Latest Entries »

A writing tip – For obsessive self-criticisers

Filed Under: Reviews — Fatema — Leave a comment
April 28, 2012

This is for those who do not trust their own talent and hence stay away from exploring it –

At some time in your life you must have written something. Poetry, essays, blogs, articles, letters. One day when you are in a state of calm and equilibrium, when you are seeing the world with a balance, when everything appears to you AS IS and not how you see it as, dig them out.

Go through them. Read as though they were pieces of a friend you were casually reading.

However, your sub-conscious knows they are yours. But today it is not hell-bent on criticising you and asking you to be perfect. So the first thing that you will notice are the strengths of your writing you never accepted or gave prominence to.

Let them surprise you and hold the thought for a bit that they are YOURS. This talent and capability is yours.

As you hold it within you, it will bring a tiny wisp of joy. Experience it, enjoy it. Allow it to make you happy and wash away some of the criticism you pile on yourself obsessively.

Then allow that joy to slowly become your strength. You are good. Say it to yourself while standing in front of the mirror. If you have to, everyday.

Then open a new WORD doc.

And write.

Repeat if necessary.

Comment

The Artist – Movie Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
February 25, 2012

PRODUCER – Thomas Langmann, Emmanuel Montamat
DIRECTOR – Michel Hazanavicius
WRITER – Michel Hazanavicius
CAST – Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo, James Cromwell
MUSIC – Ludovic Bource

The Artist opens with the display of magnificent narcissism in a much-loved super star of the silent era. It begins with a film within a film and the hero taking the encore. It spends a lot of time, on the reception and adulation of the entranced audience. As far as opening sequences go, it is at once loaded and an enchanting opening, suggesting the world of the film, its characters and the impending drama, in one masterstroke. This tightness becomes a sign of better things to come and the film never lets us down.

The film, a silent film, is set in the times when silent films were transitioning into talkies. The face of the quick-silver industry was fast-changing and with it fates. George Valentin, a hugely popular film star becomes the victim of this transition, losing not only his stardom but his fortunes faster than he could have imagined. On the other hand there is this spunky starlet, Peppy Miller, who began as an extra on the sets of Valentin’s film but now is a rising star of the talkies. Among the reversal of fortunes there is a silent romance, throbbing away, somewhere under the surface.

Silent films, given their limitedness always had straightforward and simple plots. They had a lot of drama and emotion that was expressed with magnanimous flair. It added to the larger-than-life halo of the movies which we all love. The Artist does the same and with a lot of heart and no melodrama. Its period music, vintage frames and dialogues cards makes us nostalgic as much as they suck us in to the world of Valentin and Miller, a world we grow to love exactly the way we did with the films of yore. Love is old-world and so is loyalty but we lap it up as though the concepts were never dated.

Perhaps, what makes the film exuberantly delightful is the perfect casting. Jean Dujardin as Valentin embodies within him effortlessly, the man-of-the-world charm of Clark Gable and winsomeness of Gene Kelly, men who defined the talkie romantic and musical cinema of 30’s and 40’s Hollywood. Bérénice Bejo as the sprightly and zesty Peppy Miller, lights up the screen with her sheer spontaneity and youthfulness.

In its attempt to serve up a solidly entertaining and strongly narrated film, the film harks back to an era where stories, characters, emotions, motivations, performances and technique were full-bodied. In all aspects, The Artist gives a nod, if not a tribute to traditional story-telling in its full glory. And it does it with a command over the medium that is at once admirable as much as it is enjoyable.

In this day and age of instant entertainment and shorter-than-140 characters attention spans, if a black and white, silent film telling a simple love story of little grandeur but lot of heart is so delightfully refreshing, then for the film, that is a stellar badge to wear. A delightful film of the past that is as ageless as they come.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Jodi Breakers – Movie Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
February 25, 2012

PRODUCER – Prasar Visions Pvt Ltd
DIRECTOR – Ashwini Chaudhury
WRITER – Aakash Kaushik
CAST – R. Madhavan, Bipasha Basu, Milind Soman, Dipannita Sharma, Omi Vaidya
MUSIC – Salim-Sulaiman

A film that begins with an Omi Vaidya talking to the audience can rarely be good news. And as things go, Jodi Breakers really isn’t, though it tries hard to be.

There is this very beefy and scruffy Madhavan as Sid who after a rough and tough divorce, has gotten into the business of helping people get a divorce with the help of Shonali (Bipasha Basu). One such case goes completely awry when Shonali realises the real intent of Sid behind breaking up Maggie (Dippanita Sharma) and Mark’s (Milind Soman) perfectly happy marriage. Sid is repentant though and wishes to correct it. But by then Shonali is in love with him and so is he but is in denial. They set about getting Maggie and Mark back together, collaborating for one last time.

The plot above doesn’t merely sound complicated but is as twisted. The film goes on a merry-go-round to finally get Sid to admit his love for Shonali, something he does with little flair or fun. Much like the film itself.

The film is a rom-com set in the context of our modern society with its multiple divorces and fragile relationships. But this is a superficial reference point, much like the superficiality of the entire film. The comedy becomes forced and romance almost non-existence. The camera however, caresses the visuals of Greece with breathless passion unlike any other locales of the film. But a very cosmetic approach to every aspect, be it screenplay, dialogues, pace and characters make the story unfolding onscreen uninspiring. What’s more the film also finds a way to squeeze in an item number by Bipasha Basu acting totally out-of-character for a girl who is supposed to be a dreamy, vulnerable, believer-in love. But then, such are the ways of Bollywood. Also, you have a very portly and uncomfortable Madhavan dancing away with bikini-clad girls with disastrous effect.

Probably what goes against the film strongly is the unlikely pairing of the lead cast, who unfortunately, do not share a breadth of chemistry. Not particularly known for exemplar performance abilities, both lead with enough energy to get by. Bipasha’s unusual styling becomes increasingly distracting after a point of time and so does Madhavan’s utter lack of it. Milind Soman plays his uni-dimensional character within his limits and among the melee only Dipannita Sharma stands out as trying to invest more in her role than is demanded but the graceful lady sadly just doesn’t have enough meat to succeed. She is simply smothered in a film with a meandering plot, a colourful and shallow approach that makes up this entertainer of little heart or skill.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Tere Naal Love Ho Gaya – Movie Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
February 25, 2012

PRODUCER – Ramesh Taurani, Kumar Taurani
DIRECTOR – Mandeep Kumar
WRITER – Abhijeet Sandhu
CAST – Riteish Deshmukh, Genelia D’Souza, Om Puri, Tinnu Anand, Smita Jayakar
MUSIC – Sachin-Jigar

There is a belief among Bollywood producers that real life ‘jodis’ spark a profound interest among viewers to watch them couple up onscreen. It is most evidently one such belief that brought an unlikely pairing in an even more unlikely rom-com – ‘Tere Naal Love Ho Gaya’.

Set in the northern regions of Punjab and Haryana it tells the story of Viren (Riteish Deshmukh) and Mini (Genelia D’Souza) who end up on the run due to Viren’s gone-bust dream and Mini’s sheer adventurous spirit. To avoid getting married to a guy she dislikes, she forces Viren, who drives rickshaws for her father, to kidnap her. They flee and after a whole lot of capering around in broken into houses, fooling people and so on, they themselves are kidnapped by Viren’s father (Om Puri), a crime master with a deadly reputation. A whole new film begins from then on, ending on the predictable note the title screamingly suggests.

The film entirely revolves around Mini and Viren’s exploits and puts tremendous pressure on the duo to sparkle beyond their capabilities. An incredibly stodgy screenplay and Bollywood’s old habit to spell everything out, be it in dialogue or events milk out every little potential a goof, idea or joke has. Riteish and Genelia are then left with two stock things to do – Riteish to play the loser with a constantly agitated look and Genelia to shower her spunk and energy at the drop of a hat, without restraint.

The film is full of colour, music and dance. Sometimes a little too much. While Genelia’s styling shouts out VIBGYOR without fail, the duo also constantly feel compelled to break into romantic songs for no reason. Songs, that are needless to say, tepid and forgettable. The time they spend at Viren’s father’s place is a typically Rajasthani haveli with a complete Rajasthani family in the midst of Haryana, displacing the already off-the-kilter film. Om Puri plays the patriarchal criminal Chaudhury with as much conviction he can muster, providing the necessary laughs that every long-drawn joke is stretched to.

As a genre, the film milks the runaway girl-boy theme to its extreme. But loose direction and looser dialogues strip the joy of watching an otherwise sparkling Genelia and endearing Riteish get on with their love story. By the end of it, it becomes a mish-mash of several films and intents not doing justice to any, least of all itself.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

“?” Movie Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
February 25, 2012

PRODUCER – Percept Pictures
DIRECTOR – Allyson Patel, Yash Dave
CAST – Akhlaque Khan, Yaman Chatwal, Varun Thakur, Chirag Jain, Sonam Mukherjee, Maanvi Gagroo, Kiran Bhatia

Horror is probably the most personal and hence most difficult emotion to evoke in fiction. The point-of-view camera narrative, made popular by films like The Blairwitch Project and the Paranormal Activity series when used imaginatively, provokes a surreal response, at times too close for comfort. ? takes this inherent quality of its chosen style and mixes it with its own uniqueness to serve up a refreshing experimental film.

The film has a sketchy plot, somewhat similar to The Blairwitch Project, the guerrilla hit of the 90’s. Seven friends set out in the jungles for a college assignment, armed with their camera and gear to shoot their short film. But soon enough disaster strikes. Two days later their camera is found and the dead bodies of three among them. The whereabouts of the rest remain a mystery.

The film is shown through the footage captured and hence is shrouded in a mystery from the word go. All that begins casually doesn’t remain so as the atmosphere around the youngsters keeps getting questionable. The film uses sounds, gestures and light techniques to underscore horror and wisely, does away with shocking gimmickry. As unpredictable as the film footage is, the film has the screen flicker off suddenly mid-way, adding a meta experience to its credit.

For a film that borrows its technique from a rather tested territory, it invests enough contextual style to present an original ethos. The youngsters perform with a natural flair using everyday urban language and joke about everyday trends, ranging from popular directors to popular TV serials. The gang keep the banter easy-going and the energy charged right till the suspenseful end. The direction never lets lose of the grip around the interactions and the flow.

It is a small film that has been made on the shoulders of experimental gusto and does its job of horrifying with competence. It may not push the envelope in any way but its verve and competence is a good sign for the fledgling experimental cinema struggling to find its own voice.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Our gods with clay feet

Filed Under: After thoughts, Contemplation, Random — Fatema — 4 Comments
February 21, 2012

Cynicism is empowering and so is voicing an opinion. As our zeitgeist becomes a creation of media-created, two-bit celebrities our cynicism gets sharper. As undeserving asteroids become starlets and unnatural starlets stars, our understanding of ‘heroism’ takes a blow and we come down hard because when faith is broken it hurts hard. But in the aftermath of that chaos, we forget that the heroes we deified were humans to begin with. Somewhere down the line, we forgot to add that to the character sketch.

That is why may be it is time to revisit our insistence of tearing down the very gods we helped create.

The Age we live in now has no place for the starry-eyed wonder that a Dilip Kumar or an Amitabh Bachchan evoked. Instant information, instant means to express disdain and the shedding of the veneer of inaccessibility that helped the stars of yore tower over mere mortals, has transformed our heroes and the way we look at them. It has revealed their ‘human’ side, till now a domain of the dubitable tabloid. It has also transformed us and the way we now choose to receive them. The pressure of appearing smart in 140 characters or more and always having a quick opinion on a celebrity is immense. The only way to win is to make the response as cutting as possible. Sarcasm may be the lowest form of communication but it receives the maximum hits/likes. And RTs. In this world of instant fixes it has become our best mode of entertainment.

Like everyone else, I stopped watching award shows long back. I think it was the year Anil Kapoor was bypassed for the best actor award for Virasat in favour of Shahrukh Khan in Dil Toh Pagal Hain, easily his worst performance till date. It didn’t matter much from then on because the awards got progressively worse every year and soon there were so many that even a pretense of respectability wasn’t possible. There were too many Santa Clauses to ever believe in the concept of Father Christmas anymore.

In the last five-six years they degenerated into poorly scripted dance-n-song stage shows with bored celebrities everywhere. Undignified lampooning, unfettered celebration of talentless-ness, shameless posturing and such made Bollywood an embarrassment we didn’t want to associate with anymore.

This year, while I was cursorily watching the Filmfare Awards, I happened to observe the celebrities; our heroes that have mercilessly trampled our faith in them time and again. Maybe it was the endearing bonding between the reigning King and the young ‘un who brings fresh hope for cinema but the otherwise lifeless, pan-caked celebrities suddenly seemed human. The antics of the duo-of-the-evening were received with interest and engagement I have not often seen among the celebs. The goodwill they aroused was pleasing. Even when Aruna Irani’s award-acceptance speech began to get a tad bit overwrought there were plenty of admiring smiles that understood her thrill and wonder. When Vidya Balan won her second award, the genuine well-meaning smiles she received were surprising. On the announcement of the best actor award SRK and Ranbir were clasping hands like brothers and that it wasn’t a part of their act was there for all to see. After a confident and tongue-in-cheek perfomance matching the irrespressible King Khan step-for-step with pizzazz, Ranbir’s distinct emotional response to his win endeared him as much as to the audience as it did to me. There were the listless, bored faces too but there were those genuinely rooting for their own heroes and heroines of the evening. The smiles weren’t conscious of the cameras focused on them or of the fact that hundreds of articles and news pieces will be made out of a certain smile, expression, reaction. I wondered what was different? Had I, after years of disdain become so disengaged that I was finally able to see them for who they were? Humans?

That brought me to think that perhaps in our over-weening enthusiasm for gods makes us summarily reject the human part of the people we have made into gods. The need to ‘cut them down to size’ is a response less to their antics and more an outcome of our self-importance. Because cynicism gives instant results and lasting celebrityhood. And because of that may be we could focus it on those who really deserve our angst, those, who have promised us worlds but turned our best dreams into pits of hell for generations to come and done damage far much more insidious than a film star can ever hope to.

Let humans remain human, warts and all.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

War Horse – Movie Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
February 11, 2012

PRODUCER – Kathleen Kennedy, Steven Spielberg
DIRECTOR – Steven Spielberg
WRITER – Lee Hall and Richard Curtis (screenplay), Michael Morpurgo (Novel ‘War Horse)
CAST – Peter Mullan, Emily Watson, Jeremy Irvine, Benedict Cumberbatch, Celine Buckens
MUSIC – John Williams

War Horse has several precedents such as National Velvet, Black Beauty, Seabiscuit, The Horse Whisperer and so on. All have been made with a story revolving around a horse and his relationship with his keeper and all based on a book. War Horse goes a similar route but unlike other films in the genre, it tells a story of wider truths in the context of grimmer realities.

War Horse is a story of an extraordinary horse Joey, in the dire circumstances of the First World War. A thoroughbred, Joey is bought by farmer Ted Naracott (Peter Mullan) even when he needs a plough horse, just to spite his landlord. His young son Albert (Jeremy Irvine) takes up the challenge of training the colt to plough their fields and develops a deep bond with the horse in the process. But that challenge is only the first one in the life of Joey who is soon sold to the British cavalry. From then on, Joey changes hands from master to keeper to saviour as his magnificence and superlative courage attract deepest emotions in equine-loving hearts be it tough soldiers, tender horse-keepers or the feisty little farm girl Emilie (Celine Buckens). Life comes a full circle and Joey is re-united with his beloved master under the most gruelling circumstances and among much emotion, right on the battlefield.

The story of the film makes for immense drama, teary emotion and splendid action and Spielberg does not let any opportunity slip in squeezing it to perfect advantage. One dramatic episode after other makes up the destiny of Joey as we are egged on by a palpable tug of emotion chugging us. The film zooms in on the battle sequences with force and does not squirm while presenting the inescapable dirt and death of the war. Here, we see some of the best shot sequences and humane pictures of human interactions on a battlefield riddled with bombs, bullets and bayonets.

In the true style of Spielberg, the film captures spectacular visuals that evoke grandeur and serenity at once. Janusz Kamiński’s cinematography mixes the magic of the Devon landscape with the cold and cutting ambience of the battlefield, presenting a majestic silver screen affair matched perfectly with John Williams sweeping background score.

The film wears a very traditional sensibility of dealing with emotion and presents the entire film with a seemingly melodramatic flourish. In choosing the singularly sentimental note, Spielberg makes a drama film with a lot of flair and heart but something that remains far less stunning in its craft and story-telling singularly focusing on evoking choking tears in the throat. Subtlety is an alien concept here and hence all the characters, from the stoic and weathered Peter Mullan to the vulnerably young Jeremy Irvine to the unblemished, heroic soldiers Captain Nicholls (Tom Hiddleston) and Geordie officer Colin (Toby Kebell), and Emily Watson as the strong and sturdy Rose Naracott play their roles with an archaic showiness.

The film is a picture of human and animal relationships taking a wider look at the brutality of war. Unfortunately, it remains limited in its explorations and the lack of subtlety greatly hurting an otherwise brave film.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Ek Main Aur Ek Tu – Movie Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — 2 Comments
February 10, 2012

PRODUCER – Karan Johar, Ronnie Screwvala, Hiroo Johar
DIRECTOR – Shakun Batra
WRITER – Ayesha Devitre, Shakun Batra
CAST – Kareena Kapoor, Imran Khan
MUSIC – Amit Trivedi

In Hindi cinema, the word ‘Rahul’ has become symbolic of some sort of an Everyman. This time round, this hallowed epithet is worn by Imran Khan. In Hindi cinema the girl interestingly may have unique names from to time. So when she isn’t Pooja or Priya, she is Simran or in this case Rihana Braganza. Excitingly out of the box for Bollywood, you’d think, won’t you?

Unfortunately, this breezy rom-com takes the same old route almost every boy-meets-girl story in film land does. In this version it is boy meets girl and in a drunken state gets married (The similarity with What Happened in Vegas ends there). And then circumstances have them tag along with each other until they become good friends and continue the tagging. No, not the facebook type, but the type where the girl tags the boy all the way from Vegas to Mumbai so that he can have some fun in his otherwise boring life. The chirpy giggly girl who has it all figured out begins the reformation of the serious, sad-looking boy and wins his heart. It has by now become difficult to count how many times we have seen that before onscreen.

Back in Mumbai, the girl unveils her delightfully happy-go-lucky middle-class family. An ensemble cast and treatment that director Shakun Batra infuses with real old South Mumbai charm and the ‘happy family’ energy. On the other end there are the strict, rule-bound parents of Rahul (A bored looking Ratna Pathak Shah and equally bored Boman Irani) who, immersed in their upper class superficiality have suppressed Rahul’s every desire. Rihanna teaches Rahul to break free but not before he falls head over heels in love with her. A love to which, unfortunately she doesn’t respond. It is here the film gets slightly unconventional. However, this conflict comes so late that it makes the entire film seem insipid and uninspiring for what may be termed as a lack of story, plot or purpose.

The film is structured as a coming-of-age film. Rahul summarily comes of age in one loud outburst at a business dinner leaving with a half-hearted ‘sorry’ note back to Vegas without putting the pieces of his life together he has just undone. Unnaturally also, the film ends on an open note. A note which isn’t a point of contention as much as the montage manner it is treated with is. A lack of closure to an already story-less plot would likely make a less than satisfying especially for a rom-com, one would think.

Imran Khan continues to play his character in this film in the same stiff and staid manner he is used to play every character of his. Kareena Kapoor smiles her way through the entire film trying hard to invest her magnetic screen presence and spontaneity onto the listless surroundings. But all we take back is how she glows in her slim-fit jeans and casual attire.

The film speaks in an urban language and hints at a very urban understanding of dating as well. While this is refreshing and in parts intuitive, it is over-ridden with cutesie clichés that make it look like we have seen everything a few times over already. Yet another rom-com.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Contraband – Movie Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
January 27, 2012

PRODUCER – Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Baltasar Kormákur, Stephen Levinson, Mark Wahlberg
DIRECTOR – Baltasar Kormákur
WRITER – Aaron Guzikowski (screenplay), Arnaldur Indriðason and Óskar Jónasson for ‘Reykjavik-Rotterdam’
CAST – Mark WahlBerg, Kate Beckinsale, Giovanni Ribisi, Ben Foster
MUSIC – Clinton Shorter

Heist films are generally quickies, focused and to-the-point. Contraband keeps to its brief and serves up a delightfully tight, somewhat manipulative, a little complicated but intelligent crime caper that stays to the point.

It begins similarly as well. Chris Farraday (Mark Wahlberg) is an ex-smuggler who now works installing security alarms. He has a lovely wife Kate (Kate Beckinsale), two kids and a happy home. All of this comes under danger when Kate’s brother Andy (Caleb Landry Jones) drops a cocaine cargo he was running on a ship for fear of being caught. Now his boss Tim Briggs (Giovanni Ribisi) is baying for his blood, demanding the cargo’s worth of money while threatening to harm Kate and her children. Chris is forced to work out a short-cut to getting instant millions and he does but not before putting his wife and children in his friend, Sebastian’s (Ben Foster) guardianship. What follows not only involves fake notes, armoured car heists, drug-running on cargo ships but betrayal and murder.

The director, Baltasar Kormákur remakes the film from an Icelandic film titled ‘Reykjavík-Rotterdam’ (2008) starring himself. It is a race-to-the-finish sort of film that leaves little time to absorb any details more than necessary for the plot to move on. In a tightly narrated fashion it lays out the plan, the progression and growing stakes in equal measure and creates a fair amount of tension while doing it. The odds stalked against Chris are huge yet he, the eponymous, templat-ish, fearless heist-hero will pull through anything however bizarre for that stoic and unassailable love for his family. He is the all-protector of his vulnerable wife, children and here, brother-in-law too. There is little we get to know about him apart from this unnatural heroism except that he loves pulling off such jobs. That, again does little for the plot.

What does is the sharp cutting and edgy narrative, just about balancing the showing and telling of the plan and unfolding of the next development, keeping us summarily hooked to what happens next. For a crime thriller this is enough runs gained for winning the match. Obviously then, the film becomes a plot-based caper where characters do little than serve up the next thrill or curve and Wahlberg and Beckinsale play their roles strictly within these limits. The grainy, grungy visuals chalk up a gritty landscape that helps the film do what it sets out to do with determination – to keep having you ask, so what’s next?!

Does that make it good film? Well, it makes it a good well-spent two hours following the twisted terrains of crime at the movies.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Haywire – Movie Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
January 27, 2012

PRODUCER – Gregory Jacobs
DIRECTOR – Steven Soderbergh
WRITER – Lem Dobbs
CAST – Gina Carano, Ewan McGregor, Michael Fassbender, Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas
MUSIC – David Holmes

After last year’s contemplative and analytic Contagion Steven Soderbergh comes back with a vigorous spy thriller. In a neat and tight little plot he makes his lady protagonist Mallory Kane (Gina Carano) combat, shoot, run, jump and defeat the most intrepid of opponents.

A covert operations spy, Mallory gets into a trap laid to betray her and turns the story on her opponents’ head by becoming their nemesis. Working for a private organization she is hired by a government agent Coblez (Michael Douglas) and his contact Rodrigo (Antonio Banderas) to rescue a man captured in Barcelona. Little does Mallory know, as she embarks upon the trail that she is being set-up and her own ex-boyfriend Kenneth (Ewan McGregor) is part of the plan. She soon gets wiser and in one swoop turns hunted from the hunter. But Mallory wants her revenge and she will have it. She begins her hunt for every person responsible for betraying her.

In a frenzy of building-scaling acrobatics and dynamic hand-to-hand combat Soderbergh tells a tale of action and fury that has little story. But he masks this with the aces of sharp twists and turns he throws at his audience without warning. He has his petite lady protagonist do the toughest acts and she pulls them off with a rare confidence, shining of smart manouveres and totally lacking in false bravado. Perhaps, after Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, Gina Carano fits well into the fantasy of the invincible, fearless Superwoman.

It is a sparse tale that unfolds in front of us, largely keeping to Mallory’s chase. She is the focus of the film and remains its only take-away. In a film that veers corners faster than F1, the remaining stellar cast become mere plot points with little to do but merely provide her the motive to zip-zam-zoom us into well-deserved awe. Gina Carano, on her part plays the death-defying spy with a steely confidence and a slight brazen-ness that becomes her young spy. It makes us root for her when she dressed in a little black dress takes on a man in hand to hand combat and fights a bone-cracking, muscle-numbing fight to the finish. And wins.

Soderbergh also handles the camera and gives us visuals as sparse as is the terrain of the film. He keeps colours muted and captures action as vigorously as it explodes between the people, never letting the camera get in the way.

