Quick Reviews; ed 4

Michael Clayton (2007)
This movie DID NOT win the Oscar for the Best Original screenplay that year. Nor the Best Actor or Best Supporting Actor, Best Film or Best Director awards that year. I could understand that Michael Clayton was cursed by being in a year where the other movies were too damn good as well. But the fact that it did not win the award for Best Original Screenplay that year shocked me out of my skin. Come on, Juno? That was a shocker. A hint at how quality is often out-weighed by pull in the Academy. That year, an overly written, unrealistic, sensationalist tale of a stupid kid with a big mouth out-ran Michael Clayton; one of the best, if not the best corporate-legal-drama-thrillers ever written. Clooney plays the titular role in this movie where the unfolding of the plot is only a means to a darker, deeper allegory about Ethics. UNorth is a major agro-products manufacturer that employs the services of a legal firm to defend them in a case against people who allege the company's fertilizers as cancer-inducing. Michael's mentor, Arthur is the lawyer assigned to the case but a bizarre event at a deposition forces the firm to send Michael to "fix" the situation. Karen (played by Tilda Swinton who won an Oscar for her performance in this movie) is the head of UNorth who would not take another mistake from the legal firm. Arthur, however, knows a secret that could topple the whole company on its head. Would Michael do his job or choose to help his mentor; particularly when his career hangs in balance and maybe more? Apart from a rivetting storyline, the complexities of the characters makes this movie a nail-biter. The idea of a "fixer" in a legal firm, a floating entity whom nobody trusts with anything too serious or long term but is too talented to be left out of the corporate plan is perhaps the most complex figure in Modern narratives since Willy Loman. How broken is the life of a man who refuses to see the ethics of his operations, even when it slaps his face? Michael Clayton also presents an excellent, but brief role for Tom Wilkinson (undoubtedly the king of Cameos) as Arthur, the man who takes the side of the people against his client, U-North; a decision for which he pays with his life. Tilda Swinton deserves the Oscar for the realistic horror that she is capable of bringing to the screen. The movie is excellently shot and cut. The writing in this movie, unlike the movie that WON the Oscar that year, is extremely down to earth. Nothing overly written or dramatic. Just plain facts and events that reveal the extraordinary characters and strengths. The casting could not have been better and the movie allows George Clooney shine like never before; making him capitalize on the sparks of brilliance he showed in movies like The Good German and Goodnight and Goodluck (both as an actor and director); a style that he would perfect in the hilarious Burn After Reading. It is good to know that just because he was in the Batman movie where he wore a nipple suit, the good actor in him did not die away but bloomed, even if he bloomed late. I regard this movie highly and I give it a grand 8.4 on the regular scale and an equally spectacular 8.1 on the critical scale. This is as close to perfect cinema with high watchability that we can come across.

Taken (2008)
I am not a big fan of remakes. I think it is a shame that sometimes really talented actors and technicians waste their time on worthless remakes of really good films. But if there is one film that should be remade into the Indian scenario, particularly with many "action" heroes are cutting a sorry figure trying to play parts written for men so many years their younger; Taken should be remade to lend them some dignity and give the audience an enjoyable fare. Liam Neeson does not compromise on his character's intensity while looking adept in all the action sequences of the film. The best part about the movie is that it's protagonist's real age is more or less about the same age as his character's age. Chase movies are a personal favorite; but this one will stand out for a long time in my memory for the amount of intensity that it brings to the table and how effortlessly real it all seems to be; which is a big deal because I have this useless piece of information that just shows how unrealistic the movie really is; Liam Neeson (Bryan) kills 34 people before he gets to his daughter. Now that is awesome! The storyline could not be simpler. Neeson plays an ex-FBI agent who was away most of his life from his child and ex-wife due to the nature of his job and cuts a sorry figure whenever he tries to make a connection with his young daughter. Despite his obvious displeasure, his ex-wife convinces him to send the teenager on a rock-band tour in Europe. The day she lands in France, she is kidnapped. There is no clue, no possible suspects or leads to where the daughter is. But he will not stop until he rescues her. The movie does not have an overload of impossible stunts just for the heck of it. It is belieavable, it is violent and most importantly, it is dramatically APT (which says a BIG DEAL about the movie). It gets a rewatchable 6.9 on a regular and a solid 5.8 on the critical scale for its intensity.

Knight and Day (2010)
I DID NOT expect to enjoy this film. I missed out on A-Team (which has Liam Neeson and Quinton Rampage Jackon in it) to watch this. So I had already made up my mind not to like this movie. Besides, just the thought of two actors who have lived a good century between them romancing and prancing about the screen was not something I was looking forward to. Not that I don't like old people acting; but I have a major problem when they pretend to be spies and kicking ass all over town (except in Pierce Brosnan, Sean Connery and Liam Neeson's case, apparently). And come on, nobody, when I say nobody, I mean absolutely NOBODY is ready to see Tom Cruise playing a parody of himself; particularly when there is just ONE character that he act as - himself. However, at the end of the hour and a half; this movie put a huge smile on me. Maybe it is the low expectations or the fact that every single prediction of a cliche comes to life on the screen. But the film is entertaining by being, yes, I admit that I stand corrected, a parody of its own self. This is one of the best examples of why I constantly accuse of Tom Cruise of playing parts that fit him really well, when his "acting" isn't worth two bits. His choice-making capacity has not let him down for a while and the streak continues. The movie is pretty straight-forward with a great doomsday McGuffin in the possession the apparent bad guy, a rogue FBI agent is chased across all over the movie by apparent good guys. However, when you see Tom Cruise as the rogue agent and snaked eyed Sean Bean as the "FBI", you know that there is not going to be a surprising double-twist at the end. Tom is the real "good" guy. Cameron Diaz stars as June, the woman in whose life the biggest thing happening is her sister getting married. In yet another hilarious and ridiculous portrayal of the impossible, Diaz does not even bother that she is nothing close to the character she is playing. She could be playing a talent-less movie star who is past her prime trying on unrealistic characters; but she isn't a good enough actor to pull it off. Like in any other movie, she HAS to make the Ultimate Sacrifice by betraying the man she loves for what she thinks is the greater good, only to be proven wrong and still get a happy ending on top of that. There are, however, many moments in the movie that you anticipate like miles ahead, but would still be pleased when it does come to pass. That seems to be the secret of this movie; fulfilling the obvious. You get to see some ridiculously funny moments throughout the movie and that makes up for whatever mindlessness it has, I suppose. It is a fun movie. Try catching it on TV as it is bound to make its debut soon. It gets a respectable 6.4 for its rewatchability; but the critics fail it with 4.4 for its sheer disbelief in the existence of something called "Intelligent Audience".

Quick reviews; edition 3

Duplicity (2009)
Clive Owen is a man who I did not like when I saw his first film. But he has a knack for appearing in damn good movies; much like Russell Crowe. Not like Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt, mind you, who just choose roles that fit them well. Owen has an uncanny knack of acting in memorable movies. Owen does what is demanded of him and he will surely be remembered as one of the most underrated stars of this era. Opposite him is yet another ageing Hollywood female superstar who thinks that she can pull it off. But yes; Julia Roberts does justice to her role as the paranoid and ever efficient spy who wants to break away from her job at the CIA. Apart from paranoia, themes of deception and ego is dealt with extremely well in this rivetting film of two hours and five minutes. Paul Giamatti is one of the most respected actors in the business for a reason. He shines in his short but compelling role. I would go as far as to say that anyone else except Tom Wilkinson would have stunk up that unrealistic possum-playing role; but casting, as you could have guessed if you noticed the pattern, has been a strong point in this film. With a regular double-cross with a twist plot; Duplicity guarantees for an interesting two hours and gets a 6.8 regular rating. It's capacity of self-awareness gets it a 5.8 on the critical scale.

