Paa

I watched the movie on Friday and I have had a couple of days to think over it while I was out of town. And I just don’t see what the hullabaloo about Paa is !!

Paa (like Taare Zameen Par) has been almost universally acclaimed by critics and all actors, especially Amitabh Bachhan, have been praised to the skies. There is talk of even making it India’s official entry to Oscars !! Yet, if you read those reviews, none of the reviews rate the movie at more than 3.5 stars. Whereas Taare Zameen Par was rated by most people at 4 or above. (Please note that Paa is nowhere similar to Taare Zameen Par, but it was the only movie I could think of which got such universal accolades.)

I think people have gotten a little too hyper at Amitabh Bachhan’s portrayal of a 12 year old. Make no mistake, it’s a great effort and not once through the movie do you get the feeling that there is Amitabh inside Auro. The voice is nasal-cartoony (the closest is drunk Anthony Gonzalves of Amar Akbar Anthony) and make up is top-notch ! But I think this was more an exercise in adulation – because I didn’t quite get convinced that Auro was an actual kid. There were far too many inconsistencies in the portrayal – both physically as well as in dialogues – to believe that it was a genuine 12-year-old.

The story is not much of a secret, but if you don’t know yet – Auro is a 12-year-old boy suffering from an extremely rare genetic defect called Progeria, which causes accelerated ageing of the body. So he resembles an old man in his seventies while he is still a child inside. Such children usually do not live too long. He is happy in school where his classmates are very supportive – and lives with his gynaecologist mum Vidya Balan and granny, who he calls Bum !

His sheltered life goes topsy turvy when he wins a creativity award and is noticed by upcoming idealist politician Amol Apte. Soon they become friends but they are unaware of their actual relation – that of Paa and son. The secret is revealed in a flashback, but how Auro and Amol come to know about it and what happens next is the movie.

The side-plots of slum redevelopment politics and the political fighting between Amol and his rival are actually interesting – they provide a break from the emotional drama and are also relevant to our times. The news bashing ofcourse, was a little overdone, but then again, our news channels haven’t been exactly blemish free. Abhishek Bachhan suits the intense young politician role totally – and seems to have modelled his appearance on Milind Deora, the south Mumbai MP.

The movie starts off with everyday scenes of Auro's life, his limitations of food and physical activity and bowel failures. Vidya Balan is very good as Auro’s mother – and she has more meaningful scenes with Auro than Abhishek - and Arundhati Naag is superb as the grandma used to the antics of her naughty grandson. Amitabh, as I have explained – puts in a great effort, but in vain. He didn’t convince me that there is a child inside Auro – even with his monkey dance and other antics. And without that, there is no movie.

It would have been a better movie if an actual kid had played Auro rather than Amitabh. Because the rest of the casting is pitch perfect. The climax is a little tacky and needs to be improved though, but to be fair to the director, he doesn’t go for needless tear-jerker scenes otherwise.

Although I didn’t get impressed by the movie, its not an opinion shared widely. So I would recommend you watch the movie and decide if it works for you.


Read More!

Ajab Prem Ki Ghazab Kahani

If you guys watched All The Best, you remember how Sanjay Mishra steals the show in it with his “Just Chiiiiiilll” dialogue ? Or Amit Mistry in the movie 99 ?

Something similar happens to Ajab Prem Ki Ghazab Kahani – after the movie you remember Prem’s dad Darshan Jariwala in the movie more than anyone else (unlike the famous dialogue of the movie itself).

The movie, is not much ‘Ajab’ as the title suggests – it’s a story of a good boy who loves a girl, but cant bring himself to tell her. And when he is about to confess to her, turns out she loves someone else. So the good boy decides to help them get together, while remaining silent about his own feelings. Ofcourse, the good boy has a bunch of loser friends who adore him and do little else. And, the movie ends in a punchup climax with a with comic villains just like Andaz Apna Apna.

The Good
Clearly, this movie is not to be watched for its intriguing storyline. However it can be watched for its two leads – Ranbir and Katrina. Ranbir has the ‘goofy-yet-adorably-cute’ expression down to the pat – there is no one who can come close to him on this count. And Katrina owns the angelic-yet-cheerful-happy face. Together they really look good – their attire and camaraderie, especially in the songs is really cool in all senses of that word.

Then there is Darshan Jariwala. While he is usually irritating as the ‘khadoos’ dad in movies (like Life Partner), he is the same here – but with a very refreshing comic touch. His scenes are the best written in the movie – esp his singing scene.

And Upen Patel does pretty well in the comic role – which was unintentional on his part I am sure 

The Bad
The publicity designer of the movie is to be lauded in packaging this movie as a slick cartoony romantic comedy. It certainly piqued my interest – which is why I chose the movie over others in the weekend. But they are just the attractive packaging – there is nothing in the movie that would connect to a shred of reality. The setting is a fictional town that resembles Ooty and the hero is a do-gooder without ‘any complaints or demands’. Not to mention, with no goal in life.

I guess I am being exceedingly critical in demanding reality from a movie which is clearly inspired on ‘Andaz Apna Apna’ – so lets look at the movie through those lenses. Ajab Prem Ki Ghazab Kahani definitely does have it laugh-out loud moments, including some zany sequences when Prem goes to work. But overall, it fails to keep up the whacky comedy levels and gets needlessly senti in more places than required

And the songs are atrocious – they break in the story flow and don’t fit the overall light movie theme at all.

Overall, its a timepass movie, that has its moments, but it sits in an uncomfortable place between whacky comedy and a serious love story.


Read More!

Julie & Julia

Watching Julie & Julia was a great culinary experience – it makes you really hungry by the time you finish the movie – and you are inspired to give cooking a shot if you haven’t done it already !! However, more than just a collection of gourmet shots, Julie & Julia works very well in cataloguing the life of its two protagonists – blogger Julie Powell and celebrated cook Julia Child.