As an action thriller the film works like a little charm. Especially the tongue-in-cheek climax Soderbergh leaves us to figure out. And the manner in which he treats his heroine it is but a befitting end, because by now we know what she is capable of and leave the film chuckling at the smart under-telling. Delectable.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Agneepath – Movie Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
January 27, 2012

PRODUCER – Karan Johar
DIRECTOR – Karan Malhotra
WRITER – Karan Malhotra (Screenplay), Piyush Mishra (Dialogues)
CAST – Hrithik Roshan, Priyanka Chopra, Sanjay Dutt, Rishi Kapoor
MUSIC –Ajay Gogavale, Atul Gogavale

In a small village off the Western coast of India a young teacher and his family live an upright and simple life. Until it is mercilessly uprooted by an evil drug-lord Kancha Cheena. The teacher is defamed and hanged publicly and the family is made to flee their village. Behind them, over time, the village becomes Kancha’s kingdom of hell and a festering wound within Vijay, the teacher’s young son. A wound that is poisonous enough to infect Vijay’s entire life with a singular motive, revenge.

Karan Johar reprises his father Yash Johar’s best work (Agneepath 1990) with Hrithik Roshan, Sanjay Dutt and Priyanka Chopra in the leads. It is a film that borrows the framework of the original story and presents it with its own suitable tweaks. The grey Mandwa and middle-class milieu are the same but the sensibility is different. Within this new sensibility the film becomes a melodramatic and over-wrought piece that leaves no stone unturned in telling and literalising every emotion, action and motive.

Right from the start, the film takes a relaxed pace of unravelling the story. Hence, Kancha and Vijay’s childhood’s track, his joining hands with Rauf Lala (Rishi Kapoor), the local ganglord and his romantic track plodge haltingly towards what the film is really about – Vijay’s revenge and emotional release. This meandering story-telling points to a masala sensibility that is compelled to include every other element of cinema at the cost of its story. Despite Hrithik’s immense frowning and suitable huffing-puffing this dilutes the intensity of Vijay’s story.

For a film doused in tears, ash, blood it is an extremely loud and melodramatic affair that we watch unfolding. Hrithik keeps the explosive angst of Vijay seething beneath the surface and brings alive the pain of his traumatic past by his mere demeanour. However, the film has him lose subtlety to over-expression and he gives into the temptation of blustering the anger that has long become stony-edged. This, in combination with Sanjay Dutt’s surreally evil Kancha who spouts spiritual theisms without a care for diction or variation in articulation makes for a mis-matched war leaving us confused on whose side we are on. Piyush Mishra’s dialogues swings furiously from the terribly pedestrian to the most mis-fit philosophy.

In the war between Vijay and Kancha all else seem but of tertiary importance. Yet, a self-possessed but badly performed Rauf Lala takes up a lot of screen time. And so do a uselessly chirpy Priyanka Chopra and her colony of compulsively colourfully dressed up women. She fills her space with decent value but matters little in the larger scheme of things. Zarina Wahab’s weepy mother constantly fluctuates between two emotions never letting us get close to the taut complexity of her and Vijay’s relationship. Om Puri, in his upright and determined police officer role is simply a miscast and does not command the power his role is meant to.

A very tepid musical score and lyrics mark the entire narrative. An over-wrought back ground score underlines every emotion and turning point as though the dialogues weren’t (over) doing it enough. Besides being loud the film is also naïve while showing the interactions between the police and Home Ministry. A distinct lack of touch with rawness, angst and compelling evil in the directorial vision lends this film to become an insistently bloody saga of little impact than the one on the eardrums.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Coriolanus – Movie Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
January 20, 2012

PRODUCER – Ralph Fiennes, Gabrielle Tana, Julia Taylor-Stanley, Colin Vaines
DIRECTOR – Ralph Fiennes
WRITER – John Logan based on William Shakespeare’s play ‘Coriolanus’.
CAST – Ralph Fiennes, Gerard Butler, Vanessa Redgrave, Jessica Chastain
MUSIC – Ilan Eshkeri

When the film opens we see a tattooed hand sharpening a somewhat historic-looking knife. Soon, this visual gives way to footage of modern-day warfare and bloodshed. We know then, that Shakespeare’s tragic saga of the Roman leader Coriolanus is to be viewed in the 21st century setting.

Coriolanus (Ralph Fiennes), the protagonist is at war and fights his arch-enemy Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler) in a valiant hand-to-hand combat. In minutes we know this is a ferocious General with an unbridled temperament. But it is when he gets back home that the real drama begins. His superiors and his mother Volumnia (Vanessa Redgrave) persuade him to take up political office as a mark of recognition for his military accolades. He wins the support of the Roman Senate but a mutiny stirred up by Brutus and Sicinius turns the public against him. Egged by his passionate, irreverent and volatile disposition Coriolanus completely alienates them attracting an exile for himself. He leaves Rome in anger and joins forces with Aufidius to besiege Rome for revenge. Like a true Shakespearean tragic hero, he begins paving way for his own fall.

The film remains completely loyal to Shakespeare’s plot which in turn is based on historic turn of events. In adapting it to contemporary times Ralph Fiennes plays with setting but retains the dialogue and politics of yore. He also retains Shakespeare’s original vision of his characters and redraws them with a sparkling honesty. He shows Coriolanus for the impulsive and explosive valiant leader he is and Ralph Fiennes plays it with vigour and passion. However, he plays it uni-dimensional, unable to go deeper into the skin of the tragic hero and bring into play the various shades of good and bad that mark all of Shakespeare’s tragedy kings. Fiennes captures the mother-son relationship of Volumnia and Coriolanus with the same insight as Shakespeare, defining with discernment the almost possessive sense of ownership she displays, also alienating and disconcerting Coriolanus’ wife. Vanessa Redgrave owns the matriarch with a towering presence and conviction dwarfing Fiennes’ Coriolanus both by her stature and strength of character. But then that is exactly the sub-text of their relationship. Jessica Chastain as the fragile wife makes the perfect foil for the over-bearing mother and aggressive son with her intuitive performance.

Among the secondary characters Gerard Butler and Brian Cox put in dependable performances but it is Paul Jesson as Brutus and James Nesbitt as Sicinius who draw eyeballs by bringing out the vile corruption and squirming under-handed evil with ease.

The entire cast transforms the bombastic Shakespearean verse and prose into dramatic conversation. It is the ‘feeling’ more than usual eloquence with which his lines are generally enacted that contributes to the drama coming alive. However, it makes the film inaccessible but powerful nonetheless.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Goodnight Goodmorning – Movie review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
January 20, 2012

PRODUCER – Sudhish Kamat
DIRECTOR – Sudhish Kamat
WRITER – Sudhish Kamat, Shilpa Rathnam
CAST – Manu Narayan, Seema Rehmani, Vasanth Santosham, Raja Sen, Abhishek D Shah

As sages, legends and wisdom have always said love is random to find and easy to lose. Yet the more number of times we lose it the less capable we remain to nourish it. Goodnight Good Morning, in its own gentle manner, soul-bares two fragile people, Turiya (Manu Narayan) and Moira (Seema Rehmani) who accidentally meet in a bar and then spend an entire night on phone talking. This chat, innocuous flirting at first, leads them through the eight stages of relationships – The Icebreaker. The Honeymoon. The Reality Check. The Break-up. The Patch-up. The Confiding. The Great Friendship & The Killing Confusion.

Experimental in approach, the film is black and white and presented as a split-screen conversation between the two. All along jazz music plays in the background never letting us forget the film is about love, the finding, losing, keeping, gaining and searching of it.

The film is cosy even though a tad claustrophobic. It is assured of its characters and peels them layer by layer through the conversation they have. It’s with a piquant observation of urban, contemporary ideas and experiences of love in men and women that the film explores its characters. There may be little insight about relationships but the tightness of characterisation help us go along Turiya and Moira’s journey effortlessly. It however, leaves a gap in exploring the said stages with depth making the explanation of the same seem forced.There is also the spoofs in between that become inconsistent with the mood of the entire film, not helping it go anywhere. Similarly, the gang of friends become a less-than-useful baggage as well.

Although it is a singularly dialogue-oriented film, it cries out to be more visually imaginative. It pulls us into engaging with the smart-n-sexy Moira and soft-n-sugary Turiya from the start. They are opposites and they attract. There is sharp and easy camaraderie in their ice-breaker phase that effortlessly leads into us eagerly asking the ever-important question – what next? Their conversation is verbose and unfortunately limited by a visual style that makes the viewing auditory than the actual sensual experience to is. The singular split-screen with only close-ups and mid-shots, especially profiles to help do not let us explore the characters in our minds visually, which the narrative badly makes us want to do.

The film rallies on, on the steam of some sharp writing and absorbing performances of the lead pair. Manu Narayan’s guy-next-door Turiya, the consummate believer in true and everlasting love makes a solid contrast for the exquisite Seema Rehmani as Moira.Together, the pair pull the somewhat difficult film off-the-ground into a satisfying experience. It may not be brilliant but if you have known love closely, the film has the power to make you love or hate love, depending on your experience with it.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

J. Edgar – Movie review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
January 20, 2012

PRODUCER – Clint Eastwood, Brian Grazer, Ron Howard, Robert Lorenz
DIRECTOR – Clint Eastwood
WRITER – Dustin Lance Black
CAST – Clint Eastwood, Naomi Watts, Armie Hammer
MUSIC – Clint Eastwood

American history remembers J. Edgar Hoover as a man with a checkered life. Almost single-handedly responsible for building the Federal Bureau of Investigation, America’s premier intelligence institution of world-wide repute, Hoover largely remains a man who used his power illegally and beyond the jurisdiction of the organisation.

Clint Eastwood’s biopic chooses to portray a tender picture of the man, underplaying the ethical questions that surrounded his tenure of service with the US Government but not necessarily underscoring his achievements either. While, this may be doing a disservice to the records of history, it also personalizes the account of a man as important as he was seen as notorious. Within this personal and tinted framework Eastwood and his writer Dustin Lance Black tell a story of a determined man focused towards vindicating justice but not too unwilling to tweak rules for personal glory. The same man is also a mamma’s boy fighting a sexual dilemma, he loves toting guns, being the all-American hero and is in love with his deputy but unable to face it. Hoover’s homosexuality and his relationship with Clyde Tolson, his deputy, is a suggestion rather than proven in history but in making it a concrete aspect of his personality Eastwood sketches an endearing portrayal of male bonding and companionship.

The film focuses entirely on Hoover’s FBI career taking us through the various chapters of his professional life in a back and forth weave strung together by Hoover’s voice over dictating his memoirs. This technique reserved for thrillers works equally well in drama while we decode Hoover’s life layer by layer and sink into engaging with what unfolds.

While there is an inconsistency in dealing with America’s pre and post-war politics, the film, like any other Eastwood film, draws out the man behind the drama and lays him out, human and vulnerable for our consumption. It is the sterling performances of the main leads that hold the film together. Leonardo Dicaprio shuttles between a young and tense Hoover to an old Hoover, almost at the end of his time, with a superb ease and control. The devastatingly handsome Armie Hammer, last seen in The Social Network, supports Dicaprio’s performance with a solidarity as sincere as Tolson’s must have been to Hoover. Naomi Watts as Miss Gandy, the loyal and trusted secretary of Hoover for fifty-four years, is relegated to the background after an exciting start. Yet the actress manages to hold her place in the triumvirate with a silent conviction and dependability that has almost become a hallmark of her performances.

Like all his films earlier, Clint Eastwood turns this biopic into an engaging human drama about morals, values, relationships and human vulnerabilities. He does not judge nor is he cynical and in this lack of cynicism he manages to portray a man of a dubitable past we can view with equanimity. Eastwood also provides music to his biopic and what we get is a subtle and simple score helping the movie along gently, never over-powering, never underscoring, never diminishing.

The film is no legendary saga or a celebration of triumph. But it is a recognition of contribution to the creation of history and an effort full of empathy and understanding to unravel an almost mythic man. It is engaging, solid, with a lot of heart and a perspicacity so rare in the way we tell our stories these days.

Originally posted here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Chaalis Chaurasi – Movie review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
January 13, 2012

PRODUCER – ANUYA MHAISKAR, SACHIN AWASTHEE AND UDAY SHETTY
DIRECTOR – HRIDAY SHETTY
WRITER – YASH-VINAY
CAST – NASEERUDDIN SHAH, ATUL KULKARNI, KAY KAY MENON, RAVI KISSEN, SHWETA BHARDWAJ, RAJESH SHARMA, ZAKIR HUSSAIN
MUSIC – LALIT PANDIT AND VISHAL RAJAN

Many a times a film becomes its characters. Or rather actors in the case of Chaalis Chaurasi. Then it stoops to the presence and prowess of stage-burners and unless the vision of the film or its story stands above all, rarely does a film like this is able to bear the weight of a weightily talented star-cast.

Probably, the onus of the film’s failure lies there. Failure, yes we’ve already said it. In a casting coup of sorts the film gets together Naseeruddin Shah as Pankaj Suri or Sir, Kay Kay Menon as Albert Pinto, a car thief, Atul Kulkarni as Bobby, a bar singer and Ravi Kisshen as Shakti , a drug dealer. They are small-time crooks with dreams in their eyes and corny plans to make it big which involves raiding a deserted house to catch hold of 20 crores. Even as they dress up as cops and begin their act they are confronted with an actual encounter cop (Rajesh Sharma) who enlists them to catch a real-time gangster Bisleri (Zakir Hussain). The four suddenly meet the real world. Will their bravado last and will their dreams outrun the harshness of the reality?

The film is a caper film which keeps the narrative run-time as short as a night’s dilemma but includes reels of flashback that doesn’t give the impression of tightness. It tackles the characters with depth, revealing to us the story of each in great detail but in doing so side-steps their present. It tries to infuse as much quirk as possible in the entire proceedings but a rather short-sighted approach to comedy and narrative leaves the actors and story short of lasting pegs reducing the entire film to flashes of wit and some inconsistently sparkling chemistry. A listless and sometimes uninspiring plot twists leave the actors with little material to infuse in the proceedings. So Naseeruddin Shah looks like a misfit, Ravi Kishen becomes OTT, Kay Kay Menon swaggers from feel good convincing to ineffective and Atul Kulkarni is refreshing at best, but only because the zest with which he seems to be enjoying himself is so.

The film seems to be paying tribute to the film industry with the way it chooses to name its protagonists and thereby indulgingly professing a huge love for its own. It makes us dig into our past as well with a refreshing inclusion of the 80’s Pakistani hit song ‘Hawa Hawa’. It then trips over its feet by introducing pointless item numbers and slapstick comedy that makes for slightly embarrassing watch.

The film takes too long to come to the point. It meanders needlessly over laugh-out-loud moments at the cost of story-telling. Even though we love knowing about Sir’s erstwhile crush and Pinto’s almost child-like car craze at the end of it all the journey becomes exhausting enough for us to ultimately ask – ”And the point was?” Not a good thing for a film to evoke, you will agree.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Ghost – Movie review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
January 13, 2012

PRODUCER – Bharat Shah
DIRECTOR – Puja Jatinder Bedi
WRITER – Puja Jatinder Bedi
CAST – Shiney Ahuja, Sayali Bhagat, Tej Sapru, Deepraj Rana, Julia Bliss, Gulshan Rana
MUSIC – Sharib Sabri, Toshi Sabri

Friday, the 13th is probably a suitable date for releasing a film called Ghost. This forced connection of spook however, does little for the audience.
Ghost revolves around the story of a series hospital murders witnessed by Dr Suhani (Sayali Bhagat) and suffered by a number of patients of City Hospital. In comes a detective Vijay Singh (Shiney Ahuja) to investigate these untoward happenings. Suhani senses supernatural presence behind these killings and suspects herself to be susceptible too but Vijay Singh ignores her suspicions, looking for a rational explanation. But it isn’t long that Suhani is proven right and Vijay Singh has to face that his opponent is a supernatural phenomena he doesn’t believe in. Added to this is the revelation of his own partial memory loss and a past that figured a blonde girl (Julia Bliss). As is revealed, the ghost seen by some, has blonde hair too. Does it have something to do with Vijay’s past?

While coming to terms with these developments Vijay and Suhani fall in love and the already emotional tangle of the story gets a little more wrought.

The film takes on several themes, of karma, revenge, good vs evil, retribution and even religion. While trying to justify each it lets its grip loosen on plausibility and characterization. It takes clichés of set-ups, emotions and character developments and piles on melodrama that we, as an audience of horror films are no strangers to. There is no sense of danger, ominous sub-text or sympathy for the characters or situations that the film compels in us. While Vijay’s past and present conflict end up seeming trite, Suhani’s fear of the spirit spells redundant over-doing of a stereotyped female protagonist. The performances of both ranging from listless to uncontrolled hamming, redeem nothing. Neither does her wardrobe inspire the strength and rootedness of a doctor nor do her surroundings create a tangible, realistic world for her to operate in. Shiney’s Vijay Singh desperately tries to carry the film on his slippery shoulders but remains too unbalanced with an unskilled performance to do so successfully.

The horror film is what is generically called a slasher flick and the ghost plays its role with ultimate glee, slashing the hearts out of its victims at the drop of a hat. In what appears to be an attempt to instill demonic fear into the audience, a very liberal use of prosthetics, blood and gore splashes across the screen repetitively. However, there is a distinct lack of imagination and skill with which the make-up and violence presents itself leaving one cold, not with fear but indifference.

For a horror film, editing and sound play a role as important as a protagonist, something this tacky little flick pays little attention to. For a film that ends in a climax that recalls the crucifixion of Christ and thereby tries to draw around itself web of important social and moral questions, it becomes an amateur, laughably trivial and largely ineffective film.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Players – Movie review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
January 7, 2012

PRODUCER – Burmawala Partners, Viacom 18 Motion Pictures
DIRECTOR – Abbas-Mustan
WRITER – Rohit Jugraj, Sudeep Sharma
CAST – Abhishek Bachchan, Bipasha Basu, Bobby Deol, Neil Nitin Mukesh, Sonam
Kapoor, Sikander Kher, Omi Vaidya, Vinod Khanna
MUSIC – Pritam Chakraborty

There are Bollywood films that are complete rip-offs of Hollywood flicks and then there are official remakes. How much does it speak about Bollyland’s capabilities of handling a good script? Abbas-Mustan’s latest film ‘Players’, puts down the curtain on that question in one lethal sweep.

A daring story about a gold heist from the streets by creating a massive traffic jam was made into a film called the Italian Job twice, once in 1969 and then again in 2003. Abbas-Mustan try to make it again in 2012 but end up reprising their own super twister ‘Race’. In this one, Abhishek Bachchan, Bipasha Basu, Bobby Deol, Neil Nitin Mukesh, Sonam Kapoor, Sikander Kher and Omi Vaidya come together to pull off not one but multiple robberies involving that same set of gold bullions. Personal agendas turn into betrayal and a heist film becomes one about revenge which then again gleefully cuts to the chase for the gold. It is all a part of the game that begins to seem never-ending.

Players is stylishly packaged. It has snazzy action, squeaky visuals and daring stunts that try to qualify it into a more refined bracket. But the film is a little lost on plot, with too many twists, too much explanation, too many motives and it all taking too long to come together. It takes the central plot of Italian Job and puts its own imagination to work adding motives, characters and general ‘Race’-yness to add to the pacy-ness. Unfortunately, that makes quite a mess of the entire story leaving behind little engaging material and more of a ‘trying-too-hard-to-be’ feel. It adds a murder and motive for revenge alongwith a love triangle and of course item numbers, comedians and more.

The film travels through exotic foreign locales as it traipses through its heist planning and execution. As much as it is pleasing eye candy, it is part of the ‘too much’ that is the theme of the film. The only different thing that catches the attention, sometimes charmingly, mostly embarrassingly is Sonam Kapoor’s experimental grunge look that the lady chose with little care but carries off with flair. As for the others, Abhishek Bachchan is in his usual grim-is-good, two-frown demeanour, Neil Nitin Mukesh and Bobby Deol ham it away without restraint and Bipasha Basu does what she does in every film, flaunt her curves while pretending to perform a meaty role. Sikander Kher has precious little to do and Omi Vaidya yet again plays Chatur. Vinod Khanna as the crime master brain behind the heist is shockingly embarrassing, almost painful to watch.

The film ends up constantly twisting round itself in over-smartness. With overwrought dialogues and under-written characters, overdone chases and a merry-g-round plot, it tries to achieve the best of thrills but ends up a cold turkey on the wrong side of chill.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

The Darkest Hour – Movie Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
January 6, 2012

PRODUCER – Timur Bekmambetov, Tom Jacobson
DIRECTOR – Chris Gorak
WRITER – Jon Spaihts (story and screenplay), Leslie Bohem & M.T. Ahern (story)
CAST – Emile Hirsch, Olivia Thirlby, Max Minghella, Rachael Taylor, Joel Kinnaman
MUSIC – Tyler Bates

The world is coming to an end yet again and yet again it is the aliens out to get us. It isn’t America that is the centre of action this time though but Moscow where five people have been thrown together to fight or survive the alien forces. It is an invisible destructive source that feeds of energy and is out to destroy all life on earth. New York, London, Paris and Tokyo have already been annihilated and it is Moscow’s turn now.

The forces seem insurmountable and vicious due to their invisibility. They are given away by electricity but the showing doesn’t do much to lessen their power. The fight to survival needs to necessarily end at a submarine taking survivors out of Moscow but before they reach it, the group have to go through a trial by hell.

The film is a characteristic horror movie, almost template-ish in its entire narrative. It is constructed to provide chills and thrills right till the end and takes ample help of eliminating lives with glee. Bodies fall like nine pins almost leading us to a ‘and then there were none’ kind of anticipation. This, however, makes it no edge-of-the-seat scary movie since the amount we care about the characters is given least importance by the screenplay and direction. The set-up is meagre in building a relation and the progression equally weak. Nothing compelling about the characters or their situations jumps out and performances do not drive us to participate either.

There is large scale destruction all around and immensely threatening consequences ahead of this attack. The film touches upon none nor hints at the larger picture that might await beyond the submarine. It reduces itself to a limited expose of hide-n-seek and run-n-catch between a bunch of aliens and humans, both quite an unimaginative set.

For a scif-fi, horror film it uses tepid effects to recreate cardboardlike giant buildings crashing to the ground and volcanos erupting out of the core of earth with little impact. Its 3D is meant to bring a surge of involvement and shock at exploding debris flying at us but that too does little than dim the proceedings, literally.

With little logic or forceful science behind the alien invasion the film comes across as a somewhat watery experience. It all sums upto watching perfectly healthy building fall to ruins while humans run helter-skelter screaming for lives amidst blinking bulbs. It doesn’t sound that persuasive, does it?

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Don -2 – Movie review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — 2 Comments
January 5, 2012

PRODUCER – Farhan Akhtar, Ritesh Sidhwani, Shahruk Khan
DIRECTOR – Farhan Akhtar
WRITER – Farhan Akhtar, Ameet Mehta and Amrish Shah
CAST – Shahrukh Khan, Priyanka Chopra, Lara Dutta, Boman Irani, Kunal Kapoor
MUSIC – Shankar, Ehsaan, Loy

It seems the more Don evades the barah mulkon ki police the more narcissistic he becomes. In Farhan Akhtar’s second outing of Don, what used to be a suave, sophisticated and enigmatic protagonist on the wrong side of the law has become a self-obsessed, egomaniacal, bombastic crook with a penchant for creating euphemisms as (in)famous as Siddhuisms.

The film revolves around a crime caper involving stealing of the money printing plates from the Deutsche Zentral Bank of Switzerland. Don comes up with a convoluted plot that involves blackmailing the VP of the bank and getting himself arrested and jailed in the same jail as Vardhan to rescue him to use him for the robbery. The robbery, of course goes wrong in between but then Don always has aces up his sleeve.

The film has a lot of razzmatazz that goes with its genre and appeal. As a thriller, it is stylish and fast-paced but the slickness gets a blow with consistent emphasis on dialogue and explanation of the plot. The experience, which lacks a powerful visceral quality, is more of first hearing the story and then watching it. Which begins to feel pointless after a while.

Music is woven in and item numbers do not distract, simply add the spice. But, an over-wrought background score underlining every movement, dialogue and moment dulls impact more than adding to it. Frames are shiny and squeaky clean but the mayhem of a confused plot, too much explanation and weak characterisation lose the film even before it settles upon you.

With the second outing the prime motive of the franchise seems to have become to prove the un-catchability of Don. And of course his shining brilliance. So the entire police force, opponents and even the formidable-in-the-last-film Vardhan (a cheated Boman Irani with so little to do) become puppets and even fools to accommodate the mightiness of the Don.