Law Abiding Citizen (2009)
I see a movie like this and think about Dracula 2000 and wonder, just how far Gerard Butler has made it. If a movie stars Jamie Foxx and you end up rooting for anyone else in the film, the actor has done one helluva job. Gerard Butler does that in this excellent socio-psychological Thriller where you are torn between the inevitable and the impossible at the end of the film. A friend of mine recommended this movie to me and I thank you Bat, for doing so. The plot cannot be simpler - and more disturbing. What does a superspy do when his family is raped and murdered and all that the law does is give smug half-answers? He gets involved. Really, really involved. The movie makes us feel the difference between the idea of murder as punishment rather than murder as revenge. Great tragedy sparks off other events of horror but can someone salvage enough sanity to orchestrate that horror into a meaningful question? Butler's character sets about his task and we all wish him to succeed, while knowing that ultimately, he has to turn savage to prove that he too, is human. This paradox heights this cat and mouse game. This movie could have ended up like a dozen other regular chase films, but stands out due to the intensity of the performances and a very smartly written script. This movie will appeal to a large section of the audience cutting through many demographs and that is precisely why I rate this pretty high on the regular scale at 7.8 but its weak ending and often over-dramatic and invented resolutions, it does not get better than a 5.8 critical rating.

State of Play (2009)
I hate Russell Crowe; his style of acting, his attitude, his face, everything. But most of all, I hate it that he ends up being a part of so many good movies that I have to watch him and enjoy his performances. State of Play is one such movie. This is perhaps the best political thriller I have seen in a long time and it keeps you hooked every step of the way. The only other movie which surpasses this, would be Michael Clayton, but that is another review. Crowe is a journalist whose estranged friend, a congressman, Ben Affleck breaks down in front of the media when his secretary (with whom he was having an affair) is murdered. This could not have come at a worse time for this congressman has been the rallying point against the privatization of the army lobby. The movie works like a boxing bout, with each side seeming to gain advantage only to go into twelve rounds. Businessmen with highstakes against journalist who will do anything to keep the truth afloat; the movie at time tends to make things too black and white for my liking; but the turn at the end of the film justifies the reason behind such contrast and comfort it offers - making it a theme and a central conflict of the movie itself. But the need for the truth is so dramatically important that we just cannot give it up yet. Based on a TV series of the same name, State of Play is a rivetting, instant classic that is simultaneously both realistic and dramatic. It gets a high 8.2 in the regular scale but the critical rating does not go beyond 6.4 for it tries to make a symbolic greater drama of good vs evil when they are so undistinguishably inter-twined. In short, it is a great cinematic experience, succeeding where cheap thrillers like JFK fails; but still ends up a foot short when it comes to considering the human condition - would we really be so good when the moment arrives? The movie seems to be too sure of itself to be true. But undoubtedly, it is a must watch.

You think you know him...

CHRISTOPHER NOLAN is not someone who disappoints both at the box office as well as at a critical level. The worst things about him is that he is in love with his own protagonists and he overuses the same kind of music in his movies. And... Well, there is very little I can add to this. I have not seen his early work but since the turn of the millenium, he has impressed me so much that I am definitely and unabashedly a Nolan fan. So without much ado, here'z me taking y'all on a short walk of Nolan's decade of dominance.

Memento (2000) was an interesting film. More than any of his other films, his investigation of ethics is most direct in this one, where Leonard (Guy Pearce) a man suffering from short-term memory loss is looking for revenge by hunting for his wife's rapist/murderer. Straightforward Steven Segal stuff, right? Not so much. The storytelling takes us through a compelling journey of discovery where we are forced to reckon with pieces of Truth that the protagonist has the luxury of forgetting. Joe Pantoliano has not been in a movie that gives him a canvas wide enough to exhibit his skills. Carrie Anne Moss is just stellar in her complex and underplayed role. Guy Pearce makes it seems so real and intensely normal. Most people say that the best thing about the movie is it's narrative technique, which was borrowed from primarily a French drama called Irreversible (starring Vincent Cassel and Monica Bellucci). However, I must admit that Memento was much more entertaining and gripping than Gasper Noe's film. The technique of flash forwarding in a reverse narrative comes across as very brave and original. Nolan paints an unflattering image of the Nature of man; but he keeps it real. More than anything, this movie is remembered for the second most memorable memory loss patient (that's ironic) after Dora from Finding Nemo. I must note here that both the Tamil and Hindi versions of the movie (self-procclaimed adaptations) were major forgettable fiascos. Coming back to the film, it blew my mind away when I first watched it and has always given me something new to enjoy every other time I have seen it. Thanks to rewatchability and popular appeal, I give it a generous 7.4 on the popular scale and a decent 6.1 on the critical scale. The year is 2000 and Nolan is just about getting started.


Insomnia (2002) is a movie that goes further into the question of ethics while moving away from it. In the sense, though it questions the nature of man, it looks very specifically at two men at the opposing ends of the spectrum and trains our eye on the quality of the individuals rather than the whole spectrum of human nature. Starring Al Pacino and Robin Williams, this is an extremely intense experience that loses pace in the middle but never loses the audience interest. Williams plays the worst kind of villain there is, a garbage heel, blackmailing coward; and the conviction he plays the role with makes me wonder how come he is better known as a comic despite his variety of great character roles. Al Pacino plays yet again a brilliant rendition of himself. I like the dude but I wonder if he ever stepped out of the Michael Corleone mode. Again a deceptively simple tale of a crime investigation in a part of the world where there is no Night for months on end, turns into a gripping drama beyond the cat-and-mouse variety. Sadly, you cannot watch this movie more than once and even the first viewing will be like streaks of great cinema followed by weak moments. Overall, the movie scores a credible 6.8 popular rating and a 5.8 critical rating.


Batman Begins (2005) was a reboot of the character on screen and people were anticipating how well could someone like Nolan do it. Before we go to the movie itself, we must consider that the Batman series on screen has always suffered more than any other series due to the eccentricity of its makers. Now, I am a HUGE Burton fan, but I must admit that his style of comic-book film-making was so precariously placed that nobody could recreate his magic. Enter Bruckheimer. This was a man who visualized Mr Freeze as a muscle on top of muscle maniac. Now, I am not one of the many comic book fans who cried foul that the story departed from the books; but Arnold Schwarzenegger as a sophisticated, tragic evil scientist/supervillain is an aesthetic and dramatic genocide. Throw in the Halle Berry/Catwoman disaster; Gotham was in serious trouble. Given this background, Nolan had his task cut-out. Also, we must remember that he was replacing the Most Talented Mr Aronfsky who wanted to make DKR with Clint Eastwood as Bruce Wayne. What did Nolan do? Break away from many Bat-movie conventions. The villains were not the superbills (of course, Liam Neeson is a "Big Name" and Cillian Murphy is a "Name" but both were not big enough to outshine Christian Bale), Bruce Wayne was not a Jokester, the (bad) comic-book feel was replaced by a realistic action/thriller style of cutting and the Bat-mobile was finally given the respect it deserves. It was not a toy anymore but a really bad muthafucka in its own right. Most importantly, there was no nipple suit. Also, Nolan chose to base his plot loosely on one of the best Batman writers/story-arc; Frank Miller's Year One. If you notice closely, this movie too follows the question of basic human nature and behavior but it feels a lot more simplified, as it is meant to appeal to children as well. Not much to say about the movie itself; for it was a great relaunch pad for Batman and a chance for him to go back to black. It gets an all-pleasing 6.6 popular and 5.4 critical rating.