Connected by only their love for food – and nothing else (they never meet), the movie tells you how a bored clerk in Manhattan decides to take up the challenge to cook all 524 recipes of the famous 1961 cookbook Mastering The Art of French Cooking - in 365 days and blog about it. It was the first ever book on French cooking in English and revered as the one which opened up the world of French cuisine to Americans. The story of celebrated food blogger Julie Powell

However the main ingredient of the movie is the story of how a bored wife of an American diplomat in Paris in the 1950s, takes her own passion for food to the next level by graduating from the Cordon Bleu, no less – after becoming enamored with French cuisine. And how she spends eight years of her life co-writing a French cookbook ‘for servantless Americans’. The story of the famous chef Julia Child

Based on Julia’s memoirs “My Life in Paris” and Julie’s book “Julie & Julia” – the movie is an easy watch, especially with the delicious food on display, but also a look at two love stories. Julia and her husband Paul Child and the slightly lesser Julie & her husband Eric. Paul and Julia’s chemistry is a treat to watch – Julia with her effervescence and joy of life and Paul as the quieter and slightly bemused husband. Theirs is a story that deserves a movie by itself maybe

Eric is also the supportive husband when Julie starts her blog – infact he is the one who suggests it. But unlike Julia Child, who is a gem of a person, Julie Powell isnt that likeable. Though the makers have tried to brush up her image trying to make her look adorable and cutesy, she was completely self-absorbed, narcissist - and ‘a bitch’, as her best friend says. It is unfortunately, the ethos of a blogger, who is driven to channel all his thoughts and energies into writing on a blog, leaving out little for anyone else around them. And then hoping to get that all important recognition in the way of comments.

It is also questionable whether she was just using Julia Child’s name to get famous – but that suggestion is never touched upon in the movie.

One of the complaints I have about the movie was its squeaky cleanliness. Apart from one fight between Eric and Julie, it was a little too fairy-talish about the effect of such an all-consuming-passion on their marriage. Similarly, although Paul Child was a really loving man, not once is he shown to be at odds with his wife’s activities – especially since this was before the time of women’s liberation. But then again, his wife did cook some fabulous food ...

The other irritant was Julia Child’s high octave voice and her joie-de-vivre. It seems amusing at the beginning of the movie, but by the end, it’s a little grating. I know it is exactly how the real life Julia Child was – and the makers of the movie are just being faithful to her persona, but it feels a bit overdone.

By the way, Julia Child was all of 6ft 2 in and it’s a marvel how they made a 5 Ft 6 in Meryl Streep appear so tall !!

Its different from your regular cinema – and you don’t have to be a foodie to appreciate it – but its not quite a masterpiece. What works for the movie is Julia & Paul in Paris – they are quite magical together. But the movie slows down a bit towards the end and at feels longer than its 123 min runtime – but it also works up a great appetite for you. So when we got out of the movie – the first thing we did was to make a beeline for a great continental dinner – even though it was only 7.30 pm !!


Read More!

9

Sometimes you have no clue what to make about a movie - you like it, don’t like it ! And 9 is one such head-scratcher !

The movie is an animation movie first. But then its also a thriller – and a sci-fi movie. And a Matrix like man-vs-machine plot (sans the acrobatics). And a couple of other plots that I cant remember. The characters are also type-cast – the weak leader, the strong & adventurous woman, the friendly side-kick, the dumb muscleman etc. Basically, I was continuously nagged with a déjà-vu feeling that I couldn’t shake off. But because of the unique visuals, I couldn’t place exactly what I was reminded of.

The imagination of the maker is vivid and you cant help admiring his doomsday vision. A brilliant scientist makes an AI (artificial intelligent) robot under the direction of a dictator (the German inspiration is quite obvious). The machines goes berserk and kills off all the humans. The doomed scientist’s last action is to create this tiny creature – out of jute gunny bag (it actually looks a lot like the gingerbread man) – before he dies. And paints the number 9 on its back – hence the name.

9 comes to this world with no memory and no clue who/where he is – and the movie is his story of figuring out the world and his place in it. He discovers that he is not alone - there are others like him. Others who help him realize what he is meant to do. The background setting is unique, but the rest of the movie seems unconsciously inspired from the movies the director has watched before.

The feel of the movie is the early part of the century – the machines are all steam driven and there is no mention of any electronics. The clank and hiss of steam make the machines more fun to watch – in a cartoony way. The city itself is completely ruined and overall very dark and desolate.

The storyline is however not the strongest and the climax was a little too arty. The first part of the movie has a few exciting moments, when something is lurking in the shadows – but as the story unravels, the ending is guessable. The runtime is perfect at 79 minutes – any more and it would have become boring!

The movie is based on director Shane Acker’s 10 minute graduation movie – which the producers liked and decided to make into a feature film. And yes, this is his first proper movie. The movie obviously has high production values and it shows in the visuals – but the story needed some strengthening to make it into a full length movie. So a middle-of-the-road rating for 9.


Read More!

Final Destination

During a particularly scary moment while driving - when you lose control for a moment or you come really close to crashing - does your mind momentarily conjure up a picture of you all smashed up, limbs bent our of shape etc ? It happens to me for sure and after watching this movie, I am just going to imagine even more vividly :) !!

Coz the fourth iteration of the Final Destination franchise takes pleasure in detailing exactly how you die when, say, a 14 tonne truck smashes into you. Or you get sucked into a malfunctioning escalator, for example. Does your spine break first, or your neck or your limbs … the director very helpfully explains all those things in a x-ray type video. And you get to watch it in 3D, so that you can experience the finer nuances.

Ok, I am being too critical – but this was just to warn off the more squeamish ones – this movie is not for you.

But if you enjoy this sort of thing, then you wouldn’t mind finding out just how many creative ways can you kill a person ! And most of the deaths are innovative but for an overuse of petrol/inflammable substances – a little more variety would have been cooler. In that respect, Final Destination 1 had the coolest sequences and I don’t remember it involving gasoline in a big way.

The director David R. Ellis doesn’t bother putting any energy into modifying the script – a group of people survive a catastrophe because one of them has a premonition about it. Then death goes around visiting each of the survivors, finishing the job in as creative a way as possible. That’s it, story done. The characters themselves are caricaturish – the boorish stud-boy, the freaky girl, the black security guard, the soccer mom, the racist red-neck – and suit their parts just fine.

