickly grows into a bootlegger and counts on Tommy DeVito, Jimmy Conway and Paul Cicero as his closest friends and associates. As the group sees more money, they also see arrogance and a trigger happy attitude that finds them digging a lot of graves for people killed whimsically.

Henry’s life begins to change when he adds on the perks of a gangster’s life, the regular girlfriend who lives near his home, the addiction to drugs, the violent marriage and a constant fear of being caught. As time goes by, he begins his drug business, and is busted. He gets out but with the FBI on his heels, he sees his close associates distancing themselves from him and threatening to kill him. He needs to protect himself and his family and decides to go into the FBI’s witness protection program.

Scorsese’s treatment of this film is like the view of the world through a fishbowl. The narration by Henry Hill right through the film makes it a very reflective and a very explanatory journey for the viewer. Interestingly, the screenplay starts from the middle of the film, goes back to the beginning and then continues to the end. This is very different from the in medias res plot structure, where the end is shown and the story builds up towards the end.

One spectacular one-shot sequence shows Henry taking his girlfriend from the parking lot through to the Copacabana night club shows the viewer the kind of power that a gangster wields. A very innovative screenplay by Scorsese and Nicholas Pileggi, the author of the book ‘Wiseguys’, on which the film is based. The soundtrack is filled with classic rock numbers by the Rolling Stones and Cream.

The acting honors go to Joe Pesci, Robert DeNiro and Ray Liotta. Pesci plays the hot headed Tony DeVito, a man who has scant respect for human life and just can’t take a joke. DeNiro plays Jimmy Conway and again, the method actor in him shows Conway’s life over a 30 year period. Ray Liotta as Henry Hill shines in the most important role of his career and was unlucky to not have won awards for his performance. He shows Henry’s transition from wide eyed apprentice, to ace gangster and to a disillusioned and troubled snitch superbly.

‘GoodFellas’ is a title dipped in irony but a story steeped in reality.

Ironclad (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:13:00 +0000

‘Ironclad’ is a micro-epic that looks at the siege of Rochester Castle by King John in the 13^th century. It shows the bloody struggle of the upholders of the Magna Carta as they seek to defy John, who decides to rescind after signing the treaty. While not scoring high on the emotional front, the film delivers somewhat on its key promise: action.

The story revolves around the Magna Carta, a document that grants Englishmen equal rights and reduces the overarching powers of the monarchy. Forced to sign it by a group of Barons, King John decides to go back on the agreement and starts a vicious military campaign to destroy the Barons one by one. En route he kills Abbot Marcus, who was being protected by 3 Knights Templar. One of them, Marshall vows to avenge the Abbot’s death and with the help of Baron Albany, puts together a small team of men and proceeds to take control of Rochester Castle, the key to Southern England. King John with his group of Danish mercenaries arrives and the siege begins.

The film is not cerebral at all. The characters are uni-dimensional and the body language and the belligerent manner in which they interact has all the makings of an action film minus the brains. The small group of defenders is a poor imitation of the spaghetti western with characters as diverse as a portly warrior, a nymphomaniac and a carpenter who leaves his 2 children behind (remember Unforgiven?).

However, Jonathan English’s direction can be praised for the rawness with which he has shot the battle sequences. That alone is the usp of the film. Although the scale is small, the sequences showcase the brutality of real action vs. cinematic bells and whistles that are often added. You can see mining techniques being used to demolish the castle, using pig fat as the explosive. His attempt to showcase the love between a reluctant Marshall and the daughter of the protector of Rochester falls flat with both actors unable to ignite the passion. A deeper characterization of John, Marshall and the Barons would have helped add depth to the story.

The acting honors sadly go to no one. The incredibly talented Paul Giamatti’s portrayal of King John, shows him to be depressed, weak and slightly off-center. Although history suggests that John had a complex personality, none of that comes forth in this film. The one scene where he berates Baron Albany on the virtues of the Royal family is the stand out performance in this film. James Purefoy as Marshall, does not pass muster as the brooding Knight.

‘Ironclad’ is a passable film, if you are tired of heavy films and need some mindless action.

