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".
Showing posts with label movie review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie review. Show all posts
23 August 2010
12 August 2010
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.
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.
10 August 2010
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.
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.
05 August 2010
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.
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.
22 July 2010
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.
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.
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.
09 July 2010
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
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
06 July 2010
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.
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...
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...
The Woody Review
Woody Allen, perhaps the greatest director to ever grace a hollywood project. There is little doubt that he is by far the best in terms of not just the quality of his movies but also in the consistency in which he gives those good movies. But the most overwhelming fact about him is the clip at which he generates his movies. Some say that Woody does not have much of variety and his films follow a predictable formula. Others accuse him of always playing "Woody" in all his movies. I do not so much disagree with these critics, but raise another question - if a predictable formula does not stop entertaining us over five decades, is it still alright to call it a "stale" type? A lot of people do not get Woody. They are like, Oh? Woody Allen? I have heard he is a great director. He directed Manhattan right? But fact remains that it takes little effort to become addicted to his movies. Even attempting to talk about his movies would be a disaster for me, as my column would run into volumes for each one that I enjoyed. But today, I am taking up the task of writing about not one, but TWENTY of Woody Allen movies for the 0nly reason that I have reached the mark of watching Twenty Woody movies. My best friend tells me that if I was a little funny, my writings would be dangerously close to Woody. Thank god I am boring. So without much further ado, here is the list of Woody Allen movies arranged from the poorest to the best (in his standards). It must be understood that not a single movie in this list was boring or dull for me. I did not even have to brush up my memory with a plot summary (except for one). But when I say a movie is on the poorer half of the list, it is purely based on how good the other movies were.
The list as follows; starting from the movie lowest on my list (and by no way should be considered to be my "least favorite" Woody film)...
20, Celebrity 1998; This is the only movie for which I had to go back to imdb to get the plot summary. It has its moments (for the brief portions where DiCaprio comes on making us wonder if it is still on storyline mode or real), but it is a major buzz kill for the amount of expectations it generates. The lead actor of the movie is poorly cast (a rare occurrence in a Woody movie), for he goes through the motions of being a Woody Allen look-alike. Though showing the trappings of celebrity-hood in a movie with celebrities in it is a tough ask, one expects Woody to have done a finer production with a more ironic take on things. This movie would have scored a 6.5 on a regular scale but on the Woody scale it comes in at a passing minimum of 4.5. It may also be considered as a Woody-wannabe-movie ironically made by Woody himself.
19, Vicky Christina Barcelona 2008 scores low on my scale because it comes across as didactic sermon against greed and lust when it could have been a dark portrait of ambition and talent. Even an attempt at capturing the "artist's" life would have been more interesting than having characters that are either too mundane to be of any interest or too over-the-top to be believed. The saving grace of the movie is Javier Bardem in his mysterious, yet grounded portrayal of the artist. Though some critics' minds may give in to temptation of giving a half-point extra for having seen half of Scarlett Johannson's booby; I unwaveringly give this movie a 6.7 (R) and 4.6(W). Except for the opening song, there is little that comes across as Woody-fresh.
18, A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy 1982 is exactly what it promises to be; a midsummer night's sex comedy that nobody should take seriously. What works for this movie is the magical/romantic element that one feels pervading right from the title itself; but the strange and complex romantic feelings towards different characters in the movie seems almost forced and at times boring. The Shakespearean counterpart with a similar title also has elements similar to this; but the play works in the fact that whatever "magic" is supposed to happen is left to the imagination of the Elizabethan audience, while the movie cuts a sorry figure on that front as well. When I say that this movie was the only Woody movie ever nominated for a Razzie, you get the picture. It gets a humble 6 on the regular list but thanks to its innovative style promising more developed content soon in this genre from Woody, it nudge it across the passing grade to 4.5; the only Woody that works is the establishment and then the taking-apart of stereotypes; something that Shakespeare enjoyed doing himself.
17, Manhattan Murder Mystery 1993 is another movie in the crime genre that I really enjoyed watching, but could not place amongst the best of Woody's films. As a tribute to a genre of 50s & 60s crime movie, this movie works, however, to consider it as a film that could come exclusively from Woody's table, it does not work so much. There is simply no question that Diane Keaton and Woody share their sizzling chemistry from an earlier age; but this movie falls short as a nostalgic trip where everything is supposed to remind us of something else. The Woody quality of treating something ordinary in an extraordinary way, is absent. For this reason, though scoring highly on the regular scale, with 6.8 points, the movie barely makes it to a 4.7 on the Woody scale. The Woody element in this movie is Woody himself. That hurts the expectations a little.
16, The Curse of the Jade Scorpion 2001, with the gorgeous Helen Hunt and a hilariously cast Woody Allen (as a private investigator for an insurance firm), one expects so much out of this movie. It has a good cast and situations that are over the top, hilarious. The underlying sexual/romantic tension between the lead couple overflowing in a competitive childish manner in the beginning is just cute. Unfortunately, it ends up working only as a typical romantic comedy. That is bad, because other "crime" genre movies are so well made by Woody, that just a hypnotist-villain feels too uninspired. This movie gets a higher grade on the regular scale with 7.2 but suffers on the Woody scale just reaching 4.6: Dan Aykroyd as the two-timing boss with the cliché of "I'm getting divorced next month" is brilliant in this film.
15, Cassandra's Dream 2007 is definitely the most intense viewing of all the movies in this list with performances that overwhelmingly real and riveting and a screenplay that does not allow for an inch's error. With almost perfect characterizations for both Farrell and McGreggor and a brilliant cameo from Tom Wilkinson (almost as good as the one from Michael Clayton), and the haunting title from the name of the boat, which serves as both the grounding and escaping element, this movie is near perfection in craft. However, it could have been Darren Aronofsky who was making this movie. One feels that Woody went too bleak and too personal for us to actually enjoy the movie. What remains one of the best films I have seen this year is also at the same time, one of the most tiresome watches ever. It was a bit of a drag just after the half-way point. So despite a credible 5.0 on the Woody scale, the movie slumps to this position because of a tame 6.4 on the regular scale. The two sequences where the brothers plot the murder remains one of the best bits of acting in Farrell's career (and though I hate to admit it, he has done enough good movies for that to be a remarkable feat).
14, Scoop 2006 is actually a heart-break for me. Scarlett Johansson AND Hugh Jackman in this entertaining thriller is a great watch. Woody has never played a part which fits him more than this - of course, he always plays himself, but this is the most ironic situation that a person like him can ACTUALLY be in and still make it all about the story and not about him. So much is working FOR Scoop, but why is it so low down the ladder? It is because, let us be honest, the central plot itself lacked conviction. It was predictable and ordinary. The resolution was tame and it did nothing to make either Jackman or Johansson better than what they were - which usually is the high-selling point for the actors to fiercely compete wanting to be in a Woody film. I give this movie a stunning 8 on the watchability front while I give it a decent 4.8 for a movie on the lower half of the table. I wish I can rate this movie any better than it is, but I will be fooling myself.
13, Everything you have always wanted to know about sex, (but were afraid to ask) 1972 is an interesting pick for me; as it was one of the earliest Woody movies I have seen and I remember it fondly. It is not exactly a bad watch and will capture your attention for its creative conception and execution. What does not work in this movie for me is its episodic nature where the segments are often absurd for the point of being absurd. While the story of the sperm is an excellent telling of an ordinary story by a vivid imagination; something like a giant boob chasing people across a field simply does not appeal to me. The movie presents a lot of moments but all make you feel that they would have been better if they had had back stories that would have fed into and built on the existing moments. This movie gets a strong 7.7 in regular but just 4.7 on the Woody scale. We feel that the Woody streak of genius has almost set in; and it is just a matter of time before he embarks on his great phases.