Overall, a good timepass movie – which will wow you with some of the sequences, and maybe surprise a little at the end. My own view about the movie was definitely altered because of the climax. Just make sure you watch it in 3D – just makes the whole experience really awesome. (Its playing in 3D at Fun Cinemas in Andheri)


Read More!

Quick Gun Murugun

Quick Gun Murugun is a little more than what you expect – and yet falls short of your expectations. It is the wacky tale of a ‘vegetarian-cowboy’ who takes on Rice Plate Reddy and his gang of villains. It is also a spoof of too many things to count – South-Indian-movies, standard bollywood masala movies, cowboy movies and even McDonalds !! Filled with smart jokes – they will have you howling with laughter at the one liners. But believe it or not, the movie is somewhat of a drag ….

Telegu star Dr. Rajendra Prasad plays gunslinger Quick Gun Murugan with élan – bright orange pants and all. He is an avowed protector of cows and vegetarianism – and soon runs into Rice Plate Reddy, who is on a quest to convert every Udipi restaurant into non-veg. Reddy gets the better of him in the first encounter and our hero is thirsty for revenge.

This time, he gets a little help from Mango Dolly (Rambha) – Reddy’s blonde moll – who falls for our Murugun’s simple charms. On Rice Plate Reddy’s side there is Dr Django and Rowdy MBA – who are implementing his plan of taking over the world with his dosas. And ofcourse, there is our very own Lola Kutty with Murugun as well.

While hilarious, the story is actually very simple and sometimes it feels like the movie is too long for such a story. And the jokes are not spaced out enough to catch the slack in screenplay. But all the same, it is impossible to control the laughter that erupts when, for example, you hear -
"The universe is my native place"
But be ready to be surprised with the violence as well – the violence is NOT picturised like a Tom and Jerry cartoon …

All in all, a lot of very clever jokes interspersed with some not so interesting parts. Even though its overall rating is average, I would recommend a watch – because you are going to recall the jokes for days after the movie and chuckle thinking about it.


Read More!

Life Partner

It felt like it had been a really long time since I had watched a movie – and the missus also felt the same. Yeah we had watched Kaminey, but I guess after a full day of boozing on the beach, it isn’t the same thing :) ! And the promos of Life Partner showed some promise, so off we went last night.

And surprisingly, Life Partner is actually quite a fun movie, especially in the first half ! The dialogues of the movie were pleasantly witty and with absolutely no slapstick !! Govinda is back in his old touch and one thoroughly enjoys the first half. However Life Partner is not without its flaws as the second half gets a little more sentimental and comedy takes a backseat.

The movie is about two NRI couples in Cape Town - Karan-Sanjana (Fardeen-Genelia) and Bhavesh-Prachi (Tusshar-Prachi) and their lawyer friend Jeet (Govinda). Karan is the suave metrosexual and his girlfriend is Sanjana, the spoilt-brat daughter of Anupam Kher. Bhavesh is the gawky Gujrati bought up with ‘strict Indian values’ – who is waiting to gift his virginity to his wife. Prachi is well ... just Prachi Desai – saccharine sweet smile and not much else.

The first half of the movie introduces us to Karan-Sanjana and Bhavesh and their families etc and ofcourse, Jeet ! He is a divorce lawyer who is perennially looking for opportunities to break up marriages. And he himself has just once policy - No marriage !! Govinda is definitely the strongest point of the movie and his tete-a-tetes with Genelia are fun to watch. Though at his age, Govinda just cant carry off two firang babes on his arms (and though he looks really thin on the posters, those are just photoshop effects – he looks just as fat in the movie)

Sample Govinda's dialogue from the movie
Love marriage mein aadmi apni marzi mein kuen mein koodta hai
Arranged marriage mein aadmi ki poori family usse kuen mein dhakka deti hai
Lekin dono case mein, aadmi jaata kuen mein hi hai …

Trouble arrives in the form of marriage – Bhavesh goes all the way to Gujarat to find himself a wife and gets hitched to Prachi, a rich heiress. In a moment of marriage madness, Sanjana and Karan also tie the knot there. And when they come back, the decibels start increasing. Sanjana doesn’t like the Karan who has become a little responsible and Prachi is at loggerheads with her ultra conservative Bapuji (father-in-law Darshan Jariwala). Genelia is especially screechy, though overall she plays the wife-from-hell part pretty well. And the song Koke Koke is so atrocious its not even funny !!

In the second half, we see very little of Govinda and probably a few more scenes with him could have made this movie a complete blast – like the “tum chup raho” scene. However director Rumi Jaffrey decides to give a gentle preaching on marriage. Consequently, things slow down and the Prachi Desai scenes sometimes resemble an Ekta Kapoor show. But there is one more gem in the movie – veteran comedian Jagdeep. His scene with Fardeen & Genelia will have you falling out of your seat laughing !!

The climax where all the issues are sorted out was a letdown and so was Amrita Rao in the movie. Songs are also a completely waste - though only Koke Koke is abominable, the rest are just boring. The visuals are pretty slick though – and that honeymoon suite balcony view is really fantabulous. Definitely wish to visit it someday. Overall, the movie is an entertaining watch, and an extra 0.5 for Jagdeep.


Read More!

Love Aaj Kal

Boy meets girl. Boy and girl go out for sometime - before they separate (could be for any reason). Then love guru comes in and encourages boy to realise his love. Sometime later, boy suddenly realises he loves girl and rushes back to girl who has been pining away for him all this while. Happy ending !!

If you deconstruct any love story, it looks as daft as this. But most of the memorable romantic movies work because of their fresh approach to the same old story or some really good performances from the leads – you just have to look at director Imtiaz Ali’s first work Socha Na Tha to see how it works so wonderfully well. In Love Aaj Kal, there is a yet new approach – of two parallel love stories 40 years apart – where Saif Ali Khan plays both the male leads (after all, its his own movie – he can act in triplicate if he so pleases !!). However all the good of the script is lost because of some poor casting and trying-too-hard-to-be-cool dialogues !!