The Prestige (2006) is by far the most complete film that Nolan has ever made. It is strong in its narration, characters, action as well as the overall craft. This is not only an extremely entertaining period drama based on rivalries between two great magicians, but also an engaging duel that shows, like other Nolan movies discussed before, as to how far are we willing to go to register that ultimate victory. Starring Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Scarlett Johanasson and Michael Caine, this movie gets the best performances from each of the actors. The movie creates unforgettable moments that do not impede the storytelling in any way, whether it is Jackman taking a bow under the stage or Bale biting a bullet quite literally. Set in an age where technology still hasn't taken over the art of narration by a magician, the movie quite convincingly makes believers out of us. Like most of his other movies, it also has a single germ that has to be internalized and believed before the movie starts making sense. But the third stage of the Trick is the same in every field of story-telling; it is the Prestige or how the magician overcomes and lives on that is most interesting. For this reason, I rate this as the best Nolan film I have ever seen with excellent rewatchability and great intensity even after the "maze" has been deciphered (something that most puzzle movies fail to do). It scores a whopping 8.1 on popular scale and a sound 6.9 in the critical scale.


Dark Knight (2008) is for many people the best Batman movie there is. With excellent game-psychology and a truly creepy performance from Heath Ledger (and this means a lot for it had to out-creep Jack Nicholson's levels of creepiness) that even killed the actor, the movie sets its scene in the dark alleys of Gotham where the Thinking Man's greatest Enemy, Anarchy, takes the shape of the Joker and challenges Gotham's Knight in Black Kevlar Armor to a duel. We all know how well Nolan performs in Duel movie situations (almost each one of the movies mentioned here is a duel) and he moves the game up a notch. This movie is significant for the optimistic turn that Nolan takes as the climax of the movie has a boatload of criminals refusing to sacrifice a boatload of civilians and vice versa because there is a bond of humanity that goes deeper than just the deeds of the person. A typical tale of Good vs Evil, I felt that despite the story-telling, Nolan went over to the didactic mode a bit too often with this movie; particularly with the entire Two-Face angle. I liked the ending where the honor of the White Knight is restored even when it is at the cost of the Dark Knight's reputation. Over all, this was a very entertaining film that scores a 7.5 on the popular ratings but barely breaches 6.1 on the critical scale for it is only a good bridge movie from Year One Batman to something bigger. It must be noted that with Ledger passing on and people anticipating nothing less than one in a million, the next Batman movie is better not made; for it has a BIG chance of disappointing a LOT of people.


Inception (2010) is a movie that left me doing two things; 1, swearing that Christopher Nolan should rot in hell. 2, waiting at the gate of the cinema hall as the credits rolled on wondering if there was a scene AFTER the credits that finished the last action on screen. Leonardo DiCaprio does not disappoint in yet another psychological thriller. To be frank; I was dreading for the worst from this film for a handful of reasons. The trailer made it look like a cross between any generic action movie and a disaster movie. Besides, I have been waiting for this movie for MONTHS. apart from that, I had not seen this movie for over three weeks after the release. I had excellents and great and amazing from many sides and I was bracing myself hoping not to pick up anything about the movie. I was also fearing the worst for I had insisted that my girlfriend come along for this, knowing fully well that she is not a fan of action movies. The first half hour into the movie, I had a slow/sinking feeling. Not that the start of the movie was bad; but it somehow kept reminding me of a LOT of other movies/TV shows/books from before. I was not really hooked on until the "Mission" started. But from that point on... That is perhaps the longest a movie can make us hold our breath starting from somewhere around the first hour mark to the end of the movie. I would like to take a moment to thank all my friends who had already seen this movie but still did not reveal the plot/or give away spoilers about the movie. I was unaware of the wordmeaning of Inception within the storyline until I went to the theatre and to keep up my end of the deal, I would not spoil that for you, my dear readers, here either. So for that reason, I end this note quickly by just giving my ratings for this movie at 8.0 popular and a 6.9 critical rating. This comes a close second to The Prestige (a decision that may surprise many, including myself), for the Jackman-Bale starrer did not have a single moment of self-doubt whereas this movie, despite its unparalleled second half, the first half made us reminisce to a flurry of movies/TV shows ranging from **Spoiler Alert (if you think this as a spoiler that is), Matrix, Johnny Quest, Supernatural, Eternal Sunshine of A Spotless Mind, Identity, Twelve Monkeys and most damagingly, to Leo's very own Shutter Island. **Spoiler close. However, the movie is an experience not to be missed. Ken Watanabe is one of the most respected performers around the world and the confidence with which he says, "I bought the airlines", sums up his total capacity. This movie is a must watch and is worth buying on DVD for your personal collection, EVEN if you do not like Action genre.

Quick Review, edition 2

The Messenger: Story of Joan of Arc (1999)
This movie written and directed by Luc Besson has Vincent Cassel, Faye Dunaway, Dustin Hoffman, Milla Jovavich, John Malkovich in leading roles is quite a treat to watch, for I like period films that offer a brave new alternate to an established lore. As a given for epic movies, it has a running length of 158 minutes; and honestly, the length does not hinder the movie as it has done easily in other films of this genre. The original story itself presents a LOT of questions about the nature of the person that Jeanne D'Arc was. The best thing about this movie is that Besson does not attempt to over-simplify and give an neatly folded conservative or ridiculously modern answer. He does something else, and for this, I appreciate him. He steers clear of history and focusses on the central issue of Faith. The definitions of the word Faith and Heresy is very important to follow this film. If heresy is anything that is in disagreement with the dominant view of the church and Faith is the only vessel through which the god of the christian mythology can be acessible, it sets up a polarity which is bound to encounter great conflicts. This conflict, despite the apparent other-worldliness, is essentially HUMAN. It is this human nature of the heavenly conflict that Besson captures brilliantly in his film. On the flipside, I found the movie peaking too early, as it starts really well but slows down to an unreasonable and overly complicated pace. The length of the film is battled by its compelling screenplay, but at times, I felt that Besson dropped the ball in his approach to the characters in the last quarter of the movie. Vincent Cassel shines throughout the movie as does John Malkovich. Dustin Hoffman in his really brief stay onscreen takes the movie to a whole another level. Milla Jovovich strangely reminds us of her fifth element days; and her character loses its way towards the end of the movie. So a really good movie that falls short of expectations thanks to streaky story-telling, The Messenger slips into a 6.4 in general rating for its unsound and unexciting second half but surprisingly bucks up to a 5.8 in the critics' rating thanks to the conception and making of really memorable moments and characters overall. Catch the movie if it is running at a convenient time on TV; but not worth buying the DVD.

After the Sunset (2004)
Pierce Brosnan, Woody Harrleson, Salma Hayek and Don Cheadle. Looking at this film from 2010, I am pretty amazed at the role played by Don, given the star value that he packs in today's industry. People like him have surely worked their way up. I have said this somewhere else about Brosnan, but he is more of a Bond in non-Bond films than he was in the Bond ones. Though the movie is nothing like the excellent Thomas Crown Affair, it gives a great canvas for Brosnan to showcase his suave, charismatic presence. However, the best moments of this film comes between Brosnan and Woody; whether it is when they are rubbing sun-screen on each other's back or spooning at dawn. Despite having cliched elements of heist and bromance genre of movies, this is a thoroughly enjoyable affair thanks to passionate actors, a witty screenplay and the sun-kissed, colorful Carribean setting. I say Watch-it; particularly if you are yet to see Thomas Crown Affair as this would be a good way to build into TCA. However, if you have just seen a great heist film in the past week, give this one a skip. It is download-watch/enjoy-delete kind of a film that scores pretty high on the regular scale at 6.6 but fails to cross 5.2 at the critics' level.