12, Bananas 1971 features here quite unfortunately, because it is an excellent satire and one of the best political satires in the English movie universe. However, it features low on the list particularly because the craft of Woody's cinema has not been perfected at the time of this movie's making. However, one feels that without making a movie like this, at this stage, he would not have been able to mature into a more complete film (interestingly on a similar theme); Sleeper (1973). Bananas works at many levels but one feels that it would have been a more effective play rather than a movie for its highly symbolic nature. I give it a decent 6.6 (R) and a 5.1 (W).
11, Casino Royale 1966 being on the lower half of the scale is no big surprise, given that Woody was not even credited for this one (being low on the hollywood totem pole back then). Some people do not even consider this as a Woody film for it was written probably under terrible pressure from both the studios and the man who cannot keep his talented nose out of others' business, Peter Sellers. But I still add this to the list for I feel that there are so many unmistakably Woody elements in this Bond film. I place this film on the wall between the bottom and the top half, for though it is one of the weakest Woody films, it is also pretty imaginative. One can only speculate and sigh at the direction in which the Bond franchise would have traveled in, if only a more Woody was allowed to write building on this movie. With an ordinary 6.3 (R) and a respectable 5 (W), this movie is a reminder that genius can find a way to shine no matter how dire the circumstances are.
10, Zelig 1983 features on the second half of the list for the innovative style and content of the movie. The theme of identity runs strongly through all Woody movies. Finding one's self, either at the psychiatrist's couch or from the four walls of the house or everyday objects that take up a symbolic value, Woody always shows how important it is for a person to know their place in the equation of the world. No other film of Woody explores this idea more than this, where a mockumentary tracks the events surrounding an amazing character, Zelig who BECOMES the people he is with. The movie goes beyond just narrating a tale of love, lost and found for it finds a Universal element gently suggesting that we are all Zeligs who are more than happy to simply adjust to the scenario when it is tough to hold on to our own identities. I watched this movie with my best bud so early in the morning, that I could not remember much of it; so I watched it again. And boy, am I glad that I watched it a second time and I must admit, I was impressed. It is this compelling quality that makes me rate this movie high, despite its limited entertainment per se. This is simultaneously a well-made film as well as an total Woody show. This movie scores a solid 5.5 on the Woody scale and a humble 6.4 on the regular. With that, we enter the top half of the list.
9, Small Time Crooks 2000 is an excellent example of how a crime/heist genre of movie can be narrated in such a wholesome Woody style. As opposed to some of its lower ranked counterparts (Scoop, Manhattan Murder Mystery and The curse of the Jade Scorpion), this movie focuses more on the characters than the heist plot itself. Woody seems to get a grasp over the idea that crime has been done to death; so the only way he can make a meaningful addition to the genre is to show the anti-crime; where his characters are fools who try the old idea of digging from a different joint to do the "bank-job" but ending up hitting on a different kind of a jackpot. Tracy Ullman in her quest for class is a, excuse the bad pun, class act. The age-old prejudice/conflict between new money and old money is beautifully portrayed without pissing off the members of the audience who really don't have ANY money. Hugh Grant as David is not the obvious choice but this movie (unlike Scoop) helps the actor to reach a different level. This is why people want to work with Woody. Jon Lovitz could have been used better, but he does shine in his Benny. The precarious nature of their company and the sweet-sincere nature of everyone who's a part of that organization is well written. But it is Carolyn Saxon as Mae who kills us with her dead-pan humor and deeply empathetic performance. The circle of life completes itself almost too well; but I am fine with balance when it is aware of its own impossibility. The movie gets a good 7.1 (R) added to a 5.2 (W). It still cracks me up whenever I think of Woody threatening Tracy that he might hit her.
8, Mighty Aphrodite 1995 stars the ever so lovable Mira Sorvino in another stereotype as the whore with a golden heart. This movie has Woody taking heads-on academics by writing a modern masterpiece in the Greek Tragedy style and still maintaining the movie as a Comedy. The chorus, the development of the plot, the climax and even the deus ex machina at the end of the movie are so well-positioned and refreshingly used, that one does not for a moment stop to think of them as elements that are out of place. There have been many who have successfully adapted Greek Tragedies to the Modern stage but this is the closest that one can re-create the Greek Tragedy. The reversal happens furthering the plot. However, one important element of Greek Tragedy called anagnorisis (critical discovery) is deliberately by-passed to give a sense of irony - which is Woody's strongest point. With really good actors and an entertaining, everyday plot, this movie gets a good 7.2 (R) and a 5.8 (W), particularly because I cannot help but be impressed repeatedly by the treatment of the tale.
7, Radio Days 1987 is a nostalgic trip to a world which I have had little direct encounter with. However, when I saw the movie, I was transported to my own early childhood where, despite radios being out of fashion, my parents made a habit of waking us up to the news, the odd song, the social feature and the message for the day. I would go through my routine in the morning listening half-asleep to those features and would hasten or slow-down depending on which part of the morning program I was at. Though this movie is extremely topical, pertaining to a single culture and a specific time, it still appealed to me for it triggered off elements from my own life. For that reason, I give this movie an ordinary 6.1 (R) but also a commendable 5.9 (W). Nobody can help but to burst out laughing when they see who the voice of Superman is, in the movie. That is the magic of the radio - it shows you nothing; but it takes you there.
6, Interiors 1979 is a gripping drama which is never dealt with directly. The idea of taste as a feature of high-life and the cultured life is explored brilliantly. When people dismiss Woody as a comedic director, this movie keeps coming back to me. Not only is the taste expressed by the art department so overpoweringly symbolic, but also the tone of the different characters and their distance from the core narrative is explained without ever looking at the problem. This movie also has a delusional character in all its major parts that makes it very life-like. I like this movie for being distinctly Woody Allen in a very different manner; for it retains much of his grasp of human emotions while doing away with the ironic self-awareness inside his characters. This actually heightens the tension in the movie, making it a direct and at times, a forceful venture to tackle. This movie gets a jump to a 6.5 (W) while retaining a lower general rating at 6.5 due to its overly subtle dramatic context.
5, Annie Hall 1977 is often mentioned as the most favorite Woody film by many. The reasons are fairly straight-forward. It is highly entertaining with a plot that almost everyone can relate to. The highlight of this movie, however, is the sheer volume of direct address. The movie takes meta-theatricality as a window through which characters can speak their minds out without compromising on the overall impact or appearing didactic. There are so many elements that this movie offers for directors across the globe to copy from (or to use their term, be "inspired" by) and many have done a decent job of copying. What makes this movie only so-so for me is that, as Woody admits, it does have a neatly-wrapped nature to it. It takes the easy way out more often than is interesting in the story; particularly, when moments like the psychiatrists' couches are highly amusing and engaging. Diane Keaton and Woody Allen do well together in the movie but Keaton gives an impression that she is too forcefully unrealistic compared to other movies (like the one mentioned later). Something just does not click in this movie for her; as she jumps from one stereotype to another. La dee daa. This movie gets a watchable 7.1 (R) and a good 6.7 (W). The finest moments in the film for me are when Alvie Singer goes out in the road talking to random strangers who give their advice on how to live his life.