Both Saif and Deepika especially, are misfits for the roles they have been cast in. Saif looks too old in most of the scenes of modern-day Jai and Deepika just cant act much. In most of the crucial scenes in the movie – the first breakup, the second breakup and then the scene after the wedding, Deepika hardly says anything !! All that her face conveys is a bemused expression !! While Saif atleast does the Veer Singh role admirably, Deepika has hardly anything going for her except her dazzling smile and extremely long legs !

However there is some fine acting on display too - from Rishi Kapoor, Veer Singh senior and aforementioned love guru as well as Giselle Monteiro, the very pretty Harleen Kaur (you have to admire the twists of fate – a Brazilian model playing the demure Punjabi kudi from Old Delhi !!). Infact, it’s the 40 year old love story of Veer Singh and Harleen which actually rescues the movie. A delightfully old fashioned and cute love story, conducted entirely in glances and silence – wins everybody’s hearts.

Apart from the bad casting, the modern track between Jai and Meera just doesn’t have any chemistry between them. They meet, become friends, then start going out – but never appear convincing as a couple. I mean commitment phobia doesn’t need to be passionless ! Add to it the ‘cool’ dialogues – Saif tries off the Hum Tum-esque cool casual approach but his dialogues felt like he was trying too hard - he doesn’t deliver one single dialogue linearly !! And both Jai and especially Meera do not succeed in making us understand what they are truly feeling – so a lot of scenes in the second half of the movie sort of feel like a bolt from the blue.

However, even with the imperfect casting, its not as if the lead actors are without any virtues. Even if they do not come across as the perfect couple, Jai and Meera’s initial scenes have a nice joie de vivre. There is one particularly engaging scene immediately after the breakup where they tell each other what they didn’t particularly like in each other. And the interactions between Saif and Rishi Kapoor are also very likeable.

The songs, while likeable, are not placed perfectly and the Twist song particularly feels out of place.

So even with a perfect team (directors/actors), Love Aaj Kal falls well short but not disastrously so. And the older love story will surely have you smiling, especially at their last scene together (where we see the older Harleen). Watch it only if you have to claim I-watched-it-too


Read More!

The Proposal

If you ask me, what was the one scene that stood out a couple of days after watching ‘The Proposal’, I honestly cant pick up anything. Ok, maybe the beautiful Alaskan landscape, but that’s it. Its not a bad movie at all – it is a feel-good happy movie shot in beautiful locales – but you come out of the theatre thinking “Hey, haven’t we seen all this before?”

Plot-wise, it’s a combination of Devil Wears Prada and fake-marriage-couple-falling-in-love. Sandra Bullock stars as Margaret Tate, the terrorizing boss who has employees trembling at the sound of her footsteps and Andrew Paxton (Ryan Reynolds) is her meek secretary/servant. Trouble erupts when she is informed that her visa application wasn’t processed in time and she is going to be deported back to Canada. She has the immediate solution – marry Andrew to get fiancé visa. And to make the marriage appear legit, she travels with him to his Gradma’s 90th birthday celebrations in Alaska. Where all the fun begins.

While the broader storyline is predictable, there are enough little surprises in the script so that you don’t get bored. The chemistry between Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds is terrific and I was especially impressed with Ryan Reynolds’ performance – he has got a great comic touch. And I have to mention the adorable little white dog as well – he is … well ... adorable !!

So that’s it – a happy romantic comedy to watch if you are in the mood for one ..


Read More!

17 Again

We had planned on going to Bride Wars this weekend, but changed plans last minute to 17 Again – after reading some less-than-stellar reviews on IMDB. I figured a high school movie would be a better chance at having some fun. And thank god we did, because Bride Wars got some really horrible reviews everywhere - almost the same level as Kal Kissne Dekha :) and that’s saying something …

17 Again turned out to be a good choice – although it panders to all the high school cliché’s, it still has enough originality too keep you interested. I had chosen the movie primarily because it had Matthew Perry in it (Chandler Bing if you don’t recognize the name) and I always thought he was genuinely funny. I had no clue the lead was actually Zac Effron – the High School Musical star. But as it turns out, Matthew Perry has almost next-to-no role, while Zac really shines as the younger Mike O’Donnell. The movie is about the high school basketball star Mike O’Donnell who is dating the prettiest girl in his school and is about to get a college sports-scholarship as well. Until, his girlfriend informs him, right before the championship game, that she is pregnant – and he throws it all away and marries her instead.

However things don’t quite go as planned – 20 years later, his job is going nowhere, Scarlett wants a divorce and his kids think he is a loser. The only good thing in his life is his geek friend Ned, who is a millionaire. Mainly, Mike always yearns for that life that he threw away … what all he could achieve if he hadn’t done what he did. And somehow, he gets a chance – he becomes 17 again !! Not back into the past – but becomes a 17 year-old in 2009 !!

So he joins up in the same high-school, acting as Ned’s son – thinking he got a second chance at life. But soon, he realizes that he is getting a second chance all right, but not in the way that he thought it would be.

Ofcourse there are plotholes - like nobody apart from his wife Scarlett recognizing Mike – but then don’t let that bother you too much. And thankfully, the makers of the movie have refrained to putting in that ultimate American high school ritual - prom night – in the movie. I am very thankful to them for that !! Apart from that, 17 Again is very much a highschool movie. The geeky Ned provides a lot of laughs – and Mike and Ned have a great goofy chemistry together. There are some senti moments as well but overall the movie is quite light-hearted and warm – a pretty decent watch.

Acting-wise, Zac Efron was a revelation !! He is not just a cute face – he can do serious scenes just as well. Its safe to label him an upcoming superstar ! All the others do a great job as well – though it would have been nice to see some more of Matthew Perry !!


Read More!

Confessions of a Shopalcoholic

Lack of new movies for the last two weeks meant that we are forced to watch movies which we would normally have passed by. Confessions of a Shopalcoholic was released two weeks back, but I watched it only yesterday. Not that it’s a particularly horrible movie – it is a typical chick flick – a romantic comedy. Just similar to the two hundred or so movies before it - but a nice feel-good movie all the same.