Heroism, even of malafide intent, is exalted by the strength of the opponent. In a scenario where every rival is reduced to a mumbling fool, Don has no option but to end up looking like a wayward delinquent and nothing more. Which becomes disappointing because Shahrukh Khan unleashes the entire baggage of his dark side without pretense and his absorbing presence is delectable. Only to be let down by the world he is caught in, a world director Farhan Akhtar fleshes out with clichés of dialogue, lack of character motivation and extremely lazy writing.

In a film where the leading lady Priyanka Chopra as Roma gets little to do except pout and act helpless what stands out more is the statuesque presence of Lara Dutta and another gentleman, a superb actor with a superb presence. His identity better remain a secret because his presence adds the rare pizzaz to the film it sorely lacks otherwise.

The film ends like Race, with its plot turned on its head but not before befuddling the audience about what really goes on in Don’s mind and heart. Unfortunately, what could have become enigma remains paltry and confused characterisation. Amitabh Bachchan and Chandra Barot (and the audience) may as well bemoan the complete massacre of what was once a cherished brand.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Pappu Can’t Dance Saala – Movie Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
December 16, 2011

PRODUCER – Ravindra Singh, Sameer Nair
DIRECTOR – Saurabh Shukla
WRITER – Saurabh Shukla
CAST – Vinay Pathak, Neha Dhupia
MUSIC – Malhar

When small-town dreams come to big bad cities they find a jarring dissonance. The big city has its own rhythm that the small-towners continue to struggle to keep time with. ‘Pappu Can’t Dance Saala’ is constructed around this very premise, aiming to explore what happens when two disparate worlds collide.

Saurabh Shukla throws an unlikely couple in close proximity and plays with the resultant fireworks. Vidyadhar aka Pappu (Vinay Pathak), a medical rep has arrived to Mumbai from Varanasi. Mahek (Neha Dhupia) is a chorus dancer-girl in Bollywood, come from Kolhapur and lives next door. Until she is thrown out of her flat for illegal occupancy and dumps herself on Pappu. The morally superior simpleton Pappu is forced to accommodate this brash Mumbai girl and her brazen lifestyle. Something he did till now only from across the corridor. Things escalate from red-hot to frozen temperatures and soon both go their separate ways. But not before they have struck a tender chord within each other. What’s in store for them now?

From a commentary on rural-vs-urban living the film ultimately peters down to a love story. It has a few good dance numbers performed with a statuesque poise by Neha Dhupia and crisp dialogues that keep the pace tingling. Yet, it continues to drop time and again. It rides itself on cliché after cliché be it the simpleton, morally upright and naïve character of Pappu or the discordant relationship he shares with the aggressive Mahek. They don’t have reason to be at loggerheads but they are and well, the film gives you no choice but to go along with it. While the aggressive Mahek becomes a pleasure to watch given the confident performance of Neha Dhupia, it is the simpleton Pappu that evokes a tattered, ‘seen-that-before’ feeling. Pappu has been on-screen from the days of Amol Palekar but then he used to be mild-mannered and undramatic. These days he is always dramatic, morally arrogant and so naïve the lack of realism in his character becomes surprising. When he is simply being used to create laughs he works at his best such as Bheja Fry. But when he is meant to evoke a deeper response, deeper relation he falls flat. Vinay Pathak, reprises the roles he always plays and pitches Pappu in the same manner he always does leaving us to take-away no joy.

The film is handled with a certain tenderness and heart, never letting it get too heavy or too light. But a cliché-ridden screenplay snuffs out any chance of sustaining rib-tickling interest. It uses talents like Naseeruddin Shah, Sanjay Mishra, and Rajat Kapoor to little avail frittering away their presence in roles that don’t matter in a film that doesn’t ened up mattering much either.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

New Year’s Eve – Movie Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
December 9, 2011

PRODUCER – Richard Brener, Toby Emmerich, Mike Karz, Wayne Allan Rice, Josie Rosen
DIRECTOR – Garry Marshall
WRITER – Katherine Fugate
CAST – Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, Zac Efron, Halle Berry, Cary Elwes, Sarah-Jessica Parker, Ashton Kutcher, Jon Bon Jovi, Jessica Biel, Katherine Heigl
MUSIC – John Debney

The success of ‘Valentine’s Day’ 2010 spawned this film. So we have the same template of 7-8 people in trouble, interconnected to each other somehow and to a big festive day meant for life-changing experiences. And a stellar star-cast. In this version (yes one can almost call it that), someone is racing against time to fulfil a life-time’s wishes in a day, someone needs to get the Times Square New Year’s Ball extravaganza successfully on the road, someone needs his freedom and someone needs freedom from cynicism. Someone is looking for love and someone forgiveness.

The film is a one-day event and packs in an amazing amount of things to happen in one single day. But rather than making for a tight action-packed viewing it makes for a hurried, panicky film that’s only focussed upon the finishing line. So it races through its events towards the denouement of its characters without worrying too much about their journey. Which is where it differs from its earlier version and which is where it stops way too short of satisfaction even for soppy lovers.

This also makes it largely manipulative. This, not staying with its characters long enough, this changing them over a tad bit hurriedly for the sake of brevity, all comes across as formulaic, push-button film-making.

The actors however invest a lot of feeling into their parts. Hillary Swank’s apprehension at the Ball going down on time, Halle Berry’s emotionally overwhelmed minutes-long chat with her army lover and Ashton Kutcher’s cynical city loner finding hope are but few characters who make the ride worth it. Jon Bon Jovi’s yearning lover is good too. However, it is De Niro who wins hands down probably the only reason to watch the film. He is a failure, or rather sees himself as one in the life-n-relationships department, a complete anti-thesis to the film’s world. In the few tiny scenes that he appears he completely owns the character, film and moment making you wish his was a completely independent film.

There isn’t much glamour or colour in this one. Neither is the music uplifting or cheerful enough which is surprising for a film heavily banking on creating the aura of emotion and romance. For a channel-flicking, random TV film time, it may work but as a toast to the holiday season, it doesn’t.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Ladies Vs Ricky Bahl – Movie review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
December 9, 2011

PRODUCER – Yashraj Films
DIRECTOR – Maneesh Sharma
WRITER – Habib Faisal
CAST – Ranveer Singh, Anushka Sharma, Parineeti Chopra, Aditi Sharma
MUSIC – Salim-Sulaiman

In ‘Band Baajaa Baaraat’ they were a middle-class, rough-at-the-edges, regular couple. And they endeared themselves to us with the refreshing honesty they invested in their characters. With ‘Ladies vs Ricky Bahl’ they go the other extreme and pull out all stops to amaze us with gloss, glamour and sassy shrewdness.

So in this rom-com you will find leading lady Anushka Sharma sizzling in a black bikini and leading man Ranveer Singh showing off his well-toned abs to perfection. The story goes somewhat like this. Ricky Bahl (Ranveer Singh) is a veteran conman whose central occupation is to woo rich ladies and con them for money. Thus enter in his life, among others, Dimple Chaddha (Parineeti Chopra), Raina Parulekar (Dipannita Sharma) and Saira Rashid (Aditi Sharma). He is a gym instructor to one, an art dealer to one and to another he is a guy-next door until he meets his equal in Ishika Desai (Anushka Chopra). A cat-n-mouse game of one-up-manship in con world ensues as the audience waits to know how the rest will unfold to a pretty much predictable end.

It does in a pretty upbeat and racy style. It isn’t a breathless film for sure but it is energetic and does not take itself too seriously which works for the candour its main leads bring to the film. Ranveer and Anushka, solid performers, yet again sweep their characters with an assured confidence and strike the right note with their chemistry. It is of course inadvisable to go looking for what they delivered in their previous outing because it is a completely different world here, but do they own their characters? Yes, they do.

And they are supported well by the secondary cast. Parineeti Chopra, Aditi Sharma and Dipannita Sharma may not stand out but perform with strict conviction which suffices to sell us the film. Crisp dialogues and a rather quick screenplay brings a necessary verve to the film accounting for several delectable moments in the film.

The film is packaged as a shiny entertainer in the tradition of YRF. So good looking people, good looking places and clothes are everywhere. Director Maneesh Sharma uses his cinematographer and stylists very well to tell his story that largely depends on the deception of appearances.

It is a smart flick riding largely on the popularity and chemistry of the lead pair. Helped with usual baubles of a glossy rom-com, they show off their skills yet again, largely helping the film become the enjoyable experience it is, entertaining within its own confines.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Machine Gun Preacher – Movie review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
December 9, 2011

PRODUCER – Robbie Brenner, Craig Chapman, Marc Forster, Deborah Giarratana, Gary Safady
DIRECTOR – Marc Forster
WRITER – Jason Keller
CAST – Gerard Butler, Michelle Monaghan, Michael Shannon
MUSIC – Asche & Spencer, Thad Spencer

Sam Childers spent a large part of his life as an alcoholic, drug-dealing biker-hooligan, shuttling between an aimless life on the road and the prison. He had a loving wife and daughter in Pennsylvania. One day, he decided he had gone too far on the road of self-destruction and encouraged by his wife, he embraced Christianity. Overnight, he began a life of goodness, duty and selfless service working towards saving the children of Sudan from the vagaries of war.

His is a story that seems larger than life, stuff most resounding, epic fiction is made of. But his is a story of real life that Marc Forster (director) and Gerard Butler (main lead) chose to put it on celluloid and as we watch we understand why. Because it is a story worth telling.

Forster’s version explores the contradictions of Sam’s personality and chosen life-paths and focuses on his grappling with questions of the self, spirituality and service. It is a humane portrait of a man turned a new leaf and necessarily tackles themes of identity, loss and humanity’s ambivalence to the greater common good.

For a large part what Sam Childers achieved is remarkable. The film, although making a valiant effort to remain objective tends to lean on a sympathetic portraiture of the central man. His dealings with the children evoke great emotion and make for stirring set pieces. The entire journey seems somewhat disjointed and wavering but the starkness of look (underplayed cinematography) and grittiness of violence point to a dedicated commitment to realism and then the disjointedness doesn’t seem to bother anymore.

The film is a powerful and compelling narrative never shying away from gore, bloodshed or extreme violence. It almost seems like aiming for a harsh wake-up call at the same time being synonymous and reflective, to the nature of Childers own awakening, which is neither easy nor mild.

Gerard Butler, the film’s lead displays a certain contemplative ownership of the character. His struggles with concepts of religion, human goodness and identity draw a responsive connection from the viewer as he balances the uncaring insensitivity of his nature with the more feeling and hurting side. He knows he doesn’t need to do what he does, but he is compelled to and he doesn’t question it. He is flawed and accepts it. Life is flawed and he accepts that too. He simply realises that the only thing we need be doing is trying to be the best we can. Something his wife Lynn Childers (Michelle Monaghan) and best friend Donnie (Michael Shannon) too embody in their characters.

It is not a flawless or life-changing film. Nor is it the most evocative biography we have seen. But there is a tenderness yet power in its narrative which makes for a touching and inspiring viewing.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Saluting Devsaab, saluting cinema

Filed Under: After thoughts, Contemplation, Nostalgia, Random — Fatema — Comments Off
December 5, 2011

First Shammi Kapoor and now Dev Anand. There is only so much of death a lover can take. However, so be it.

When you grow up on legends they become a part of your life that’s inextricable. It’s not just nostalgia or memories. It’s about every little moment of your past that continues to live with some aspect of that legend. For instance, I can never ever forget how during college times my best friend and I would sing in perfect jugalbandi ‘Achha ji main haari’, while riding on our two wheelers, completely unmindful of the traffic or the stares we got. That moment of that time, is fixed within that song and everytime it plays I feel those teeny days are back with a refreshing gust.

Or ‘Yoon toh humne’ from ‘Tumsa Nahi Dekha‘. There was no bigger fan of Shammi Kapoor than my late uncle and it was in his house we listened to this one endlessly. And then merrily screeched on in antaksharis during our endless family picnics. No one intended it to become that way but a part of my childhood is now locked in that song forever.

So are millions of lives locked within the moments we’ve spent with these legends.

They served a phenomenon called cinema. The galaxy that envelopes like black magic and marks us for life, want it or not. They gave it loveable faces and attitudes. Dev Anand’s charming smile and the buff, Shammi Kapoor’s flamboyance and dashing demeanour, we aren’t even talking abt their good looks yet. They made us love them like we had no business doing anything else and we happily did. Loved them along with the cinema they pedalled, completely giving up our past to them. So really in a sense nothing is over or will really end because pasts never die.

These days classics rarely play on TV, but everytime they do many of us stop and give it a ear. It reminds us of what used to be, what we have left behind in the race, a past softly calling at us to take a look at it once again, just this once. And we do and are enamoured again. What is it? It is a little part of us in the face onscreen that keeps us connected. All the love we invested in them when we were young and when they shone as stars brighter than the sun.

When Shammi Kapoor passed away, it hurt because he was the personification of gentility, sophistication and a flamboyance we are yet to see in anyone else. He charmed his way into our hearts not by being larger than life but by being so full of life we simply couldn’t say no to him. His going was a full-stop to an era because they simply don’t make men, actors or stars like him anymore. And Dev Anand, well for me it was like he existed forever. In a household where Dilip Kumar was considered the greatest star of the millennium and Dev Anand’s antics were loved like a way-ward child’s, my tiny heart gave itself upto him from a very tender age. He was the handsomest man in existence for me and oh so loveable. And of course he did happy, naughty and entertaining films which made him easier to love than Dilip Kumar. But I loved him even in his less than happy-go-lucky films films, like Baazi, Jaal, House No 44 and Hum Dono. There was something about his smile and yes, that buff. For long he was compared to Gregory Peck but I found little in common between the two except the looks and the hair. Gregory Peck was suave, subtle and tender. Dev Anand was a rogue, imp and a quirky charmer you couldn’t help falling in love with at first sight.

He seemed to have been around for so long people had forgotten his beginnings. And he lived his life like he didn’t care for the end and maybe that’s why it’s difficult to understand what’s my primary emotion right now.

He cared little for the order of the day or the trends of times. He lived life without looking back and without apology. In a recent interview he mentions how he had loved Suraiya helplessly but when it didn’t work out he closed the chapter for life and went on with the business of living. It was not in his words but the demeanour that revealed the aspect of this die-hard romantic who loved romancing life. If in the later years, he made films and appearances that embarrassed us, it was more of our problem than his. He simply continued doing what he did, loved life and cinema the only way he knew, unapologetically and unabashedly. It is said that when Farah Khan approached him for the celebrity song in Om Shanti Om, he refused, saying he played only leading men.

He is captured onscreen forever and although his physical passing feels like an era has ended, the era he and Shammi Kapoor personified ended long back. The era where men were gentlemen and women ladies, where romance was beautiful and money hadn’t tainted every straw of living. Where power wasn’t an aphrodisiac more potent than art and glitter wasn’t false always. Where character mattered and legends were not created through PR but talent, persona, hard work and a deeper connect with the medium and its audience.

It is always romantic to look back upon the passing of legends, invoke the glories of the past and mourn the end of eras. It is enticing to gloss over reality and fill its chinks with the pinkness of nostalgia. Dev Anand’s passing does not tempt to paint rosy pictures because he lived his life with his feet grounded in reality, not taking himself too seriously when he was the biggest star of the country or when he was made fun of. He has left us no incentive in tinted glasses obituaries because what we admire in him remains admirable even without them.

What he embodied in his persona was unparalleled. In Dev Anand we salute the life dedicated to cinema. In Dev Anand we salute his cinema. And in saluting his cinema we salute the Dev Anand who took our hearts with him, wherever he went, and we want him to know we are never asking for it back because we are just so grateful he came into our lives and stayed for so long.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

I Am Singh – Movie review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
December 2, 2011

PRODUCER – Sardar Peshaura Singh Thind
DIRECTOR – PUNEET ISSAR
WRITER – PUNEET ISSAR
CAST – Puneet Issar, Gulzar Inder Chahal, Brooke Johnston, Rizwan Hyder, Amy Rasimas
MUSIC – Daler Mehndi, Sumitra Iyer, Monty Sharma, Sunil Sirvaiya, Sukhwinder Singh, Arvinder Singh

Terrorism continues to provide fodder to our cinematic imaginations. With I Am Singh we get yet another film based on Indians being the victims of racial hatred in Western countries under terrorist attacks.

Puneet Issar, best known for his awe-inspiring rendition of Duryodhan in B.R.Chopra’s mega serial Mahabharat, dons the hats of writer, director and actor in this jingoistic drama that is more a mess than anything. It begins with a mother recounting the story of her once-happy family destroyed because of the racial hatred that followed the 9/11 carnage. Her youngest son Ranveer Singh (Gulzar Chahal) is summoned in the middle of night to US where their entire family is currently staying. Her second son has been killed and the elder is missing. Investigations reveal that he is in custody with the police. Puneet Issar, an ex-LAPD officer joins hands with Ranveer, Rizwan Haider (Rizwan Haider) a Pakistani and an attorney and human rights activist Amelia White (Brooke Johnston) to fight for the citizen’s rights of Ranveer’s brother.

Unfortunately for all its lofty intentions there is hardly anything new the film espouses. It takes the turban episode that occurred as an aftermath of 9/11 due to which a number of Sikhs were victimized and makes it into a biased and chest-thumping film of more than two hours. It brings in the Muslim victimization angle as well and take the opportunity to do more preaching.

Not only is the ideology of regionalism that the film promotes is flawed, its creative quotient is severely lacking in anything commendable. In his debut as director Puneet Issar fails to drive a well-meaning script into narrative of engagement, drama or succinct viewing. Every dialogue, scene and shot is excruciatingly drawn out testing the patience and attention span of the viewer constantly. His choice of actors consists of mostly non-actors with little screen appeal that leaves nothing much to root in the film for.

Rather poor in all areas there is little in the film to write home about.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , ,
Comment

Puss in Boots – Movie review

Filed Under: Animation, First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
December 2, 2011

PRODUCER – Latifa Ouaou, Joe M. Aguilar
DIRECTOR – CHRIS MILLER
WRITER – Charles Perrault (character), Will Davies (story), Brian Lynch, David H. Steinberg, Tom Wheeler (screenplay)
Jon Zack
VOICE CAST – Antonio Banderas, Salma Hayek, Zach Galifianakis
MUSIC – Henry Jackman

With 3D and animation flourishing as it is now, it was but a matter of time that someone picked the much-loved nursery rhymes characters and wove lovely stories out of them. Puss in Boots goes all the way to our nursery childhood and brings us a world which Jack-n-Jill and Humpty Dumpty inhabit alongside Jack of the beanstalk, the Golden Goose and of course, the notorious Puss in Boots.

In a dramatic, swashbuckling saga of friendship, loyalty, betrayal and morality Puss in Boots takes its primary character out of its legendary cunningness into customary heroic uprightness. Orphans, Puss and Humpty Dumpty were brought up together at the same foster home and harboured the dream of getting hold of Jack’s magic beans, going to the giant land and getting all the golden eggs the legendary golden goose is supposed to be laying there. Circumstances lead them to part ways with bitter betrayal on both sides. Years later they meet, this time with a little black kitten and after much ado the team finally sets out to attain their dream.

It is a tightly woven story that has as much fairy-taleness as much as a humane children’s tale. It has morals and coming-of-age characters as well as magic and high drama to keep the interest alive. It uses humour to excellent value investing largely in Humpty and Puss’ characters and relationship. Antonio Banderas’s Spaniard Puss, Salma Hayek’s kitty and Zach Galifianakis’ Humpty never let a dull moment pass.

Puss in Boots is probably the only film to be expansive enough to entice the adult audience and intelligent enough for its younger ones. Its imaginary world is well rooted in reality which makes it a warm, engaging and satisfying watch. Its visuals may not be fantastic imagery but the 3D is captivating and used intuitively, never forced nor a mere ornament. This is a film much in the league of Kungfu Panda and Toy Story – 3 and How to Train Your Dragon, films which told stories of good old morals in the good old tradition of conventional, imaginative narratives.

Growing up is all about choices and becoming who you do is a result of it. Good children’s stories always lay it down the tough journey of growing up as it is and Puss in Boots does that superbly with dollops of fun, magic and mad-cap ride right till the end.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

The Dirty Picture – movie review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
December 2, 2011

PRODUCER – Ekta Kapoor, Shobha Kapoor
DIRECTOR – Milan Luthria
WRITER – Rajat Arora
CAST – Vidya Balan, Naseeruddin Shah, Emraan Hashmi, Tusshar Kapoor
MUSIC – Vishal Dadlani, Shekhar Ravjiani

The much-touted ‘The Dirty Picture’ is a Vidya Balan show all the way. Supposedly inspired by the life of the south film industry siren Silk Smitha, and borrowing from the lives of other dancing ladies of the 80’s, the film tells the story of Silk, a small-town girl with stars in her eyes. In a drama-packed two plus hours director Milan Luthria spells the story of the making and breaking of a star who is a sex symbol first.

Silk is a regular girl with complete knowledge of the importance of her sexuality. She uses it perfectly to her advantage to rise through the male-dominated hypocrisy of the film world. But she loses her edge as, shrouded in the complexities of the life she has chosen, love eludes her. Life continues to betray her expectations and she cannot win even as she thrashes back in the true spirit of the fighter she is.

The film and Silk’s life weaves itself onwards with the coming and going of three men. The first is superstar Suryakant whom she loves but is betrayed by. The second is Ramakant, his writer-brother, who Silk helps find his feet but who chooses to abandon her. The third is Abraham, director and Silk’s professed arch-enemy who comes into her life a tad too late.

The film engages with the idea of female sexuality and how male voyeurism objectifies women without inhibition yet labels the object of lust as ‘unacceptable’. This is a rather sub-textual engagement not revolutionary and amounting to little but gives the film an important context to base its characters upon. The film after all is the story of a dancing star’s life who was a sex symbol yet found the hypocrisy of the world too enormous for her firebrand rebellion.

The film extracts great performances from its lead cast. Vidya Balan traipses effortlessly through the innocent to experienced to shattered stages of her characters lives bringing her sorrows and joys ecstatically alive. Naseeruddin Shah’s megalomaniac star makes for convincing grey shades even as Tushaar Kapoor’s diffidence and Emraan Hashmi’s vengeance keep us engaged. The film establishes the world of 80’s cinema with consistent although rather surface attention, just enough for us to remember the context of its age.

It is full of colour and brightness, much like the kitsch of the film world it portrays. It keeps you interested in wanting to know Silk’s story even though it never allows you to really care. Made in the true masala mould of superficial characterisation, high drama and numerous whistle-worthy moments The Dirty Picture manages to tell its story convincingly. But really, what remains at the end of the viewing is the under-utilised potential of a talented actress amongst us who single-handedly keeps the soul of the film bright and burning. Anyone else and it would have all come to a nought.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

When DB won’t mean Desi Boyz but Dibakar Banerjee

Filed Under: After thoughts, Analysis, Contemplation, Random — Fatema — Comments Off
November 29, 2011

“What would happen if we ignored this kind of trash that is passed off as cinema? I mean seriously… what would happen? I want to know.”

A friend asked this most earnestly in response to my Desi Boyz review. Sounds rhetorical but I decided it won’t harm to consider it seriously.

So I responded –

Money is how it rolls and until good cinema seriously starts earning money tripe will rule.
But then for that to happen good cinema has to happen which is another serious lack.
But before it all we really need to define for ourselves what is cinema for us? If its art then institutions, Govt, artists and the entire population it serves needs to get their act together. And if its not then it has to be separated from the realms of art and treated as such. Which means no reviews to begin with.

All said and all arguments apart we need such films. Because if Sajid Khan and Anees Bazmee continue to stay in business there must be a huge pay-off for us. In no particular order I’d say this is it –

1) For the stimulation of our imagination
2) For vicarious pleasure
3) To satisfy the escapist in us
4) To satisfy the hedonist in us

All four are connected but that’s really beside the point here. The point is –

Q: Why do such films get made?
A: Because they get watched. And they get watched because of the above.

Nothing can be really done about the predominance of their existence because irrespective of the IQ or need for intellectual stimulation each one of us needs films for the above. Otherwise we wouldn’t have mis-appropriated the term ‘guilty pleasure’ to apply to our film-viewing habits.

So the point is what do we do about this crassness enveloping us from all sides? From being the elephantine reality it is that keeps us from choosing little else?

Let’s begin by asking ourselves what cinema means for us?

I will not hazard an answer since I am yet to fully understand it, even for myself. But I will say what we have and are forced with is not cinema. What’s going wrong where?

Economics for sure but before that there is a fine, subtle point we are missing out on that is the development of art and the boundaries of commercial.

I believe, in the tug-of-war between commercial and meaningful cinema neither the maker nor the audience is at fault. There goes out the age-old cry of makers saying ‘audience’ wants it and audience cribbing they are being assaulted by agendas. We have created a system that gleefully pools both, pits both together in an unfair meaningless war of numbers. It is amazing to note we refuse to stop ourselves and ask if art was ever about money.