4, The Purple Rose of Cairo 1985 is perhaps the most poignantly told love story in the Woody canon, as far as I have seen. Mia Farrow is ever so believable but it is Jeff Daniels that steals the screen with his performance. He shows how good an actor he is (and not just a chubby/funny uncle to the Bob Saget's strict father) so many years before the Squid and the Whale. What really makes me value this movie so much above the others is that despite portraying bleakly the sanction of the victim in Mia's character, who repeatedly allows herself to be sacrificed by people who are worse than her; a sense of magic is always kept ticking in the movie. The unrealistic, the imaginative and the improbable serves as a perfect foil to the dark, mundane yet troubling flippancy of human nature. The meta-theatricality of the film as well as its attention to the ritual repetition of an action is also mind-boggling. That every action changes into something else over a period of repetition, is demonstrated by the archeologist who is tired of playing his character and steps out of the silver screen. The "real" actor, however is so real that he cannot split the line between acting and reality even at the most important moments of his life; showing the indecision of human nature which cares little for others, when personal interests take over. Mia's choice is another indicator towards her self-willed sacrifice. Totally, this movie works because of so many layers of codification presented in such a smooth and enjoyable tale. I give this movie a solid 7.8 (R) and 7 (W). What a lovely treat this movie is! It often makes me to think of the movie within the movie, hoping that it gets made some day.
1, Sleeper 1973, is the only movie starring Woody in the top3. Surprising, I must say. Just as surprising as it would be for a LOT of people that I even added this film in the top3 (I should stop calling it that, for it is meant to be a three-way-tie for the #1), let alone the top half of the list. I am a strange man and I like strange things; but this is no odd pick if you have followed the style of this rating. Does this movie have a simple but strong basic storyline? Check. Does it show a sense of awareness that other film-makers cannot reach? Check. Does this have wave after wave of reversals and ironic comedy? Check. Does this movie talk to global audience without trappings of topicality? Check. Then why is it surprising that it features at the top of the list? This movie is relentless in its attack towards EVERYTHING that human society does. Surprisingly, Woody takes up the mask of the pessimist who is actually an Optimist at such an early venture - a recurrent motif that finds its way into his movies as late as '09. The idea of doing what makes you happy is featured explicitly in this film where Diane Keaton does her finest work as a Woody-Muse. No one can keep a straight face while watching the sex with a sphere scene and when Woody wakes up from his "sleeping". When the storyline is to look at dystopian future from a 70s point of view, one expects this movie to be extremely dated and reductionist. However, it is surprisingly fresh AND relevant even today. I get the feeling that this is how 1984 would have been if Orwell was high while writing it. This movie gets a whooping 8.6 (R) and 8 (W). I still double up laughing just thinking of Diane Keaton doing her Marlon Brando impression (the best I have seen to date).
1, Whatever Works! 2009 is not a single movie. It is like a snowball that has been gathering momentum for over forty years finally exploding into the existence. This movie is an excellent example of what a Woody film without Woody in the lead should be like. There is not even an iota's attempt on Larry David's part to BE Woody. Instead, he shows how good an actor he is; by carrying the ball when trusted with the solo lead in a Woody film. This is such a contrast to Celebrity's Ken Branagh. The movie has been dissed by some as an ego-massage that Woody treated himself to by making a young twenty something to fall in love with a near seventy year old. However, one who watches the movie with some involvement would see that it is not an exercise in self-indulgence but a rational demonstration of what could happen when a grumpy old man is willing to give life another chance. Just because you get out after a long time on a particular bus, it does not mean that you have to ultimately choose that bus as the journey companion for the rest of your life. The idea of reformation is also reminiscent of Annie Hall, and there are umpteen references to that movie indirectly and directly; but this movie seems more complete for it is made by the same man with a more seasoned world-view. This is the movie that Woody anticipates at the end of Annie Hall, where he sheepishly admits that it was his first play anyway. This love story is bound to shock and entertain anyone who watches it but at the heart of it, the philosophy of individual happiness that can be squeezed out of a cactus in a desert shines through. The movie gets a solid 9 (R) and a monumental 8.5 (W). Interesting enough, the constant re-evaluation of David's score for the girl at his home shows how frail the human mind is as well as how we all need a little attention from the cruel, unforgiving world.
1, Match Point 2005 is for me, the best movie Woody has ever made. It is a personal favorite; for it was the FIRST ever Woody Allen movie I watched. Where do I start why this movie is good? The casting is excellent. Jonathan Rhys Myers is one of this generation's most under-appreciated stars, who is exponentially talented in comparison with what is credited to him. Scarlett Johansson in her best movie role. This is the epitome of film-making where a dark, sinister story unfolds in the most uncontrollably real fashion. If you must know, Woody tells the entire story in the first 30 seconds or so of the film. What follows hits you at a gut level for it is not beyond possibility, despite the overwhelming sense of cosmic drama at play. The movie is every-bit an instant classic. So much of the tale is pulled together at its core, that even to say anything more than this would compromise the plot. So without further ado, I give this movie an insurmountable 9 on both the regular and the Woody scale. I must say that my perception of tennis underwent considerable change after watching this epic written on the success of luck over virtue. Back when I used to get Zee Studio relay, I used to catch glimpses of this movie whenever it was played.
A lot of people say that Woody is an intellectual director who is so complex that the regular crowd would not take a liking to him, as they like someone like, say Steve Martin. Some say, oh, Woody just trivializes some of the greatest ideas of human civilization into a farce where he takes nothing seriously, making him an escapist. So, what kind of a director is Woody Allen; what does he represent to me? For me, Woody is a Non-Conformist - which is such a tough thing to be. Having been in an industry for nearly five decades, Woody still finds enough cause to stick on to his philosophy which he explains as early as '73 even in a movie made in '09. Changing one's mind is easy. It is almost inevitable over a period of time. We grow embarrassed of our decisions in the past. We are always looking for what's new and what's next. There have been cases of many priests who have had faith-crisis over a period of time; not for any other reason but just because they have been priests for so long. Does it not take the highest courage and strength and sheer will-power to doggedly hang on to the same core value while constantly upgrading and evolving the self? That stubbornness, that determination to be aware of the nature of the world around him and the relationship between him and the world around, makes Woody the most memorable personalities, not just in film, for me.
In my simple words, here is the Woody idea for life in a few lines; A lot of different people have a lot of different ways to define the world as such and such. Classifications, naming things, ideas seem to be the favorite pastime of humans. Each declares that their idea is so superior to the rest of the ideas that they stop figuring their own place in the universe. Stop worrying about all that. Do whatever works for you. If you are happy and can make a few people around you happy, you have done well in your life.
Now, that is a philosophy to live for!
The list as follows; starting from the movie lowest on my list (and by no way should be considered to be my "least favorite" Woody film)...
20, Celebrity 1998; This is the only movie for which I had to go back to imdb to get the plot summary. It has its moments (for the brief portions where DiCaprio comes on making us wonder if it is still on storyline mode or real), but it is a major buzz kill for the amount of expectations it generates. The lead actor of the movie is poorly cast (a rare occurrence in a Woody movie), for he goes through the motions of being a Woody Allen look-alike. Though showing the trappings of celebrity-hood in a movie with celebrities in it is a tough ask, one expects Woody to have done a finer production with a more ironic take on things. This movie would have scored a 6.5 on a regular scale but on the Woody scale it comes in at a passing minimum of 4.5. It may also be considered as a Woody-wannabe-movie ironically made by Woody himself.
19, Vicky Christina Barcelona 2008 scores low on my scale because it comes across as didactic sermon against greed and lust when it could have been a dark portrait of ambition and talent. Even an attempt at capturing the "artist's" life would have been more interesting than having characters that are either too mundane to be of any interest or too over-the-top to be believed. The saving grace of the movie is Javier Bardem in his mysterious, yet grounded portrayal of the artist. Though some critics' minds may give in to temptation of giving a half-point extra for having seen half of Scarlett Johannson's booby; I unwaveringly give this movie a 6.7 (R) and 4.6(W). Except for the opening song, there is little that comes across as Woody-fresh.
