Delicious.

A whirlwind romantic classic – saw it for the first time today and understood why it still regarded as one of the best romantic movies ever. Audrey Hepburn was divine..!

4/5

An uneasy love story – sans the usual melodrama with measured performances. The whole  movie could have worked as well for an adulterous romance between a married man and a married women.

Any film that crosses 22 years in 2 hours is bound to have an epic feeling to it – where u see the characters & their conflicts grow, this is no exception, what we saw in the first 20 minutes (that is just an hour back) comes across as very distant history… sort of like “remember the time we spent in Brokeback? ” – that takes both you and the characters in a sweet nostalgic trip, effectively punctuating the climax to a satisfying end. An overall well made, well paced film.

Question: How does those 1000s of sheep follow just 2 shephards and a solitary dog thro the spawning landscape? Heard mentality? Maybe the producers banked on it too much in the Oscar Best Picture race, then cried sour grapes when the voters voted otherwise…

3/5

I have been out of touch with Hindi movies for almost 6months, and when this movie released I was so eager to see it – thanks to the glowing reviews it got from everywhere.

And, I saw it yesterday – What a crappy movie!

In the guise of character building, the editor has slept during the movie - since when does showing 30minutes of the same thing amounts to deep characterization? Aamir Khan and his friends are yuppies and don’t have much attachments to their homeland – there… it fits in a sentence – but to show it repeatedly over and over was taxing!

All this time the main turning-point-boy Madhavan is nowhere to be seen – the director remembering that he forgot to build this character – drags another 15minutes thro cheesy scenes… only a fool wouldn’t guess what happens next (Hint: his friends enact a mock funeral – just so that the footage/audio track can be reused when he actually dies)

Until this point - no cinematic crime has been overtly commited. But all that is about to change.

So he dies.

What happens next is classic B-grade stuff – cheap tricks, unbelievable turn of events, an absolutely horrible fake climax shootout… its certain that the director didn’t know what to do next his though process must have been something like this

I hate it when I start watching the movie, midway through the movie, I start liking it immensely to have it fall apart in the final 2minutes. Among the top 10 harbingers of “THE END” - 1) dreaded crane shot with a character walking away from the camera or 2) that fade to black, both with a raising musical cresendo.

It happened 2wice during the last 2 days. First with the ‘The Whale and the Squid’ and yesterday with ‘Baran’. Beautiful movies, both. But the ending kinda left a bad aftertaste.

The Squid and The whale – a well shot movie with a razor sharp screenplay, and wonderful perfomances. All characters are well itched, and mostly do things which are character driven, rather than screenplay driven. Thats a very rare trait, usually I see it the other way round – when the character needed to be painted in a bad light – he does something which is forced by the screenplay rather than by his character. Eg: To show a bully character, he picks fight with a random guy to show his character. But in these 2 movies, the character traits come from within, from bouncing off other characters, and even with their respective environments.

The Squid and the Whale (2005)
-Dir: Noah Baumbach ($1.5million indie movie)
Baran (2001)
- Iranian movie – Majid Majid (the guy who did Children of Heaven) 

Irrespective of the deadpan endings – the journey was worth it.

4/5

Saw Todd Haynes’ movie Far from Heaven yesterday – though I havent seen all his work (saw a boring, but cult-hit ‘Velvet Goldmine’, and an ok movie called ‘Safe’)- I have read a whole lot about him in the book ‘Shooting to Kill’.

Great production design recreating the look and the aura of 1950s – but the story was far from interesting – it was very predictable, and almost like a simple drama, and at the end it felt like “whats in this movie? why did they even make it? whats the point?” – but the movie was critically acclaimed with rave reviews.

3/5

A simple fairy tale set in modern day Canada. Occassional gorgeous imagery saves this movie from falling flat. Deepa Mehta uses a lot of Indian BGM and raaga’s to punctuate emotions (mostly sad ones). Boring sometimes, but watchable once.

3/5

Woah – what a crazy ride! When I started the movie I had no idea of the story or what this movie is about, I just had classified it as a ‘thriller or a horror’ movie.