Yet, our parallel, independent (in thought) films continue to wail BO and are forced to touch certain benchmarks created by mere numbers. Only once the head is declared above water will the film be considered good. Never has a more absurd definition of ‘good’ been popularly pandered or applied to what maybe easily confused or many times inter-changeably referred to as art.

Which brings us to the question – Is the answer then to separate the two? The answer is a resounding yes!

How?

Let’s begin with meanings. I shall hazard by putting together a few popular largely bandied words used for the purpose.

Film – Entertainment, commercial, mind-less, escapist, populist, time-pass, feel good, dream world

Cinema – Experimental, pushing boundaries, expression, statement, personality, voice, auteur, realism

Why should the two be synonymous?

Why should the two have the same platforms? Of production, distribution, exhibition and reception.

Why should the two have the same systems of judging merit?

There is a whole world of operation and mindsets that needs to change before any of this can even be assimilated. As I see and I maybe wrong but unless a Govt-controlled body or any other independent body takes an active role in the distribution and exhibition of artistic cinema, we shall keep flailing about as we are doing now. (And continue to mis-use the whole concept of ‘indie’ by employing it only as a method to do as we please not because we need to say something different ‘our way’, but because we simply want to make that first film that will be recognised enough to get us the stars and bigger budget. And that red carpet fame for whoever lives for it. We have a lot of passion, if only we could apply a little to cinema…Sorry, couldn’t resist that.)

Can we begin by giving less importance to films we don’t care about so that those that we do can gain a certain attention? For instance –

1) Write less about stuff we don’t like but more about stuff we like? I’d be the happiest (although poorer) if we did away with the system of reviewing everything that releases. Are reviewers in a position to take a stand on this?

2) Can channels have a regulation on how much promotions of films to allow? And are time slots for genres possible?

3) If there were accessible magazines and information booklets about irregular cinema what a fillip it would be! Without a system of information dissemination what is anything?

4) More film festivals? Not them getting popular and mainstream but becoming even more choosier and elite and selective. The harder it is to get into one the harder would someone try to create ‘good’ art, no?

If the big-budget extravaganza was really treated by one and all as the not-to-be-taken-seriously kitsch it really is… Maybe then the ones that claim to be art or hope to be someday can get some more validity, time and place in the sun? And then maybe will come the day, the rosy day when an Arjun Rampal won’t win a National Award and Sajid Khan won’t be more recognized than Dibakar Banerjee.

Into that heaven of freedom, My Father, let my country awake…

Comment

Fan girl/boy-ism and the dreamworld of films

Filed Under: After thoughts, Contemplation, Random — Fatema — Comments Off
November 28, 2011

Long back, when still in college and contemplating a glossy career in film-making, a film-maker friend once told me, “The worst thing about becoming a film-maker is you lose the innocence of watching a movie. Immersing yourself completely into it, giving yourself up and becoming lost in that world unfolding onscreen which is how a film deserves to be watched. Instead you are looking at camera angles, lighting, story-telling and what YOU would have done instead.”

True, after having dabbled a bit with the other side of the screen I found truth in his words.

But, if you truly love watching films, (like reading books, film-love is either a love-it-for-the-sake-of-its-experience or remain-on-the-periphery-always phenomena) then you are hungering always. To be impressed. To be provoked. To be subsumed. To be satiated. To be inspired. It’s a trip, all those who are addicted will know very well. You wake upto it, you wanna sleep to it. You want your world to revolve around it be it negative or positive. Constructive or fruitless. Then your profession really matters little.

And this is where a true fan-boy/girl lives his/her dream.

A fan-boy (I am dropping the gender-correctness, it’s too tiresome) lives on his star-worship. His world is black and white. Full of Gods or fools. And that eternal wait for one of the Gods to manifest his divinity.

A fan-boy always dreads his God showing a human face. That is unacceptable. Because Gods cannot be weak, cannot be imperfect. And behind this worship lies the fans own fear of facing an imperfect world where mediocrity rules and relativism is a bigger dictator of reality than objectivism.

So the fan-boy chooses his dream world and builds it upon the brand image of his favourite God. (I say brand because 3 decades in this dimension of reality we call the world, has jaded my rosy idealism into material, cynical corporat-ese). Here, he creates his own idealism and lives in it. He fades out the grey edges of his Gods and shines out the white patches. He creates the ideal version of his own self and places it as the perfect interlocutor of this truly creative space. He does everyone, his Gods and above all himself, immense disservice but the joys of escapist living are unparalleled. Much like cocaine addiction. And he is not to blame for it because such is his yearning for perfection that anything lesser is joyless and hence unlivable for.

It is an unfair world for both, the God and the devotee, as all dream worlds go. Illusions never served anyone and we all know how much heart-ache a fan-boy carries within himself.

When dream worlds break, which dream worlds by the sheer dint of their identity are wont to, they take down lifetimes of belief, love and nostalgia. Almost forcing the indulgent one to move on, when all he wants to do is wallow a little more, seek a little more comfort in the illusion of how perfect is his God. Growing up and growing out of is not so different from each other at times.

The point being?

Nothing really. Just that the tug-of-war between succumbing to the pleasurable delights of fan-boyism and listening to the calling of being a responsible reviewer can be a deadly sword’s edge walk. Something, I continue to teeter on.

Tags: , ,
Comment

Desi Boyz – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — 2 Comments
November 25, 2011

PRODUCER – Vijay Ahuja, Krishika Lulla, Jyoti Deshpande
DIRECTOR – Rohit Dhawan
WRITER – Rohit Dhawan
CAST – Akshay Kumar, John Abraham, Deepika Padukone, Chitrangada Singh
MUSIC – Pritam

The poster screams glitz, glamour and loudness in the entirety of the commercial crass comedy category brand. A beefy John Abraham and goofy Akshay Kumar with half-dressed sizzlingly sensuous Deepika Padukone and Chitrangada Singh beseech you to come and watch their antics as they try their best to entertain. Well, try their best they do.

Desi Boyz

This is how the story goes. Recession has just thrown a spanner in the works for Nick (John Abraham) and Jerry (Akshay Kumar). Nick loses his job as an investment banker and Jerry, used to living off Nick, is about to lose custody of his nephew since he has no source of income anymore. Nick has a high-maintenance girlfriend Radhika (Deepika Padukone) with whom he wishes to have an affluent life ahead. Both Nick and Jerry need a quick fix to bring things back on track. In come the organization ‘Desi Boyz’ and its owner Sanjay Dutt to help out. They take up jobs as male escorts. But is life going to be that easy?

The film would have us believe that being a male escort is an absolutely party-time happy profession, such is the glee with which Nick and Jerry throw themselves into it. But this doesn’t last long as Radhika discovers their new roles and so does the social security officer in-charge of Jerry’s nephew. The film takes a dramatic (and downward) turn here wherein the two boys (not really, but we shall let that pass) try and ‘repent’.

The film is a comic caper that appears more confused than crazy. It tries to balance humour with drama, sizzle with morals and fails it pretty much all. The first half races past in the sequined glory as personified by the poster but the second half, which is where the real story begins (or should have) undoes the jolly tone completely. Neither does it leave us with enough moral or intelligent matter to consider.

The film largely zips by due to the crackling chemistry of the energetic central pair. John and Akshay do not really let their limited acting capabilities come in the way of performing with joi-di-vivre and a lot of bubble-gummy fun. Deepika Padukone and Chitranganda Singh look like million bucks throughout but their roles and performances keep getting more improbable by the minute. There is snappy choreography, tapping music, boggling production values, squeaky and shiny frames to match but nothing really matters to the end product.

Debutante director Rohit Dhawan, David Dhawan’s son, wears the cap of screenwriter as well but neither does he get the mad-cap fervour right nor is he able to streamline the politics of the issue and the dramatic tension of the story. Fun moments seep in, one way or the other, what with Anupam Kher, Omi Vaidya and Co trying their best but it is more the parts than the sum that remains.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Twilight Saga – Breaking Dawn – I

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
November 25, 2011

PRODUCER – Wyck Godfrey, Stephenie Meyer, Karen Rosenfelt
DIRECTOR – Bill Condon
WRITER – Stephenie Meyer (novel “Breaking Dawn”) Melissa Rosenberg (screenplay)
CAST – Robert Pattison, Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner
MUSIC – Carter Burwell

It’s Bella and Edward’s big moment. The dream union they have cried, fought and pined for over three books/films has finally come to be. It means transforming into a vampire for Bella and even though she has made a decision it isn’t an easy step to take.

The film begins with this turmoil. It sets the tone for the rest to come, which is disturbing and relentlessly difficult. Easy, anyways, never was the right word to describe Bella and Edward’s love story.

Twilight

And easy is not what Stephanie Meyer plans to keep it for them. Bella gets pregnant with what everyone suspects to be a monster child since the growth is unnaturally rapid and it seems to be sucking off all life force from Bella. She refuses to drop it even as the other werewolfs decide to kill it, seeing it as a threat. Jacob steps in and vows to protect Bella and her baby. The last book of the much-popular Twilight series ‘Breaking Dawn’ sees the human Bella, the vampire Edward and shape-shifter werewolf Jacob fight to save Bella and her child’s life.

As with the Harry Potter series, the last part of the Twilight saga is split into two parts. The first part ends with Bella delivering a healthy baby but succumbing to death. Until Edward steps in. Bella’s transformation is imminent but is it too late?

Breaking Dawn – I has been constructed like a rather slow film. From the pre-marriage jitters to the wedding and post, there is a sluggish stay on expressions and reactions that take too long to be done with. Drama is not the high-note but the emotional tension of the imminent danger to Bella’s life from within and without. This tension is played with rather tepidly what with Edward’s guilt, Jacob’s anger and Bella’s permanent disgruntled frown that stays the same throughout all kinds of emotional experiences.

The screenplay lacks dramatic tension even as Bella’s and Edward’s love story will keep fans hooked out of sheer loyalty. As a pre-cursor to the finale and an important exposition to the mother of all transformations, that of Bella turning into a vampire, the film is largely a go-between, a conduit between two great moments, simply meant to set the stage and prepare for the greater drama. For fans it I sure to be adorable, especially the lovely wedding and dream honeymoon. For non-fans, it is rather lukewarm film even convenient in places, not the perfect vehicle to convert of course. For the former set, it is yet another whoop to eternal (and sometimes confounding) Twilight-ism.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Ides of March – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
November 18, 2011

PRODUCER – George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Brian Oliver
DIRECTOR – George Clooney
WRITER – George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon
CAST – George Clooney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ryan Gosling, Evan Rachel Wood
MUSIC – Alexandre Desplat

We don’t need the title to suggest that what was prevalent in 44 BC is relevant today too. Plutarch and Shakespeare’s ‘Ides of March’ are not just Caesar’s tryst with betrayal and power over ideals but a mirror to the current political systems, world-wide.

It is in a tight drama of dispensable morals, human weakness and aphrodisiacs of power that George Clooney weaves his story and his protagonists. Mike Morris, (George Clooney) Pennsylvania Governor is running for the President. The Leftist Democrat’s campaign is managed by veteran Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), and his junior associate, 30-yr-old dynamic Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling).

Ides of March

It is a crucial run-up to the finale and stakes are high. Stephen lines up the usual issues of global warming, military commitments overseas and equitable taxation at home with alacrity even as Morris effortlessly mouths suave ideologues without a strong ideology. It is a precarious run-up in which Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti) (the opposition’s chief campaigner) proposes that Stephen join them. Meanwhile, Stephen learns of a skeleton in Morris’s closet which shakes his idealism. One missed step on his part over-turns entire the equation exposing the nature of human foibles in the face of power and success.

George Clooney takes material from Beau Williman’s play Farragut North and cleverly turns it into film material. He fleshes out Mike’s character (which is only in the background in the play) and gives him a polished exterior which is as transparent as it is hollow. Paul remains the staunch and experienced campaigner but it is Stephen’s slightly vulnerable idealism and yet-to-be seasoned political finesse that drives the plot to its racy finish.

It is a strapping cast Clooney brings to the film. Hoffman, Gosling and he remain sturdy and unflinching right till the end, riding the see-sawing twists of their fates with an under-done and subtle approach that makes for sheer tautness. Hoffman’s solid portrayal of an experienced political aide with strong convictions match Clooney’s effectively smooth charmer with no palpable morals. Evan Rachel Wood he strikes the right note of innocence caught in the fray of adult politics and Marisa Tomei as the battle-scarred, hardended journalist plays her role with finesse.

But it is Gosling that makes the viewing satisfactory. As he smoothly roller-coasters through confident, strapping and assured to unbalanced and unsure we go deeper into questioning what really gives in this sinking world where the most negotiable thing is our values.

It isn’t a world-changing outlook or a piercing commentary on modern-day morals that will make you wince. It doesn’t mean to preach or change either. It means to portray and portray it does with an incisiveness that makes for a rabid, edge-of-the-seat entertainer that is as much as the actor’s triumph as it is the director’s.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Shakal Pe Mat Ja – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
November 18, 2011

PRODUCER – Deepak Jalan, Sarita Jalan, Hrishita Bhatt (Co-producer)
DIRECTOR – Shubh
WRITER – Shubh
CAST – Shubh, Pratik Katare, Saurabh Shukla, Raghuveer Yadav, Aamna Shariff, Zakir Hussain
MUSIC – Salim Merchant, Sulaiman Merchant, Nitin Kumar Gupta, Yo Yo Honey Singh

Mistaken identities in the backdrop of international terrorism is equal to a can of worms. Quite a formula this became with last year’s surprise hit ‘Tere Bin Laden’.

In Shakal Pe Mat Ja, it is four friends, Ankit Sharma (Shubh), Rohan Malhotra (Chitrak Bandhopadhyay), Bulai (Harsh Parekh) and Dhruv Sharma (master Pratik Katare) who get caught by anti-terror police at the international airport for suspected activity. The activity? They are capturing on camera the landing of a plane.

SPMJ

The comedy-of-errors is meant to be a rib-tickler of sorts. Bumpkin type, commoner protagonists meet equally blundering anti-terror police officers Chavan (Saurabh Shukla), and police officer Om Prakash (Raghubir Yadav). The recipe sounds like fun but isn’t as crackling. A long-drawn out screenplay and misfiring chemistry between actors constantly get in the way of an enjoyable time.

The film is a debut venture of Shubh who also plays the lead. While he plays the lead with a decent amount of capability, the direction sorely lacks vision or guidance. Tacky dialogues and tackier events weave a flimsy story together that does no one any real service.

In between the contrived mayhem of innocents mistaken for criminals there is a track of Ankit’s girlfriend Prachi (Aamna Shareif) that doesn’t really fit into the story. It makes the whole ensemble look patchier than ever.

The film boasts of some good talent that generally has us enjoying our cinematic outings. But tagged with a reluctant-to-perform script and seriously unfunny lines Saurabh Shukla, Raghuvir Yadav, Zakir Hussain and ilk have anything much to sink their teeth into.

Low-budget, non-star films have started to make a distinct niche for themselves. But that niche which dictates its watchability is got to do largely with a strong script and stronger direction. Without either, Shakal Pe Mat Ja remains a forgettable product with nothing to offer.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Immortals – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
November 11, 2011

PRODUCER – Ryan Kavanaugh, Gianni Nunnari, Mark Canton
DIRECTOR – Tarsem Singh
WRITER – Charley Parlapanides, Vlas Parlapanides
CAST – Mickey Rourke, Henry Cavill, Frieda Pinto
MUSIC – Trevor Morris

The gods have come down to earth in a monumental battle between good and evil. Theseus (Henry Cavill) is caught in this epic war, fuelled by Hyperion’s (Mickey Rourke) brutal ambition of being the supreme emperor. The story of Theseus and Hyperion, according to sources, owes its origin to the comic book series “Immortals: Gods and Heroes”. It is loosely based on the Greek myths of Theseus and the Minotaur and the Titanomachy.

Immortals

Thesues, a common mortal and social outcast is in the possession of the Epirus bow, the instrument Hyperion is after to complete his mission of avenging the fall of the Titans by defeating the Olympians. Ancient law has it that the gods cannot interfere in the battle Hyperion unleashes upon humankind. But Zeus, god of the sky and ruler of the Olympians has chosen Theseus to deliver them. He has sent him Phaedra (Frieda Pinto), priestess and oracle to guide him through it.

It is not exactly a clash of the titans that unfolds onscreen, much rather the clash of unequals. A premise that rings similar to 300, an equally brutal and magnificently stylised epic war film. Theseus gathers his mortality around him and thrusts out against Hyperion in full splendour of blood, gore and 3 D.

Epic stories require a wide berth of imagination and a grand scale to mount the narrative upon. Immortals draws out its material from the bowels of mythology but pins its story-telling upon the exclusive awesomeness of its visuals. Its heroes and villains are awe-inspiring not because of their valour or qualities of character but because of their brawny violence they unleash to win the war. It is a picture-perfect world of visuals that paints stunning pictures and leaves us so struck we forget to ask for more.

Which is a good thing because Immortals doesn’t bother too much with it. Like 300, its story doesn’t strike as eminent or its characters beyond ordinary. Even the gods. Its narrative comes brilliantly alive only when engaging with war sequences and visual drama. It merrily basks in the glory of gore faithfully upheld by a heroic Henry Cavill and a supremely ferocious Micky Rourke. The 3D, used rather skilfully here, forms the third dimension of this ocular fiesta.

For lovers of an imagination that doesn’t fear the extreme while portraying it nor does it cower before scale, Immortals is a high. Mythologies are made up of worlds that combine romance, drama and mystique. Immortals’ version of its heroes and villains may not be legends to be remembered or written about, but the world it creates is a feast, no less.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Rockstar – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
November 11, 2011

PRODUCER – Dhillin Mehta
DIRECTOR – Imtiaz Ali
WRITER – Imtiaz Ali
CAST – Ranbir Kapoor, Nargis Fakhri
MUSIC – A R Rahman

Immortal love on the wings of musical passions was what Rockstar aiming to be. Undying, soul-stirring, intense love, that sees no right or wrong neither boundaries. Jordan and Heer, from different backgrounds, different worlds find themselves immersed in this kind of love. Stuff that legends are made of.

Rockstar

But Jordan is no average Joe. He is an unaware lad caught in the soul of an artist. He loves music and creates it like fulfilling a helpless need. In a very Om Prakash-Amitabh Bachchan moment right out of Sharaabi, his mentor tells him his songs do not have depth because he hasn’t felt pain. In one of the rare cute moments of the film Jordan aka Janardhan Jakhar sets out to fall in love so that his heart can break and out of that pain he can create deep music. He chooses Heer, a beautiful Kashmiri girl labelled ‘heartbreaker’.

First-time animosity turns into a solid friendship turns into first pangs of love turns into a consummate saga of love. A much-wanted musical sensation now, Jordan confessedly doesn’t want music anymore. All he wants is his sweetheart Heer, who is married now.

Back and forth, the film rocks in telling us the passionate love story. Imtiaz Ali, writer-director takes us through the journey in a stilted screenplay that merely reveals plot-points through montages and pathos through the fabulous but very ill-fitted songs.

The effort to create poetry onscreen is palpable. The frames are lovely (Anil Mehta, typically top class again), Ranbir Kapoor is passionately unpin-downable and Nargis Fakhri is beautiful in an other-worldly way. Their love is of soulmates and twin flames and the film weaves itself around their inseparability. Unfortunately, meandering, and cut like a patchwork quilt, the film refuses to help us engage with the fiery love or its helpless victims. The non-linear narrative seems like an experiment that didn’t quite work out.

There is stirring passion in the film, but by the time it appears, the film has already meandered too much to sustain interest. There is no mellifluousness of longing and magnetic love in the background of Jordan’s unpredictability and violence. His angst is expressed beautifully by the songs, composed by A R Rahman, living musical genius for a long time to come. But these songs do not sync with the story or its movements. Theirs is one world and the film’s is quite another. In contrast with the phenomenal range of the songs Rahman keeps the background music rather minimal which works to the overall advantage.

The patchiness continues right till the end with a startlingly unsteady editing by otherwise very dependable Aarti Bajaj. You never settle in, sigh or let one out. The minute you try to, you are jerked off into another direction, to listen to some other heartbeat of the lovers that really doesn’t connect or stir enough, just because it isn’t played well enough.

Amongst the melee of discordant love and creativity gone awry shines a consummate performer-Ranbir Kapoor. He fills every frame with honest, involved and impassioned character that stuns beyond the inefficacy of the film to truly move. If not for him and Rahman, the film could have turned out almost missable.

The film swings in a Bollywood la la land where authenticity meets dream world in a make-shift manner. Rockstar takes this convenience even farther. So if Jordan’s middle-class world is painted with warm detail, Heer’s is prototyped. The fact that it is full of non-actors doesn’t help much. Every actor except the talented Shernaz Patel performs with an artistry that swings from deadpan to over-done in crazy oscillation. Nargis Fakhri’s complete lack of histrionic ability and accented diction damage the film strongly, which otherwise could have been a soul-stirring love story even if flawed.

The film begins and ends with a quote by the Sufi poet Rumi about love being above and beyond the worldly rules of right and wrong. Wish some experiments were too. Then it wouldn’t hurt that an experiment with so much talent associated went so badly wrong.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

The Adventures of Tintin – The Secret of the Unicorn – Review

Filed Under: Animation, First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
November 10, 2011

PRODUCER – Peter Jackson, Kathleen Kennedy, Steven Spielberg
DIRECTOR – Steven Spielberg
WRITER – Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish (screenplay), Hergé (Comic book)
VOICE CAST – Jamie Bell, Andy Serkis and Daniel Craig
MUSIC – John Williams

It is quite a thundering typhoon this one. Tintin, Snowy and Captain Haddock take on a mad roller coaster ride through continents, high seas and deserts in a mix of Tintin’s ‘Secret of the Unicorn’, ‘Red Rackham’s Treasure’, ‘The Crab with the Golden Claws’ and the maker’s imagination. Before Haddock (or us) can say ‘Blistering Barnacles’, the surge of Spielberg’s blockbusting spectacle is upon us. And we know this isn’t Herge’s almost century-old well-loved adventure story we are watching but Spielberg’s fantastic imagination unfolding high drama onscreen without a pause.

‘The Adventures of Tintin’ is a comic book series created by Herge nee George Remi, a Belgian artist in 1928. Since then it has been a raving favourite of audiences of all ages across the world.

Tintin

‘The Secret of the Unicorn’ has romance, suspense, high drama and a solid air of mystery. Tintin stumbles upon a ship antique piece and lands onto a centuries-old puzzle of Sir Francis Haddock’s treasure and a lot of danger. There is a scroll hidden inside which leads to the treasure. There are three such scrolls in three such ships and someone’s out to get hold of the entire set. It is Sakharine, out to take revenge. Tintin meets Captain Haddock, the descendant of the legacy, drunk, wasted and piteous, who has been held captivity by Sakharine. Together they start a race to finish not only for regaining the Haddock treasure but also his lost self-respect.

The film uses performance capture technology to animate its characters yet give a more ‘real’ texture. In doing so it loses the edginess and sharpness of the hand-drawn comic illustrations. The writing does the same, focusing on action rather than character, wit or humaneness of the original almost becoming perfunctory in front of the spectacle.

In true Spielberg style, the film is mounted huge. Visceral thrills are around every corner with the scale of reverberating action. Unfortunately, this happens at the cost of a build-up of connection for the audience. The story of mystique, adventure and love for a young investigative reporter boy and his dog takes a back-seat. What remains is the zip-zap-zoom video-game-like violence of successive sequences.

Tintin as a character, has been represented as ‘Everyman’ by Tintintologists. Tintin’s literary analysis sees the young reporter as a regular Joe without any major characteristics to make him stand out. His universal appeal is his main attraction. However, in the film, this “Everyman’ becomes almost a cardboard cut-out, doing things to provide the famous spectacle, series of ‘aha’ moments and performing impossible stunts. Captain Haddock and Snowy seem faithful representations too but without that same warmth. This takes away the much-related to fascination with the characters. Outwardly they seem alright but somehow seem far away. Or not quite much there.

For Tintin fans and non-fans, the film works lavishly. There is imagination in the set-ups and a thundering energy in the action sequences. Attention to detail is humungous and humour keeps the film even. The scale keeps the breath-taken in inside and the pace is crazy enough for edge-of-the seat non-stop excitement. But as a massive adventure full of romance, mystery and age-old secrets, it doesn’t take lot of pains to create a world that stays with us, absorbs us and makes us dream of coming back again.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Loot – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
November 4, 2011

PRODUCER – Suniel Shetty, Shabbir Boxwala
DIRECTOR – Rajneesh Thakur
CAST – Govinda, Suneil Shetty, Mahaakshay Chakraborty, Shweta Bhardwaj, Jaaved Jaaferi
MUSIC – Shravan Sinha, Mika Singh, Shamir Tandon

To ask if Bollywood will ever stop churning out tacky, overdone comic capers involving crimes gone wrong and pots of money may be like asking if the sun will ever rise from the West. An assailed, assaulted, attacked and brutally besieged audience has probably given up on asking it as well. And films like ‘Loot’ continue to grace our silver screens.