18, A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy 1982 is exactly what it promises to be; a midsummer night's sex comedy that nobody should take seriously. What works for this movie is the magical/romantic element that one feels pervading right from the title itself; but the strange and complex romantic feelings towards different characters in the movie seems almost forced and at times boring. The Shakespearean counterpart with a similar title also has elements similar to this; but the play works in the fact that whatever "magic" is supposed to happen is left to the imagination of the Elizabethan audience, while the movie cuts a sorry figure on that front as well. When I say that this movie was the only Woody movie ever nominated for a Razzie, you get the picture. It gets a humble 6 on the regular list but thanks to its innovative style promising more developed content soon in this genre from Woody, it nudge it across the passing grade to 4.5; the only Woody that works is the establishment and then the taking-apart of stereotypes; something that Shakespeare enjoyed doing himself.
17, Manhattan Murder Mystery 1993 is another movie in the crime genre that I really enjoyed watching, but could not place amongst the best of Woody's films. As a tribute to a genre of 50s & 60s crime movie, this movie works, however, to consider it as a film that could come exclusively from Woody's table, it does not work so much. There is simply no question that Diane Keaton and Woody share their sizzling chemistry from an earlier age; but this movie falls short as a nostalgic trip where everything is supposed to remind us of something else. The Woody quality of treating something ordinary in an extraordinary way, is absent. For this reason, though scoring highly on the regular scale, with 6.8 points, the movie barely makes it to a 4.7 on the Woody scale. The Woody element in this movie is Woody himself. That hurts the expectations a little.
16, The Curse of the Jade Scorpion 2001, with the gorgeous Helen Hunt and a hilariously cast Woody Allen (as a private investigator for an insurance firm), one expects so much out of this movie. It has a good cast and situations that are over the top, hilarious. The underlying sexual/romantic tension between the lead couple overflowing in a competitive childish manner in the beginning is just cute. Unfortunately, it ends up working only as a typical romantic comedy. That is bad, because other "crime" genre movies are so well made by Woody, that just a hypnotist-villain feels too uninspired. This movie gets a higher grade on the regular scale with 7.2 but suffers on the Woody scale just reaching 4.6: Dan Aykroyd as the two-timing boss with the cliché of "I'm getting divorced next month" is brilliant in this film.
15, Cassandra's Dream 2007 is definitely the most intense viewing of all the movies in this list with performances that overwhelmingly real and riveting and a screenplay that does not allow for an inch's error. With almost perfect characterizations for both Farrell and McGreggor and a brilliant cameo from Tom Wilkinson (almost as good as the one from Michael Clayton), and the haunting title from the name of the boat, which serves as both the grounding and escaping element, this movie is near perfection in craft. However, it could have been Darren Aronofsky who was making this movie. One feels that Woody went too bleak and too personal for us to actually enjoy the movie. What remains one of the best films I have seen this year is also at the same time, one of the most tiresome watches ever. It was a bit of a drag just after the half-way point. So despite a credible 5.0 on the Woody scale, the movie slumps to this position because of a tame 6.4 on the regular scale. The two sequences where the brothers plot the murder remains one of the best bits of acting in Farrell's career (and though I hate to admit it, he has done enough good movies for that to be a remarkable feat).
14, Scoop 2006 is actually a heart-break for me. Scarlett Johansson AND Hugh Jackman in this entertaining thriller is a great watch. Woody has never played a part which fits him more than this - of course, he always plays himself, but this is the most ironic situation that a person like him can ACTUALLY be in and still make it all about the story and not about him. So much is working FOR Scoop, but why is it so low down the ladder? It is because, let us be honest, the central plot itself lacked conviction. It was predictable and ordinary. The resolution was tame and it did nothing to make either Jackman or Johansson better than what they were - which usually is the high-selling point for the actors to fiercely compete wanting to be in a Woody film. I give this movie a stunning 8 on the watchability front while I give it a decent 4.8 for a movie on the lower half of the table. I wish I can rate this movie any better than it is, but I will be fooling myself.
13, Everything you have always wanted to know about sex, (but were afraid to ask) 1972 is an interesting pick for me; as it was one of the earliest Woody movies I have seen and I remember it fondly. It is not exactly a bad watch and will capture your attention for its creative conception and execution. What does not work in this movie for me is its episodic nature where the segments are often absurd for the point of being absurd. While the story of the sperm is an excellent telling of an ordinary story by a vivid imagination; something like a giant boob chasing people across a field simply does not appeal to me. The movie presents a lot of moments but all make you feel that they would have been better if they had had back stories that would have fed into and built on the existing moments. This movie gets a strong 7.7 in regular but just 4.7 on the Woody scale. We feel that the Woody streak of genius has almost set in; and it is just a matter of time before he embarks on his great phases.
12, Bananas 1971 features here quite unfortunately, because it is an excellent satire and one of the best political satires in the English movie universe. However, it features low on the list particularly because the craft of Woody's cinema has not been perfected at the time of this movie's making. However, one feels that without making a movie like this, at this stage, he would not have been able to mature into a more complete film (interestingly on a similar theme); Sleeper (1973). Bananas works at many levels but one feels that it would have been a more effective play rather than a movie for its highly symbolic nature. I give it a decent 6.6 (R) and a 5.1 (W).
11, Casino Royale 1966 being on the lower half of the scale is no big surprise, given that Woody was not even credited for this one (being low on the hollywood totem pole back then). Some people do not even consider this as a Woody film for it was written probably under terrible pressure from both the studios and the man who cannot keep his talented nose out of others' business, Peter Sellers. But I still add this to the list for I feel that there are so many unmistakably Woody elements in this Bond film. I place this film on the wall between the bottom and the top half, for though it is one of the weakest Woody films, it is also pretty imaginative. One can only speculate and sigh at the direction in which the Bond franchise would have traveled in, if only a more Woody was allowed to write building on this movie. With an ordinary 6.3 (R) and a respectable 5 (W), this movie is a reminder that genius can find a way to shine no matter how dire the circumstances are.
10, Zelig 1983 features on the second half of the list for the innovative style and content of the movie. The theme of identity runs strongly through all Woody movies. Finding one's self, either at the psychiatrist's couch or from the four walls of the house or everyday objects that take up a symbolic value, Woody always shows how important it is for a person to know their place in the equation of the world. No other film of Woody explores this idea more than this, where a mockumentary tracks the events surrounding an amazing character, Zelig who BECOMES the people he is with. The movie goes beyond just narrating a tale of love, lost and found for it finds a Universal element gently suggesting that we are all Zeligs who are more than happy to simply adjust to the scenario when it is tough to hold on to our own identities. I watched this movie with my best bud so early in the morning, that I could not remember much of it; so I watched it again. And boy, am I glad that I watched it a second time and I must admit, I was impressed. It is this compelling quality that makes me rate this movie high, despite its limited entertainment per se. This is simultaneously a well-made film as well as an total Woody show. This movie scores a solid 5.5 on the Woody scale and a humble 6.4 on the regular. With that, we enter the top half of the list.