So the baseline for this movie is – if you have other things to do in this weekend, you can give Confessions of a Shopalcoholic a miss – you wont lose anything. However if you don’t have anything else to do (and dont mind watching a romantic comedy), then go for it. It will put you in a pleasant mood as happy-ending movies generally do.

The story - it is just a outer frame for the love story to develop. Rebecca Bloomwood (Isla Fisher) is a fashion-label-obsessed, compulsive shopper. Soon she has run up mindboggling credit card bills. She changes jobs and finds herself in a journalist role in a financial magazine. And somehow, her articles dealing with personal finance from a shopping angle strike a chord with the audience. The love angle comes in the form of her editor Luke Brandon (Hugh Dancy). What happens next doesn’t need much brainwork.

Performances are good all round – Isla Fisher has the right balance of cuteness and spunk to carry this role. The rest of the cast do not make a big impression, but do not appear out of place either. The script doesn’t lag much and there are no unnecessary songs. In short, there isn’t much wrong with the movie – but nothing remarkable either. So there you have it …


Read More!

The Reader

Even though it won the Oscar for the best actress and was nominated for best motion picture, I'd recommend you do not watch The Reader in a theater. Not that its particularly bad, no. Just that the censors have cut out scenes so horribly in the first 45 min that its a maddening exercise watching that part. There arent any more cuts thereafter, but the overall experience still has a bitter aftertaste.

And on the question of censorship, why is showing a naked butt ok but not the bosom ??

Coming back to the movie, it begins in the summer of 1956, when Hannah (Kate Winslet), a tram conductor, randomly helps a 15-year-old Michael Berg who isnt feeling too well. Soon that meeting blossoms into a full blown affair between Michael and a much older Hannah. The uniqueness being that Hannah demands to be read to before sex - everyday ! And she isnt particular about her literature - anything that Michael can lay his hands on - from Homer's Odyssey to Chekov to Tintin even. Most of the reading happens in various states of undress and needless to say, all the censorship happens in this part.

As can be expected in such a relationship, the older woman calls the shots - and the young Michael is eager to please her. But he cant quite understand her completely. Till one day, Hannah just walks out of the apartment and out of Michael's life - without so much as a goodbye or a note.

Years later, as a law student while covering a trial, Michael comes across Hannah again, who is the accused in the trial. And his feelings of tenderness for her conflicts with his revulsion at the crime she is accused of. And for years to come, he tries hard but cannot bridge that divide.

The premise of the movie could have made a very good emotional drama - but it loses out on one aspect. While going for the classy effect of subtle show of emotions, the director probably expects a bit too much from his audience. There are subtle cues alright, but some of them are just impossible to decipher. Atleast it was for me - at many points in the movie, the faces of Hannah and Michael were inscrutable. I just couldnt be sure of what they were thinking/feeling. The contrast with Revolutionary Road is too stark - where every emotion of almost every character was transmitted powerfully onto the screen - leaving the audience in no doubt.

And this is a major downer for a movie which aims to draw out emotions from the audience for Hannah and Michael.

Which is a pity because the movie has some very powerful scenes - like the meeting between Michael and the American at the end of the movie. But even there, I am not sure exactly what Michael indicates was the nature of his relationship with Hannah.
So sloppy editing/censoring and hard to decipher emotions make me give this Oscar winning movie very middling grades. If it were me, I would have given the best actress award for Revolutionary Road instead - but then I guess this isnt the first time that the best performance didnt win.


Read More!

13B

I have to clear one misconception first – though this movie is marketed as a horror movie, it is not. It’s a good suspense thriller with supernatural overtones. The good kind which makes you feel satisfied after coming out of the theatre – instead of the usual ‘plot hole’ discussions that follow every hindi thriller movie.

The movie has Madhavan playing Manohar, a civil engineer who along with his extended family, have just shifted into a apartment 13B of a new building. Things seem very saas-bahuish with Poonam Dhillon playing Manohar’s mother, Neetu Chandra playing his wife and a Vidya-Balan-lookalike playing his bhabhi. The K-serial theme follows as we are treated to their daily chores of getting ready for work and school/college in the morning before the saas and the bahus settle down to watch their daily serials.

However, there are small incidents that tell you that things are not quite right. Camera photos come out weird and the lift just refuses to work when Madhavan is in the lift alone. There is also a creepy looking blind man with a guard dog, who is their next-door neighbour and for some reason reminds me of Sudhir Mishra, the director.

However, these intriguing happenings are interspersed with family events, and some lame-assed romance between Madhavan and Neetu Chandra – including two ill conceived songs which should never have been there. The pace tends to flag a little when these things come, but the director is quick to yank our attention back to the sinister happenings – like the blind-guard-dog refusing to enter the house and the milk getting spoilt each and every day.

Meanwhile, all these events are noticed only by Madhavan – for reasons not explained – the others do not seem to notice anything funny. Especially when the women of the house are captivated by a new serial called Sab Khairiyat which features a joint family moving to a new house – and which appropriately comes at 1:00 pm (13:00 hrs) on channel number 13 !! Only Madhavan picks up the similarities between their life and the show – and realizes that the show foretells what will happen to his family (which makes us question the collective intelligence of the women of the house [snigger] )

The premise is intriguing and the director exploits this idea intelligently. There is no ‘ghost entering someone’s body’ crap and the story is peeled back layer by layer, leaving us curious to know more. The second half of the movie is paced much better as there is no time spent on joint family theatrics. Things have a sense of urgency as Madhavan races against time to uncover the mystery.

So far so good. Now time to point out things that are not so kosher.

One – the director has taken pains to highlight each weird happening or incident, by playing a music crescendo and lingering the camera on the object. While this is ok a few times, the audience is not so dimwitted that they have to be guided to the mystery EVERY time with helpful music and camera !! Credit the audience with some intelligence !!