Sideways (2004)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 07:53:00 +0000

‘Sideways’ is a pot-bellied road-trip movie that likes drinking a lot of wine. It is slow, mature, sensitive and sinks into you the way a glass of good wine should. Director Alexander Payne has been an explorer of middle aged dilemmas. In ‘Savages’, he looks at the life of 2 middle-aged siblings who need to care for their aged father. In ‘Sideways’, he traces one week in the life of 2 middle-aged friends, at the end of which, one will get married and other would need to let his broken marriage go.

The story revolves around Miles and Jack, 2 friends who decide to go on a week-long road trip through wine country in California. Jack is a struggling TV actor who is about to marry a rich woman. Miles is a struggling writer, depressed and forlorn owing to a divorce, something that he hasn’t been able to let go of. Jack nurses a fantasy of getting laid on the trip and warns Miles not to get in the way with his sadness and disinterest in the good things of life. Jack befriends 2 girls, one a young hot single mother Stephanie and the other a divorced mature woman Maya and they double date. While Jack cozies up to Stephanie, Maya and Miles start talking. While Miles finds himself getting attracted to Maya, her love for wine and her views of life, he knows that he has to let the past go.

The story is as expected anecdotal, which is typical of this genre. Such films work if the road trip is seen as truly a life changing period in the character’s lives. In some cases, like say ‘Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara’ or ‘Motorcycle Diaries’ or ‘Easy Rider’, it is more pronounced. In some cases, like ‘Sideways’, it is a subtle shift. Alexander Payne keeps the pace as slow as possible, in order to give the viewer a taste of the characters, the way they would taste wine. When we go through difficulties in life, it is natural for us to identify with the idea of difficulty, than with ease. When Maya asks Miles, why he loves Pinot noir so much, he goes into length to explain, how difficult it is to grow that grape and in doing so reveals a lot about his love for wine and about his inner turmoil. The film won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.

Paul Giamatti delivers a fabulous performance as the cerebral, suffering Miles. His portrayal of a man, who is struggling to come to terms with the end of a relationship, while spurning efforts to get him out of that state is a superb demonstration of balanced acting. Thomas Haden Church as the more visceral, red blooded man who wants the last grope at being wild before he settles down is the perfect foil for Miles as he tries to shake his friend out of his self-pity escapade and make him see the light. Virginia Madsen, as the angelic Maya who gives Miles just the soothing nudge he needs to move on is effective in a small role that earned her an Oscar nomination.

‘Sideways’ is a grown up film. Great for a Sunday watch.

Lolita (1962)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:08:00 +0000

‘Lolita’ sheds the erotic baggage carried from the novel of the same name and leaves it to the viewer’s imagination. Per Kubrick’s own admission, that was more by compulsion of censorship in the 60s than choice. Strangely enough, painting the film with innuendos is what makes it work, as it traverses through lust and impropriety with an undertone of vulgar, valiantly and emerges as another landmark film from the master of human frailty.

The story revolves around Lolita, a 14 year old girl, the daughter of a lonely and sexually frustrated single mother. Lolita is well aware of her sexuality and is provocative as she finds herself, the object of desire of a much older divorcee, Professor Humbert, who moves in with them as a tenant. Humbert’s lust for Lolita leads him to profess fake love for her mother, whom he marries. In a moment of discovery, she uncovers his motive and runs out of the house to her death under a speeding car. With Lolita to himself, Humbert sets out on a teaching assignment and enrolls Lolita in the local school.

He grows increasingly possessive of her and she, increasingly suffocated with him. Unable to control his own doubting of her, he takes her away on a long road trip. Right through the journey, he gets the feeling he is being tracked and followed, but cannot find out who. When admitted to the hospital, Lolita escapes by getting discharged by an ‘uncle’. Humbert is furious and spends the next few years tracing her and finding out who the mysterious person is. To his shock, he realizes that he is not alone in wanting her.

Based on Vladimir Nabokov’s screenplay, the film starts from the climax and spends the rest of the time, taking us there. Kubrick states Humbert’s weakness for the young ‘nymphet’ matter of factly, through a narrative of Humbert’s jottings in his journal. As the story moves from one sordid point to another, he does not judge the characters, but portrays what they do, leaving us to do the judging. All that up to the final point, when Humbert discovers the truth about Lolita’s feelings towards him. At that point he leaves Humbert, Lolita and the ‘uncle’ exposed and to the mercy of the audience to judge them as they please. By starting the film in medias res, he builds up the viewer’s interest in knowing, why the climax is the way it is.