It started as a ordinary premonition kind of movie (the one you’d expect from any Stephen King movie) – and then it wandered everywhere… I mean this movie was totally over the charts. I dont even know how to describe it – its like, you are walking down the street, and suddenly you are inside a pink mango, being eaten by a porcelain tiger inside a pizza hut oven which sits on a bicycle leaving for Mars - confused by the leaps of plot points? Yeah, this movie was like that…

Luckily after it finished the crazy plot twists, it settled down to become a race against time thriller. And I saw some of the things which annoys me in movies -

1. Whilst the whole mankind is going to get eradicated if you dont stop the villian on time  – the hero pauses on screen to reflect on his fallen buddy, for like 30seconds, then slowly walks towards the hut as if he is returning a library book. No panic, not one iota of body language to indicate the seriousness of the suituation on hand. Not bad acting, but bad pacing (Editor’s mistake)
2. After wittnessing gronormous (big enormous) happenings (we are talking world shattering events), the character act so normal, as if he found out that the above said libary book has a $1 late fee. I mean, how would you react if you see blood all over your house, and see a dead body dumped inside a pool of red glue, and wierd sounds coming out of his body -
• Option A) run for your life
• Option B) poke at him (yeah you guessed right)

Seems Stephen King has a free pass (thanks to his popularity) to dish out out of the world crazy logic stories and still get Morgan Freeman to play the lead! If Morgan’s agent is reading this… I have a great script on a pink mango, porcelain tiger on a mission to mars.. interested?

Seriously, Stephen King reportedly sold the rights for this movie for $1! The studio thot it was a great bargain till the final bill came… the movie cost $95million to make, and got back $33million – some deal!

Shot on absolutely beautiful snow blanketted remote Canadaian Wilderness - This movie is a cocktail mix of Sci-Fi, Horror, Thriller, Grotesque, Fun, Buddy comedy movie about 4 friends bonding on a desolate mountain cabin. Fun while it lasts.

3/5

My affair with Asian blockbusters continue – Yesterday I saw ‘Mou gaan dou’ – a fascinating cat and mouse game between a undercover cop (who infiltered the gang) and an undercover mole (who infiltered the Police).

The two reigning superstars of Hong Kong cinema Andy Lau and Tony Leug (Wong Kar-Wai regular) play the leads as good guy/bad guy - and they give powerhouse performances switching in and out of role. Usually these kind of films will require insane leaps of logic and coincidences to move the story forward. But director Andrew Lau distracts us with extremely fast paced narration that we forget to look for plot holes.

Photographed gorgeously by Chris Doyle (interesting guy – used to be an oil driller in India, cow herd in Isreal, a whack doctor in Thailand – before learning chinese and pairing up with Wong Kar-Wai. As a native Aussie, he speaks Chinese better than his English). The production design reminded me of early 90, late 80s when Hong Kong cinema hashed out cop/robber/gangster stories with fair regularity (John Woo’s ‘Once a Thief’, ‘A Better Tomorrow’)

2 Stars on the good/bad side of law, constant tension, explosive action, built up suspense and great fast screenplay, wow…. it looks like a great material for a quick remake - seems I am not the only one thinking that way…

One of these combo is true – guess which one?

• Sanjay Gupta – Sanjay Dutt/Akshay Kumar - D’gang v/s Mumbai Police
• AR Murugadoss - Vikram/Arya - Chennai Gangster and ACP ‘Something’ (preferably some pure tamil name)
• Martin Scorsese – Leonardo di Carpio/Matt Damon - Irish mafia / NYPD

Watch the chinese original or wait for the Hindi/Tamil/English remakes…

4/5

I caught this movie yesterday, rather it caught me by the throat and had me suspended there for a good hour. Its from Korean Director Chan Wook Pak who directed ‘Oldboy‘, and ‘Sympathy for Mr.Vengence’. He has this knack of making movies that push emotions to the extreme, and making stories where we feel for the protagonist – however bad or good he is.

To my surprise – The movie started very dull – even after 30minutes into the movie – I was actually so bored that I stopped it, and started again after 2 days. It started with some crap about an investigation about a shooting in Korean DMZ. It had some fundas about how things don’t add up, and that there is some mystery to it – yawn… so? who cares?

Then it happened (I don’t want to spoil the fun by revealing the plot points – its best experienced, as I experienced it – bored first, then whacked into attention next) things were set in motion – and I was in a state of heightened anxiety till the end of the movie. You know, the ‘M.Night effect’ – you know something bad is about to happen, and u close your eyes partially, but peek through just enough to see/hear whats on screen. And that is the state you will be in, for the whole second half. At one point, the tension was so high, that I had to take a break… it was emotionally draining.