Second – I went to the movie expecting to be scared. However there was nothing which was scary – spooky, maybe yes. But not scary. Which was kind of disappointing. When can we hope to get a real scare-the-shit-out-of-people hindi movie ???
Debutante director Vikram Kumar makes an intelligent beginning by putting the idea of the supernatural into something daily-life like a tv. For a film industry that is stuck on to the idea of bhoot banglas, it is a good step. The script shows intelligence and doesn’t have any significant plot holes. Acting by Madhavan is pretty good and the suspense doesn’t let up till the end.

The climax though, is a bit underwhelming. Because the movie adheres to the unwritten rule that the killer has to be one of the characters that has already been introduced, it fails to capitalize on the originality of the film’s premise. And the last scene with the phone was just very lame. So a middle rating for 13B


Read More!

Delhi 6

You know what – move over the Katrinas and the Deepikas – my new pinup-girl is Sonam Kapoor !! Man, she has an enchanting face - AND an enigmatic smile !! A little hard to quantify, but what sets her apart is that hint of mysteriousness – ahhh, beautiful :) If you don’t agree, go watch Delhi 6 (though the missus wasn’t quite floored by her, so maybe it’s just a guy thing)

However, Sonam Kapoor is pretty much the only reason why I would recommend anyone to watch Delhi 6 - other than to all Old Dilliwalas, ofcourse ! Mind you, not all Dilliwalas, because this movie is completely set in Chandni Chowk. And maybe I am wrong, but I feel that this movie is more like a collective slap on the faces of Dilliwalas, rather than an ode to them. The attitude of the people in the movie was REALLY conservative – more small town rather than a metropolis! If they hadn’t shown a couple of shots of the Delhi Metro, the movie might have been shot in Haridwar, Varanasi or any other old city with small dingy roads ….

Ok, enough of the attitude bashing. Delhi 6 has some very delectable moments for you too. It starts off with Waheeda Rehman (playing Dadi to Abhishek Bachhan), being diagnosed with a life threatening cancer. Dadi wishes to return to her roots in Chandni Chowk and grandson Roshan complies. And the regular NRI-returning-to-mad-India sequence follows. What is different however, are the people.

Rakeysh Mehra has assembled a brilliant set of actors in the support roles and each of them perform excellently. Most of them happen to be neighbours of Dadi in Chandni Chowk and the first half of the movie is spent giving each character his 5 min of fame – and Roshan plays the tourist NRI, intrigued by everything and capturing everything on his Motorola phone. The director has managed to capture the flavour and views of Purani Dilli immaculately – and the characters create a very warm and believable world.

We are introduced to a majority of the cast at the Ramleela performance – and Rakeysh Mehra keeps coming back to the Ramleela at important points in the movie – which makes you wonder if the Ramleela is a year-long fixture in Chandni Chowk :) ? The other oft-repeated event and ultimately the movie keystone turns out to be the kala bandar – remember the monkey-man scare in Delhi a couple of years ago ? And it is this part of the story that completely destroys the movie.

I wont give away exactly what happens in the last 30-40 min of the movie, since it is the only unexpected part of the story, but all I will say that its very cliché and forcibly pushes a message down your throat. Not in the subtle way that he does in RDB – but a literal ‘look inside your soul’ and ‘god is in everyone’ style preaching. The Roshan-Bittu (Sonam Kapoor) love story also very unsatisfying. From perennially sparring with each other, suddenly they spring to ‘I am not going back to America without you’ level – not believable at all !!

Technically, the story moves in a rather jerky fashion throughout the narrative – someone likened it to watching a bunch of serial episodes together – and it takes a couple of sequences to get used to. But it doesn’t impact the movie in any negative way. Music from A.R. Rahman is top notch, though the song placement was not optimal – some songs were totally lost. Particularly, Genda Phool picturization was rather disappointing.

The standout performances in the movie (apart from Sonam Kapoor, ofcourse ) are Rishi Kapoor, Vijay Raaz, Pawan Malhotra and a newcomer Aditi Rao who plays the Bua. Abhishek Bachhan doesn’t have much acting to do since his is a passive character – most of the times he is just playing the observer. Sonam Kapoor, apart from looking fabulous, does her part rather well. As I have mentioned before, all the other performances are top notch too.

If I had to rate the movie just on the first hour or so, I would have probably given it a 4 star. But the way the plot nosedives, even with the superb all round acting, I cant give it more than a



Addendum - After the movie, it struck me that for a born-and-brought-up-American, Roshan is a little too cool with India. I mean a first-timer to India would have gotten exasperated at something - the inefficiency, the craziness or the dirtiness … something ! But Roshan never once seemed to mind anything, except for the police high handedness. Minor quibble, but feels like a big omission compared to the meticulousness the director displays for the other characters.
Read More!

Dev.D

I really wanted to like Dev.D – I really did!

But unfortunately, as much as I tried, I couldn’t like it enough. This, inspite of it having the uber-cool Abhay Deol AND the uber-cool music (I still cant get Emosional Attyachar out of my head - the rock version rawks !!). Nevertheless, while its still comfortably ahead of any other cinematic adaption of the Devdas (especially the Shahrukh version), it does not superlative cinema make.
Note - I am making this statement as a twenty-six-year-old in the year 2009. I am sure there are some old timers who swear by the Bimal Roy’s black & white version of 1955 – but I am equally sure none of them are reading this :)

There is no point discussing the story, because if you are an Indian who doesn’t know the story for Devdas, you must be a Martian masquerading as an earthling !! Jokes apart, I am branding this as the best version of Devdas because it finally gives enough strength of character to the two women in Dev’s (Abhay Deol) life. Especially Paro’s (Mahi Gill) character – it is a wonderful sketch of a young woman from rural Punjab, with a mind of her own and enough self-belief to take on the world. She doesn’t hold anything back in love, but she will not submit to the unreasonably egotist Dev either. Watch out for the scene when Paro visits Dev in the hotel – I really appreciated the nuanced performance. The scene shows her struggles clearly – her loyalties to Dev and to her new family pulling her apart. Chanda (Kalki Koechlin) isn’t as strong a character, but unlike the original story, she also will do only so much for Dev.