James Mason as Humbert delivers a superb performance as the man who desires a very young girl. The manner in which he gives expression to his inner desires, in a controlled and debonair manner is a superb display of balanced acting. Shelley Winters as Lolita’s mother also does a fine job of portraying loneliness and its perils as she falls for the first man who shows some interest in her. Sue Lyon as Lolita is every bit the desirable young girl and plays the role to perfection physically and emotionally. The scene stealer however is Peter Sellers and the TV personality Clare Quilty. In one of his more serious roles, he shows us why he was one of the greatest actors and impressionists ever.

‘Lolita’ is a superb film that portrays human weakness.

Sanctum (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 04:27:00 +0000

‘Sanctum’ takes us into the world of underwater cave diving and explores the challenges, a trapped team of divers faces when the mouth of the cave system closes in due to heavy storms on the surface. The way out is through unexplored depths that hold a promise of opening out to sea. With excellent underwater filming and cinematography, the film is breathtaking and manages to create a completely exotic and dangerous world for us.

The story revolves around a family of master divers who are exploring a cave system in Papua New Guinea. When their sponsor arrives with his girlfriend to check on the progress, a storm hits the surface, bringing in landslides and closing the main entrance of the cave. The way out is through a hitherto unexplored section of the cave that promises to open out into the ocean. The story also has a good personal dimension with the tensions between Josh, the son who feels his father, Frank has forced him to take up diving against his will. The situation is compounded when Josh’s mother Judes dies en route. How the team manages their personal conflicts against the force of nature is what the film explores.

Clearly the usp of the film is in its technical finesse. Executive Producer James Cameron allowed the crew to use some of his 3D filmography techniques he developed for Avatar. Alister Grierson’s direction gives us a fast paced film with no dull moments and manages to create a pressure cooker environment with frayed tempers and often shows mirrors to the conscience of the principal characters. The quality of acting is not top notch and the exchanges seem rather mundane. But the beauty of the challenge lets us forget that. The location hunting has been spot on and large cave systems in South Australia were used for filming.

The actors really play second fiddle to the context in this film. They are physically up to the task and pass muster when it comes to serious discussion. The only one who makes any impact is Richard Roxburgh who plays the father and master diver Frank. He has to deal with the death of his wife on his conscience and the belligerence of his difficult son, while figuring out a way to get them out of the cave system.

‘Sanctum’ is a good film to watch for its technical brilliance and the jaw dropping underwater scenery.

Rockstar (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 06:52:00 +0000

Was John Lennon’s difficult relationship with his mother behind his poignant ‘Mother’, was Elvis’ ‘Always on my mind’ a confession of neglect towards his wife and daughter, was Phil Collins’ ‘In the Air Tonight’ a reflection of a difficult separation with his wife? What’s behind the music? What’s behind the artist? Two questions that we have always asked of our favorite musicians that ‘Rockstar’ attempts to answer for Janardhan Jakhar, aka Jordan, the latest craze in the world of rock music, but an enigma to his fans. The success of the film depended on the effectiveness of the answer. And the answer is truly effective.

The structure of the plot is designed with the sole purpose of explaining why Jordan is the way he is, belligerent and bitter with life, almost masochistic in looking for a brawl, screaming at his fans and law enforcers, scornful of the media and the music moguls who line up to sew him for breaches of contract. The non-linear nature of the story puts us in a naïve and gullible Janadhan’s mind, which is searching for answers for non-acceptance of his musical talent for lack of personality. He wonders how guys like Jim Morrison lived the life that they did, when he can’t event strum the guitar casually at a bus stop and entertain people waiting for a bus. When he is confronted with the insight that personality and great art is inspired by feeling, by emotion and by life experiences, he seeks out an emotional roller coaster by chasing a beautiful rich girl, Heer Kaul. Their relationship is one of denial that evolves into love, but is as destructive as it is passionate.

This rollercoaster inspires his heart rending musical output, but at the same time consumes him, and her.

‘Rockstar’ had to be an inner exploration. Imtiaz Ali takes us into JJ’s mind as he battles rejection, isolation, a realization of love and heartbreak. The non-linear structure of the narrative that moves from experience to musical result helps us put 2 and 2 together and keeps our interest going in finding out how he became Jordan. Ali, like Rakeysh Mehra is another Delhi boy who uses the cultural diversity of the city to provide rich backdrops in his films. Settings like Hindu College, Nizamuddin Dargah, Mata ki Chowki and Hauz Khas are filmed superbly during the onset of winter. ‘Rockstar’ is Ali’s most mature and best work.