It is a very dedicated faithful copy of the 2003 English film ‘Crime Spree’. A bunch of goons are sent on a simple crime mission to Thailand but typically manage to bungle it up. The small-time conmen Builder (SunielShetty), Pandit (Govinda), Wilson (MahaakshayChakraborty) and Akbar (Javed) meet twists and turns one after the other in the form of local gangs and their own low IQ.

Loot

Director Rajneesh Thakur chooses to mirror the original film exactly. Events, plot details and characters are loyally reproduced but was humour ever so easy to pull off? The humour here is of the vulgar, double entendre kind. Puns are laid on thick and endless innuendos qualify for the type of humour the film represents. Govinda’s spontaneity tries hard to save the ship but with a very flawed treatment and little help from his co-actors, it doesn’t do much. In this scenario, Javed Jaffery’s natural flair for comedy acts like a struggling dam that breaks more often than survives.

‘Loot’ tries hard to entertain all the while. There is the usual loud, colourful buffoonery mixed with song-n-dance of a typical masala comedy. But on its way to become an entertainer it is horribly unmindful of how ineffective the editing is (doesn’t help pace, mood or the fun element). Pattaya seems rather slovenly onscreen without any romance or charm. Mediocre music makes up the remaining part of the film’s forgetability.

Even as the film brings together a platter of known faces and proven talents, it gives them nothing to shine with. Prem Chopra, Ravi Kishhen, Mahesh Manjrekar, Razzak Khan remain mere faces. Mika debuts as an actor with little aplomb as Shweta Bhardwaj and Kim Sharma add the oomph to the package with tepid sizzle. Mahaakshay Chakraborty, Mithun Chakraborty’ son, incredibly enough, is given yet another chance to show some talent but it is anybody’s guess what he delivers. Oh, and yes, for those interested, there is a Rakhi Swant item number too and she delivers.

In the end all the film reminds one of is a mildly cooked curry with all the spices stale and put in at the wrong time, in the wrong quantity.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Miley Na Miley Hum – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
November 4, 2011

PRODUCER – Anuj Saxena
DIRECTOR – Tanveer Khan
WRITER – Tanveer Khan
CAST – Chirag PAswan, Kangana Ranaut, Kabir Bedi, Poonam Dhillon
MUSIC – Sajid-Wajid

Breezy rom-coms with a dash of family complications are a general first choice for entertainment. Anuj Saxena’s ‘Miley Na Miley Hum’ plays out as a regular light-hearted film with a little bit of everything.

Chirag (Debutante Chirag Paswan) is torn between his separated parents who always have different plans for him. Father (Kabir Bedi) wants him to become a tennis player and marry homely Manjeet (Neeru Bajwa) while mother (Poonam Dhillon) wants him to become a businessman and marry Kamiah (Sagarika Ghatge). Chirag, a tennis lover, is trying hard to get away from both. He cooks up a girlfriend and then hires Anishka (Kangana Ranaut), a model to play his girlfriend. What follows is a mild but rather sweet story of how they fall in love and how it all ends.

There are no dramatic or extreme moments in the film, be it in emotional or comic moments that keeps it tempered and smooth going. There are episodes of comedy, drama and romance in turns, in various angles. Chirag’s interactions with his warring parents and their issues. His exchanges with the two selected brides and then Anishka’s entry into his life. The entire charade is handled with a moderation between realism and romance and the build-up to the finale is steady. There is the by-now over-used sports field finale, tennis being the chosen sport here but with lesser fanfare than it deserves.

The writing isn’t explosive, something that the story had a definite potential for. It falls prey to clichés and keeps the film low key almost always. The director chooses a rather unusual mix of flashy and simplistic story-telling. It keeps one engaged but in a rather see-sawing manner. The camera tells a better story with a visual landscape that is pretty and captured with love. The music unfortunately isn’t sufficiently soulful for a romcom.

Chirag Paswan, son of Rajya Sabha MP, Ram Vilas Paswan, puts in energy and effort but a lack of screen presence lets him down. Kangana’s sometimes breezy sometimes cocky act leaves a lot to be desired. Kabir Bedi and Poonam Dhillon make a nice pair of parents implying a smart casting decision even though their emotional tiffs do not evoke enough interest, blame it on the writing. Sagarika Ghatge and Neeru Bajwa are good in their small but colourful roles.

A moderate entertainer is different from a mediocre one. ‘Miley Na Miley Hum’ falls somewhere in between.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , ,
Comment

Tell Me O Khuda – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
October 30, 2011

PRODUCER – Hema Malini
DIRECTOR –Hema Malini and Mayur Puri
CAST – Esha Deol, Arjan Bajwa, Chandan Roy Sanyal, Dharmendra, Rishi Kapoor, Vinod Khanna, Farooq Sheikh, Deepti Naval, Hema Malini and Johnny Lever
MUSIC – Pritam

Stories of finding one’s roots make for excellent cinematic journeys. There is scope for great character sketches, delving deep into the psyche. There is scope for great drama and play of visuals. There is an unlimited choice for playing with narrative in multiple ways and so on. Besides, it automatically makes for great engagement if the characters are written with feeling and events are memorable.

Hema Malini’s second directorial venture, made to re-launch her daughter Esha Deol, must have been created with the exact promise of the above juiciness. But something went seriously wrong and it shows on the big screen throughout.

TMOK

It is a story of a young girl Tanya (Esha Deol), an established writer leading a posh life who suddenly finds that she is adopted. She begins a search for her biological father alongwith boyfriend Jai (Arjan Bajwa) and a friend Kuki (Chandan Roy Sanyal). This search takes her from India to Turkey and back. It makes her meet feudal lords, mafia dons and business magnates. It brings her close to the realities of women from female foeticide, to infertility, male chauvinism and plight of landless farmers. She wades through it all to find her truth.

Esha Deol, as the young yet mature girl in search of her father strikes a completely wrong note. Her performance lacks a stability and depth rendering all else fruitless. Her character’s and the director’s approach to the issues surrounding them is amazingly flippant serving more harm to the already frail film. The film takes its own time to meander through to its point and by this dilly-dallying takes an immense toll on the viewer. Without engagement, without viewer-friendly characters and a sketchy plot there is little to keep one rooting for Tanya. Arjan Bajwa as the boyfriend has little to do and so does Chandan Roy but both perform with grace. Yester-year stars, Vinod Khanna, Dharmendra, Rishi Kapoor, Farooq Sheikh, Deepti Naval and Mme Malini herself make special appearances but to little effect.

There is a prettiness in the visuals as the film scans Rajasthan, Goa and Turkey with colour and romance. But the visual appeal remains limited, doing little for the lacklustre experience the film provides. The journey and its characters just do not make you want to take them home.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Damadamm – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
October 28, 2011

PRODUCER – Studio 18, HR Musik
DIRECTOR – Swapna Waghmare
WRITER – Himesh Reshammiya (Story / Writer), Subrat Sinha (Screenplay and dialogue)
CAST – Himesh Reshammiya, Purbi Joshi, Sonal Sehgal
MUSIC – Himesh Reshammiya

Damadamm

It would be lovely to call the film a ‘war of the exes’ or give some such (over) smart tag. But a review is supposed to give its audience an honest perspective of what the film is like, hence that would be cheating. Smart it isn’t and its bid to being simple is so simplistic that it manages to lose the little sweetness it sprinkles around. War of the exes it is for sure but a rather tired and routine one.

Sameer (Himesh Reshammiya) and Shikha (Purbi Joshi) are in a relationship with each other for five years. They work at the same place but Shikha’s constant nagging nature leaves Sameer no room for breath. In walks the pretty Sanjana, the boss’ sister like fresh air. Just then Shikha has to travel to Indore and Sameer, ‘free’ of Shikha’s over-bearing presence strikes a friendship with Sanjana. On return Shikha suspects their proximity to be more and a break-up follows. Sameer decides to get hitched to Sanjana but is it going to be that easy?

The premise of the film is simple and rather sincere. Old vs new love never fails to stir tender nostalgic strings in our hearts. Unfortunately, Sameer never becomes the character we can root for unflinchingly neither does Shikha’s one-dimensionally negative character in the first half encourages us to care.

The film moves from emotional to sensitive to comic in a rather mindless manner, trying to balance all but failing to completely. The comedy is caricaturish and tasteless while the characters aren’t fleshed out enough for us to engage with emotions.

If the film moves with a certain grace and entertainment value, whatever little, it is primarily due to the female cast. Purbi Joshi, an already proven storehouse of talent on TV puts up a spirited performance even in the face of a bare and sketchy character. Sonal Sehgal is pretty and convincing at the same time and manages to bring out the shades of her character well, never letting it slip into stereotype. This she does without the help of writing. Himesh Reshammiya on the other hand, remains more of a sore thumb, what with his lack of screen presence, pleasing personality and acting abilities. However, his music remains foot-tapping and catchy as usual. It brings a certain colour to the lacklustre proceedings what with its unusual lyrics and the famous nasal twang. Having said that, it is strictly for fans and doesn’t have the wider appeal Himeshbhai is known to have at times.

But then, who watches a movie just for its music?

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Ra.One – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
October 26, 2011

PRODUCER – Gauri Khan
DIRECTOR – Anubhav Sinha
WRITER – Anubhav Sinha (Screenplay), Niranjan Iyengar and Kanika Dhillon (Dialogues)
CAST – Shahrukh Khan, Kareena Kapoor, Armaan Verma
MUSIC – Vishal-Shekhar

A robotic superhero with world-class external fanciness but an Indian heart is the punch of Shahrukh Khan’s magnum opus and labour of love Ra.One. He is G.One, Ra.One’s nemesis. However, he isn’t as strong as the bad guy but yes his goodness is where his strength comes from. We aren’t in romcom land here but the heart still rules. You can’t go wrong if you followed it, says G.One, something that SRK (and Co.) has been selling for ages now.

Ra.One

This fight between good and evil is set in both, the real and virtual world. Created as video game characters, both Ra.One and G.One war it out in both worlds. Ra.One (Arjun Rampal) is thirsty for Lucifer’s blood because he defeated him in a game and Ra.One swears revenge. Lucifer is Prateik, the son of Sonia (Kareena Kapoor) and Shekhar, (Shahrukh Khan) who has made the game and its characters. Circumstances lead to G.One (also played by Shahrukh Khan) setting out to protect Prateik and the cat and mouse game continues. Without much audience participation, sadly.

A patchy and uneven screenplay with an unusually improbable plot renders the entire project ineffectual. However, being a Bollywood film, Bhagvad Gita, angels and Ganeshji make special appearances, leaving the proceedings more than a little confounded if not diluted.

Excellent are the computer-generated graphics that sew the action and undo the robots tight. Fights are choreographed with an exceptional finesse that do not make us question their probability. Dramatic events explode and fuse in seconds even as characters take their own sweet time to amalgamate, dismantle and sashay into action. Ultimately, all that remains is the brouhaha and nothing much to show for it. Neither here, nor there, spiritless and without inspiration, the film meanders ahead, primarily only to wow us with how we can also achieve VFX of global standards. Hire their professionals.

The film is tightly edited and has very distinctly foot-tapping music. The robots are stylised with a visual flair but the usual naiveté of Bollywood with anything scientific shines through. No amount of the King Khan’s charisma helps here. Kareena Kapoor, styled rather with a downplayed hand by Manish Malhotra manages to look gorgeous but remains unconvincing and fake, something we generally do not expect of her.

The packaging is glossy and even explosive. But the content within remains age-old, even tired. Ra.One doesn’t scare, G.One doesn’t make you care. A mildly catchy ‘Chhammak Challo’ is not what you celebrate Diwali with, do you?

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

The Whistleblower – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
October 21, 2011

FILM – The Whistleblower
PRODUCER – Christina Piovesan, Celine Rattray, Amy Kaufman
DIRECTOR – Larysa Kondracki
WRITER – Larysa Kondracki, Eilis Kirwan
CAST – Rachel Weisz, Monica Bellucci and Vanessa Redgrave
MUSIC – Mychael Danna

As humans we have an equal amount of tendency for good and bad. And an equal amount of choice.

As our race has evolved, we have seen the gap between this polarity widening. We no longer blink before committing inhuman acts of crime neither do we flinch before justifying every act of cruelty. Covering up our lies, individual or collective, under the dominating sheets of power comes easy to us. So easy, it has become a rule rather than exception.

In ‘The Whistleblower’, Kathryn Bolkovac chooses to single-handedly fight against this corruption. Based on true events, the film shows the journey of Kathryn, a Nebraska cop who joins US monitoring forces in post-war Bosnia-Herzegovina. She stumbles upon a human trafficking and sex scandal which upon investigation turns out to be a huge money spinning mafia involving the US military officials, UN officials, personnel from private security organizations and other international agencies. The UN chooses to suppress it and removes Kathy from her job. Supported by Madeleine Rees (Vanessa Redgrave), Kathy goes public.

Kathy in Whistleblower

As dramatic as it sounds, this happened. And as the film states, continues. It documents Kathy’s fight from start to finish with taut drama and moderate emphasis on emotion. It is a realistic portrayal of gruesome reality and does nothing to tantalize the drama or titillate by twisting presentation. It is a serious crime it speaks of, and chooses to speak seriously and simply.

There are no diatribes or rhetoric either which keep the film even. The events are presented as a thriller, with shaky camera, sharp lighting contrasts and swift inter-cutting. Largely shot in Romania, it stays true to the European filmoscape with grainy visual texture and desaturated colours. The visual landscape it presents sets the grimy and intense mood of the film with easy assurance.

But probably what presents the earthy tone to the film is the performance of Rachel Weisz as Kathryn. She invests a restraint and gravity into her role that brings alive the horror of inhumanity and injustice surrounding her. She is no tough cop nor a passionate crusader. She is a simple woman who simply likes to ensure justice is being done.

The film spares no one, not the US, UN, Govt or private organizations. Neither does it deify its principal character. It presents facts with a certain documentary-like objectivity and mixes suspense with its technique but with distinct compassion. It is a brave film to make and with its graphic violence, a brave one to watch too. If only it was fantasy and not fact.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Paranormal Activity – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
October 21, 2011

FILM – PARANORMAL ACTIVITY
PRODUCER – Jason Blum, Jeanette Brill, Oren Peli, Steven Schneider
DIRECTOR – Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman
WRITER – Christopher B. Landon, Oren Peli
CAST – Chloe Csengery, Jessica Tyler Brown and Christopher Nicholas Smith

Candid camera horror is back with the third installment of Paranormal Activity. The franchise is a horror film telling through the footage of candid cameras the stories of sisters, Katie and Kristi, and their supernatural encounters. This time round it is the story of demonic experiences of the sisters when they were kids.

Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown) talks to an imaginary friend Toby but her sister Katie (Chloe Csengery) refuses to believe her. Around the same time her mother’s live-in boyfriend, Dennis, (Christopher Nicholas Smith) installs cameras all over the house since they suspect something is awry. Little by little unexplainable things are caught on camera clearly showing supernatural presence. Things come to a head when Dennis finds a demonic symbol in the girl’s bedroom and reads about shamanic cults recruiting young girls through various practices only to claim their firstborn, a nod to the story of the second installment. Violence in the household increases and so does the intrigue. The film ends on a surprise note that is unpredictable and hence scarier.

The film is uneven, in its chills and thrills taking a while to build up. Things fall, explode, bang, crash with glee. Every shock trick is used but with a common sense and manages to bring enough spook. Every paranormal activity is made up of a surprise and takes the story forward, two important factors that make this horror flick scarier than the previous one.

The camera is used pretty much in the same manner as in the earlier films, installed to check on invisible forces. Characters still run with their cameras when running for life. However, unlike the earlier versions is role is limited. No flickering of battery, no ending of tapes at critical times and so on. It largely becomes more convenient as an experience to watch and get thrilled.

The children put in some lovely performances especially little Jessica Tyler Brown. As the vulnerable Kristi who speaks to ghosts and is being emotionally manipulated to ‘do something’ for them she puts in a tender and convincing performance. So does Chloe Csengery whose reactions, full of energy and shock are believable. Julia, the girls’ mother (Lauren Bittner) is a realistic performer and brings a much-needed naturalness to the film. Christopher Nicholas Smith is mostly present through his voice, he being the one capturing the hand-held footage.

The film largely stays indoors as is the general practice of the franchise. The length of lengthy shots of camera capturing footage at nights is reduced greatly. The recordings of every night aren’t compulsively shown and the film avoids tediousness and slack pace that comes by default with the concept. In all it makes for a decent spookfest.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Mujhse Fraandship Karoge – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
October 14, 2011

PRODUCER – Ashish Patil
DIRECTOR – NUPUR ASTHANA
WRITER – Pooja Desai, Ashish Patil
CAST – Saqib Saleem, Saba Azad, Nishant Dahiya, Tara D’Souza
MUSIC – Raghu Dixit

Youth films are now films of and for the Facebook Generation. Or that’s what ‘Mujhse Fraandship Karoge’ would have you believe. But that is probably not the film’s fault. The social network has taken over lives dramatically. So you don’t really blame the students of HRMC for sending friend requests, uploading prank videos and trying to find love by chatting on FB. Thankfully, that is not all they do.

Rahul (Nishant Dahiya) is a rockstar, literally, and Vishal (Saqib Saleem) is his best buddy. Preity (Saba Azad) is a stuffy, no-nonsense girl having trust issues with men, and hot and sexy Malvika (Tara D’Sousa) her best buddy. Vishal is attracted to Malvika and Preity to Rahul. When Rahul sends Malvika a friend request, Preity sneaks in and accepts it on Malvika’s behalf. Vishal notices Malvika is on Rahul’s friend list and decides to make his move. From then on both Vishal and Preity chat with each other impersonating Rahul and Malvika ignorant about the other’s real identities.

MFK

So far so good. The two that hit off so well online can’t stand each other offline. And as an audience it is a quick note for some future predictabilities. Vishal calls the chat ‘Malvika’ out on a date and Preity accepts. He sends Rahul and she sends Malvika. Why, when this would only complicate matters, one would ask. Probably, the makers didn’t ask so we go along with it.

A few twists in the tale later Preity and Vishal find their special connection but then what happens to Rahul and Malvika and the duos ‘passion’ for them?

The film unfolds with energy to its predictable end. It keeps conversations extremely light, tight and funny. It keeps its characters yuppie, urban but human, not cardboard cut-out. It keeps all the elements of a fun-filled youth romance and carries us along despite discrepancies and illogic. We go with the ride and enjoy most of the breeziness.

The director displays a rather keen grasp of youth mannerisms and language, translating a genuinely engaging narrative. Unlike many pretentiously superficial youth films we see. However, a lack of memorable faces or distinctive moments leave it as a yet another youth film about college, friendships, romance with colourful sets and clothes.

There is a charming appeal to the histrionics of Vishal and Preity. While one’s whacky antics have a nice energy the other’s mix of cute and earthy makes for a feel-good romance. We get to care for their friendship. The characters of Rahul and Malvika are meant to draw their roles out of stereotypes but the actors do not succeed fully in doing so, seeming lukewarm more often than not.

There is enough foot-tapping dancing to go with this one. Pretty girls turn stunning and the feel-goodness never loses steam. It’s a pity there isn’t anything special about this rather well-told story. But there are quite a few redeeming factors which include intelligent story-telling and a fun-filled two hours. Not a bad deal, at all.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Jo Dooba So Paar

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
October 14, 2011

PRODUCER – Anand Entertainment and Andaz Productions
DIRECTOR – Praveen Kumar
WRITER – Praveen Kumar
CAST – Anand Tiwari, Sita Ragione Spada, Vinay Pathak, Rajat Kapoor, Sadia Siddiqui, Brijendra Kala, Pitobash Tripathi.
MUSIC – Manish J. Tipu

Stories that revolve around small-town, little known places and small, simple dreams always make for cinematic moments and experiences worth telling. However, Jo Dooba So Paar squanders every such opportunity it ever may have had.

It is with a slow and rather sludgy screenplay that the film tells its story. Its hero Kishu (Anand Tiwari) is a dreamer. His father works for smugglers. Kishu a small-town, no-gooder Bihari boy is in love with a white-skinned foreigner Sapna (Sita Ragione Spada), and does everything to woo her. She seems to be encouraging him too and at that point only her strict upper-caste Indian uncle seems to be the obstacle. But life has a few more obstacles to throw at Kishu before it can be breezy for them. A few skirmishes with crime and a full-blown kidnapping comes Kishu’s way and he has to live up to the challenges in front of him.

It’s a small-town film that revolves around romance but unfortunately romanticizes neither its setting or people. Unfortunately because the insistence on realism takes away the charm of feel-goodness and the essence of small-town ethos. The music too surprisingly doesn’t match up to rustic tunes further alienating the experience that could have been.

The film tries to be ambitious yet rooted and fails at both. A rather underdone script kills potential drama and a tedious pace disengages attention. Anand Tiwari as Kishu, puts up a convincing performance as a dreamy, small-town guy with his heart on his sleeve and oozing confidence but lacks a definitive screen presence that can make a film like this appeal. Sita Ragione Spada has a winning smile and never fails to use it to good effect. Rajat Kapoor and Vinay Pathak, two dependable actors of small budgeted cinema display their talent but to little effect. Such is the film’s canvas and such are its limits.

Small-town films are always interesting, what with the variety of stories close to our roots that can be told. Unfortunately, this one is not that. A lack of production values, a lack of narrative style and a muddy pace does neither the film nor its audience any good.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , ,
Comment

Mod – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
October 14, 2011

PRODUCER – Sujit Kumar Singh, Elahe Hiptoola, Nagesh Kukunoor
DIRECTOR – Nagesh Kukunoor
WRITER – Nagesh Kukunoor (Official remake of ‘Keepin Watch’)
CAST – Ayesha Takia Azmi, Rannvijay Singh Singha
MUSIC – Tapas Relia

Nagesh Kukunoor burst on the cinematic scene with his refreshing ‘Hyderabad Blues’. With ‘Iqbal’ and ‘Dor’ he exhibited a fresh voice telling stories that were sensitive, warm, earthy and engaging. Fans would love to forget his ‘Bombay to Bangkok’ and ‘Tasveer 8X10’ but Mod, an official remake of a Taiwanese film, ‘Keeping Watch’, erases the bad memories somewhat.

Mod

A warm and simple romance, Mod is structured like a suspense. Typically, the setting is a small-town in the hills. His heroine Aranya (fabulous Ayesha Takia) is almost a recluse and his hero Andy (competent Rannvijay Singh) a painfully shy lover. Both seem to have found their soulmate in each other until Aranya catches Andy acting strange. At times he refuses to answer to his name. She even follows him to a nursing home for mentally ill. And there is an Abhay in the picture too. What is the truth? Interestingly, the film doesn’t end at the finding of the truth. Aranya takes the truth and deals with it, thereby changing the course of her and Andy’s lives.

Kukunoor and his mouth-piece, Gayatri Bua (Tanvi Azmi) choose to call it love but Kukunoor hasn’t turned romantic in Mod. His best tales have been stories of human spirit and resilience. His protagonists are little people capable of great things. He has always been interested in the journey. He lets Aranya make her journey with a free hand here.

However, she isn’t helped much by a choppy and wavering script. Kukunoor seems to be in two minds to zoom into moments and emotions or concentrate on events. Still, the consistency of Aranya’s character and Ayesha Takia’s sensitive performance carries it through. Hers is not Meera or Zeenat’s journey but heart-warming nevertheless.

Small, but yet again Kukunoor establishes the world of his protagonists well. Raghuvir Yadav as her father and Tanvi Azmi as her bua are fleshed out enough to provide the framework to understand Aranya. Prateeksha Lonkar as Andy’s mother, in one explosive scene provides enough perspective to Andy but Abhay’s world ends up feeling unexplored. The scientific premise on which the suspense of the film hinges is dented for cinematic purposes. However, Ranvijay holds his ground steadfastly in the multiple shades he is required to portray. He gets under the skin of his character with a refreshing confidence and consistency. The writing lets him down and but he never lets loose his grip on his performance.