9, Small Time Crooks 2000 is an excellent example of how a crime/heist genre of movie can be narrated in such a wholesome Woody style. As opposed to some of its lower ranked counterparts (Scoop, Manhattan Murder Mystery and The curse of the Jade Scorpion), this movie focuses more on the characters than the heist plot itself. Woody seems to get a grasp over the idea that crime has been done to death; so the only way he can make a meaningful addition to the genre is to show the anti-crime; where his characters are fools who try the old idea of digging from a different joint to do the "bank-job" but ending up hitting on a different kind of a jackpot. Tracy Ullman in her quest for class is a, excuse the bad pun, class act. The age-old prejudice/conflict between new money and old money is beautifully portrayed without pissing off the members of the audience who really don't have ANY money. Hugh Grant as David is not the obvious choice but this movie (unlike Scoop) helps the actor to reach a different level. This is why people want to work with Woody. Jon Lovitz could have been used better, but he does shine in his Benny. The precarious nature of their company and the sweet-sincere nature of everyone who's a part of that organization is well written. But it is Carolyn Saxon as Mae who kills us with her dead-pan humor and deeply empathetic performance. The circle of life completes itself almost too well; but I am fine with balance when it is aware of its own impossibility. The movie gets a good 7.1 (R) added to a 5.2 (W). It still cracks me up whenever I think of Woody threatening Tracy that he might hit her.
8, Mighty Aphrodite 1995 stars the ever so lovable Mira Sorvino in another stereotype as the whore with a golden heart. This movie has Woody taking heads-on academics by writing a modern masterpiece in the Greek Tragedy style and still maintaining the movie as a Comedy. The chorus, the development of the plot, the climax and even the deus ex machina at the end of the movie are so well-positioned and refreshingly used, that one does not for a moment stop to think of them as elements that are out of place. There have been many who have successfully adapted Greek Tragedies to the Modern stage but this is the closest that one can re-create the Greek Tragedy. The reversal happens furthering the plot. However, one important element of Greek Tragedy called anagnorisis (critical discovery) is deliberately by-passed to give a sense of irony - which is Woody's strongest point. With really good actors and an entertaining, everyday plot, this movie gets a good 7.2 (R) and a 5.8 (W), particularly because I cannot help but be impressed repeatedly by the treatment of the tale.
7, Radio Days 1987 is a nostalgic trip to a world which I have had little direct encounter with. However, when I saw the movie, I was transported to my own early childhood where, despite radios being out of fashion, my parents made a habit of waking us up to the news, the odd song, the social feature and the message for the day. I would go through my routine in the morning listening half-asleep to those features and would hasten or slow-down depending on which part of the morning program I was at. Though this movie is extremely topical, pertaining to a single culture and a specific time, it still appealed to me for it triggered off elements from my own life. For that reason, I give this movie an ordinary 6.1 (R) but also a commendable 5.9 (W). Nobody can help but to burst out laughing when they see who the voice of Superman is, in the movie. That is the magic of the radio - it shows you nothing; but it takes you there.
6, Interiors 1979 is a gripping drama which is never dealt with directly. The idea of taste as a feature of high-life and the cultured life is explored brilliantly. When people dismiss Woody as a comedic director, this movie keeps coming back to me. Not only is the taste expressed by the art department so overpoweringly symbolic, but also the tone of the different characters and their distance from the core narrative is explained without ever looking at the problem. This movie also has a delusional character in all its major parts that makes it very life-like. I like this movie for being distinctly Woody Allen in a very different manner; for it retains much of his grasp of human emotions while doing away with the ironic self-awareness inside his characters. This actually heightens the tension in the movie, making it a direct and at times, a forceful venture to tackle. This movie gets a jump to a 6.5 (W) while retaining a lower general rating at 6.5 due to its overly subtle dramatic context.
5, Annie Hall 1977 is often mentioned as the most favorite Woody film by many. The reasons are fairly straight-forward. It is highly entertaining with a plot that almost everyone can relate to. The highlight of this movie, however, is the sheer volume of direct address. The movie takes meta-theatricality as a window through which characters can speak their minds out without compromising on the overall impact or appearing didactic. There are so many elements that this movie offers for directors across the globe to copy from (or to use their term, be "inspired" by) and many have done a decent job of copying. What makes this movie only so-so for me is that, as Woody admits, it does have a neatly-wrapped nature to it. It takes the easy way out more often than is interesting in the story; particularly, when moments like the psychiatrists' couches are highly amusing and engaging. Diane Keaton and Woody Allen do well together in the movie but Keaton gives an impression that she is too forcefully unrealistic compared to other movies (like the one mentioned later). Something just does not click in this movie for her; as she jumps from one stereotype to another. La dee daa. This movie gets a watchable 7.1 (R) and a good 6.7 (W). The finest moments in the film for me are when Alvie Singer goes out in the road talking to random strangers who give their advice on how to live his life.
4, The Purple Rose of Cairo 1985 is perhaps the most poignantly told love story in the Woody canon, as far as I have seen. Mia Farrow is ever so believable but it is Jeff Daniels that steals the screen with his performance. He shows how good an actor he is (and not just a chubby/funny uncle to the Bob Saget's strict father) so many years before the Squid and the Whale. What really makes me value this movie so much above the others is that despite portraying bleakly the sanction of the victim in Mia's character, who repeatedly allows herself to be sacrificed by people who are worse than her; a sense of magic is always kept ticking in the movie. The unrealistic, the imaginative and the improbable serves as a perfect foil to the dark, mundane yet troubling flippancy of human nature. The meta-theatricality of the film as well as its attention to the ritual repetition of an action is also mind-boggling. That every action changes into something else over a period of repetition, is demonstrated by the archeologist who is tired of playing his character and steps out of the silver screen. The "real" actor, however is so real that he cannot split the line between acting and reality even at the most important moments of his life; showing the indecision of human nature which cares little for others, when personal interests take over. Mia's choice is another indicator towards her self-willed sacrifice. Totally, this movie works because of so many layers of codification presented in such a smooth and enjoyable tale. I give this movie a solid 7.8 (R) and 7 (W). What a lovely treat this movie is! It often makes me to think of the movie within the movie, hoping that it gets made some day.
1, Sleeper 1973, is the only movie starring Woody in the top3. Surprising, I must say. Just as surprising as it would be for a LOT of people that I even added this film in the top3 (I should stop calling it that, for it is meant to be a three-way-tie for the #1), let alone the top half of the list. I am a strange man and I like strange things; but this is no odd pick if you have followed the style of this rating. Does this movie have a simple but strong basic storyline? Check. Does it show a sense of awareness that other film-makers cannot reach? Check. Does this have wave after wave of reversals and ironic comedy? Check. Does this movie talk to global audience without trappings of topicality? Check. Then why is it surprising that it features at the top of the list? This movie is relentless in its attack towards EVERYTHING that human society does. Surprisingly, Woody takes up the mask of the pessimist who is actually an Optimist at such an early venture - a recurrent motif that finds its way into his movies as late as '09. The idea of doing what makes you happy is featured explicitly in this film where Diane Keaton does her finest work as a Woody-Muse. No one can keep a straight face while watching the sex with a sphere scene and when Woody wakes up from his "sleeping". When the storyline is to look at dystopian future from a 70s point of view, one expects this movie to be extremely dated and reductionist. However, it is surprisingly fresh AND relevant even today. I get the feeling that this is how 1984 would have been if Orwell was high while writing it. This movie gets a whooping 8.6 (R) and 8 (W). I still double up laughing just thinking of Diane Keaton doing her Marlon Brando impression (the best I have seen to date).