Anchor Toothpaste Ad
After months of crying out loud about the poor quality of advertisments in the recent past; this ad was a breath of fresh air (the bad pun, not intended). It is funny, contextually apt, well cast as well as drives home the product's functionality. This is exactly how an ad should be; and that is after seeing so MANY bad Toothpaste/dental care ads amongst other bad ads. Please do watch this; it is not the smartest ad ever made - but it puts a smile on your face (again, the bad pun) at the end of the sixty seconds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw5arTc26-0

Funny People (2009)
I am not a big Judd Apatow fan. I think that he has a lot of potential but the acclaim he has received is unwarranted. Neither as a producer nor as a writer, he has done something exceptional. I often get a feeling that the product is a result of cotton-candy flavored, shallow, simplistic writing pushed in the right direction by some big names in the business. The Forty Year Old Virgin, well, it showed how funny Steve Carell could be but nothing from Apatow. Knocked up had a few moments but it was never fully a comedy, romantic or any other sort nor was it a drama on unwanted pregnancy. Thanks to Katherine Heigl (who for some strange reason gets better billing than Gerard Butler), it was as bland as bland could be. He also wasted all our time by writing You Don't Mess With the Zohan. But come Funny People, Apatow makes up for all that mediocrity we have endured. Seth Rogen and Adam Sandler are absolutely brilliant in their roles. Right from the first minute, the movie had me hooked. The conception of the movie is exceptional and the casting could not have gotten any better than this (of course it could have, had Elizabeth Banks played Laura; but we have seen her once too many with Seth Rogen on screen). Jason Schwartzman is an actor that whose work I have always liked, and he continues with the good work here. Every role is well fleshed out and the stand-up comedy moments are brilliant. Aziz Ansari is bound to turn heads; and I hope that he does not end up becoming another Russell Peter's ripoff. He has a solid, unique style, which is bound to succeed just as Jonah Hill would. Like Date Night, this movie has some of the finest cameos in recent times. The pick of the lot is Eric Bana in his Australian-Buddhist-Rugby-Brawler role. He lights the screen on fire every moment he is there. Ray Romano is a personal favorite of mine and never would I have EVER imagined him sharing a conversation with Eminem. Just the sheer mention of these two talking sets me off. This must have been a good movie because it runs a whopping 153 minutes. Trust me, I am a big fan of the 80 minute movies for a REASON. I get bored pretty easily. But I surprised myself with this really funny and really well-written movie. It gets an above-average 7.4 in the regular scale and since it is a comedy, it also draws a 6.1 Woody scale rating and a Must-Watch tag.

Strange Wilderness (2008)
Though I kept thinking that Steve Zahn deserves better than this, the movie itself was quite candid. It was one of those comedies where there are no obviously funny situations arising out of dramatic tension but just crazy bunch of people doing crazy things. A broke, bong addicted TV crew that is on the verge of losing their 3am slot sets out to South America to shoot never-seen-before footage of the BigFoot. As simple as the plot is, it is riddled with mindless misadventures that take us quickly through the ninety minutes. Look out for Steve Zahn speaking Spanish. That, coupled with the Turkey scene, the low-rider scene and the scene with the BigFoot himself are the highlights of the movie. it is not an intense comedy by any stretch of imagination. What the movie lacks is conviction to give it strong story-based moments or courage to make it into an all out farce. Stuck in the middle, Strange Wilderness is a movie worth watching to kill an afternoon if you have no other movie to watch. At a regular level, this movie gets a passable rating of 5.7 while it fails to even breach anything at a higher level thanks to its dumb-comedy approach.

Quick Reviews

Hey folks, I am starting a quick review section. This is a single paragraph review of movies that I don't want to write a full review for. Not that they are good/bad in a specific way or that I cannot write. If you want me to write a full review, make a request and I shall do that. These quick reviews are not meant to be of a prescriptive nature.

The Many Cameos of Date Night (2010)
Starring two of television's funniest people, Date Night is dangerously poised as it creates expectations that are tough to match. Tina Fey and Steve Carell, pull it off surprisingly well. We all know that 30Rock creator/star Tina Fey knows to get big stars in her show all the time. The movie reminds us of that with the uncountable cameos. However, the similarity ends there. The story happens in one night. A boring couple with a tough and ordinary life go to the "city" from their Jersey home for a special date. Chaos. This is how the one-liner of the movie looked. There are a lot of genres overlapping in this movie, and it is entertaining overall. Some may find the comedy a little weak, given the heavyweights; but the movie smartly avoids that road of following a comic-spot with another. It sticks to the script and gives glimpses of many interesting characters who create a moment and leave you wanting for more. The ending, however, is a let-down from the rest of the movie. A special mention must be made to the cameos. Be it Wahlberg, Liotta, James Franco or Mila Kunis; they just steal the show. I give this film a regular comedy rating of 6.2 while it takes home a poor 4.4 rating on the Woody comedy scale due to its ending.

Timeline (2003)
This is not a new movie, based on the novel by Micheal Crichton that I watched the other day on TV. It had really young and unestablished Paul Walker, Michael Sheen and Gerard Butler in leading roles of a movie that deals with time as a fluid entity and history is something that we can participate in. Despite the over-simplification, the movie was entertaining in its re-narration of the 100 years war. The acting was good but the overall quality of the production was wanting. After Jurassic Park, maybe a more daring producer or a director with a greater vision could have helped the film. You can watch it once if you can really bite your teeth for the first twenty-five boring minutes where nothing happens, much like Jurassic Park. The movie gets an action/adventure rating of 6.4 for good story-telling and Gerard Butler and Michael Sheen but it cannot garner more than 4.4 points in my conception of Total-Cinema.

Mad City (1997)
I am always a big fan of hostage movies. Starting from the entire Bruce Willis series of hostage situations, to the more complex Misery style of hostage situations. But in this dangerously real hostage drama starring John Travolta and Dustin Hoffman, the human element was powerful but not overdone while the ironic reality was played at pace with the hostage storyline itself. Poignant moments make this movie a memorable affair; like when a network bigwig asks Hoffman's character to convince Travolta to surrender in the evening if possible, for their ratings need a boost. The movie really drives it home at the last moment when Hoffman really feels it, by saying, We killed him. The big leading cast of Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta and the basic hostage situation makes us expect much. At one point, inside the forty-minute mark, it threatens to fizzle out into a romantic tale of an overnight hero. But that is only a taste of things to come. This dark commentary about media and society in general shows how easy it is for us to bare our fangs when a person becomes an icon on television. We are like little children, that want to play with and kill the things that amuse us; not considering for a moment that the "thing" has life in it. At times over-dramatic, and definitely not the best movies of the respective main actors, this movie still has something to say and makes an impact for that reason. I give this movie a drama/thriller rating of 6.6 for excellent acting and a very-grounded in reality plot. It also gains on the Total-Cinema scale to take back a respectable 5.2.

Art of the Popular - The Hari Movies

I am sorry that this particular post is not going to be accessible to all of you; in the sense, I am talking to a very specific audience who watch and enjoy the popular Tamil movies of the Action/Drama/Masala genre. I shall try to make it as global as possible, but some of the references, particularly the specific discussions of movies will go over the head of a non-Tamil audience. But here is the general idea behind this post; sometimes, we confuse art with what is highly coded and meeting a few parameters set by some dead people. (But) is that always art? If art is put in a straight-jacket saying that it can behave in only such and such manner, does it not create recopied vapidities that have nothing original to say? This discussion is as old as art itself and a lot of smart people have spoken a lot about it. I have nothing to add to this. However, I have something to confess.

When it comes to movies, I am a bit of a snob.

I usually do not indulge in "low" and "vulgar" movies, that have nothing to offer to me in either creative content or style. There have been a lot of movies I have stopped watching and deleted on the spot after the first twenty minutes, which are make or break for me. At times I have wondered if I am being too judgmental; for after all, these people put in that much effort and time into making a bad movie as they do in making a good movie. Now consider the Tamil movie scene; where there are directors who produce utterly unwatchable crap despite great expectations and at times, years into making the movie. They even have artistic pretensions. In this situation, there are a few directors who can finish a movie in under three months, tell a tried and tested story with five songs and four action sequences including a chase, two supporting character deaths and an ultimate twist where the hero comes out looking a million bucks. Surprisingly, despite the cliches, the punch-dialogues, the predictability, these movies work in a HUGE way. One such director, that I want to talk about here, is Hari.