Apart from the women’s empowerment bit, there are quite a few changes to the century-old story. The location is set in rural Punjab initially and then Delhi later – and Dev.D is actually Devinder, Paro is Parminder and Chanda is just a screen name for Lenny, a school MMS victim (The phone scene with Chanda is again one of the highlights of the movie - but for a different reason this time). Chunni is the only name who remains untouched, but his character itself undergoes a radical change.

The visuals of the seedy lanes of Delhi and the trippy camera are special - but they are completely overshadowed by the music. Amit Trivedi delivers one hell of a soundtrack - you wouldnt notice, but there are 18 songs in the movie, and each one of them is placed perfectly. The movie wouldnt be the same without this edgy score.
But the biggest change in Dev.D has to be the sex and intoxication. Mirroring the opening up of our society, Anurag Kashyap has no hesitation in showing the carnal instincts of the women in Dev’s life – and how its no longer taboo nowadays for a woman to take matters into their own hand. Even more glorified is the alcohol and drug abuse – this movie at times seems like an ode to these vices.

But in his enthusiasm to show Dev’s descent into alcohol & drug abuse-hell, Anurag Kashyap’s story begins to meander a little. Even with a couple of surprises, the movie feels a little stretched. But overall, the basic reason I didn’t like Dev.D, is that I think the original story itself isn’t valid anymore. A 100 years ago, when zamindars had precious little to do and more importantly, rebelling against the society was unheard, Devdas's actions are understandable. In today’s context, Dev’s actions are just incomprehensible to me ...



Is it just me or does Mahi Gill very much resemble actress Priya Gill (Josh, Sirf Tum, Tere Mere Sapne) ? Google doesnt throw up any information about them being related ...

You can catch Kalki Koechlin trying to sell you a vibrating massage device for reducing fat on Tele Shopping Network
Read More!

Raaz : The Mystery Continues

Does anyone else wonder when Kangana Ranaut will do a non-suicidal, non-alcoholic or essentially a non-psycho role (case in point – Gangster, Woh Lamhe, Life in a Metro, Fashion) ?? Well if any of you do, then Raaz 2 is your answer – yes, she finally ditches her self-destructive personae and takes on a normal personality – albeit a frightened one. And well, she does try to take her life in this movie as well, but she is not to be blamed for that one …

Kangana Ranaut is Nandita, a top notch model (very Fashionesque) – who is trying to balance her professional and personal life – her boyfriend is Yash (Adhyayan Suman). He anchors a successful TV show called Andhavishwas, where he debunks superstitions and supernatural myths. However, the opening scene of the movie is set far away from them – in a small town in Himachal called Kalindi – where a frightened-out-of-his-wits foreigner runs inside a temple, only to find the priest mutilating himself to death, claiming the end is near …

The opening scene sets a very good precedent for what is to come - as the suspense is crisp throughout the first half – you are on the edge of your seat for most of it. The director almost announces his intentions with dark foreboding music, every time something evil happens - yet such is his mastery over the camera that we flinch every time something does happen. He shows good imagination, using regular urban locations for his scares, and keeping the gore to a minimum.

Kangana does both the frightened and the possessed scenes very well – but the same cant be said about (her real life boyfriend) Adhyayan Suman. He comes across as too raw - and cant dance to save his life. Emraan Hashmi plays Prithvi, a painter who can paint events of Nandita's life before they happen – and he helps her in finding out the truth. He sports an intense look in the movie – and almost adds to the scares of the first half …

If you have noticed the emphasis on the word first half until now, you know what to expect in the second half. The second half of the movie completely goes to the dogs once you know the identity of the spirit and its intentions. I cant reveal more than that, but for crying out loud, is that the best motive you could come up with, Mohit Suri ? Really ? The story has quite a few twists and turns in the second half, but they don’t do the movie much good. And a very BIG loophole is the scene at the beginning of the movie when Yash is recording on camera, a group of Aghoris doing their thing by a river bank. Once you watch the full movie, you will understand …
The songs are quite good but atleast a couple of them are not needed - they break the flow of the movie. But inspite of its shortcomings, Raaz 2 is still a good entertainer, just for the scares.


Read More!

Outsourced

If you haven’t heard about this movie, don’t be surprised – it had almost zero publicity. (Australia atleast had a few big hoardings around Mumbai). These few weeks are lean times as far as movie releases are concerned – there is nothing substantial hitting the screens between 25th Dec (Ghajini) and 23rd Jan (Chandni Chowk to China). So be ready for some small-budget-movie fun – some of them are quite good.

This one almost gets there, but trips at the last 100 m.

The name of the movie is a giveaway as far as the story is concerned. It begins with call centre manager Todd Anderson being told by his boss that his entire department has been outsourced – and worse, he has to goto India to train the team there! As expected, Todd struggles against the culture shocks, including his name - and spicy food - when he lands in India. For some inexplicable reason, he is called Mr. Toad by all and sundry in the movie. And his work is based in an imaginary Mumbai suburb called Gharapuri (Wikipedia tells me that Gharapuri is actually another name for Elephanta Island).

But inspite of pandering to quite a few clichés - including a ridiculous cow that keeps wandering into the callcenter - Outsourced is very wittily written and doesn’t allow these clichés to put you off from this movie. And it uses the clichés rather well – eliciting frequent guffaws from the audience. Considering that this was intended for American audiences, I consider it quite an achievement for the makers that it appeals to us Indians equally well.

The going is pretty good – till the love angle kicks in. Ayesha Dharker plays Asha, one of the call center employees – who Todd falls in love with in the most cheesiest of sequences. In Hotel Kamasutra, no less !! I personally don’t like Ayesha Dharker’s looks at all and it doesn’t help that her role in the second half is written quite stupidly – you can make out that this portion was written completely with an American viewpoint.

After this fall, the movie loses its way a little and stumbles around, before the final showdown in front of Todd’s boss. That part of the movie feels like a sports movie, where a coach starts off with a really bad team, but improves them drastically and they make it to the finals – and they are just one game away from glory !!

So should you watch this movie or not? I would say yes - even though I am awarding it only a 2.5 star. Because its a warm-hearted movie, with plenty of funny sequences that linger in your head. And because it includes a negative 0.5 star for the Hotel Kamasutra sequence !!