1, Whatever Works! 2009 is not a single movie. It is like a snowball that has been gathering momentum for over forty years finally exploding into the existence. This movie is an excellent example of what a Woody film without Woody in the lead should be like. There is not even an iota's attempt on Larry David's part to BE Woody. Instead, he shows how good an actor he is; by carrying the ball when trusted with the solo lead in a Woody film. This is such a contrast to Celebrity's Ken Branagh. The movie has been dissed by some as an ego-massage that Woody treated himself to by making a young twenty something to fall in love with a near seventy year old. However, one who watches the movie with some involvement would see that it is not an exercise in self-indulgence but a rational demonstration of what could happen when a grumpy old man is willing to give life another chance. Just because you get out after a long time on a particular bus, it does not mean that you have to ultimately choose that bus as the journey companion for the rest of your life. The idea of reformation is also reminiscent of Annie Hall, and there are umpteen references to that movie indirectly and directly; but this movie seems more complete for it is made by the same man with a more seasoned world-view. This is the movie that Woody anticipates at the end of Annie Hall, where he sheepishly admits that it was his first play anyway. This love story is bound to shock and entertain anyone who watches it but at the heart of it, the philosophy of individual happiness that can be squeezed out of a cactus in a desert shines through. The movie gets a solid 9 (R) and a monumental 8.5 (W). Interesting enough, the constant re-evaluation of David's score for the girl at his home shows how frail the human mind is as well as how we all need a little attention from the cruel, unforgiving world.
1, Match Point 2005 is for me, the best movie Woody has ever made. It is a personal favorite; for it was the FIRST ever Woody Allen movie I watched. Where do I start why this movie is good? The casting is excellent. Jonathan Rhys Myers is one of this generation's most under-appreciated stars, who is exponentially talented in comparison with what is credited to him. Scarlett Johansson in her best movie role. This is the epitome of film-making where a dark, sinister story unfolds in the most uncontrollably real fashion. If you must know, Woody tells the entire story in the first 30 seconds or so of the film. What follows hits you at a gut level for it is not beyond possibility, despite the overwhelming sense of cosmic drama at play. The movie is every-bit an instant classic. So much of the tale is pulled together at its core, that even to say anything more than this would compromise the plot. So without further ado, I give this movie an insurmountable 9 on both the regular and the Woody scale. I must say that my perception of tennis underwent considerable change after watching this epic written on the success of luck over virtue. Back when I used to get Zee Studio relay, I used to catch glimpses of this movie whenever it was played.
A lot of people say that Woody is an intellectual director who is so complex that the regular crowd would not take a liking to him, as they like someone like, say Steve Martin. Some say, oh, Woody just trivializes some of the greatest ideas of human civilization into a farce where he takes nothing seriously, making him an escapist. So, what kind of a director is Woody Allen; what does he represent to me? For me, Woody is a Non-Conformist - which is such a tough thing to be. Having been in an industry for nearly five decades, Woody still finds enough cause to stick on to his philosophy which he explains as early as '73 even in a movie made in '09. Changing one's mind is easy. It is almost inevitable over a period of time. We grow embarrassed of our decisions in the past. We are always looking for what's new and what's next. There have been cases of many priests who have had faith-crisis over a period of time; not for any other reason but just because they have been priests for so long. Does it not take the highest courage and strength and sheer will-power to doggedly hang on to the same core value while constantly upgrading and evolving the self? That stubbornness, that determination to be aware of the nature of the world around him and the relationship between him and the world around, makes Woody the most memorable personalities, not just in film, for me.
In my simple words, here is the Woody idea for life in a few lines; A lot of different people have a lot of different ways to define the world as such and such. Classifications, naming things, ideas seem to be the favorite pastime of humans. Each declares that their idea is so superior to the rest of the ideas that they stop figuring their own place in the universe. Stop worrying about all that. Do whatever works for you. If you are happy and can make a few people around you happy, you have done well in your life.
Now, that is a philosophy to live for!
23 April 2010
The High Priest of the Holy Church of Americana: Sam Worthington
He.z got the "look" (that Vince McMahon looks for when you are in the WWE), the skillset (being able to eat a banana without shoving it up his nose) and he is already becoming the Christian Bale of 2007-08 and the Collin Farrel of 2005-06. Ladies and gentlemen! Sam Worthington. Fuck. He.z even got the name right.
Maybe it was my fault to watch two movies of this guy in two weeks straight (Clash of the Titans and Avatar). But I am pretty lucky considering that I did not watch a third (Terminator4). I thought I should give a review first, but then decided to go with a comparative review. However, that I have seen Shutter Island and Manhattan Murder Mystery (two exceptional movies) which deserve reviews more than these trashers, I wanted to go in a different direction. Besides, I am pretty sure that a whole load of you have seen Avatar and come to your own conclusions. What I want to talk about, is the immense quality of bullshit dished out to us by the Holy Church of Americana.
Whom/What is the Holy Church of Americana? It is the creme de la creme of the Fortune500 companies that decide on a complex market analysis algorithm, what the pursuits of the entire globe should be. I am not Anti-American. Let me put that down very clearly. As a country which has always given people enough hope that they can go anywhere they want if they really want it bad enough, America stands for what I believe in too. What I am against, is the corporate-mass-produced kitsch which is shoved down people's throats in America and across the world as the standards one should aspire to. Totalitarianism, even if it is of American-corporate conglomerates, is a path to self-destruction. The question is, whose self is going to be destroyed?
Before I make another point in this direction, let me get this out of the way...
Fuck you James Cameron. And the other guy.
As I was saying, Avatar should make people think, "oh? The movie is a massive hit across the US? People must have really woken up to it that they are cheering for nine foot aliens to kick American G I Ass." But no. It does not. Because ultimately it is a cripple Marine who is so much better than the other people in America (cuz he don't have legs, he must be closer to the earth, non?) and has to ride a Dragon (Turok, Quake, I don't give two shits about its name) to convince the "tribe" with bow and arrows to let him lead them to mass-destruction before kicking them out, American style. Obviously the Dragon-Rider will become the leader of the People. So the White Man in the skin of the Black Man, becomes the master, again. How sweet. Happy fucking ending.
Fuck you motherfucker.
Avatar? More like, Atavar. At a war with everything that's against you. For if we are not with you, we are against you, aren't we? Wait, too much information to process for the humble follower of the Holy Church of Americana, so go back to rule number one. My God is a good God. Your god is a god starting with a small fucking 'g'. As I said earlier,
Fuck you motherfucker.
Now that my Avatar review is over. Lets go over Clash of the Titans. I am not even getting into the adherence/authenticity to the Greek Original. Come on people, get your heads out of your asses. Its fiction. Mythology. It can be adapted in any way they wanna adapt it. If they want to make the Christian, oops, sorry, American AllFather out of the Greek Zeus, let them do it. Now, we have Perseus, a man who is also son of god. Why, we just need a ghost. Oh wait... There is a ghost, Io, cursed never to age, how convenient, lets have Perseus screwing her. Now, what do we need... A bunch of religious fanatics who are fatalistic, willing to sacrifice themselves before the end comes. Wait, we can put a little matted hair in a bun on their heads and add red/white stripes on their foreheads. If we think that they are too much of a direct allusion to the "Hindoo" then Shame on us. Let Sufia Zinobia rip our heads apart. Its our narrow minded perception. There still remains something unfinished... Wait, they have got it. A Djinn. Is that an Arabic term? They did not know. They guy wears a turban, lives in a desert and is supposed to be eternal enemies to OUR people? Iskander says, Fuck me in the mouth. Are you sure that you are not talking about "Moslems" you know, the archetypal fundamentalists? No? You are making a secular movie? Oh right... This is meant for children. They watch it and grow up into Zombie-Americananites. Great. Awesome. Keep the good job up your ass.
Now that I have reviewed two movies in as many paragraphs, I would like to hear from you. What do you think of these movies? What other movies come to your mind when you think of this? Do you remember the classic Sharon Stone line from Alan Quartermain and the Lost city of Gold? "Oh, no! We have lost another (African-tribe-name) tribesman!"