Couple of nights ago, when I was not getting any sleep, but also was not ready for any serious movie watching, I played Singam. Into the first fifteen minutes, I was hooked. The tempo was not forced, the story-line, despite the cliches, was interesting. It was a cat-mouse tale repackaged in modern Tamil Nadu, where the key issue of whose "zone" it is, is played up in an excellent manner. Surya keeps screaming at the top of his voice most of the movie and Prakash Raj has not played the role even an inch away from his role in Ghilli and Anushka is so replacable in the movie. Still, it is an enjoyable two hours traffic. Not bad, I was telling myself. Then I just quickly recalled all the Hari movies (and later checked the net to get a complete list) and found out that of all the movies, I have not seen just two, and despite the masala-brand of film-making, I had enjoyed every one of his movies.

Thamizh was a film that looked like it belonged more to the 90s than in the 2000s, but it seems like we forgot that many people still liked the familiar 90s over the unsteady 2000s. Saamy proved that he was no one-trick-wonder. Vikram was repackaged as a masss-hero, despite the competition from Surya's talked about cop-film at the same time, Kaakha Kaakha. Though I like the latter film a LOT, I must admit that the Vikram-starrer would have spoken to a lot more people than KK. Arul was a forgettable rehash of Thamizh but Kovil showed that Simbu was more of a man than just his fingers. Aaru was Hari's first venture in Chennai and he looked unsure about the city where so many tales had to be told. The venture was not a big success, but Surya saw the potential in their combination and it would not be too long before they came back together with the highly-successful Vel. Iyya was a movie that sold itself too much before it came out; people realized why the story was written for Rajnikanth and why noone else could fill his shoes. However, good things were said about this film for its strong village core and commendable characterizations. Thamirabarani, gave Vishal a good break in the B, C centers with a simple village-feud tale. Singam gave a different cop-image for Surya from the tight-lipped KK version. I am sorry, I have not seen Seval. Now, that is a commendable degree of success for a director who works on a shoe-string budget and a really tight schedule. Why did I still pretend to be above watching Hari movies?

That got me thinking. Here is a guy that I would not want to get caught saying a good word about and who has probably made about five movies out of a single storyline, but has kept each variant very entertaining. I have friends, who might be reading this, who would instantly jump on an opportunity to piss on his work. I would just like to point out that some of their favorite "hollywood" directors who are so much superior in the craft of movies, hardly shift between genres in their illustrious careers. Something I always believed in, is proven true in Hari's work. That is why I am not ashamed to say that I am a Hari fan. He knows the pulse of the audience. Even those who come out of the theatre saying that there was nothing substantial in the film would accept that the audience Hari is targetting are not looking for something substantial. They are not in a specific center or a demograph. They are people, who are bored and want to laugh, be thrilled, get angry, guess and overall, be entertained, for a two hour traffic. He gives us all that. That is why, like Shakespeare, Hari, is a crowd-pleasing genius who will not worry so much about legacy but will end up having one.

In Bruges

Every few years, there comes an actor who impresses us with his first and lands up in a series of movies, some of them good and some bad. But no matter how many good movies the actor is in, there is a saturation point where we just get bored with the actor. It happened to the very talented Mr Clive Owen recently. Jason Statham also fits the bill about a year ago. Colin Farell is not someone that I enjoy watching for this same reason. There was a stretch between late 2004 and early 2007 where every other major Hollywood movie featured him in a starring role. Most of the time, he got practically the same damn role in a different storyline. Despite the fact that I enjoyed a couple of his movies from that phase, I felt that the overdose of Colin Farell was going to kill his career. While others cheered as he moved from one big director to another, I waited for him to do the inevitable. Alexander was not the isolated flop of his career graph in that season. Suddenly, Colin Farell was not a part of major movie deals. We even got to see him on TV, as an Irish brawler in Scrubs. How hard, I was about to say, the mighty have fallen.

But wait, there is more. In 2009, a now-forgotten Colin Farell starred in a movie that does not involve a massive budget or visual effects. It can be billed as a comedy but that would create uncomfortable moments for both the viewers and the movie people. The movie would have been considered to appeal to such a niche audience that its production would have been treated as an artistic indulgence rather than a major Hollywood production. This movie, however, would make Colin Farell relevant again. Perhaps in his best role to date, Farell stars, nay, shines in the film-adaptation of Martin McDonagh's play, In Bruges.

In a day where movies are given awards based on "pull" and star value, one cannot help but be amazed at the deserving few that actually make it big in the scene. In Bruges deserves every award it has won. This movie is a defining moment in Dark Comedy, not only because of the intensity of the plot but also because of the excellent translation of the Pinter-esque Comedy of Menace without becoming too symbolic for the audience to appreciate. When a pregnant moment is heightened by the presence of a really pregnant woman, one cannot help but laugh; but it is not a happy laugh. It is a nervous, tentative, desperate laugh trying to make sense of the concept of Point of No Return.

In Bruges starts out as a clueless enough movie with two men arriving at an unknown town in Belgium. They await their orders. When a hit is wrongly executed by Farell, a chain of command snaps into place. A moment's mistake and the high cost of the same mistake makes up the second half of the movie. The most important thing that we learn from this movie, is the impossibility of either controlling the future as well as rewriting the past.

Last seen in Harry Potter as MadEye Moody, Brendon Gleeson steals the show with his near perfect performance. The two polarities of free-will (of what he wants to do) and discipline (to his master, Ralph Fiennes) are balanced in his single character. Brendon Gleeson as the veteran who understands the horror of Farell and is willing to save him at any cost is just as brilliant as the smooth and passionate Ralph Fiennes. Another actor from the Harry Potter continuity, Fiennes carries over a lot of the darkness from his more fantastical role.

The camera work is so fine, that it leaves an impression that the town must have been pretty for being captured thus. The music is not much to write home about. The editing and the writing is simply outstanding. Perhaps the quality of the movie is because the original play was written by the guy who directed it. Overall, I give In Bruges a regular total of 8.3 and on the Woody scale, it still scores a whopping 8.3

The Thomas Crown Affair

I have always liked heist movies. Or chase movies (when the term is not merely confined to fast automobiles). For some strange reason, like Woody Allen's movies, I think that there are not enough movies in this genre. Sometimes you wonder; if they make a movie with a strong plot and a semi-decent cast in this specific genre (like puzzle movies, adventure, epic movies), they would make great hits. But why do the producers in the Holly town think otherwise? I had to grow up a few years to figure out that these are not only risky ventures that a producer would rather not touch with a ten foot pole, but also that the quality in writing itself is so poor when it comes to big studios and such genres. The really good movies remain hidden in Independent film circuits. But once in a long time, the biggies come out with a real good number. Usually they are of the blockbuster variety with two bankable stars and a few breathtaking visuals. Rarely, do we find treats where the actors are trusted enough to be allowed to carry the film entirely on their shoulders - with just their sizzling chemistry and acting skills. One can count the movies which do that by hand, like The Sleuth starring Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine and The Man from Earth. One does not expect a movie of that nature out of a Bond actor, albeit Entrapment with Sean Connery and Catherina Zeta Jones gave the feel (with some techno effects). The Thomas Crown Affair, though a remake from a 60s movie of the same name, does just that.

This is a cat and mouse tale with a little differnce. The hunter knows who her prey is. The prey likes living on the edge. Both of them can end the game whenever they want to but find a compulsion to play it, just because it is more challenging, more intense and most of all, more fun that way. The storyline is simple but solid; that of a criminal who is off-limits and a ruthless investigator who knows no limits face off against a stolen painting. The twists and the turns of the plot do not feel forced and even the most predictable moments in the movie are elevated to a sparkling moment thanks to excellent acting and packaging of the script. At the very end of the film, a lot of questions remain unanswered and still manage to keep the audience impressed; because the story has long passed the mere framework of a puzzle movie as it has generated human interest. There are also poignant moments in the film when the director underlines the nature of what crime is and what is not crime; for some people, it is merely a way of expressing their non-conformity to a mundane society. While there are other people, who beat their ten year olds in their drunken stupor and kill their wives. Everyone has an urge to be a delinquent. Thomas Crown merely has the means to live his desire.