On the music front, Irshad Kamil’s soul stirring lyrics need the first compliment as they portray Jordan’s angst with words that appeal to young and old alike. A.R. Rehman’s phenomenal music sounds like a rockopera than just a rock piece, with several ensembles meshed together. He mixes folk, sufi music and classic rock riffs to create a wonderful situational soundtrack that sounds even better when it is seen against film. One of his best efforts in an illustrious portfolio.

‘Rockstar’ is another turn of the Ranbir Kapoor juggernaut as it rolls towards his impending superstardom. As an actor he held his own amidst heavyweights in films like ‘Rajneeti’ and in meaningful films like ‘Wake Up Sid’. With this film, he shows us how much he has progressed as an actor. Both in terms of emoting and in terms of body language, he is transformed and that is always the sign of a great performance: the actor is inseparable from the part. Nargis Fakhri is delicately beautiful but is not much of an actress. She serves her purpose as the muse. Kumud Mishra as Khatana Bhai delivers a superb performance as JJ’s friend, philosopher, guide and manager.

‘Rockstar’ is a superb film for the lovers of music and the artists that create.

The Eagle (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:07:00 +0000

Of late, a sub-genre which I would like to call micro-epic for lack of a better word seems to be gaining momentum. The films are set in Ancient History or the Middle Ages, focus on lesser known battles or sieges and are made with a comparatively smaller budget. They use lesser known actors and rely on a good combination of action and drama to draw in the audience. ‘The Eagle’ is one such micro-epic, a good story told about the quest of a Centurion to recover the Roman Eagle Standard that was lost when his father’s legion was killed in North Britain.

For Marcus Aquila, the request for transfer to Britain comes with a hidden agenda to clear his family name, which was tarnished when his father lost the revered Roman Eagle Standard, when his Ninth Legion disappeared somewhere in North Britain. The Emperor of Rome was so insulted that he built Hadrian’s Wall to segregate North Britain from the rest of the known world. Marcus takes charge of his garrison and protects it against a charge by Celtic tribesmen, but is discharged honorably from the military owing to a serious injury.

Following a brief period of recuperation, during which he saves the life of a local slave, Esca, Marcus decides to cross Hadrian’s Wall to look for the Eagle Standard and to find out what happened to the Roman Ninth Legion. Along the way he encounters a dangerous and unique world of tribes.

Kevin Macdonald, who gave us the edgy ‘Last King of Scotland’ transforms Jemery Brock’s screenplay into a blood and guts depiction of valor and honor. One of the interesting battle sequences in the film show us how the Roman’s used battle formations like the Turtle to thwart enemy attacks even though they are surrounded or outnumbered. He creates a mystical world beyond Hadrian’s Wall that evokes fear and suspense over the fate of the Ninth Legion. It is that sense of fear of the unknown that makes the film work. The usage of the language of the times-Gaelic also lends a touch of authenticity. The ending however seems a bit jingoistic and contrived, but can be forgiven for a good build up.

Channing Tatum as Marcus Aquila does a good job of physically portraying a warrior, but falls short on the emotional front and comes across as a one expression actor. His performance is overshadowed by Jamie Bell as Esca, who delivers a restrained performance combining pride, loyalty and bravery. Donald Sutherland shines in a cameo as Aquila’s uncle who helps him recover from the injury.

‘The Eagle’ is a hard working film that leaves you with a good story told.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:27:00 +0000

Despite the rather long title, this was an eagerly awaited prequel to a series that has gained equal admiration and admonishment. The thought of apes ruling humans is hard to digest for many, but it has been a stirring story, brought to notice in the Charlton Heston version in 1968 and in the Mark Wahlberg version more recently. The film does an honest job of tracing the roots of the uprising of the apes and creates a good platform on which we can imagine the next steps that led to the power swing.

The story revolves around Caesar, an orphaned infant chimpanzee who is adopted by Will Rodman, a scientist at Gen-Sys, a pharma company that is trying to find a cure for Alzheimer’s through genetic engineering. The administration of the drug causes the chimps to develop a human level of intelligence. As Caesar grows up with Will, he is able to communicate with him through sign language and is able to perform tasks way beyond the usual level of comprehension. But, this intelligence also brings a realization of being a human pet and this begins to gnaw at Caesar.