Read More!

Body of Lies

Deja Vu !!

You cant help but feel a sense of deja vu throughout the movie. Be it the story or Leonardo Di Caprio's look in the movie - there is a familiarity that you cant shake off.

The story - Leonardo is Roger Ferris - a CIA operative in the Middle East in these troubled times, working hard to make inroads into the shadowy Al Qaeda. His handler is Ed Hoffman - a tough, perenially-talking-into-his-handsfree-device Russel Crowe. (Anybody who has watched the Robert Redford-starrer Spy Games or the Al Pacino-starrer The Recruit would already start getting that familiar feeling) Ferris is an excellent field agent, with a good command over Arabic and good ground network - but he is always impeded my superiors in Langley (read Hoffman) who are always looking for quick results.

Now if I have any major complaint about the movie - its the character of Hoffman. He is shown as results-driven high-achiever, not bothering about who’s toes he is treading on. But c’mon – does the director think the audiences are that stupid ? I mean everyone loves to see the Langley-sitting American as a bumbling arrogant idiot, who has no clue of what is actually happening on the ground in the rest of the world but Hoffman is just too stupid. Even I KNOW that intelligence gathering is all about cultivating contacts and assets on the ground, helping them out if necessary, so that they can provide you years of service - and I don’t know jack shit about intelligence gathering – its just common sense. The intelligence business is not like buying milk from a grocery store – walk in, throw cash and walk out !! But Hoffman does exactly that – its impossible to comprehend just a how a man like that would rise even one step in the intelligence business – forget about how high-up he actually is.

More than once in the movie, I felt the urge to give Hoffman a couple of kicks – and I couldn’t for the life of me comprehend why Roger Ferris would continue to take orders from that jackass. I shudder to think this is all based on a real life novel by David Ingnatius (a Washington Post columnist)

Apart from the Hoffman character, there is not much wrong in the movie – but there is nothing new either. There have been a raft of movies in the last few years set in the Middle East – with the mandatory torture sequences as well as a Quran-spouting mullah on grainy video. This movie is no exception. Plus you cant help feeling that Leonardo gives a performance very similar to Blood Diamond – his look is almost exactly the same in both the movies. There are also shades of The Departed – in the infiltrating of rival organizations – the whole movie gives off vibes that you have felt before. The sequence of the girl getting kidnapped – Brad Pitt in Spy Game, anyone ?

Most of the movie is shot in crowded bazaars in Middle East cities – Baghdad, Amman, Dubai etc – but they all look the same. There are a few scenes in the desert which are very beautiful – in its starkness. The feeling of being in the middle of nowhere – but the scenes are too short to let you appreciate the visuals.
In the positives – the Jordanian spy chief Hani Pasha – is a class act. But he has a lifestyle more like a mafia lord than a government servant – impeccably cut suits, black armored SUVs and social high life. The sequence of making Omar Sadiki into a terrorist was also very cool …

All in all – a very competent movie by Ridley Scott. Just half a dozen movies too late. But incase you haven’t watched the movies mentioned above, give it a watch – you will like it.



PS - Apologies for no posts last week - I was down with viral fever over the weekend and hence didnt watch any movies
Read More!

Righteous Kill

Two of the greatest actors of our times - Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino come together for the first time (apparently they had come together once before in a scene - but had only one coffee together, so that doesnt count) in a cop movie which had a tagline of sorts "Most people respect the badge ..... but everybody respects the gun". Sounds really interesting, wouldnt you agree ? Add to it a 7.4 rating on IMDB and it sounds definitely exciting ....

[Edit Since the time of posting, the IMDB rating has gone down to 6.9]

Unfortunately what sounds so great on paper, ends as a disappointment. The story is nothing much to begin with. But the treatment, which makes the movie watchable in the first part - just goes to the dogs at the end ! The veteran actors make up for the weak script for most of the movie but at the end, the weak script wins. What doesnt help matters is a plethora of loose ends like that of the young corporate lawyer or what happens with Karen in the end ...

The plot - Al Pachino & Robert DeNiro (Turk and Rooster) have been partners for 30 years in NYPD - Turk is the hot headed one and Rooster is the calm and composed one. They are entrusted with a serial killer case where the killer is dropping off people with decidedly dirty backgrounds - child killers, arms dealers and the likes. Oh and like all other serial killers - this one has his signature too - a small poem about the victim. And throughout the first half, we see footage of Robert DeNiro narrating the crimes on video as if he committed all of them ....

Now I think I cant say anything else other than giving the entire story away (there really isnt anything to the story) Visuals are similar to other cop movies - but the gore is minimum as the preferred method of killing is a straight shot to the head ...

All in all, again just friggin huge waste of potential.


Read More!

Via Darjeeling

Wasted potential

Thats how I can best describe the film.

Inspite of an impressive cast, the director did not know what to do with them. Kay Kay and Sonali Kulkarni are hopeless miscast. Two 35+ actors trying to play a 20s something cootchie-cooing honeymoon couple is just gross. Kay Kay especially looks old while Sonali is quite screechy.

However the director salvages the movie somewhat in the second half inspite of some more bad acting and characterization. Sandhya Mridul is hopelessly stereotyped and cliched while the ad film director guy Proshant is just hopeless at acting - he just comes across as completely fake and the dinner-table/party conversation does not feel believable AT ALL.

However the interpretation of the story by all the people present at the party does raise the game and we are immersed in the game of guessing as to which one of them is the true version. Its the technique which was recently seen in Vantage Point and by many others in the past, including the great Rashomon.

So even with its failings, it could have been an interesting movie had the director not tried to be too clever. Instead of just leaving the viewer at the various interpretations, the director tried to introduce a couple of twists at the end and just leaves more than a few questions unanswered. The feeling I got from the people around me as I walked out of the cinema was "WTF, what kind of ending is that? So why/how did so-and-so ...."

PS - While I like to think that the director was playing around, deliberately confusing us, some of my friends are less forgiving and think he is an ass who didnt know what he was doing :)



Read More!