Pierce Brosnan is near-perfect in his portrayal of Thomas Crown. One feels like that he is being more of a Bond here than in any of his Bond films. Perhaps the Bond movies shaped him to be better suited for such roles or maybe it is just the fact that the suave, stylized man of taste image was not rushed and forced in this movie; it comes naturally to Brosnan. This is his best yet. In his Bond movies, he was like a boy trying to look like a man. But here, he holds his own against someone who threatens to replace the authority of his titular role with her powerful screen presence. Rene Russo is a treat to watch and no, my dear perverts, I am not saying this because she bares it all for a scene. Though it must be mentioned that the detailing and perfection in acting and aesthetic packaging is complete even in that short, impressive scene of lovemaking. A lot of people rubbish this scene when compared with the McQueen-Dunaway scene in the original. I would say that they are two different kinds of scenes, creating two different kinds of tension. Both work in their own way. The chemistry between Rene Russo and Brosnan is sizzling and makes us feel for them. The other actors are not so shabby themselves.

This movie uses technology to further the plot, a role for which technology should be used in movies at all. Crisp editing can make a good scene gorgeous. The climax of the movie where the second painting is stolen is just a gem in this consideration. The camera work was even all through the movie. The pictures themselves were chosen not to complicate things. However it was a little fun to identify the Monet which I had once studied for a class. The theme of Monet as the man who could see the same things differently each time, gives an added angle to the film and its primary players.

All this said and done, the thing I love most about the movie is its music. Both the original scores and the soundtracks were excellently chosen and placed; barring the Sting version of The Windmills of Your Mind. Please Sting, we love you; but that was just about the most ridiculous cover of a great song. The only flipside seems to be the over-emphasized dramatizations that tend to get a little too predictable at times; but again, we are watching a major Hollywood motion picture. So I give this movie a regular rating of 7.5, heist rating 8 and the verdict is; this is one of the movies that you want to catch as many repeats on TV as possible/buying a personal DVD copy is not a bad move.

Dr Strangelove; or How I stopped worrying and started loving the bomb

When I heard a lot of people rating this as one of the, if not the best movie ever seen; I was wondering what was so special about it. But watching this movie was the most-shockingly real film experience I have had this year; and maybe all-time. More on that later. First off, I have always been a fan of Stanley Kubrik's craft. But I have always had a feeling that his movies had an unwatchable quality about them. Of course, it was intense viewing. But the best movies in the world are those which pass quickly like a bullet while subtly pervading your thought process for a long time. The Matrix movies did that (the first more than any other). Jurassic Park, for all its simple-minded conception, did that. Jaws did that. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind did that. Most of Woody Allen's film, do that. However, Kubrik's films are not known for this quality. Clockwork Orange was twisted as twisted can be. 2001: A Space Odessey is almost a prophetic film. Eyes Wide Shut is a meditation in perversion. However, all these movies take themselves too seriously for the viewer to have an unobstrusive sight of what is going on in the story. I like the fact that Kubrik can work on such a vast canvas while other "big name" directors are stuck with the same frigging theme for decades (*cough* James Cameroon *cough*). However, none of his movies made an effort to "connect" with the audience; except perhaps The Shining.

This was my opinion, until I saw Dr Strangelove. Please do not get put off by the most boring five minutes in all film history (exaggerating) just after an impressive start. The movie takes a little time to heat up. What follows is perhaps the darkest of black comedies as well as a realistic and possible tragedy of the infinite human capacity to screw things up. The disclaimer on the top of the film is from the US Air Force assuring that the events depicted in the movie cannot happen in real life (due to the precautions they have taken). If you can feel a nervous undertone to that voice, don't be surprised. For this is definitely the most dangerously "real" film not for no reason. Many things depicted here are, and I quote from another excellent Anti-War film, The Men Who Stare at Goats, More of this is true than what you might imagine. The polemic that the movie tries to set up is simple; there is, on the one hand, enough fire power to destory completely the entire planet and on the other hand, the access to this power in the hands of few men, who could be just as fragile or unstable as every other human being in the world. The threat of Purity of Essence has played itself over and over, so many times, that it is uncomfortable to think that nobody has ever done to change the equation of power balance.

The plot is way too simple. At the height of Cold War, an American general whose mental stability is questionable has launched unilaterally an attack on 34 strategic points of Russia. What follows is chaos as the President and other people in the war room literally bite their nails trying to crack the foolproof plan in activation. The idea of power and the corrupting influence of power is foregrounded in this movie; however the darker/deeper fact that even without this corruption, there EXISTS an infrastructure which is ready to attack and destroy completely another nation of the world. This brings us to the next big concept of the movie.

The Doomsday Device

The idea of the Doomsday Device is that it is a failsafe that would automatically kick in when a certain number of parameters are just right. Nobody can deactivate it. Nobody can control it. It's very existence is supposed to deter everyone from even thinking about war. This is the most ironic thing about the movie; that the best peace-keeping force in existence in the world, is a force that can destroy the world. Would it not be simpler to negotiate peace as an everyday process? As a mode of life? No. It would not work because it is too unrealistic to expect people to just mind their own business. And therein lies the most likeable experience of being told, how the human species is simply incapable of just letting things be.

The last thing I would like to bring to your attention is the name of the film. It is titled Dr Strangelove, after a German scientist who has changed his name after moving to America post WWII. Not the obvious choice, one would say. The scientist is unsuccessful in his attempts to repress his natural sense of loyalty towards his Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler. One can only wonder why that is... For the name of his lord has changed but the roles they play and the needs of their position have not changed. Beware, Kubrik seems to warn us, that you may be turned into this unfortunate creature called Strangelove...

Aayirathil Oruvan - Tamil (2010)

I wanted to review this movie in Tamil, but I would like as many people, from as many different linguistic backgrounds possible, to watch this movie which reminded me that there is no tongue to a movie. Aayirathil Oruvan, means One man in a Thousand. The movie can claim credit for being truly, one in a thousand. Starring Karthi (only in his second movie in five years), Reema Sen (not to be confused with the Bengali sisters) and Andrea Jeramaiah (a stage actor from Madras) and R. Parthiban (a man who carved out a new path for himself in the industry a good two decades ago), this movie does not claim to have big names or a monster budget. However, the story is one that has not been told in this scale, intensity or detail, ever before in Tamil, or may I venture to say, in Indian cinema. Running to a good three hours, it is sure to leave you with a strong opinion; good, bad or ugly. This is not a movie for the weak-hearted.

Directing his sixth movie, Selvaraghavan has reiterated the statement that he is someone to look out for. His past movies have carved a niche audience for himself. While he launched his younger brother into superstardom with his first two movies, he proved that he is one of those directors who can be very original with even the most uninspiring narratives. He has the knack of leading the story into its moments rather than forcing dramatic moments on the unsuspecting audience. But even with his proven credentials, this movie shows that he is not afraid to tread on a different path. The genre of the adventure movie fell out of fashion in Indian cinema in the eighties. Of course, we have had the Dhoom series and the odd period movie; but none so authentic or experimental, in creating a world that is probable but impossible. The only person who has come close in portraying such a world was Kamal Hassan in Vikram (albeit, in a very commercialized and watered down space) and it is worthy to note that after two decades, no other movie has been written in that genre. As a blend of more than one genre, this movie captures the imagination of the audience and reveals another layer of the horrible truth to those who are willing to train their eye on it.

Let me first get over with the "inspirations" of the movie. Ben Hur, MacKenna's Gold, 300, Apocalypto, Beowulf, any number of Indiana Jones movies, Lara Croft, William Wallace (Braveheart) and the Mummy movies, most importantly, often parade themselves in fleeting moments. Techniques, shots and sometimes even situations are borrowed, only to narrate or make convenient the plausibility of the progress of the film. To say that the movie has blatantly copied any of the above mentioned movies would not be fair to either this movie or the one said to be copied from. For the best moments of the movie are its own.