Maybe it was my fault to watch two movies of this guy in two weeks straight (Clash of the Titans and Avatar). But I am pretty lucky considering that I did not watch a third (Terminator4). I thought I should give a review first, but then decided to go with a comparative review. However, that I have seen Shutter Island and Manhattan Murder Mystery (two exceptional movies) which deserve reviews more than these trashers, I wanted to go in a different direction. Besides, I am pretty sure that a whole load of you have seen Avatar and come to your own conclusions. What I want to talk about, is the immense quality of bullshit dished out to us by the Holy Church of Americana.
Whom/What is the Holy Church of Americana? It is the creme de la creme of the Fortune500 companies that decide on a complex market analysis algorithm, what the pursuits of the entire globe should be. I am not Anti-American. Let me put that down very clearly. As a country which has always given people enough hope that they can go anywhere they want if they really want it bad enough, America stands for what I believe in too. What I am against, is the corporate-mass-produced kitsch which is shoved down people's throats in America and across the world as the standards one should aspire to. Totalitarianism, even if it is of American-corporate conglomerates, is a path to self-destruction. The question is, whose self is going to be destroyed?
Before I make another point in this direction, let me get this out of the way...
Fuck you James Cameron. And the other guy.
As I was saying, Avatar should make people think, "oh? The movie is a massive hit across the US? People must have really woken up to it that they are cheering for nine foot aliens to kick American G I Ass." But no. It does not. Because ultimately it is a cripple Marine who is so much better than the other people in America (cuz he don't have legs, he must be closer to the earth, non?) and has to ride a Dragon (Turok, Quake, I don't give two shits about its name) to convince the "tribe" with bow and arrows to let him lead them to mass-destruction before kicking them out, American style. Obviously the Dragon-Rider will become the leader of the People. So the White Man in the skin of the Black Man, becomes the master, again. How sweet. Happy fucking ending.
Fuck you motherfucker.
Avatar? More like, Atavar. At a war with everything that's against you. For if we are not with you, we are against you, aren't we? Wait, too much information to process for the humble follower of the Holy Church of Americana, so go back to rule number one. My God is a good God. Your god is a god starting with a small fucking 'g'. As I said earlier,
Fuck you motherfucker.
Now that my Avatar review is over. Lets go over Clash of the Titans. I am not even getting into the adherence/authenticity to the Greek Original. Come on people, get your heads out of your asses. Its fiction. Mythology. It can be adapted in any way they wanna adapt it. If they want to make the Christian, oops, sorry, American AllFather out of the Greek Zeus, let them do it. Now, we have Perseus, a man who is also son of god. Why, we just need a ghost. Oh wait... There is a ghost, Io, cursed never to age, how convenient, lets have Perseus screwing her. Now, what do we need... A bunch of religious fanatics who are fatalistic, willing to sacrifice themselves before the end comes. Wait, we can put a little matted hair in a bun on their heads and add red/white stripes on their foreheads. If we think that they are too much of a direct allusion to the "Hindoo" then Shame on us. Let Sufia Zinobia rip our heads apart. Its our narrow minded perception. There still remains something unfinished... Wait, they have got it. A Djinn. Is that an Arabic term? They did not know. They guy wears a turban, lives in a desert and is supposed to be eternal enemies to OUR people? Iskander says, Fuck me in the mouth. Are you sure that you are not talking about "Moslems" you know, the archetypal fundamentalists? No? You are making a secular movie? Oh right... This is meant for children. They watch it and grow up into Zombie-Americananites. Great. Awesome. Keep the good job up your ass.
Now that I have reviewed two movies in as many paragraphs, I would like to hear from you. What do you think of these movies? What other movies come to your mind when you think of this? Do you remember the classic Sharon Stone line from Alan Quartermain and the Lost city of Gold? "Oh, no! We have lost another (African-tribe-name) tribesman!"
10 November 2009
Ajab Prem Ki Gazab Kahani (2009)
Yes. I actually watched this movie in a theatre. No. I am not gonna say how abysmally uninspired or shoddy the work was. Believe it or not, I liked this film. This was the first all out entertainer which I have seen in a movie screen after M.Kumaran Son of Mahalakshmi. Not that all the other movies that I watched in the meanwhile sucked, au contraire, all of them were viewed for a reason. Oh, its a serious drama. Oh, its got Michael Jackson/Johnny Depp/Bruce Willis/Kamal Hassan so on n so forth. Though each of them turned out to be great movies, I went to those movies expecting them to be good. Not so much APKGK. I did not have expectations. In fact, I expected it to be bad. I could predict the story line within few scenes into the story line and the fact that it had borrowed generously from many tamil movies [Kaadhala Kaadhala, Azhagai Irukirai Bayamai Irukiradhu, Aethiri and some Pandyarajan's movies as well], should have contributed to my hating the movie. But interestingly, I enjoyed.
You wanna know why?!! Because I am not a SNOB like you think me to be. Aha! Don't go defensive, saying, no no Saravanan, I did not think so. If you did not, you would not have joined the chorus when I said, wanna know why?? Its in your mind I tell you. I can read you like the morning's paper. Silence! I kill you! [Ach(phlem)med voice]. Seriously, I can enjoy the typical commercial movie as much as the next man and have no intellectual qualms about it. It might be the most literal manipulation of the idea "slapstick" but I am cool with that. Given that a Harlequinade was actually a LITERAL slapstick, they even have history by their side. So what DO I have problems with?
The Pretenders. No matter how great your technology is, if you are gonna make a movie to show how many good foriegn language films you have seen, sorry, I am not interested. That's why Kaminey pissed me off. It was technically sound and the script screamed SMART all over. But there was a general tone of condescension towards the audience, as if, look, I can be better than what I am but I will not be because YOU [the audience] are not smart enough to understand it. oFF.. tat.z the most off putting thing you can see in a screen. If you ask them why, the commercial viability is an excuse. However, they will not be open about it. Its a hypocritical way of saying, I want your money, but that still doesnt change the fact that I think YOU to be stupid... When will the so called new blood moviemakers get their heads outta their asses? You tell me.
DO NOT GET ME WRONG!!! I LIKE SMART MOVIES. I dig every minute of a Dev D and I think it is as good as any of the world cinema it is set against. Its strength, as Kamal says, in it being authentic/ethnic. The more ethnic you get, the more global you become. What I AM against, is seeing a rip off collaged from Tarantino films. So, ya, at the end of the day, I am here to give a quick review of APKGK.
Here.z the lowdown. It was good. Not always funny. But mostly ya. Good comic timing, unexpectedly from Katrina Kaif. Sallu bhai lights up the screen for those two precious minutes he is on the screen. Ranbir shows great potential. The exaggerations are demanded from the milieu of the story itself, and therefore quite forgivable. Acting is overall engaging. Technically, AWESOME visuals. great cinematography marries the beautiful sets near Ooty. Editing is tight and entertaining. Songs are hummable. The Sufi number is good and visually breathtaking... Unfortunately, they don't go well together. SO! Rajkumar Santhoshi gets a thumbs up. We send him home with congratulations, hoping that he doesnt put everything on the wire next time around, hoping that good acting will save the day and makes sure that he gets a really GOOD script before he starts having fun making the movie.
You wanna know why?!! Because I am not a SNOB like you think me to be. Aha! Don't go defensive, saying, no no Saravanan, I did not think so. If you did not, you would not have joined the chorus when I said, wanna know why?? Its in your mind I tell you. I can read you like the morning's paper. Silence! I kill you! [Ach(phlem)med voice]. Seriously, I can enjoy the typical commercial movie as much as the next man and have no intellectual qualms about it. It might be the most literal manipulation of the idea "slapstick" but I am cool with that. Given that a Harlequinade was actually a LITERAL slapstick, they even have history by their side. So what DO I have problems with?