Mod becomes a love paean by the time it ends. But it goes through some pleasant scenery while travelling. Moments of the lovers meeting among tea plantations and pristine waterfalls. The heroine on a moped and a nursing home in the hills makes visual we rarely see. The camera captures high altitude beauty with a touch of reverence, keeping the virginity intact and never romanticising with filters and such. Aranya’s wardrobe, regular and even frumpy, fits well with her background and the music sails through with the momentum of the story.
Mod doesn’t tug at heart-strings compulsively. It has holes, which dilute the experience but it paints the picture of a nice world we want to know with real, likeable people we want to wish well. Few films manage to get you there.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Azaan – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
October 14, 2011

PRODUCER – M. R. Shahjahan
DIRECTOR – Prashant Chadha
WRITER – Prashant Chadha, Shubra Swarup, Heeraz Marfatia.
CAST – Sachiin J Joshi, Candice Boucher, Ravi Kissen, Ally Khan, Sarita Chaudhury
MUSIC – Salim-Sulaiman

From the looks of it, there is everything to suggest Aazaan is yet another India-Pakistan enmity film. But Aazaan uses terrorism and its terrible history as a mere backdrop. The plot revolves around a RAW agent Aazan Khan (Sachiin Joshi) fighting an attack of biological warfare on India. Terrorist forces here are egotistical Mogambos who have little to do with territorial or religious passions and the heroes saving India are maverick intelligence agents.

Dubbed as one of the most expensive movies to have been made, Aazaan takes the route of an espionage thriller rooted in reality. It uses the terrorism angle with a certain depth and avoids breast-beating or rhetoric. Aazan is working as an undercover agent to recover the cure of the deadly virus Doctor (Sajid Hussian) has unleashed on India even as he is looking for his brother suspected to be part of those who carried out the London bombings. In this quest he meets and falls in love with Afreen, a Moroccan girl and a sand-artist. His mission takes him through rough terrains and landscapes both internal and external, helping him also exorcise a few ghosts of his past.

It is a gripping film as a thriller. Fantastic production values and elaborate action sequences present a stunning visual drama. It is a fight that is true to itself right till the finish and the taut script and snappy editing go a long way in completing this experience.

However, there is a large amount of twists and ambiguity in plot development that takes all the fun out of the narrative. The crispness takes the form of staccato mind-benders in dialogues and events. The sharp cross-cutting presents a stylish visual form but does little to provide the edge to the narrative, ending up more confounding than engaging.

Perhaps, also a significant amount of the failure of the film to engage is the miscast central protagonist and his singularly monotonous performance. Sachiin Joshi, as a tough RAW agent does not convince due to a distinct lack of screen presence and attitude. The stiff and stern look he carries on him throughout start looking like a single expression performance and no amount of elaborate visuals or hi-flying action is able to redeem this. His pairing with Candice Boucher, South African model seems jarring and the love story unconvincing.

The film presents some lilting tunes and the melody infuses the surreal and romantic tone to the rough film. Visually, the camera captures the raw terrains of desertland Afghanistan and verdant valleys with equal love and watching becomes a pleasure in itself.

The film creates a tangible world. But the script and over-stylised narrative ties itself up in more knots than one can imagine. Devoid of hooks, emotional or intellectual that makes one really care, it becomes a tapestry of mere good action sequences and little else.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

My Friend Pinto – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
October 14, 2011

PRODUCER – Sanjay Leela Bhansali, Ronnie Screwvala
DIRECTOR – Raaghav Daar
WRITER – Raaghav Daar, Arun
CAST – Prateik, Arjun Mathur, Kalki Koechlin, Shruti Seth, Divya Dutta, Makrand Deshpande
MUSIC – Ajay Gogavale, Atul Gogavale, Shamir Tandon, Kavita Seth, Hitesh Sonik

Small-town simpleton with a large heart in the big bad city is a premise as old as mankind. The best of the lot, Anand, still moves us to tears.

My Friend Pinto doesn’t aim to make us weep though. It aims to warm our hearts and draw touched sighs. It aims to tickle, at the same time hearten us up with the wholesomeness of simple values. To its credit, the comedy is innocent and hence charming, something we haven’t seen in a long time. But this innocence, in limited quantities, is all there is to it.

Michael Pinto, (Prateik Babbar) after his mother’s`death, comes to Mumbai to stay with his childhood friend Sameer Sharma (Arjun Mathur). Sameer, whose dreams, the big city has not lived upto, is caught between the frustrations of his unfulfilled life, professional and married. To him Pinto is a burden he has to manage along with his wife Suhaani’s (Shruti Seth) disdain for Pinto.

Unsurprisingly, bumpkin Pinto gets caught in various events in a span of one night. In true Hindi film style he saves lives, changes lives and wins many a friends.

Stream in a don and his moll, his henchmen and their awry kidnapping plot, their plot to kill the don and a young girl having left home to realize her dream of becoming a dancer. Pinto, single-handedly sprays some light and goodness on each one of them. His gold dust touches Sameer and Suhaani’s lives too, transforming their rocky marriage. Only thing he fails at is to convince us and take us along on this happy-puppy trip.

My Friend Pinto

As a story, the events run into each other in a convoluted manner, one leading to the other, all interconnected. This keeps the interest going but the amateurish nature of the execution and the flimsy performances never let a chuckle slip by.

The film keeps realism intact despite its feel-good trip. Settings, costumes and lyrics remain realistic. However, the camera constantly feels uncomfortable in the angles it chooses to tell its story from. The narrative becomes as awkward as the story and its actors.

Makrand Deshpande and Divya Dutta as the eternally in love Don and Moll couple make for cute watching. They perform with a gay abandon, something that Prateik is never able to do. His goody-two-shoes smiles seem forced and so do his confused frowns, the only two emotions he unfortunately sways between. Arjun Mathur, despite his inherent talent moves with a sort of permanent painful frown that makes the show he presents stereotyped. Kalki shows her dreamy girlie side here and does a convincing job of it, although a little more energy and warmth wouldn’t have done harm.

My Friend Pinto isn’t something one would remember or unfortunately, be glad for knowing.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Soundtrack – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
October 9, 2011

PRODUCER – Sanjiv Goenka, Apurv Nagpal
DIRECTOR – Neerav Ghosh
CAST – Rajeev Khandelwal, Soha Ali Khan, Mrinalini Sharma, Mohan Kapoor
MUSIC – Midival Punditz, Karsh Kale, Kailash Kher, Vishal Vaid, Laxmikant-Pyarelal, Ankur Tewari, Papon

A calling needs no rationale. As Maslow said, ‘What one can be one must be’. Raunak Kaul is a musician and a helpless one at that. He hears rhythm in every sound and recognises the music in every element. He starts as a fancy-free spirited small-town lover of music living out his dream and his father’s inheritance (the talent for music) in Mumbai. Armed with an indomitable spirit, he soon becomes a well-loved DJ. His meteoric rise to stardom spurns a life of excess and degeneration. Success begins to turn him into a possessed person haunted by his own alter ego. His psychedelic life, full of pool parties, drugs and sex soon ends with a bang and we see a devastated Raunak caged in a room for months trying hard to come to terms with his despair.

Gauri comes into his life as a breath of fresh air. Hearing and speech impaired, she is a lip-reading teacher. With her we see a mellow Raunak, trying to put his life back. He gets music back into his life, becoming an overnight sensation yet again. Only to astonish the world with his choices.

Soundtrack

The film is an official remake of the Canadian cult film, ‘It’s All Gone Pete Tong’. Rajeev Khandelwal plays Raunak, the temperamental, edgy musician. The film takes him through a gamut of emotions with a vengeance and Rajeev delivers with a vengeance.

The film constantly references Beethoven, the deaf genius who created music long after he couldn’t technically hear. Structured as a documentary, it moves back and forth between Raunak’s story and snippets of people’s recollections about him. That becomes an intriguing narrative tool and ensures the film avoids over-sentimentalising its protagonist. The film is written with a unique objectivity that presents Raunak as an individual with all his flaws and strengths etched with a distance. No emotion or pity is invested in his or Gauri’s impairments. Their relationship is breezy and so is Gauri’s character, playing the somewhat clichéd foil to Raunak’s intense character effortlessly. She is presented as a young, optimistic flame of life and symbolically styled in pretty, bohemian clothes and randomly strewn curls. Soha lisps cutely throughout and enacts the language of the hearing impaired seamlessly, seeming one with the character at all times.

Both, Rajeev Khandelwal and Soha Ali Khan dig in their feet in their characters and stay put. Rajeev displays his typical flair appealing when fiery, attractive when intense and convincing when desperate. The director places his characters within a realistic setup and barring a few secondary characters creates a tangibly real world. The film travels the whole trajectory of passion, destruction and regeneration that is a given for stories about fighting spirits. It tends to focus on the journey more than the psychological aspect of its character and waters down the impact largely because it is in the implications of the events on the characters wherein the real meat of the story lies. The film somewhat brushes that aside and lets itself become yet another never-say-die film about a legendary prodigy.

For a film revolving around music it lacks stunning music. However, it is unconventional and earthy enough to remain true to the spirit of the film. There isn’t anything fancy or earth-shattering about it but there is heart and as movies about life-changing events go, that’s a lot.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Rascals – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
October 8, 2011

FILM – Rascals
PRODUCER – Sanjay Dutt, Sanjay Ahluwalia, Vinay Choksey
DIRECTOR – David Dhawan
WRITER – Yunus Sajawal (Screenplay), Sanjay Chhel (Dialogues)
CAST – Sanjay Dutt, Ajay Devgan, Kangana Ranaut
MUSIC – Vishal Dadlani, Shekhar Ravjiani

There was a time in the nineties when a special brand of comedies popularised by the Govinda-David Dhawan team completely changed the way we looked at comedy. They were loud, mindless, racy and highly entertaining. They were completely kitsch and a guilty pleasure for most. Today there is a certain nostalgia amongst a section of fans for that brand of entertainment. The slew of comedies in the last few years has followed the same template even raked in moolah. But if they are going to gain credence sometime in the future for the popularity it enjoys now, it will be a doomsday for anything that is remotely associated with intelligence or wholesome entertainment.

Rascals

Rascals is yet another peg in the template mindlessness and yes, it is extremely bad. And it is the same David Dhawan who had the formula down pat at one-time. This time he takes two conmen and pits them against each other. There is a rich brainless babe, a completely style-less Kangana Ranaut, only too happy to play the bimbette who is constantly getting felt up by two impersonating rascals. If that isn’t enough then she readily drops clothes on some ‘plot-joke’ or the other. Filled with such lewdness, it is difficult to see anything funny in any of it. There is a villain Anthony (Arjun Rampal) who appears in the beginning and then in the end. The two conmen have antagonised him but the film forgets Anthony as soon as the scene is over. That seems quite funny though.

Gag after gag presents itself with exemplary repetitiveness and bawdiness. The clichéd one-upmanship between the two main leads is constructed with little imagination and even less direction. There is little background or credibility to the sequences, a phenomena which even without expectations seems incredulously bizarre.

Sanjay Dutt and Ajay Devgan try hard to invest some jolliness but lose themselves to confounding mindlessness. The complete lack of plot gives them nothing to flaunt their flair with. Incredible slapstick and flippant tomfoolery takes the place of comic timing. Newcomer Lisa Haydon shows skin and shows skin with little more to do. And the film goes on and on with little more to do.

This isn’t the first time Yunus Sajawal and David Dhawan have paired up. While the former’s stamp of comedy is distinctly visible, David Dhawan’s known flair with comedy, characters, smart one-liners and editing is so lacking it is a pity. There are some foot-tapping and elaborately designed dance numbers but that does little to add to the dull, dull film.

Let us simply hope that we see less of such tripe because a movie-less Friday is anyday better than a Friday with stuff as rascally as this.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Love, Breakups, Zindagi – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
October 7, 2011

PRODUCER – Dia Mirza, Zayed Khan, Sahil Sangha
DIRECTOR – Sahil Sangha
WRITER – Sahil Sangha
CAST – Zayed Khan, Dia Mirza, Cyrus Sahukar, Tisca Chopra
MUSIC – Salim Merchant, Sulaiman Merchant

Cute feel-good marries everyday life quirk and some filmy ever-lasting-ness in ‘Love, Breakups, Zindagi’. One would think it is a rather over-done combination but Director Sahil Sangha ensures he keeps the drama and cliché in check. What rolls out is a package that is part surprise and part surprisingly too ordinary.

Jay (Zayed Khan) and Naina (Diya Mirza), and Govind (Cyrus Sahukar) and Sheela (Tisca Chopra) meet at their best friends’ wedding. A good half of the movie is spent on wedding naach-gaana, complete with an item dance on the re-recorded version of the lilting Govinda-Neelam’s ‘Main Se Meena Se’. Jay and Naina are in a relationship with other people, Govind is twice-divorced and Sheela an Urdu Professor and single by choice. The little too neat and clean wedding brings everyone closer and once over leaves them pondering on what has changed.

Love, breakups, zindagi

Which is when the movie actually begins and unfortunately begins to lose itself too. Both couples do their dilly-dallying and courtship bit, inevitably to a predictable end. But they do so with an easiness that dangerously seems like indifference in one couple’s case and in the other’s case, a difficulty that seems suspiciously crafted to manipulate deeper sighs than a breezy movie as this can evoke. The treatment of both romantic tracks are filled with sweet and familiar moments but without an edge to arouse enough interest. Much like the shaadi itself in the first-half, which after some adequate cheer is wrapped up with a cold swiftness leaving an unfulfilled taste behind. More importantly, it devalues the impact of the story to come.

The characters are styled with a unique flair for fashion. A keen eye is sure to notice the Delhi-ness and Mumbai-ness in characters. This mildly extends to the manner of speaking and communication adding that touch of realistic flavour. There are no fancy frills to the film, no exotic locations, no sweeping panoramic shots, no camera-created visual beauty. This keeps the drama and glamour to the minimum but nowhere does the film appear poor or the canvas small; a remarkable feat. The lacklustre music, woven into the film’s narrative, however doesn’t help much.

The film largely wins one over by Diya Mirza’s petite prettiness and her unaffected, daisy-like performance. Her touch-n-go personality adds to the simplicity and vulnerability of her character but avoids making her a wishy-washy mushpot. She delivers with sparkling constancy be it breezy scenes or emotionally wrought sequences carrying the range with pleasing effect. Zayed Khan carries his good-guy-in-a-bad relationship role till he doesn’t have to cry or get emotional. Once there he falls apart like he is always known to. Cyrus Sahukar provides the comic relief with a not-so-funny deadpan expression and Tisca Chopra’s striking elegance speaks through her demeanour adding a very watchable pizzaz to the screen.

The film has no story except the traditional lover’s tale where things generally fall into place if you follow the heart. Packaged in an urban, 21st century setting, wrapped in colloquial dialogue-baazi and peppered with special appearances from stars ranging from Riteish Deshmukh, Shabana Azmi and Shahrukh Khan himself, it delivers most of what it promises. Fair enough, one is likely to agree.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Force – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
September 30, 2011

PRODUCER – Vipul Shah
DIRECTOR – Nishikant Kamat
WRITER – Ritesh Shah
CAST – John Abraham, Genelia D’Souza, Mohnish Bahl, Raj Babbar, Vidyut Jamwal
MUSIC – Harris Jayaraj, Lalit Pandit

Force

The current rage of clown-y comedies takes a pause with action thriller ‘Force’. A revenge drama, it is a remake of Gautam Menon’s very successful Tamil film, Kaakha Kaakha (2003) starring Suriya and Jyothika.

A team of Narcotics Department officers Yash (John Abraham), Atul (Mohnish Bahl), Mahesh and Arvind take on a gang headed by Vishnu (Vidyut Jamwal). They kill Anna (Mukesh Rishi), delivering a severe blow to Vishnu. Vishnu swears revenge and the drug mission becomes a personal (and gory) story of who-kills-who-first. Bodies start falling and the game keeps getting dangerous.

Yash is in love with Maya (Genelia Do’souza), Atul is married to Swati (Sandhya Mridul) and Arvind has a girlfriend (Anaitha Nair) in his life. In true Hindi film tradition (one which we thought we had left behind, long back) the women become easy targets to net the officers and effortlessly used by Vishnu. Nothing new here, except the amount of blood spilled and John’s extra-beefed up body.

The film uses the oft-seen romance angle between a sour and dour hero and a chirpy full-of-life heroine to offset the gore exploding all around. In between clipped investigations and daring fisticuffs Yash and Maya breeze around in new-found love. Sadly, this infuses no balance or freshness to the proceedings what with a tepid treatment and a generic story-telling.

It is a rather different kind of a film in the light of the director’s earlier award-winning films.
The story has a certain sensibility that the Hindi cinema has used and done away with ages ago. Daring and fearless officers giving Superman a complex, female love-interests as convenient plot tools, one-dimensional animal-like villains who make the screen tremble with their ferociousness and so on. It is the complete nature of the package that fails to engage and the little remaining is done away with a flaccid treatment that fails to invest heart or soul in the revenge or romance. Interestingly, for a tender romance there is not one song that maybe termed memorable.

The film has solid action scenes, never shying away from too much or too soon. The action sequences are captured with a slickness both in framing and cutting helping the pace and energy of the film. Both John Abraham and Vidyut Jamwal perform with fierce energy but while Vidyut Jamwal’s Vishnu strikes as an ominous opponent, John’s Yash forgets to add emotion or expression to action. Genelia D’Souza’s chirpiness is controlled but a distinct lack of chemistry between the lead pair never lets the romance really take off. However, her prettiness is striking and is distinctly highlighted by a colourful and well-matched couture that present her as a little special yet little regular. Mohnish Bahl as the upright and balanced officer plays the typical sensible character he has become synonymous with and Sandhya Mridul shows the characteristic spark we know her for.

The film moves in flashbacks, borrowing from the original. But a half-hearted treatment never lets it explore the potential it had, leaving it merely as a run-of-the-mill thriller. For a one-time watch it has a story that holds itself together but leaves you unmoved. Considering it is constructed to do exactly the opposite, it never lives upto the promise.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Hum, Tum, Shabana – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
September 30, 2011

PRODUCER – Sunil Chainani, Sameer Srivastava, Subhash Dawar
DIRECTOR – Sagar Ballary
WRITER – Farhajaan Sheikh (Story and screenplay), Sharat Katariya (Dialogue)
CAST – Minissha Lamba, Tusshar Kapoor, Karthik, Satish Kaushik, Sanjay Mishra
MUSIC – Sachin, Jigar

Going by the production rate of such films, loud and slapstick buffoonery has proven to be the most popular form of comic entertainment. Little wonder then, ‘Hum, Tum, Shabana’, by Sagar Ballary follows comic formula sincerely, never moving beyond the template. Little wonder, also then, that it is a flavourless and humourless story we watch unfold onscreen.

Shabana (Minissha Lamba) has caught the fancy of Rishi (Tusshar Kapoor) and Karthik (Shreyas Talpade). She is a beauty pageant contestant and they are a part of the organising team. But to win her hand they have to first give a few love exams. The examiner is Shabana’s gangster uncle Chacha (Satish Kaushik), the invigilator is Munna Military (Sanjay Mishra), Chacha’s right-hand man and the exams are of course, tests in committing crimes.

Hum, Tum, Shabana

A mess of staged crime capers makes up the rest of the film where Rishi and Kartik keep trying to escape even as they are forced to complete each ‘test’. Shabana, after quite a needless exposition of a rather tacky beauty pageant, becomes a peripheral presence, appearing with a frequency lesser than Chacha’s henchmen. Extremely poor styling and a miscast role are not really her fault as she puts on her cutesiest for us. Marks for trying her best though.

For a film that for a considerable part languishes in the beauty world, its cosmetic fervour is rather poor. Poor costumes, ordinary-looking models and a non-glamourous visual appeal makes the film look low budgeted affecting its convincing quality. It simply fails to create a tangible enough world to engage with. Banal and misfit song-n-dance sequences take away the remaining interest in the narrative.

As the loudness and madness scale up, Shreyas Talpade and Tusshar Kapoor continue to keep pace with their comic timing. So do Satish Kaushik and Sanjay Mishra. The efforts don’t count for much though. Plastic, formulaic and with little honesty, the film passes us by as an attempt to tickle that just did not try hard enough.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Johnny English – Reborn

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
September 24, 2011

PRODUCER – Tim Bevan, Chris Clark, Eric Fellner, Ronaldo Vasconcellos (Co-producer)
DIRECTOR – Oliver Parker
WRITER – William Davies, Hamish McColl
CAST – Rowan Atkinson, Dominic West, Gillian Anderson, Rosamund Pike
MUSIC – Ilan Eshkeri

Johnny English Reborn

Last time round he was at saving the world by trying to over-throw a plot to steal the Crown Jewels. After eight years, Johnny English is back doing what he does best, bumbling and being inefficient while he is the only one who believes he is the real deal as a spy.

‘Johnny English Reborn’ revisits the 2003 film Johnny English, which had its titular hero modelled on James Bond but with the supreme dundle-headness of Inspector Clousseau. Rowan Atkinson, the original Johnny English plays funny Bond in this one as well, and with the same flair and comic charm as ever.

This time round his mission is to save the Chinese premier from the assassination plan being hatched. As our man delves deeper into the case he is caught by a mesh of conspiracy across intelligence agencies, including his own Mi-7. He has an equally inept partner in Agent Tucker (Daniel Kaluuya) and the two try their best to get their head around the mission even as they mess their own trail.

Johnny’s bizarre goofiness unfolds on the screen with hilarious effect as he subverts all heroic conventions to emerge as a hero when least expected and a loser when least imagined. Rowan Atkinson sails through the faux-heroism and embarrassing antics of Johnny with his usual verve making it a pleasure to watch all the way. Gillian Anderson as his boss Pamela remains uni-dimensional in her stiff, upper-lipped role swaying from authoritarian to incredulous at regular intervals. Rosamund Pike as the psycho-analyst fills in the gap between the crazy English and stuffy Pamela.

Director Oliver Parker keeps a controlled hand on the proceedings as the comedy pans out with assured steadiness. Danny Cohen’s camera captures lush countryside as well as rollicking action with equal ease and Ilan Eshkeri’s music infuses several moods easily into the narrative from comic to danger to suspense and back!

There is oodles of idiotic and slapstick, nuttiness to keep you hooked. Some get predictable and some are genuinely rib-tickling even when expected. Breezy, fun-times with lots of popcorn and friends is a good deal to make with this film.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Speedy Singhs – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
September 24, 2011

PRODUCER – Frank Siracusa, Ajay Virmani, Don Carmody
DIRECTOR – Robert Lieberman
WRITER – Noel S. Baker, Jeff Schechter, Matt Simmons and Vinay Virmani (screenplay)Ajay Virmani (creator), Vinay Virmani (story)
CAST – Vinay Virmani, Russell Peters, Rob Lowe
MUSIC – Sandeep Chowta

Yet another under-dog sports film. Yet another Punjabi family in the Western world fighting discrimination through sports. Yet another orthodox, angry Indian father wanting the younger generation to ‘toe the line’ by doing the conventional thing and give up sports. Yet another yester-years failed player taking up the daunting task of coaching a talented team with poor prospects. Yet another foreign-brought-up Indian kid coming back to his roots. And so on.

‘Speedy Singhs’ is that riddled with clichés. The Indian kid in question is Rajvir (Vinay Virmani), the star player of Speedy Singhs, a rag-tag team. The father is (Anupam Kher) wants him to work at his uncle’s factory. Rajvir does but practices with his friends whenever possible until the team catches the eye of Dan (Rob Lowe). With him they also get a lawyer in his sister Melissa (Camilla Belle). Together they journey towards an impossible-looking dream of winning the ice-hockey championship.

As is evident, the end is predictable. And as it turns out the proceedings are pretty much predictable too. A smattering of staccato dialogue conversations keeps the interest going, especially the touch-me-not romance between Rajvir and Melissa. But after a point, the one-liner TT becomes too repetitive between everyone.

Speedy Singhs

All characters are likable and the actors do a commendable job. Vinay as the confident lead shines through and just about manages to not appear cocky despite his constant almost-smirky dialogue delivery. He has an assured demeanour and a charming screen presence that is tailor-made for youthful romances and works well within the limited scope of the film. Anupam Kher bellows and roars, and then melts like a candle as all traditional filmy Punjabi fathers have done before him. Russell Peters, popular stand-up comedian throws in his jabberwocky but forgets to add facial expression or appropriate body language to the package. Sakina Jaffrey as Rajvir’s mother handles extremely well, her stereotyped role of the strong and sensible female voice of the family caught between a rebellious son and angry father. Akshay Kumar makes a cameo appearance and then joins in the customary end credits item, something he supposedly felt was his responsibility as the executive producer. Not that it does much for the film anyway.