When he tries to protect Will’s father, an Alzheimer’s patient, his show of aggression leads him to a monkey detention facility, where he befriends more apes and slowly begins to assert himself as a leader. He escapes from the facility and steals a few vials of the drug from Will’s house and administers it to the apes in captivity, thus increasing their intelligence and aggression levels. It is time now to escape.

While the earlier films show a much developed version of the story with apes being intelligent and capable enough to dominate and hold humans in captive, the prequel rightly focuses on the trigger points such as feelings, emotions and egos and that is the USP of this film. Rupert Wyatt’s direction carefully transcends the species gap to slowly show Caesar as a near-human gradually during the film. His depiction of the growing frustration of a species that is considered good enough only for experimentation or for entertaining children at zoos is superb. He is aided by excellent performance capture technology that shows the apes to be lifelike even though they are digitally created over the performance of human actors.

Andrew Serkis, seems to be carving a niche for himself in the performance capture space, with roles like Gollum in Lord of the Rings, King Kong, Captain Haddock in TinTin and now Caesar. This is a new field of digital acting and looks promising enough to become commonplace in the years to come. James Franco as Will Rodman shows good dramatic range as an ever improving actor. Frieda Pinto as Rodman’s love interest has a blink and miss part, while John Lithgow as Will’s ailing father is convincing in a small but significant role.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a as good a prequel as you can get.

Larry Crowne (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 07:52:00 +0000

Despite the presence of two heavy weights, experts of the meet cute genre of romantic films in their heyday, ‘Larry Crowne’ falls short of expectations and comes across as diluted rom-com that makes ‘You’ve Got Mail’ look like a deep Shakespearean romance.

The story revolves around Larry Crowne, a middle aged man who is forced to enroll into community college after being laid off from his job in a super market owing to the lack of college education. In college, he meets an uptight teacher, Mercedes Tainot, who is battling a crumbling marriage and resents teaching her class due to their lack of interest, but slowly finds herself getting attracted to the eminently likeable old world charm of Crowne. I guess you can guess the rest.

Tom Hanks has been in several such films and knows what works. Films like this work, provided they have enough moments that make you laugh or go ‘awwww’ and have characters that are quirky and likeable. In theory Larry and Mercedes are both at inflexion points in their lives and that could have made for more sparkling chemistry between the two.

Instead, Nia Vardalos’ screenplay pushes their characters through too many changes too soon, making you wonder, why don’ they just slow down! In addition there are characters that make you wonder about their purpose. A pretty young girl takes a lot of interest in Larry, starts calling him Lance, gets him a hair cut, makes him a part of her biker group, cleans his house, changes his wardrobe and makes her boyfriend jealous. Why? One wonders. The transitions that both Larry and Mercedes go through in order to find each other are just not convincing enough.

Tom Hanks, let’s face it is a lot older and has enough puffiness under his wonderfully expressive eyes to show that. He tries gamely to hold the film together and there are glimpses of his charm and wit that have made him one of the most critically and commercially successful actors of all time. Julia Roberts looks incredibly HOT and does a fair job of portraying the near-depressive Tainot. With an impressive chemistry, it’s a pity that both actors are not given enough material to do more with their roles.

‘Larry Crowne’ is strictly for Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts fans.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 23:24:00 +0000

The prospect of a nuclear showdown that will end the world has often been the topic of discussion over the last 60 odd years since the first nuclear bomb was dropped in WW II. In his trademark satirical style, Stanley Kubrick takes us through such an eventuality, when a loose cannon US General orders a nuclear strike on the USSR, fearing a contamination of American bodily fluids through water fluoridation.

General Ripper asks his executive officer, Group Captain Mandrake to issue the launch code to all B-52 bomber units stationed close to the USSR to undertake nuking of their specific targets. Thinking that it is a routine exercise, Mandrake issues the command, but is unable to recall the planes because Ripper does not give him the abort codes. The matter goes right up to President Muffley who summons Gen. Turgidson, the architect of ‘Wing Attack Plan R’ that allows field commanders to authorize use of nuclear weapons in the eventuality of a Soviet strike taking out Washington DC. As the planes approach their targets, their radio communications are shut as part of the plan and a way needs to be found to stop the attack.