The Pretenders. No matter how great your technology is, if you are gonna make a movie to show how many good foriegn language films you have seen, sorry, I am not interested. That's why Kaminey pissed me off. It was technically sound and the script screamed SMART all over. But there was a general tone of condescension towards the audience, as if, look, I can be better than what I am but I will not be because YOU [the audience] are not smart enough to understand it. oFF.. tat.z the most off putting thing you can see in a screen. If you ask them why, the commercial viability is an excuse. However, they will not be open about it. Its a hypocritical way of saying, I want your money, but that still doesnt change the fact that I think YOU to be stupid... When will the so called new blood moviemakers get their heads outta their asses? You tell me.
DO NOT GET ME WRONG!!! I LIKE SMART MOVIES. I dig every minute of a Dev D and I think it is as good as any of the world cinema it is set against. Its strength, as Kamal says, in it being authentic/ethnic. The more ethnic you get, the more global you become. What I AM against, is seeing a rip off collaged from Tarantino films. So, ya, at the end of the day, I am here to give a quick review of APKGK.
Here.z the lowdown. It was good. Not always funny. But mostly ya. Good comic timing, unexpectedly from Katrina Kaif. Sallu bhai lights up the screen for those two precious minutes he is on the screen. Ranbir shows great potential. The exaggerations are demanded from the milieu of the story itself, and therefore quite forgivable. Acting is overall engaging. Technically, AWESOME visuals. great cinematography marries the beautiful sets near Ooty. Editing is tight and entertaining. Songs are hummable. The Sufi number is good and visually breathtaking... Unfortunately, they don't go well together. SO! Rajkumar Santhoshi gets a thumbs up. We send him home with congratulations, hoping that he doesnt put everything on the wire next time around, hoping that good acting will save the day and makes sure that he gets a really GOOD script before he starts having fun making the movie.
22 September 2009
So... Kevin is a girl!
Up! (2009)
``````````
Animation, Comedy, Adventure.
Hollywood comes home to adventure as it never has before - with a rotund boy named Russel, a distinctly German-named Karl Freidrichssen (and German-looking too), a fancy feathered bird named Kevin, who is a girl and Doug, the talking dog. Throw in a flying house (often referred to as the floating house) and a childhood-superhero-turned-obsessive-compulsive-psycho-villain, you are bound to be left laughing; but beware - for the moments where you do not, you might just be crying.
To borrow a line from the movie, I am getting quite ahead of myself; let me begin at the beginning. Or better, go a step back-er! :) Partly Cloudy is one of the finest animated short-films that I have seen. Please YouTube it. It is awesome in so many levels. I am surprised at the fact that I can still be surprised, for it is common knowledge that Pixar has made some really good short-animated-features. This is one has both a great idea and a warm heart going for it.
Now to the movie itself: technically, it is awesome. I did not expect Pixar to out-do the wordless romance of Wall-E and definitely not so soon. They have gone one step further, by matching the wordless romance in under ten minutes - the first ten of the movie at that. When everything seems bleak - the story magically flips back on to its feet, and lo behold! Flies away. Tied to a thousand colored balloons. The journey, despite its evident literality, ensures that the obvious metaphor does not become a cliche but evolves into an allegory. Simpler put, we do not just enjoy the movie like hell, but also get a damn good thought to take home.
I am NOT going to give the story in a nutshell; not because there is a single central surprise, on revealing which the movie falls flat - but because I do not want you to bear a grudge against me even for a moment AFTER seeing the movie, thinking that Saravanan spoiled the movie just a little bit by telling me something. But in case you are one of those who wanna know! It is a loves story about dogs, balloons, Paradise Falls and a badge. And ooh! ooh! I almost forgot, about Kevin being a girl...!
There is a strong Dahl-ian feel to the movie - in both facing head-on the dark realities of life (even in a story set mainly for a younger audience) and introducing a sudden single fantastic event which gives the protagonist to change the course of things. Despite the improbability of the first magical event, the remaining part of the fantasy strictly adheres to a very-human-logic. The movie also underlines a theme which we tackle oftener in everyday life - the growing gap between generations and how dangerously irreconcilable they are becoming. What really impressed me was that there was no ordinary ending where the bad-guy simply changes heart.
Instead of summing up this conversation saying that the movie was simply awesome (though it really was awesome), I would like to leave you with my favorite scene from the movie. When Carl discovers young (annoying) Russell aboard the flying house, he gets a momentary vision where he lowers Russell to one of the buildings with a few kerchiefs tied together, and slips. Russell just makes the observation that he could almost touch the buildings with his hands. This scene cracked me up - for it was both grown up and juvenile - and hilarious at both levels.
``````````
Animation, Comedy, Adventure.
Hollywood comes home to adventure as it never has before - with a rotund boy named Russel, a distinctly German-named Karl Freidrichssen (and German-looking too), a fancy feathered bird named Kevin, who is a girl and Doug, the talking dog. Throw in a flying house (often referred to as the floating house) and a childhood-superhero-turned-obsessive-compulsive-psycho-villain, you are bound to be left laughing; but beware - for the moments where you do not, you might just be crying.
To borrow a line from the movie, I am getting quite ahead of myself; let me begin at the beginning. Or better, go a step back-er! :) Partly Cloudy is one of the finest animated short-films that I have seen. Please YouTube it. It is awesome in so many levels. I am surprised at the fact that I can still be surprised, for it is common knowledge that Pixar has made some really good short-animated-features. This is one has both a great idea and a warm heart going for it.
Now to the movie itself: technically, it is awesome. I did not expect Pixar to out-do the wordless romance of Wall-E and definitely not so soon. They have gone one step further, by matching the wordless romance in under ten minutes - the first ten of the movie at that. When everything seems bleak - the story magically flips back on to its feet, and lo behold! Flies away. Tied to a thousand colored balloons. The journey, despite its evident literality, ensures that the obvious metaphor does not become a cliche but evolves into an allegory. Simpler put, we do not just enjoy the movie like hell, but also get a damn good thought to take home.
I am NOT going to give the story in a nutshell; not because there is a single central surprise, on revealing which the movie falls flat - but because I do not want you to bear a grudge against me even for a moment AFTER seeing the movie, thinking that Saravanan spoiled the movie just a little bit by telling me something. But in case you are one of those who wanna know! It is a loves story about dogs, balloons, Paradise Falls and a badge. And ooh! ooh! I almost forgot, about Kevin being a girl...!
There is a strong Dahl-ian feel to the movie - in both facing head-on the dark realities of life (even in a story set mainly for a younger audience) and introducing a sudden single fantastic event which gives the protagonist to change the course of things. Despite the improbability of the first magical event, the remaining part of the fantasy strictly adheres to a very-human-logic. The movie also underlines a theme which we tackle oftener in everyday life - the growing gap between generations and how dangerously irreconcilable they are becoming. What really impressed me was that there was no ordinary ending where the bad-guy simply changes heart.
Instead of summing up this conversation saying that the movie was simply awesome (though it really was awesome), I would like to leave you with my favorite scene from the movie. When Carl discovers young (annoying) Russell aboard the flying house, he gets a momentary vision where he lowers Russell to one of the buildings with a few kerchiefs tied together, and slips. Russell just makes the observation that he could almost touch the buildings with his hands. This scene cracked me up - for it was both grown up and juvenile - and hilarious at both levels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)