The production values are not as gorgeous as his other movies – maybe since this is a reconstructed set of the actual DMZ (obviously no one can get permission to film at the most volatile military zone of the planet – the ‘Bridge of No Return’ separating North and South Korea).

This is not a great movie – but just watch it for the director – how he manages to pull off the impossible: converting a bored spectator into a guy who pauses the movie to stop the inevitable from happening on screen.

4/5

Just watch the movie for a fantastic 15minute sequence at a Dinner Table. I just enjoyed that scene so much – it kept me smiling, nodding, shaking my head and gasping at regular intervals. Textbook showcase of crisp Editing.

The rest of the movie was good (not as great as the above said scene). It was an intelligent movie which wasn’t afraid to cross boundaries (borderline taboo relationship), and when things spiraled out of control, and you are sitting there expecting a train-wreck, director Gary Winick adeptly handles it to a soft touchdown. Even though it was a trick play – I was glad it didn’t end in a mess, which would have spoilt the whole movie.

The movie was shot with a consumer digital camera Sony PD 150 ($2000) on a micro budget (just $150,000). So the quality of the image suffers – but after some time, you get so involved in whats going on screen, that you forgive (or forget) the digital noise, blown highlights and other digital artifacts and just concentrate on the story – just as it should be. Director Gary Winick won the Best Director award for this movie at Sundance 2002. He also teaches Film at Tisch School of Arts in New York.

4/5

I dont remember seeing a movie in which has actor’s literally lived out a roles as I did when I saw PT Anderson’s Boogie Nights (only one other movie comes to my mind – Crash).

The ensamble cast: Mark Walberg, Burt Reynolds, Julianne Moore – live their roles!. Not to mention Philip Hoffman, Heather Graham and John Riely. The play as actors in the movie, and it was a great to see them switch ON and OFF their role. For instance, when the on screen camera rolls, they become ‘bad’ actors – and when the camera stops rolling they come back to their character. Its too bad I havent seen Burt Reynolds in any other movie – that guy just shines as Porn Magnate Jack Horner.

The director – PT Anderson – does a fabulous job here in his first big movie. You can see all his trademarks – from using iris cuts, constant mood music, long takes and orchestrated climax (where parallel stories come to a conclusion in unison). If you see his other movie Magnolia you can notice many similarities in his mastery over portaying human emotions.

I couldnt help but wonder when or if there will be a time in which our Indian cinema mature to a point where actors can play their character and not themselves.

Great Movie (be warned tho’ – this movie is about the Porn Industry – so you will see some wild screens)

4/5

After seeing the movie yesterday – it cleared up a few things, but it raised a lot of questions about Christ himself.

• Torture, Flaggelation, Crusifiction was nothing new during those times – so many many innocent people have suffered, tortured and even torched when alive – so what makes this special? and their sufferings less special.
• As ‘Son of God’, he says he cannot be killed & that he will be back in 3 days – so the whole killing apprears to be a mute point. I mean if I break a glass vessel, which will automagically glues together as fresh as new tomorrow morning – then, did I really break it? Even if I did – whats the big deal, its alive now.
• If he is God, he could have stopped his crusifiction thereby saving his crucifiers from performing this sin. But he didn’t, he knew he is going to come back alive, he just let/bait these people to comit these attrocities against him, just so that he could catch them after the fact. Sort of undercover cop playing along with drug dealers, before condemning them.

So does it really show the Passion of Christ?

Nice. A simple one line story “Four brothers look to avenge their mother’s death”

The direct wastes no time, and even before the titles roll, he dives into the story and whacks their silver haired mom! Didnt mull around wasting time for any characterization, flashbacks or any Kleenex moments to force out a tear or two for the old lady. Simple and effective.

So I was left with a big question mark – what the heck? How does he plan to fill the rest of the 2 hours, when everyone knows whats going to happen to the killers?!

But African American director John Singleton shows his mastery in some gripping action scenes using a rotting Detroit as an effective backdrop (not to mention his clever use of the weather). Using mostly single shots (meaning no fastcuts/ ramp editing / fancy cameras) he comes up with a fairly good movie. Watch out for a great car chase on icy dark roads, it will remind you of Fast and Furious (it should – after all he shot it

I liked the simplicity, wonderful acting and the skill* of the director to keep you in your seats after the brothers find the killers & kill them in the first 45minutes. A good popcorn entertainer.