Sports films pump adrenaline through the very use of the very competitiveness of the game. The stakes are always high and more often it depends on the camera to justify the tension. It does a somewhat plausible job here but the involvement remains peripheral, amounting to little adrenaline or interest, such is the nature of the entire film.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Mausam – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
September 23, 2011

We all love love stories. Especially ones that have a lot of pining and the ‘ever-lasting’, ‘undying’ element to it. We love bashful lady-loves and steadfast, upright lover-boys. ‘Mausam’ brings all of it to the table, with some old-world charm, heart, unseemly melodrama and amazing implausibility.

It starts with a young girl and boy falling in love in a small village in Punjab. The girl, Aayat (Sonam Kapoor) and the boy, Harry (Shahid Kapoor) from then on, meet and separate with an alarming repetitiveness across boundaries and history.

Debutante director, and one of the finest actors in Indian cinema, Pankaj Kapoor sets up the village, its camaraderie and community feeling with a lot of heart. The romance blossoms through stolen glances and customary, small-town coyness and the lead actors are a delight to watch as they begin to lead you into rooting for them heartily.

Mausam

But then the said (first of the lot) separation happens and the film turns onto its head by brutally whisking you off earthy, well-wrought terrains to the glossy, cosmetic, picture-perfect world of Edinburgh. The coy Muslim, burkha-clad girl is now selling tickets for Mozart operas and taking ballet classes. The roguish, care-free boy is now an unbelievably self-important Naval officer. Their latent love rekindles, of course, but the film simply doesn’t.

From then on it is a series of unions and separations in the backdrop of communal fury and a race for both to catch up with each other. As it unfolds, the screenplay becomes choppy to too underdone, dramatic to melodramatic and chooses to leave behind all sense of logic or plausibility in its fervour of jerking out the last tear from your eye-glands.

One grows to love the visuals unfolding onscreen with the graceful touch of cinematographer Binod Pradhan and sings along with Pritam’s music. We give into Sonam Kapoor’s grace and cannot have enough of her toned styling. We warm upto the mustachioed Shahid Kapoor in the navy officer costume. We applaud the secondary characters, Supriya Pathak as Aayat’s bua, the actress playing Harry’s sister and the villagers, but soon enough the bizarre, masala-ness takes all the soul out of the love story and simply makes us wait for it all to end.

As a first-time director, Pankaj Kapoor see-saws between brilliant detailing and banal formulaism. The very flawed writing successfully kills what could have been a tryst with ever-lasting, Hindi filmy romance we are forever craving for. No marks for that disappointment..

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Crazy, Stupid, Love – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
September 16, 2011

PRODUCER – Steve Carell, Denise Di Novi
DIRECTOR – Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
WRITER – Dan Fogelman
CAST – Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling and Julianne Moore
MUSIC – Christophe Beck, Nick Urata

Hollywood’s still selling soul-mates and ever-lasting love when Bollywood has long stopped doing that (One thing, we’ve been ahead with, in the game!). ‘Crazy, Stupid, Love’ does the same routine once again.

It is not boring. It is engaging and entertaining even. It tells the story of change of personalities and change of hearts through the lives of Cal (fantastic Steve Carrell) and Jacob (very sexy Ryan Gosling). Shoddy, boring, Cal, in his mid-forties is going through a divorce with his childhood sweetheart Emily (Julianne Moore) and meets sauve, stylish women’s man Jacob at a bar. Jacob decides to take the heart-broken Cal under his wings and help him rediscover his ‘manhood’, make him more interesting and thus, win his wife back. Cal, with little choice anyways, decides to go along with it.

Meanwhile, Jacob meets Hannah and falls in love. His whole world changes and along with it, his personality. He didn’t want it but that’s what love does to you, doesn’t it? Or so Hollywood would have you believe, anyways.

Crazy, Stupid, Love

Meanwhile, there is Cal’s 13 yr-old son Robbie in love with his 17 yr-old baby-sitter Jessica and she in turn crushing on Cal. Emily is busy avoiding an ex-fling at work, the reason she decided to divorce Cal in the first place because her love for Cal is eternal. There is simply too much love in one place.

But this love doesn’t go deep enough for the viewer. We know everyone loves everyone but we end up asking, so what? The film dramatically proclaims the cause of fighting for one’s soul mate but shows Cal hardly doing anything to win Emily back. Except a piddling speech at his son’s 8th grade graduation masquerading as the defining climax. The climax is such a done-to-death and illogical scenario that it kills all the promise of the first half, that built steadily and beautifully even.

It is interesting to watch a ‘male’ makeover, make-overs being such a female thing in movies. Especially in a film that has its dapper protagonist spend all his time and talents objectifying the female sex. It is a simply made film, light-hearted with nothing grand or fancy about it. The settings are ordinary and there is no attempt to glamorize or de-glamorize anything for the sake of it. The contrast between Cal and Jacob’s world make for fun-filled moments, but then, the film comes down to doing the real job, of selling love, and it falters.

Little moments, and non-stereotyped characters keep the fun going. But then love comes in, with its centuries old baggage of stereotypes and all we are left with is Steve Carrell’s brilliant performance, Ryan Gosling’s delectable charisma that simply cannot mask his vulnerability and the fact that Cal keeps claiming about Emily – Julianne Moore really is so sexy and cute, at the same time, even at this age. Nothing more.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Rivaaz – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
September 16, 2011

Rivaaz – Movie Review
Posted by FATEMA H.KAGALWALA on September 16, 2011 | No Comments

PRODUCER – Ashok Nanda, Vidya Kamat
DIRECTOR – Ashok Nanda
WRITER – Ashok Nanda, Rakesh Chandra Saroj
CAST – Deepti Naval, Reema Lagoo, Meghna Naidu, Alok Nath, Rajendra Gupta, Ritisha Vijayvargya, Vijay Raaz, Manoj Biddvai, Yashpal Sharma, Sayaji Shinde
MUSIC – Raj Inder Raj, Reeg Deb

Rivaaz is a social commentary that tries to bring to us the reality of prostitution practiced by families for money, in a remote village. This practice is some sort of ‘rivaaz’, a tradition, which has become more of a lifestyle for the men of the village to survive by. The women of course, have no say in it and suffer in silence.

Until, the city-bred protagonist Rahul arrives and decides to take up cudgels for the village. This, because he falls in love with a colourfully dressed village belle but cannot marry her because of this practice. He then comes in direct conflict with the men who run the village and profit most from this system. These are the Mukhiya (Alok Nath), the police (Yashpal Sharma); and the Thakur (Sayaji Shinde), with Thakur being the kingpin of this pack.

Rivaaz

The film boasts of a stellar cast but fails to draw decent performances from any of them. It refuses to delve into its character’s psyche giving more importance to emotional high-notes tugging at audience hearts. If there is an argument it meant to present, it is lost in the sundry drama. So Reema Lagoo and Deepti Naval alternate between the typical female resilience, endurance and buckets of tears, the men roar and sulk, in turns, in their single-mindedly, stereotyped characters.

The film relies a lot on the shock value of such a practice, where fathers summarily sell their daughters to whoever is willing to buy them for money. It is a world that is difficult to relate to, not because of its inhuman ritual and mindset, but because the film fails to bring it alive.

Cliché’s after clichés compel one to switch off time and again. And if that isn’t enough, the issue of gender exploitation is stretched to unbelievable extremes, making a joke out of its own self.

A film with a social commentary at heart is always an intention that deserves appreciation. However, Rivaaz, tends to leave one wondering. The lack of engagement makes it ludicrously funny without intending to and that is one thing that a film on a social issue doesn’t deserve. Incredibly tacky dialogues join a superficial script and misguided direction to leave behind a film that neither shocks, engages or entertains.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , ,
Comment

Friends with benefits – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
September 10, 2011

PRODUCER – Liz Glotzer, Will Gluck, Martin Shafer, Janet Zucker, Jerry Zucker
DIRECTOR – Will Gluck
WRITER – Keith Merryman, David A. Newman, and Will Gluck, (screenplay), Harley Peyton, Keith Merryman, David A. Newman (Story)
CAST – Justin Timberlake, Mila Kunis, Patricia Clarkson, Jenna Elfman
MUSIC – Halli Cauthery, Ryan Perez-Daple

Rom-coms are meant to be fun and breezy. Just about engaging enough to lighten up the mood and meaningful enough to usher in that wanton tear. As a story, ‘Friends with Benefits’ had a lot of potential to squeeze in oodles of both.

Our protagonists, Dylan and Jamie are struggling with Hollywood clichés of romance even as they are dealing with their own emotional issues. They decide to get involved physically and strictly keep off the emotional territory. But is that possible? For a rom-com, definitely not!

Friends with Benefits

So Dylan and Jamie meander through the threatening territories of their own emotions and conceptions of romantic love. Dylan is dealing with intimacy issues born out of having divorced parents and Jamie with having no identity of her father. To top it she has a maverick mother who provides little comfort to her emotionally confused world.

For a film that tries hard to decry Hollywood-produced myths of ever-lasting romance and destroy the monster of Prince Charming, it employs every cliché in the book to tell its story. So Jamie and Dylan start off as great friends, getting the best out of each other and helping each move on. And they even discover their love through this friendship. This, and everything else that happens in between is, not very imaginative, one would have to concede.

However, it is a pleasure watching the perky and sensuous Mila Kunis swaying between the wayward and lost girl. Her styling brings out her sensuousness and there is an attractive abandon with which she wears her shorts as well as skirts. Justin Timberlake seems a bit flaky and out of sorts with the depth he is called to invest in his character, many a times remaining a card-board cut-out of the character he is playing.

For all the promise, there isn’t much bedroom romp in this one either. Neither is the narrative engaging enough emotionally, meandering as it goes to its predictable end.

Somewhere in between the film adds a paean to New York, the big, bad city full of energy but fails to bring out its liveliness either. Add to it the plaid and sometimes downright tacky cinematography (a few grainy and bad digital shots espied too!), the film becomes only memorable for being yet another predictable cliché from the big Hollywood factory of never-ending rom-coms.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Contagion – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
September 10, 2011

PRODUCER – Gregory Jacobs, Michael Shamberg, Stacey Sher, Steven Soderbergh
DIRECTOR – Steven Soderbergh
WRITER – Scott Z. Burns
CAST – Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Marion Cotillard
MUSIC – Cliff Martinez

Stories of deadly doomsday looming upon us are nothing new. Sometimes, it is a natural disaster, at others it is a villainous monster. Sometimes it is the monster within and sometimes a deadly virus. ‘Contagion’ uses the latter to decode the world and its beings.

Soderbergh's Contagion

Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow), returning from a business trip, only to succumb to an unknown ailment. Her son falls prey to it too, leaving behind a baffled husband Mitch Emhoff (Matt Damon) and baffled scientific authorities. Soon, it is discovered that an unknown infectious virus is on the prowl, victimising people all over the world. The crisis is looming large and spreading fast.

The world of Contagion is a real world with its rules, regulations and ways of working suddenly stripped of all its meagre importance in the face of impending death. Science is a struggling hero that health officials are depending upon. And this hero in its own turn helps reveal the hero in these men and women. If there is a Mitch struggling against chance to protect his daughter from the fate of his wife and son, there is also a Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet), Dr. Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishburne) and Dr. Ally Hextall (Jennifer Ehle) reaching beyond themselves to serve. And then there is the vigilante, blogger activist Alan Krumwiede (Jude Law) for whom not much matters than his own limited perception of right and wrong. We are surrounded by people like him and when we see him we notice how deeply the director has drawn from real life.

Shot by the director himself, the film is visually appealing. The camera lingers significantly on surfaces, clearly pointing towards the over-powering nature of the infectious virus. It is a sober visual treatment the film employs despite weaving it as a thriller.

Steven Soderbergh invests a seriousness to the theme that lends it credence. The world he paints is authentic and checkered, much like real-life. There are no easy villains or heroes just a removed perspective of what happens to life when struck with disaster.

Unfortunately, this perspective remains a singular and narrowly focussed essay of human behaviour under trials. He manages to expose social and economic disparities we live in and how this undermines our values and identity but without a forceful or insightful enough perspective. It leaves us feeling a tepid dread and a déjà vu, both watered down reactions to subject matter that should ideally evoke a fatal horror and fear.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Mere brother ki dulhan – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
September 9, 2011

PRODUCER – Yash Chopra
DIRECTOR – Ali Abbas Zaffar
WRITER – Ali Abbas Zaffar
CAST – Imran Khan, Katrina Kaif, Ali Zaffar, Tara D’Souza
MUSIC – Sohail Sen

She is Dimple, our heroine. Life is an ecstatic adventure for her and she loves her freedom. Her exuberance is infectious and her wildness amusing. But now she is done with living life on the edge and is all set to get married, Indian style; arranged marriage and the works. But was life ever that simple?

In the already difficult equation of life Ali Abbas Zaffar adds in the complications of the Indian society and everything it means. Kush, our hero, has set out on a mission to find the right bride for his ‘heart-broken’ elder brother Luv. Tired of failed relationships, Luv has decided to take the so-called safer route of marriage as well. In comes Dimple, as the ideal proposal but Kush and she have a mini-history which has nothing to do with a romance just Dimple’s endearing wildness. But Dimple, the sorted-priorities girl, turns out to be a good match and the wedding is fixed.

Hilarious twists rol out one after the other with the right balance of sense and sensibility and of course, all the given masalas of a Bollywood film. The only difference being, this one works! Fun-filled, imaginative dance numbers and melodious music make this one a sure-fire entertainer it sets out to be, right till the credits roll. It references our own cinema in a delightful manner that doesn’t make fun or deifies it, simply using it to add that bit of more zest. Delicious!

Mere Brother ki Dulhan, the director keeps a strong grip in the story, narrative and laughs right till the end. He sets out to tell a warm, breezy tale and churns out rom-com that does more than all of that!

Katrina Kaif is clearly the star and soul of the film. Her whacky energy and carefree liveliness are a first-of-a-kind she has ever exhibited. She keeps the mood of the film and character right till the end, never over-doing, never faltering. She displays a distinct spark that brings her character alive yet never becoming over-bearing. Imran Khan, playing the sensible, balanced ‘Indian values’ boy yet again after ‘Break ke Baad’ tries hIs best to match her step for step but fails without that natural flexibility he lacks as an actor. Newcomer Ali Zaffar employs every acting trick in his bag to appear entertaining but comes across as simply trying too hard.

Heart-warming performances see the film through a delightful two plus hours and among them, Parikshit Sahni as the caricaturish authoritarian Colonel father of Luv-Kush shines strong and bright.

The film starts on an uncomfortable note, but then Katrina Kaif unfolds on the screen and with her does a sensible script and an assured director’s hand. There, your weekend family entertainment dose is ready with lots of garnishing of humour and fun. Strictly enjoyable!

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Mail to Mr. Nagaraj, the regional head(Karnataka) for Central Board of Film Certification.

Filed Under: Random — Fatema — Comments Off
September 5, 2011

Dear Sir,

I write to you in trust that as an educated and important member of an important institution you shall give me the ear that I seek.

Pawan Kumar in his letter to you - http://pawantheactor.com/?p=1099 raises a few valid points. As a member of an institution that is supposed to guide the creation and consumption of an art form (even if in a popular medium) your role is very important because it needs to have an educated balanced perspective. So what went wrong here?

It is people like you who can bring about a liberal and progressive change in how films are made and viewed. I am sure you are trying to do just that. But then don’t you think this has been stretched a little too far in this particular case? Our films need a strong support and encouragement from people in positions like yours because it is from there that a change can come in. We need to move ahead from a medium that mostly caters to only the lowest common denominator with crass-ness going for entertainment. Picking at nityy-gritties such as ‘words’ like ‘Sucker’ is like trying to close your bathroom tap when there is a tsunami hitting you. Is it even relevant in the current scenario we have?

But this is not about justifying the use of the word. This is not an appeal to clear Life Ishtuene without the appropriate certificate. This is a strong appeal for you to help the Censor Board review its out-dated methods of working and bring in an educated and broader sense of appreciation in censoring and passing films. Yours is an important institution, something that can form the bedrock of a creative industry. Ours is flailing right now and the reason is a skewed perspective, sadly yours is representative of the same. Isn’t it time to change it Sir? Don’t you owe it to the position you hold? We think you do.

Hoping these words will make some difference. We look upto you to be honest and responsible to the role you have been entrusted with.

Thank you
Regards
Fatema

Comment

Bol – Review

Filed Under: After thoughts, Analysis, Reviews — Fatema — 2 Comments
September 4, 2011

PRODUCER – Geo Films and Shoman Films
DIRECTOR – Shoaib Mansoor
WRITER – Shoaib Mansoor
CAST – Humaima Malick, Manzar Sehbai, Iman Ali, Mahirah Khan, Atif Aslam, Shafqat Cheema,
MUSIC – Baqir Abbas, (original score music), Sajjad Ali, Atif Aslam

Faith and gender empowerment are tricky terrains to tread. Not only there is the danger of stirring fundamentalist sentiments there is also the danger of the message itself being sentimentalised. Shoiab Mansoor smoothly navigates this terrain in “Bol”, with the right decibel and emotional emphasis.

“Bol” is the story of a family in Lahore told from the eyes of Zainab (Humaima Malick), the gutsy eldest daughter of a traditionalist Hakim Saab (Manzar Sehbai), with seven daughters and a hermaphrodite son. The son grows up with his father’s hatred and the confusing dilemmas of his own urges. He falls prey to exploitation, ultimately to be killed by his own father. This drives the family into a downward spiral bringing them in touch with a nautch community. Circumstances force Hakim Saab to provide his seed to bring a female offspring to Meena (Iman Ali), the star nautch girl of Chowdhury’s (Shafqat Cheema) establishment.

Without a hint of rebellion, stereotyping or trivialising, ‘Bol’ tells the story of Zainab who goes her way to punishment crying, “If killing is a crime, why isn’t giving birth when you can’t support your kin, a crime too?”

The film begins with Zainab’s appeal to the President of Pakistan for release from capital punishment. As it unfolds we come to know the crime she has committed. But is she guilty? And if not who is the real culprit?

Zainab is shown struggling with the real culprit as she slowly transforms from the eldest born of a poverty-ridden household, rejected by an abusive husband, into a symbol of all that gender oppression means. She bravely challenges her father’s misguided faith and becomes the primary spokesperson of the progressive thought the film embodies. Her fight is against anti-humanistic, regressive, deifying religious beliefs from the standpoint of a humanistic spiritualist. She cannot understand rejection of reason and her common sense defies every superstition that faces her, be it of faith, gender stereotypes or rules of society. She stakes her life for the future of her younger sister Ayesha (Mahira Khan), a cheerful girl who has found her love in Mustafa, childhood neighbour and embodiment of everything the girls wished for in their lives. As we see Ayesha set free from the shackles of orthodoxy we see the looming danger to Zainab.

Gender exploitation is not looked at from a singular perspective. There is the nautch community who exploit women for money and the objectification of women is complete. The tawaif has for long been the ultimate symbol of our society’s degraded morals. Meena symbolises this other face of gender exploitation. Beautiful, ravishing and confident of her own sexuality she hides her identity behind the nautch-girl mask fully well knowing the truth of her reality. She idolises Meena Kumari and Rekha and has trained herself by watching Pakeezah and Umara-o-Jaan. Yet, her pain is silently visible when the first thing her new-born girl is made to listen is Meena Kumari’s thumri from Pakeezah, the azaan comes only much later. She looks on helplessly throughout the whole proceedings. From the star that runs the show she becomes a mere tool for reproduction, in an instant. It is the men that run the show even in her world and she is a mere cog in the wheel. It is this struggling female identity that finds a silent and touching expression when she stealthily drops off her baby daughter at Hakimsaab’s house even after drily refusing his pleas of giving him the baby earlier on. The woman in her longingly searches for signs of her child’s identity when, years later she revisits the transformed house and notices a young girl studying. Shoiab Mansoor chooses to show the child studying in a bustling household-turned restaurant while Meena has come presumably with a client. The juxtapositioning is a silent pointer of what this girl-child has escaped and the future that lies ahead of her. A pointer to how things should be.

Even as it portrays the progressive thought in Mustafa (Atif Aslam) and his family, it brings to light a bureaucracy-ridden system that does not give an ear to Zainab’s appeal. There are sharp fingers pointed to every level of society while exploring the ills that plague it.

Even as Hakim Saab is the perpetrator of this oppression the film defines his own existence with humaneness and perplexing dichotomy. He is the authoritarian voice of orthodox but truth and honesty are important to him. He is not evil but his beliefs are. His actions are born out of a larger interest of the welfare of his family but his beliefs do not allow him to act in their best interests. He almost suffers as much as he makes them suffer and the film’s proclamation comes to a peak when the puritan Hakim has to swallow his pride and bed with a nautch girl for money. His shame is complete and it is with a certain tenderness his dilemma is explored that compels us to pity him, despite his unjustified behaviour.

The film is not a thriller but a social drama. The culprit is misguided social mores that do not allow women her individuality. It is told with a strong rooted-ness and identification with Islamic culture and lifestyles, especially of the down-trodden and peripheral. It is progressive in its thought and balanced in its approach. So rooted it is in its reality it is reminiscent of the Iranian writer, Tehmina Durrani’s works that detail her life experiences in a similarly exploitative society. With Khuda ke Liye, Shoaib Mansoor travelled with his protagonist to overcome a rigid and oppressive system of thought. The over-done preaching of Khuda ke Liye is missing here because what resonates is the real pain of the victim and the complexities of our social reality.

There are no easy answers to life. When homo sapiens created society they created social mores to give life a structure but soon that structure became restricting. The film does not propose anarchy nor is it anti-establishment. It aims to bring to light the ills that stop us from blossoming to our full potential. It aims to draw attention to the inherent inequality we have thrust upon each other in the guise of structure. It propagates humanism above all and an appeal to see humans as humans, not gender stereotypes. Be it the outspoken Zainab, the helpless Suraiya, the innocent victim Saify or the strong-willed Meena. Rashda, the reporter covering Zainab’s story breaks down in the face of the world she has just seen, unable to reconcile with the inhumanity of it all. Through her we live out our own compassion for Zainab, Meena and all the women they stand for. Through her overcome-with-emotion questions we understand our own responses to gender inequality even as Zainab’s cries continue to ring somewhere deep inside our hearts.

Wonderfully supported by its entire cast “Bol” speaks loud and clear. After all it is meant for the ears that have shut themselves to all reason.

An abridged version published here

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

That Girl in Yellow Boots – a world we are uneasy looking at

Filed Under: After thoughts, Analysis, Contemplation, Random, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
September 3, 2011

Seedy is not Mumbai’s underbelly, it is the defining aspect of its identity. In this quagmire is a young girl struggling to survive. An English citizen in a strange city, she is but twenty years old. At a time when most of us our dreaming of building fancy careers, watching our weight, worrying about skin/hair problems while striving to date that hot bod, she is fighting to stay afloat in the dense-ness of red tape and sexual exploitation.

She is Ruth, Anurag Kashyap’s protagonist in his latest film, ‘That Girl in Yellow Boots’. She is as vulnerable as she is steely and as undaunted as she is brittle. She meets exploitation at every corner, simply because she is young, female, single and white-skinned. She is looking for her father who abandoned her when she was five. There is darkness everywhere she turns and she buys some light with the money she earns by giving massages and handjobs to willing customers, what she ironically calls, ‘happy endings’. As the official synopsis reads ‘everyone wants a piece of her’, and she obliges – if it will lead her to father.

Anurag Kashyap lays it out thick. Grime, blood, sweat and semen. Loss, pain, failures and trauma. Darkness is no stranger to the film-maker, his oeuvre almost revels in it. He always says it as it is, sometimes even too much. But TGYIB doesn’t suffer from over-doing. Ruth’s world is murky and steeped in pain but there is spirit in her struggle. Her existence seems doomed but there is assurance in her steps. There is an emptiness in her eyes and a desperation in her heart but her mind is focused. She is love-less but not lost. She is gathered and determined.

So is the narrative. It follows its story with focus even though it becomes unstructured and loose at times. It doesn’t give into impulsive cinematic expressions at the cost of her character’s journey and that seems to be symptomatic of a creative evolution of the maker. For that alone, this can be called a notable film.

This time round there is no shying away from emotions. There is no uncomfortable distance from vulnerability and neediness is not wrong. There is a unique objectivity which is a hallmark frame of reference with Anurag Kashyap’s films, something that made Black Friday the classic it is. Along with this objectivity there was also apparent a seeming reluctance to engage emotionally with the character. Hence Dev simply remained a lost drunkard, Chanda an unapologetic fighter and Paro’s vulnerability never found the sure footing to blossom enough.

But Ruth is not like that. She is almost life and blood. I say almost because she too falls prey to a lot of unsure moments in the film which keep her from blossoming fully too. Her interactions with her boyfriend seem half-heartedly performed and the fault does not like with the protagonist but the choreography and uncultivated chemistry between actors. Her denouement is not intense enough but while she is on unsure ground she is also explored from more ways than one. However, she is not sentimentalised and therein lies the strength of the film. Wouldn’t that have simply undone the very premise of her character?