The story starts in a fairly straightforward manner. A famed archeologist, Lavanya and the head of the archeological committee, Anita venture in search a band of Cholas who had fled the invading Pandias and the Pandian artefact that they had stolen. They are accompanied by a private security force and a band of coolies headed by Muthu. After many traps and hinderances, which cost them much resources and life, Lavanya, Anita and Muthu discover the lost civilization. And here, the movie moves into the historic mode with an entire lost tribe portrayed; not the fair, delicately clad and decorated women/men portrayed until now in historical movies, but gritty, realistic and extremely topical portrayal of these warriors, tribals and women. This grounds the movie in such realistic terms just as much as the fantasy makes it fly. The end is unexpected but fitting. The movie will surely haunt you for a while.

Karthi entered the industry as actor Surya's younger brother, but at the pace he is going, he is sure to obliterate such associations. Mind you, it is not a great pace, for he has done only his second film in five years. And still, the maturity with which he has chosen his roles promises great things in his future. The biggest challenge is that, despite the hero-centric title, the movie does not give even an inch for such complacency. Karthi is only as important as his other counterparts and despite the messianic role, he does very little that can be described heroic. And still he shines by not shining as himself and becoming Muthu, the coolie. His eccentricities, fears, arrogance, anger and human-quality makes it one of the most rounded performances seen in a long time. Reema Sen proves herself as one of the most undervalued/underutilized actor in her role as Anita Pandian. Though she could have wielded the gun in a more assertive manner, she pulls off the extensive range of emotions and personality that her role demands of her. Andrea Jeramaiah. I once knew this girl when we worked on a play together (she was the leading lady and I the backstage guy). To be honest, she sings like an angel. How does she act? Well, as I said, she sings like an angel. In the movie, she manages to generate some interesting scenes, but they are few and far apart. She is often over shadowed given the caliber of her co-stars. But the scene in the mangrove forest where there is a triadic conversation in English (with Karthi just staring at the two women), that borders on lewd and manages to remain witty, is enough proof of the trio's acting skills.

I saved the best for the last, for we have not heard much from R. Parthiban in the recent years. He made a fool of himself with Pacha Kuthirai, and I am being nice to say that. It was disappointing, for I am a fan of his work and as any loyal fan, I was waiting for him to resurface. In this movie, one can surely say that he has, and HOW! Perhaps in the best role of his career, this actor/director/writer comes across as a convincing tribal leader who can hold order in his domain with his presence and if needs be, his fist. The last hour of the movie is dominated by this veteran in every sphere; including that monster-like dance that he manages to make interesting. It is Parthiban who features in the two best moments of the movie. When bombs are used against the sword wielding tribals, he asks Karthi why he did not tell them about this weapon. He adds after a pause, whether Karthi had hidden that fact thinking that they would be afraid. All his tribesmen join in a riotous laughter before being gunned down. This is perhaps the most evocative moment in the film that shows the pride of the indigenous against the metallic wrath of the moderns. Not many minutes before the mentioned scene, Parthiban slays one of the assailants and takes the machine gun in his hands, looks at it and shakes it pointing at people around him saying, "tut...tut...tut...tut...tut..." and then throwing the gun away shrugging. How powerful is that image of the man who knows not what terrible fate awaits him at the hand of the most cowardly of inventions.

What appeals most about this movie to me, is the same thing which makes me feel that this was one of the most satisfying films I have seen in my entire life, is the strong political, subaltern message that it carries. To see a people who have fled away from the nation to make another civilization in an island (speaking the language in a different, "purer" or more archaic form) only to be persecuted by their cousins who have no rationale except blind racial hatred is an echo of more than one reality. Most obviously it becomes an allegory to the thousands of Tamils dying a meaningless death in Sri Lanka. Some may wonder why an adventure movie ends on such a dark note of mass-suicide, utter desolation and an annihilation of not just the people but also of their dignity; this is not a way an Indiana Jones or a Mummy movie would end. But this is exactly how life goes on. There is no magical rescue in the offing.

Technically, the editing is absolutely seamless. What the ridiculously poor CG drops the ball on, the elegant, innovative cinematography more than makes up for. The costumes and the detailing are really well done. The extremely racist painting of all "tribals" in a color each is a jarring element in the movie. The locales are truly breath-taking, when they are not pissed about with bad CG. The music... the album score is okay, with a couple of songs lingering on in the mind. But the BGM is a huge let down. Perhaps it is because of our being used to such ephemeral subtlety in Selva's movies thanks to Yuvan? It is time to bring the young prince back into the fold.

One thing I would like to record about this movie is that, Selva, unfortunately did not have the courage that Kamal Hassan did, as we find the latter refusing to add a song to the movie when it was not relevant, however good or close to his heart (as it was performed by his daughter). But Selva adds the Ooh Eesa song for the reason of having shot it. It would have better served as just publicity material. However, it does not take away from the bottomline, that Selva assures us that the future of Tamil/Indian cinema is in good hands.

Unnai Pol Oruvan on A Wednesday!

First of all, thank you Ram. It was a momentary thing, and the inconsistent me is back.

I made it a point to watch A Wednesday at least a week before UPO released. I am happy man for having done so; for if I had seen the latter first and made these following comments, people would have accused me that whatever we watch first strikes us more. Thanx to my order of viewing, people will only accuse me of being partisan to my mother tongue. Yippeee!!!

Simple stories go a long way - the biggest movies have always had a simple story to tell. Good ones, bad ones, yes, but simple ones. This story is a simple one too. A Common Man, reacts to the distressing realities of his city life and takes matters in his own hands. He holds the city ransom while demanding four terrorists be handed over (the purpose of which is later revealed to be murder of the murderers). I am impelled, as a writer to discuss the essential danger in such a plot - is the Old Testament still the ultimate authority in legal issues? Or has wishful thinking made the makers of this film blind-sided to the ethical implications of the MESSAGE they communicate? We all understand how the author himself feels about it -when we see the fourth terrorist escaping the fate meant for him, the writer.z choice is to kill him anyway for emphasis. But it is not a question of such a reaction to society is right or wrong - but it should be remembered that both the movies have been successful and such an anger is deeprooted in the hearts of the people. Beware of the cats. Particularly the ones that can imitate too well.

Now as I hear swear-words from people who have NOT seen the movie, let me go back to the format of an old fashioned review. From the beginning, I did NOT like the idea of Kamal remaking A Wednesday - for two reasons. 1, A remake means that Kamal is not engaging himself with original material for a significant amount of time. 2, A Wednesday is an extremely topical film - with the background of the Mumbai train blasts the year before and the attacks in November, the movie strikes a chord without having to say much as to the WHY of the story. There is an instant connection. But the story set in a city which has not been under a general curfew since the second world war seemed too far-fetched. What was Kamal thinking?

But I was pleasantly surprised in Kamal.z take on the whole script. The angle with which the Common Man was approached had changed drastically - from Naserudin Shah'z tired old man who wanted to take a stand to Kamal'z socially upright, first-in-line-to-justice and borderline arrogant portrayal, the tempo was markedly different. Initially, like everyone else, I was not okay with Kamal playing Naserudin Shah'z role for the simple reason that while the latter has played roles of ambiguous/negative nature well (even in bad movies like Krisssshhhhh), Kamal, discounting his white-guy role in Dasavatharam, has not played a good villainic role in ages. People are not going to believe that Kamal is the bad guy no matter how hard he tries. They wait for the explanation to connect the dots - as to how is a good guy. Naserudin Shah keeps you guessing, albeit for at least until the unnecessary intermission. I finally figured out that Kamal cannot pull this off.