Set in black and white, Kubrick’s screenplay and direction make a mockery of several themes such as fool proof battle planning, bravery, diplomacy and leadership. The screenplay is replete with sketches of trigger happy characters who fumble around a situation that threatens the existence of the world. He lampoons several stereotypes, such as Russians being drunkards and womanizers and Americans being cowboys looking for the next shootout. The 90 minutes of insanity also brings out the dark undertone of lives of many across the world being in the hands of a few nuclear capable countries. Any rogue attack could lead potentially destroy life as we know it through a series of retaliatory strikes, in accordance with the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Peter Sellers plays a stellar role, 3 roles in fact in this film. As Group Captain Mandrake, he is symbolic of the role of the UK as a seemingly equal, but submissive ally of the USA. As President Muffley, he plays a leader who is unable to control his country’s military policy making, and is bullied into submission. As Dr. Strangelove he plays a mad scientist, a former Nazi physicist who is fascinated with the idea of weapons of mass destruction and is busy planning for preservation of life after complete destruction. George C Scott as Gen. Turgidson plays a character that is symbolic of cold war brinkmanship and military thinking that shuns restraint and is looking for an excuse to strike.

Dr. Strangelove is one of the greatest political satires from the master of the form himself.

The Natural (1984)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:05:00 +0000

Sports films often lend themselves to allegorical references to mythology and the divine. Perhaps it is in their inherent nature for they depict man’s striving against the odds and achieving something seemingly beyond him through a combination of hard work and luck. ‘The Natural’ is filled with angelic and demonic symbolisms as it traces the life of a gifted baseball player, who achieves glory in a second coming after his first was tragically nipped.

The story is of Roy Hobbs, a gifted baseball player who, as a young man, makes a baseball bat from the wood of a tree destroyed by lightning. While on his way to test out for the Chicago Cubs as a pitcher, he befriends a woman, to whom he reveals his dream of glory as a baseball player. She leads him to her hotel room and shoots him before killing herself.

16 years later, Hobbs tries out for the low ranked New York Knights and after initial push back, finds himself a star and a hero. His fate is in the balance again as the franchise’s owners want the coach to sell his share of the franchise to them, something that is he bound to do if the team fails to win the pennant. They do everything they can to destroy the star player, Hobbs and the team. And then an angel appears from his past to save him.

Barry Levinson’s direction leaves you with a sense of intrigue right through the film. The references to demons and angels who work against or for you in life are aplenty. To film is shot with a lot of sepia tinted lighting to give it an other-world feel. The mystery surrounding Hobbs’ misfortune the first time around is never solved and the angelic help in his resurgence never explained. Another theme that is explored is the role of betting, match-fixing and commerce in sports and how the conscience of a player can be tempted.

Apart from this, the story does not deviate much from the standard sports script structure and that is a bit disappointing. It is quite common for writers and directors to want to end sports movies in an anti-climax, but for that to change owing to losing the feel-good factor.

Robert Redford delivers a good performance as Hobbs. I’ve never viewed him as a great actor and in this film, as in his other films, he uses his good looks and impressive personality to pull through. Glenn Close as his former girlfriend from his past who re-enters his life is refreshing in a performance won her an Oscar nomination. Robert Duvall as the insidious sports writer who claims to make or break sporting careers delivers a good support performance.

‘The Natural’ is a good sports film with a slightly different flavor added to the formula.

The Color Purple (1985)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:52:00 +0000

Spielberg’s craft has always blended human emotion with technical brilliance. That is what sets him apart from his contemporaries, who have mastered one but have fallen short in the other. While his fame can be owed to the Summer Blockbuster series that he has directed, starting with Jaws, ‘The Color Purple’ is arguably his most heartfelt product, a period piece that shows the tragic existence of an African-American girl in the early 20^th century in the American South.

The film traces the life of Celie, a girl who is put through suffering right from a young age, when she gets pregnant twice through her abusive step-father while still in her early teens. The two infants are put up for adoption. She is married to an equally abusive widower, Albert and father of three, who uses her as a doormat and a glorified maid. His original choice was Nettie, her younger sister. But Celie’s father had his eye on her as well. Finally, Nettie escapes her father’s clutches and comes to live with Celie. When Albert tries to rape Nettie, she resists and gets thrown out of their house. She promises to write to Celie, but Albert conspires to never let Nettie’s correspondences get to Celie.