4/5

* – Youngest director to receive an Oscar nomination – for Boys N Hoods (1992) when he was 23! – tho he never made it big till 2Fast & 2Furious

Over the weekend I eagerly watched HB-2, I sort of liked the freshness of Hyderabad Blues-1. But, what a dumb movie this turned out to be – I kept wincing about the sorry acting, pathetic screenplay and corny dialogues. Funny thing is I didn’t mind it the first time – maybe because I saw it as an “indie” effort, and now view it as a “studio” effort. Nonetheless – it was very bad this time around.

The new Ashwini (they couldn’t get the old girl to act again) looked like a monster on makeup – as if Nakesh decided to make a stone act. She takes illogical decisions and sticks to it – but of course in the climax she inexplicably changes her mind – all her convictions thrown out of the window – how? ask the director. First she is a staunch fanatic feminist – even goes through a (flippant) divorce – but a tight close-up of the hero and some violin music in the back – she runs back into the arms of the hero crying “I am sorry – forgive me” – huh???

I just wanted it to end – there is no shortage of eye sore – same old pallu dropping, same old dialogues, beaten to death jokes (dil pe mat le yaar..), unnecessary gay doctor, sexual harassment angle, and politically correct hero (things would have made a lot of sense if he had had a real affair, instead of a mere brush)

The only positive things about this sorry sequel is Seema (friends wife), Nakesh’s ultra realistic parents and to a limited amount Nakesh and his buddy. This time he had a bigger budget, a bigger canvas, fancy cameras, larger unit – but goes on to prove that its hard to re-create freshness. Just for his sake he should have stopped at HB-1 – now I will remember him for his HB2.

2/5

Oh my god! what a GEM! Enuf said – run to your Netflix Q or nearest Video store to grab this. One of the best movies I’ve ever seen – right up there with ‘Life is Beautiful’. From the famous Iranian director Majid Majidi comes this simple tale of a brother and sister, told with such elegance, such attention to detail that you will be riveted to the screen for the whole 90 minutes (minus a crappy 5mins in between). Seems to be an loose inspiration from the old 40′s Italian movie ‘The Bicycle Thief’ – but I liked Children of Heaven much better than B/W Bicycle Thief (may coz of the cute factor:)

Without exploiting the suffering of the poor for a cheap tear drop, this film manages to weave their suffering into the fabric of the story and concentrating on the brother sister relationship as they fight through the odds. The characters are shown as happy, content and honest. The school headmaster, the ailing neighbor, the landlord all shine through Majid’s excellent characterization. You are guaranteed to fall in love with the little kids: lion hearted Ali and doe eyed Zara.

After seeing Abbas Kiarostami’s critically acclaimed ‘Taste of Cherry’, which turned out to be such a drag – I was wary of picking up another ‘art’ film – but I am glad I did. No fancy camera angles, no special effects straight simple and gripping!

A must must see.

***** (5/5)

Just saw this 1929 Russian film. It was in Time’s top 100 films list. This must be the oldest film I’ve ever seen (My Grandpa was a 1year old toddler when this was being made!

Did I like it? Well, just as any avant-garde movie I’ve seen – I didn’t just didn’t get it. It was way over my small head – all I saw was random Moscow scenes with some excellent BGM score. Tell that to an art historian – I would have probably been court-martialed.

But switching on the DVD commentary, a film professor did give some insights on how it was a effective the film was as a soviet propaganda tool, a stark commentary on social divide, a modern expression of grandeur and delight, a strong statement of Anti-Americanism or as Time says a ‘poetic tribute to modernism’s hopeful beginnings’. Woah woah, hold your horses there – where did you guys see all that? Was it in that shot of a sleeping beggar scratching his underarms? Or was it in the infinitely spinning cotton yarn or that horse will runs forever or that 3min shot of a static bridge? I just don’t get it – why don’t they rate these art films as IQ-155, just like PG-13.

But to the films credit, I was spellbound by some of its technical accomplishments – freeze-frames, dual stitch shots, multi edits, time lapse, claymation type of motion, special effects, sync background score – it certainly was an monumental accomplishment at that time. But the intended message was well hidden – maybe that’s the purpose, coz only a few are supposed to read the encrypted meaning (being a communist tool) or maybe I didn’t understand it coz I didn’t belong to that era –
Grandpa? What do you think?

*** (3/5)