Surprisingly, Kamal could. And he did. Making the character a good ten years younger, decidedly smarter, stronger and more daring, the lines blur as we wonder if he is doing it to satisfy the ego of the superstar or to actually give more credibility to the motivation. Either way, he is convincing. Only a man who is capable of going well out of his way to make a point would ever come into the cycle. That'z why we have a tougher common man. Like it is said, Common Sense is the least common commodity - we recognize in this character a set of traits which we all want to possess, but compromise in everyday life. This movie is an ego trip and a self-gratification to all who watch it. giving us a sense of power which comes only for a very high price. In A Wednesday, the price is never shown - the fantasy is left in its own plane. But UPO tries as much as it can to ground the fantasy in the sphere of reality. That is why you see the real Chief Minister's house and there is no 6' tall ex-millitary man standing deferentially to Anupam Kher'z decisions. With everybody trying to protect their own interest, the credibility is rivetting.

Technically UPO is a superior film than A Wednesday - in editing, cinematography, sound/re-recording and music. The consistency in which the plausibility is upheld is also commendable. In acting, Naserudin Shah'z performance is a completely different take from Kamal'z and therefore a comparison becomes impossible. However, Anupam Kher'z performance comes a distant second to Mohanlal'z solid presence. Very few movies give good actors roles where everything is going for them - this is definitely one such for Mohanlal. Unlike the saintly Kher whose every word is treated with reverence, Mohanlal has so many practical difficulties despite his apparent unlimited power. UPO fails to deliver with the other actors though - everyone (from the terrorist to the newsperson) doing a half-cooked job. Lakshmi is an exceptional choice who shines in her brief but powerful role (which was not present in the original).

So, the final verdict on UPO is that it is a perfect remake. In the sense, that it was a movie which took the original as a starting point to improve upon, perfect and most importantly, bringing it home to a different audience, tailoring the product to their tastes. It is heartening to know such an effort is possible in a remake, particularly in a time where remakes are diminutive, grotesque bastard children (like Ghajini from Memento). Having said that, I do hope that Kamal'z next is an original script where he contributes to the source rather than developing an already established format. So, until then! cheers!!!

UPDATE!!!! (4th November 09)
A friend of mine sends an opinion of his friend on the movie. I take the liberty of publishing my response as a part of the blog...

Thanx lenny for bringin my attention to this article. the followingreply is to that girl with a name so common tat every one in two kidshave it; male or female. go ahead and laugh at my vitriolicresponse!!! guhuhaahahaahah....

the speaker sums up my point of view in the title of her blog.basically the jobless. enough already! i am tired of people walkinginto a chinese restaurant and crying that they re hindu brahmins whoare offended at the pork-making and cow-killings! nw again, thisspeaker will definitely pick up a fight with Spielberg, for when hemade the movie Schindler's List, how dare he showed that the jews werepersecuted. is tat not an organized way of defaming the germans?particularly when the Jews are no good themselves.. did they notmurder in cold blood the messaih, Jesus Christ himself?!! FOR FUCK'SSAKE! lets have some perspective here. when i am making a film with aspecific story in mind, i cannot tackle everything about theparticular aspect i am talking about. if you feel so strongly aboutit, go make a movie yourself. doesnt take much more than a videocamera. Paranormal has proved it. but let the politics of technologygo to hell for the while. i have a couple of questions. so how SHOULDthe Indian-Muslim be portrayed? or should it be Muslim-Indian? if heshould neither be a terrorist nor a patriot, what other roles shouldthere be for the PERSON? by the way you talk about it, he should be,first of all, a she. Good, i can deal with that; for we are the samepeople who whistled at Angelina Jolie kicking a variety of machoasses. but wait! let me check my necessity for an ass-kicking specimento be the protagonist of the story.. or even my presumptousness tothink that the person has to be a protagonist at all. how dare I!? So,this person should not be shown tackling their daily problems theyencounter because they re a VICTIMIZED group. so the movie should moreor less cover the three hours of a Muslim female who has a pleasantlife, doing whater she likes doing. and where is the story?

at this point, i want to let ur friend knw, tat unfortunately, we areall part of a conventional world where telling a story is still thepoint of a movie. oh crap.! when did that disaster happen?! so re utelling me tat no matter how politically incorrect a movie is, it canstill be a movie?!?!?! seriously, dudette, get a life. OF COURSE BenHur is a movie; despite having kicked half the horses in their buxombutts. if animal rights has a problem with it, tat.z exactly wat itmeans - animal rights has a problem with it. IT CANNOT BECOME ANY LESSOF A MOVIE, BECAUSE OF SOMEONE HAVING A PROBLEM WITH IT! so ya, if youaint down with that, i ve got two words for u.! watch it?! :P

cheers lenny. may the force be with you. n btw, let ur friend knowtat i am all game to defend the Jedis, if she thinks that they are atraditionalist rebellion against the great democratic force of theempire!

My New Favorite Old Movie!

Sister Act (1992)
```````````````
I love movies. I watch them by the dozens. And then some more. I would like to believe that I am not your regular pseudo-intellectual-movie-buff who admits to watching everything, but consider movies like The Transporter - a guilty pleasure. I am not aiming to offend people who geniunely like Citizen Kane; I fell asleep and did not find it so great. The Maltese Falcon was another story. However, my top ten list has had movies so vast and varied that I thought I was truly a loyalist of the entire art-form.

Until I watched Whoopi Goldberg as the amazing Deloris Van Cartier! Wow! This movie is amazing at so many levels that I could not stop enjoying even a minute of it. I was laughing my guts out. The characters do not even have to say anything to make me laugh - just place Whoopi Goldberg in a Nun'z attire and put her beside a bewildered Maggie Smith; I am either a simple minded guy who'z easily impressed or you are too good for my blog.

The script... Oh! This script simply took me to the good old times of the early nineties.. Interestingly, this could be seen as the peak of your happy-go-lucky-formulae films. The studios lay their hand on one good idea which follows a workable structure; they milk at least a dozen films in the same genre. This happens all the time and anywhere in the world; but in the early 90s - it all happened within the span of a year. It was the season of sequels, simplicity and subversion. They kept it real. But often times, it worked. So much more often that it actually confused the connoisseurs of cinema. Will another Network be made? What happened to movies like A Clockwork Orange?! And why, for god'ssake, are we making a Godfather III? The reality was that the economic markets of the world were opening up again for the first time after the Cold War. The West was suddenly aware of the contemporariness of the rest of the world thanks to private competitive media. Everything was everywhere. Times were a-changing in everything else that people seemed to seek the comfort of familiarity in the quality of cinema.

And this need for conformity has produced some of the most obscure movies - like the later Mad Max and Lethal Weapon movies, some of the most engaging movies - like the Die Hards and most times, the predictable movies - like Sister Act. Surprisingly, there is a sense of pure fun when you look at all these kinds. Sister Act, with its simple inversion-motivated theme has a plot where the most unlikely lounge singer from the Vegas strip becomes a nun. There is the familiar I-don't-belong phase, followed by I-do-things-my-way phase which results in I-am-actually-liking-this phase eventually concluding in a I-have-to-give-up-what-I-thought-I-hated-but-I-feel-sad-for-the-same phase. Of course, there is a happy ending. The beauty of this movie is that each segment of this predictability is so engrossing with consistent actions, madcap situations and witty dialogues. It is an aesthetic treat to merely watch the lion's mane of Whoopi Goldberg bounce as she conducts a Catholic Church Choir in the most unconventional way.

If God resides in the small things; this movie is a place of worship. The detailing of minor characters like Willy and Joey are outstanding. Some of the wittiest lines in the movie are spoken by less prominent characters. The acting is outstanding overall. Harvey Keitel'z performance is intimidating and hilarious at the same time. The music; oh God! The music alone can sell this film. But the finest aspect of this movie is that it does not need the selling. It could have easily become a movie like Khazam with its fairy-tale core; but it outlasts technological strides forward and today'z thrust on intellectualization of everyday life because it has a heart. It can put a smile on everyone'z face. And most importantly you go back with something at the end of the movie. I did.

So, until another time where I get back to you with another highly-opinionated view about some dank-cinema... ciao!