As time goes by, Albert’s children grow up, Celie becomes a mother-in-law and a grandmother. But nothing in her life changes. She even has to put up with Albert’s mistress, who moves in with them. However, she strikes a couple of strangely supportive friendships with her husband’s mistress and her daughter-in-law that help her find herself, albeit at a much later stage in life. Her karmic cycle completes.

Cinema is a visual medium. The hallmark of Menno Meyjes screenplay, brought to life by Spielberg’s brilliance is the powerful usage of visual symbols to convey situations. The role of the narrator is smartly introduced in the form of Celie conversing with God. A similar technique was used later in ‘Forrest Gump’, with Forrest narrating his life to strangers on a bus stop and the sequences playing out. The opening scene starts with the shot of 2 young girls, who are shown torso up playing in a field of purple flowers. You could mistake them for any 2 young girls, but when the camera moves with them as they step out, the swollen tummy of Celie is shown. A young girl with a playful manner, with a baby on the way. A lot is conveyed. The film received an amazing 11 Academy Awards nominations without winning any.

For a debut role, Whoopi Goldberg as Celie is mind blowing. Her transformation from a shy and retiring girl to a woman who finds her feet shows her amazing dramatic range. No wonder she is one of those few artists who has won an Oscar, Tony, Grammy and Emmy. Danny Glover as Albert portrays a chauvinist to the hilt and makes you hate the character, which is an achievement for an actor. Oprah Winfrey as the fiery daughter-in-law Sophie does a splendid job that makes you wonder, why she did not act more. Another important role is of Margaret Avery, who plays Albert’s mistress and Celie’s mentor.

‘The Color Purple’ is a heart rending film that begs the question, ‘Why do some people have to go through so much?’ and answers it by showing that things work out eventually.

The Killing Fields (1984)

noreply@blogger.com (Srinivas B Vijayaraghavan) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:27:00 +0000

John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’ has been an iconic anthem for world peace and for a greater sense of compassion between man and man. But, when you listen to that song as part of the soundtrack of ‘The Killing Fields’, at the end of the movie, it takes you into the depths that it was intended for. You will rarely find a more graphic look at genocide than this film.

The story traces the developments in 1973 in Vietnam’s neighbor Cambodia during the rise of the Khmer Rouge. The U.S. bombings in Cambodia, termed accidental, reveal a targeting of the communist forces by the Americans that lead to a lot of innocent lives being lost. This leads to further outrage in the Khmer Rouge as they overthrow the Government forces in Phnom Penh and overrun the city. Sydney Schanberg, a correspondent for the New York Times, with the help of a local journalist Dith Pran, covers this story and reports a lot of facts, otherwise misreported by world media.

When the time comes for all foreign nationals to leave, Schanberg tries to sneak Pran out of Cambodia with a fake British passport, but fails as Pran’s picture does not come out right. Pran is sent to a labor camp as part of the Khmer Rouge’s ‘Year Zero’ policy and pretends to be uneducated fearing death as an intellectual. He is exposed first hand to the regressive and hate-filled campaign run by the Khmer Rouge on young and old alike. He decides that he has had enough and must escape or die.

Roland Joffe’s direction of a Bruce Robinson screenplay is graphic, gripping and makes the viewer feel the shock at the time of a blast or a pull of the trigger. The film gives you no warning of what is to come and after the initial few experiences; you expect a blast or a gun going off in every conversation. Fantastic use of suspense. The film draws a contrast between the beauty of the country and the dastardly acts committed with that beauty as a backdrop. The screenplay is not heavy on dialogue but is filmed very much like a documentary filmed on the front lines and relies on detail to create impact. The soundtrack is quite symbolic, with pieces like Paul McCartney’s ‘Band on the Run’, a song about escape and also ‘Imagine’ right at the end. The film was nominated for 7 Academy Awards.

Sam Waterston as Schanberg delivers a superb performance as a hungry reporter unwilling to let go of the truth, but when forced to exit Cambodia, recognizes that his achievements are incomplete without Dith Pran. Haing S.Ngor as Dith Pran, a first time actor who went on to win an Oscar for his performance delivers a touching and natural performance as a Cambodian horrified by what is happening to his country. His heart is much larger than his thin, small frame and he portrays suffering and resilience with ease.

‘The Killing Fields’ is a must see movie to understand what man can do to man.