Kashyap employs child abuse as a prominent theme, perhaps to enforce yet another layer of brutality to the already dismal world of the film. But this he juxtaposes with a fatherly figure, Ruth’s only male massage customer who is affectionate to her without objectifying her. Female strength finds yet another towering personification in the massage parlour owner, Maya (A brilliant, effortless and sparklingly honest Puja Sarup). Their identification and subsequent bond speaks volumes about the opposing forces of exploitation and survival.

Cinematic elements come together in harmony to tell the story of Ruth’s journey. Even as Rajiv Ravi’s digital camera caresses Ruth’s dismal life with an expressive graininess, Wasiq Khan’s seamless production design melts grunge with the dullness of the ordinary. We notice the torn beige sofa and the darkly-lit, narrow parlour lounge almost becoming metaphors of Ruth’s dislocated life.

In the pursuit of defining its protagonist’s journey, the film however fails it’s peripheral characters. Shiv Subramaniam, Mushtaq Khan, Divya Jagdale, Makrand Deshpande, Piyush Mishra, all remain mere tools of the exploitative environment without completing an experience. This singularity becomes representative and seems forced and has much to do with broad-stroked writing, seeming to take the ‘easy’ way out.

There is also the sketchily written character of Kannadiga ganglord Chitiappa explosively performed by Gulshan Devaiah, easily the star of the film. He settles in instantly and shines through till the end, effortlessly balancing the Nana Patekar-esque eccentric stereotype with the defencelessness of a school boy. This balance is what Prashant Prakash never gets right unfortunately. His see-sawing volatile character had immense scope to capture a spectrum of moods, emotions, swings and even personalities but he never really manages to get under our skin.

The film begins on an unsure footing, taking us slowly into Ruth’s world, introducing it through her encounters. Dialogues are many a times listless, almost murdering moments. Improvisation shows in the body language of actors and sync sound catches the uncertain intonations of lines made up on the spur of the moment. For a film crafted to evoke a response beyond the intellectual and focused on following Ruth’s path to her father, this serves as an undoing.

The film largely works because of its choice of actors. Kalki’s oval-faced innocence, a full-mouth unable to hide the Bugs Bunny teeth and the clear sad eyes looking at you become synonymous with Ruth right from the beginning. The actress wears her character unlike any other she has done before, and it is this certain ‘giving up to the character’ that one senses, which becomes the most appealing. We never cry with her or hurt for her but somewhere the film convinces us to feel enough for her to know what will happen to her and silently wish her well. As a takeaway, that is big.

Luis Bunuel said – “Fortunately, somewhere between chance and mystery lies imagination, the only thing that protects our freedom, despite the fact that people keep trying to reduce it or kill it off altogether.” Team TGYIB uses theirs very well to give us a world that is precisely between chance and mystery.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Bodygawwwd! Sallu, I love you but not so much

Filed Under: After thoughts, Random — Fatema — Comments Off
September 3, 2011

“Strength doesn’t come from the ordeals that are thrown at you, but from crossing them. And surviving to tell the tale”

Not some gyaan-guru, it’s the higher self that kicked in with this gem to help overcome the devastating sheerkhurma that Bodyguard made out of her Eid.

But then, I wonder if something is a medium of spiritual insight as powerful as this, can it be bad?

(I see one Mr Siddique and one Mr Shirt-utaro Khan desperately saying no, but my higher self is sushsh-ing them vehemently right now. Not that they will listen I’m sure. Our collective higher selves haven’t stopped Anees Bazmee and Sajid Khan either, have they?)

As I step back and mull with an objective mind, my intuition tells me that Bodyguard is really not what it seems. You know there is a real crisis at the heart of the story, which we, the self-important, ivory tower vultures of meaningful cinema are overlooking. The hint lies in the name itself.

Bodyguard is about identity. Why else spend two+ hours going round and round in circles but begin at a Sallu-Bodyguard and end at Sallu-successful-something? Why else go ALL the way to Pune and Lonavla and climb the tallest hill stations of Maharashtra to make the point? Why get Kareena Kapoor, an almost style icon (Sorry dear word ‘style’) and pin her into the tackiest Linking Road outfits? Why else would Salman Khan do a meaningless film otherwise? Because, didn’t you know, Salman Khan can do no wrong?

So the identity crisis, yes. It begins with Divya who becomes Chhaya. She wants to throw this newly-dumped-on-her bodyguard and does so by impersonating as a swoonie in love with Shirtlessji. How that was supposed to help is left unexplored (or maybe it is one of those deep mysteries of the Universe we as humans are meant to solve? Paulo Coelho would’ve loved this riddle.) So Divya-turned-Chhaya actually falls in love with Hulk Hogan. And Chhaya becomes Divya when Divya is actually Divya. But Divya cannot be Chhaya as long as she is Divya because Mr Muscles (chhee, not the toilet cleaner, I meant Sallu) won’t accept Chhaya if she is Divya. Get the identity crisis bit now?

It is all about becoming. This would be the tag-line if Osho had made this film.

But it is not over yet. Chhaya is yet to become fully yet. So Dancing Muscles keeps joking around with a terrible fat man who is so-not-funny-it’s-not-a-joke. (There you have a sub-text for another identity crisis. A non-funny funny man trying to be funny so hard that he is anything but funny. Poor guy but brilliantly thoughtful writing) But neither do the muscles run out of proteins nor is Mr Siddique’s Eid biryani getting cold, so everyone takes their own time finding themselves and each other.

While they are at it, we shall look at other peripheral (but important!) characters weaving this very meaningful theme together. There is Raj Babbar, the Maalik and karta-dharta and the most terrible actor we have seen in a century barring his son of course. His identity crisis is subtle, metaphysical even, wherein he is struggling ever-so hard to prove to himself (not us, mind you) that after all these years he hasn’t lost his touch in the art of hamming and he can outdo even a stammering King at the job! His efforts at desperately trying to regain his forgotten identity are touching. And kudos to the director for giving him a chance. What compassion to his fellow human beings he has… Mother Teresa would have been so moved.

Back to the Chhaya search. The metaphor in the name itself is enlightening. Chhaya is an image, not the reality. And then she becomes Maya, an illusion. An explosively intuitive use of language and semantics makes Bodyguard Cannes material. And it is That Girl in Yellow Boots that gets to do festival rounds. Pathetic and shameful is the state of Bollywood.

But then Maya soon gets some debilitating disease (which I am assuming should be the ever-dependable cancer or TB, the good old 60’s-70’s devil since the film is so pre-historic too) and becomes an illusion herself. Her identity now remains only in the pages of a diary she has written for her little son a-la Tina and Anjali in Karan Johar’s “Its all about loving your friends.” (Double-meaning beast! And he claims he makes family entertainers) Maya also runs on the station platform to catch the train that toilet cleaner oops Muscle-man is on. Like the millions of youth who got an identity crisis after watching Soooo Romantic Khan (gag) pulling his girl onto the train, Six Sigma Servant gives out his hand too and invites this cute little chashmish illusion into his already confused life. It is inter-texuality and cinematic references such as these that make Bodyguard a deep, meaningful film. I guess I interpreted my intuition right after all.

So Maya becomes Chhaya just like Bairan became Bhairon but their lives don’t remain narrow. They multiply. But Siddique is a Gandhian (dunno if he follows Anna Hazare though, do you? That’s another identity crisis there but for another day). He believes in change being the only permanent thing, so Maya’s illusions end with her death but our troubles don’t. The new and improved Bodyguard goes back to HAMare maalik for his blessings before he flies to Australia. (Why not US? Oh it’s not a KJo film, silly). Son finds Divya and since Maya said she is Chhaya he wants to dump himself on her. Divya is torn, oh poor girl, but the ISO-certified naukar ‘accepts’ her and agrees to marry her. Was there anyone so dedicated? Why don’t our customer service centres learn something from him?

The end is a beautiful tryst of irony and fate in meaningful cinema wherein it is the ‘hero’ who finds himself and ‘becomes’. He learns of Divya’s identity as Chhaya and is moved (as much as Sallu’s face muscles can move that is) beyond words. So Divya does become Chhaya and Body lets his guard down to accept Divya as Chhaya and Chhaya as Divya and everyone forgets Maya. Sab khaya, piya, pachaya. (Burp!)

(Oh, there is also a villain who used to be a hero but continues to think he is still a hero, he even claims it onscreen. This bloomingly creative touch strengthens the very well-defined theme of identity crisis and finding oneself. I am too moved by the very deep spiritual journey of these characters that has been revealed to me and I need to do some soul-searching to connect with my real self ‘within’. So long! Until my higher self kicks in again, that is.)

Originally posted here

Tags: , , , ,
Comment

The man in the maze – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
September 3, 2011

Producer: Mitesh Kumar Patel
Director: Mitesh Kumar Patel
Writers: Mitesh Kumar Patel (Story), Matthew Bucculoo, Steve Hester, Josh Hodgins, Michael Jamal Mitchell
Cast: Andrew Roth, Liana Werner-Gray, Erik A. Williams, Stephanie Long Lomenick
Music: Suhash Kulkarni, Siddhartth

Four people travel through the woods in the quest of a hidden Indian legend and find themselves trapped by a curse. This seemingly simply premise has been simplified some more in ‘The Man in the Maze.’

Directly reminiscent of the 1999 guerrilla sleeper hit, ‘Blairwitch Project’, ‘The Man in the Maze’ takes two men and two women into the depths of a forest and haunts them with unseen things. Soon the unseen becomes seen and bodies start falling. It seems it is simply a race against time.

Director Mitesh Patel treats horror with a looseness that brings a lull to the entire proceedings. The edge of fear and looming threat of the unknown is clearly missing and the dullness is amplified by pedestrian dialogues and zero chemistry between actors.

The film begins with the foursome bound and unconscious, captured by a bandage-faced maniac. They escape but get lost in the woods. Directionless, without food or means to survive in a strange forest they do find time to romance and take casual rests. There seems to be no hurry to find the way out or understanding of the dangers of physical survival. In combination with the ‘twist’ that comes way past interval seems, well, to be left uncommented.

The distinct lack of the thrill element really amounts to the ‘horror’ having totally failed. Amateurish direction, dull dialogues and listless performances come together to actually make one wonder, what were the numerous festival selections for?

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

On reviewing

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — 16 Comments
September 3, 2011

When I started reviewing films, my view of films, the understanding of its world and mechanics was much smaller than it is now. I wrote well and had an opinion hence was hired by a dot.com to write professionally for them. I wondered how I was upto the task which is a very responsible one. Not because the profits of the film depend on reviews (I will never agree to that blasé statement) but because art criticism (and the art of criticism) is a serious thing, especially in a scenario where reviewing is considered synonymous to criticism and where there is no fertile atmosphere for either. In such an atmosphere random saplings (read uneducated reviewers) cannot be nurtured. Who knows who might gain popularity/validity tomorrow and become a voice to shape the way cinema is appreciated? Reviewing, popular voices do influence the way cinema develops, however marginally. Shouldn’t then, cultivating a dedicated point of view,an educated perspective be an important thing in the way we want our art or cinema to develop?

Of course these thoughts took a back-seat when it came to my personal agenda of getting to do what I loved and earning some money on the side. For me it was a learning and growing experience (still is and will always be), but there were always some rules I always stuck to. Over the years, these rules have evolved and taken a better shape but they still remain a ‘work-in-progress’. Discussion, debate and dedicated thought can solidify a true and discerning perspective when it comes to film reviewing/criticism. (I cringe to use them synonymously but I do since that is the atmosphere we are operating in currently.)

Many of these elements have been loosely discussed on multiple forums and many people seem to understand and stand by it. Yet, they do not drive any kind of larger understanding. Worst of all, our famed critics/reviewer seem to have either no knowledge, understanding or consideration for any of these and that is disheartening, disappointing and extremely dangerous. A few of them have been my role-models but consistent disregard to any responsibility to the medium has left me rooting for only man Bhardwaj Rangan, whose only fault to my mind is of excess and reading too much sometimes into nondescript details/facts. The reviewing/criticism that Bikas Mishra of www.dearcinema.com offers comes close to my own ideals of the medium. The rest, well are, just names that sell, some too self-important, some too defensive, and some downright silly (And I am not talking about the Taran Adarshs and Komal Nahatas of the world as they are far far more honest at their jobs as trade reviewers and hence deserve more respect than many others get.). I talk more from disappointment than anything else because as a student of film and film criticism they have let me down time and again when they could have used their name and fame to do a bit more than punch fancy words on a blank page.

While in the kindergarten world of cinema that we operate in, the words film criticism and art and science of it might sound very Phd., but I want to be humoured and request you to do so.

In a perfect world, reviewing is not synonymous to criticism. For a minute let us close our eyes and pretend we are there. What do we find there?

Film criticism analyzes, theorizes and scientifically critiques the film. A review explains superficially, it also advises a viewer on how watchable or not the film is if at all along with perceiving the effect it will have on its audience, its motive and the purpose. The former does not make any value judgments (or rather should not) and the other is based completely on them. The former bases its arguments on a school or theory of reading film as a work of art and visits it within its context. A review does not necessarily have such a responsibility to its film although how else it can make any valid value judgments is beyond comprehension.
This more or less forms an idea of what both consist of vis-a-vis each other. More inputs on the same are most welcome. It will help us define our discussion better.

First let us examine the purpose of criticism. The purpose of criticism to every art form is to provide an objective and scientific (how far possible, is a subject of another discussion altogether) approach to works in the realm of something as nebulous as art. Criticism is meant to provide a channel, a guide, and reality checks whenever necessary. Sort of an Opposition Party to the Ruling Government!

Criticism is also meant to lay bare the various forms and styles that art and imagination unearth within themselves and theorize it for the benefit of the very art in question.

Criticism is meant to provide a perspective to art and to its audience. It is the responsibility of Criticism to explain art to itself (whenever possible and if need be i.e.!)

Criticism as a scientific study is almost as vibrant and versatile a tradition as is the art-form. Why then, is the condition of film criticism so dismal in a country like ours whose cinematic history goes way beyond 100 years and holds many more credits than that?

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

That Girl in Yellow Boots – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — 1 Comment
September 3, 2011

PRODUCER – Anurag Kashyap
DIRECTOR – Anurag Kashyap
WRITER – Anurag Kashyap, Kalki Koechlin
CAST – Kalki Koechlin, Prashant Prakash, Gulshan Devaiya, Naseeruddin Shah,
MUSIC – Naren Chandavarkar

Realism is never sugar-coated. Real life is crude and grimy, coated with tears, sweat, semen and even blood. Anurag Kashyap has never shied away from this darkness, even delving deeper into the dismal swamp we sometimes call life. He does the same with his thriller, ‘That Girl in Yellow Boots’.

There is a marshland named Mumbai which the protagonist Ruth is struggling to survive in search of her father. An English girl with an Indian father, she is the object of lust and seat of all popular stereotypes. But she is gutsy and unapologetic. She works at a massage parlour and earns some money on the side by giving willing customers handjobs, what she ironically calls ‘happy ending’. She survives a drug addict abusive boyfriend Prashant (Prashant Prakash) and other exploitative men which she meets around every corner. She won’t let the city swallow her so she feeds the system with its red tape and dark desires to get what she wants – clues to where her father is.

It is a portrait of a heartless city that Kashyap paints and within this the vulnerability of Ruth stands out. Kalki wonderfully brings out Ruth’s vulnerability with a brittle strength, a front so many of us wear to keep us from hurting more. The genuine-ness of her smile is touching when she interacts with Divakar (Naseeruddin Shah), her only male customer who doesn’t objectify her and even calls her ‘beti’. Her front dissolves with her plucky female boss Maya (A brilliant Pooja Swaroop) as they share a real bond wrought of female strength and identification.

What might look like a one-woman show is strongly supported by two sparkling actors in Pooja Swaroop and Gulshan Devaiah (Kannadiga ganglord Chitiappa). There is a brilliant honesty and carefree-ness with which they wear their roles. Completely absorbing and remarkably enjoyable.

As Ruth journeys on, the camera captures her world with hand-held graininess. Shadows and contrasts almost become metaphors of her life rather than being mere mood-creators. Rajiv Ravi exploits the digital medium with imagination to bring out the colours and colourless ness of Ruth’s life with a slanted narrative of its own.

As with all his films, Kashyap creates a whole, tangible world intuitively using art design and music to tell a compelling story of loss, pain and survival. Wasiq Khan balances that edge of grunge and discomfort with realism as Naren Chandavarkar’s music dips and bursts to engage us with Ruth emotionally.

The film has its unsure moments. Cameos are somewhat irregular, simply representative of the larger murkiness than anything more engaging. Story-telling gives way to unnecessary quirk at times. Ruth’s world and encounters strictly revolve around singular griminess. The narrative becomes somewhat monochromatic at times. But colour is exactly what is missing in Ruth’s life.

Hers is a world we like to shut our eyes to but as the film’s climax defines, there are no easy answers to life. It is an uneasy film to watch but creatively abundant.

Originally posted here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Bodyguard – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
September 2, 2011

PRODUCER – Atul Agnihotri, Alvira Agnihotri
DIRECTOR – Siddique
WRITER – Siddique
CAST – Salman Khan, Kareena Kapoor, Raj Babbar
MUSIC – Himesh Reshammiya, Pritam Chakraborty

Over the last few years Salman Khan Inc., has made an event of kitschy brain-drains catering to a mostly first-bencher, whistle-blowing audience. The journey started with Wanted and Dabangg converted the rolling-eyes-at-such-tripe movie-watchers into affectionate fans. Bodyguard, in one artless swipe undoes all the goodwill the Inc., had gathered till now.

So as the very creative and inspiring title suggests, muscle-man Sallu is Ma’m Kareena’s bodyguard, hired by the very upright and awe-inspiringly hammy father, Raj Babbar (Maalik to Bodyguard) to protect the apple-of-the-eye daughter. However, apple-of-the-eye is trying hard to throw him off his duty, little knowing she is soon to fall in love with him (very very unpredictabe, one must note). The extremely intelligent apple that she is, she creates another personality and calls Bodyguard, claiming to be in love with him. Since, we live in an age of gender equality, bodyguard matches her intelligence every step and promptly falls in love with the faceless voice on the phone. But now the apple faces the dilemma of revealing her true self to gain her love, something that just might ensure she will lose him forever. Remember we are still in the naukar-maalik zone and this is pre-historic India?

This realisation hits home, sharpening her intelligence some more and more ploys come into play. Also comes to play a villain, a yester-year’s hero (who still thinks he is a hero, he even claims it on-screen). So Hulk has to first hang him from the nearest jutting pole before apple’s dream can come true. Which he does, but unfortunately by then apple has crossed all known conventions of IQ, even infecting her Maalik father and best friend. This leaves only us, the poor audience desperately waiting for our dream to come true, of the movie to end.

But not before Matrix-style action scenes celebrate their own Eid. Not before a jet of water opens up muscle-man’s shirt so that he can claim in the next interview that ‘he’ didn’t do it. Also not before Raj Babbar is done proving how bad he can be as an actor.

The film tries hard to prove that a Salman-Kareena starrer does not need good-looking visuals or well-done sets. (Well, of course if it is Slumdog, it doesn’t) It also believes that such a starrer does not need decent direction to give it, well, a direction. And lastly it concludes it does not need a story or sense of screenplay either. It then, rightly deserves to be hailed as an incredibly brave experimental effort for trying to prove these myths as fallacies.

Movie-goers will know, there are pleasures, there are guilty pleasures and then there are obscenities that masquerade as both. Unbelievably tacky where even Manish Malhotra gets it all wrong, the film stands to win one award though. The Indian Razzies.

Originally posted here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Standby – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
August 26, 2011

PRODUCER – Prakash Choube and Sagar Choube
DIRECTOR – Sanjay Surkar
WRITER – Sanjay Surkar (Screenplay), Pravin Tarde (Story)
CAST – Adhinath Kothare, Siddharth Kher, Sachin Khedekar, Dalip Tahil, Manish Choudhary.
MUSIC – Aadesh Shrivastav

Films with sports as their main motif generally are about personal journeys. Be it a Rocky, Chak De, a Wrestler or Iqbal. Characters grow and tackle the odds facing them, drawing from the spirit of sportsmanship and their own passion for the sport. Sanjay Surkar’s ‘Standby’ does something similar but while putting an emphasis on the dirty politics in the game of national football. It unfolds as a commentary on the reality of our times and is more than one man’s journey of fighting his devils and realising his dreams.

The protagonists Rahul (Aadinath Kothare) and Shekhar (Siddharth Kher), young, passionate, professional football players are best friends. While the former comes from a middle-class background the latter is the son of an industrialist. They share a strong bond but this changes when Rahul, is selected for the national team while Shekhar, the Captain of the Maharashtra team, is chosen only as a standby. Ego takes the form of dirty politics and Shekhar’s father, Jayprakash Verma (Dalip Tahil), leaves no stone unturned to ensure Rahul is replaced with Shekhar. Relationships take a beating as the fight becomes personal with the father-son duo targeting Rahul’s family. Rahul and his ex-footballer father, Damodar (Sachin Khedekar) find themselves walled in against power and money. It becomes more than realising Rahul’s dream of playing his sport freely.

Sanjay Surkar chooses an undramatic narrative in an effort to bring out the devil of politics plaguing sports in India. He chooses a middle-class family with simple dreams and ambitions as the film’s protagonist because the aim is to reflect reality. The film is less a story of Rahul but more of the state of Indian sports.

To this effect, the film is low key, and devoid of the adrenaline rush of sports films. This works to its benefit because the film remains focused to the core issue, of the use and abuse of power. However, a slack editing sometimes dulls the pace.

The film pans out with a steadiness because the director chooses to delve in details. The earthy setting, unpolished production design and ordinary costumes put the film in the context of realistic films. The performances of Aadinath and Siddharth adequately carry the weight of the film even as Sachin Khedekar as the father and Manish Chaudhaury as the upright coach make for excellent viewing.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Bad Teacher – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
August 20, 2011

Producer – Jimmy Miller
Director – Jake Kasdan
Writer – Gene Stupnitsky, Lee Eisenberg
Cast – Cameron Diaz, Lucy Punch, Jason Segel, Justin Timberlake
Music – Michael Andrews

She sleeps in class, wears revealing clothes to school, smokes marijuana in the school car park, uses swear words among children, steals test papers and is saving enough money to get bigger boobs so she can land herself a rich man to marry. This is Elizabeth Halsey (Cameron Diaz), the ‘bad teacher’.
She has a colleague baying for her blood in Amy Squirell (Lucy Punch) and a gym instructor vying (more like dying) for her attention in Russell Gettis (Jason Segel). But she is aiming straight for the new recruit Scott Delacorte (Justin Timberlake) who is supposed to be swimming in money. Will he, won’t he? It soon becomes – will she, won’t she?

As is obvious she will go through several obstacles in meeting her goals and will have a change-of-heart somewhere in between that will alter her perspective to everything in life. So she does. She teaches a bit and learns a lot.

She isn’t endearing by any stretch of imagination leave alone likeable. Everything that happens with her and to her is strictly a ‘film’ world, far-removed from reality or a purpose beyond entertainment. But the film is fast and swirling, helping us conveniently forget that it is as shallow as its principal character.

That’s why it is easy to put up with a foolish Principal and a hyper-active co-teacher. It is easy to imagine children as cardboard cut-outs and stereotyped families. But it is all in good humour so one plays along.

The films keeps one hooked but with Cameron Diaz’s sizzling screen presence it isn’t difficult to do so anyway. In keeping with the charged momentum of the film and the tone of lightness, her ‘transformation’ is subtle too and that probably is the best part of this half-baked film. Also thankfully she doesn’t transform when she finds love, she finds love only after she has begun transforming. This sort of maturity is a hard thing to find in bubble-gum films but maybe it is this approach that sets it a tad bit above its counterparts.

The film has over-done performances by all (except maybe Jason Segel) especially Lucy Punch and Ma’m Diaz herself. However, the tone of the film itself is over-the-top. If it’s funny or not, depends on how much you like the old OTT, but yes, it will probably worth the popcorn!

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Chatur Singh Two Stars – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
August 20, 2011

PRODUCER – Mohamed Aslam
DIRECTOR – Ajay Chandok
WRITER – Rumi Jaffery, Sai Kabir
CAST – Sanjay Dutt, Ameesha Patel, Suresh Menon, Anupam Kher, Satish Kaushik
MUSIC – Sajid, Wajid

If the promos misled you into thinking this was a remake of the bumbling Inspector Clousseau’s hilarious ‘Pink Panther’ films then the title slate corrects your expectations right at the beginning. It is based on M. Raja’s novel ‘Chalak Jasoos’, which is as well since the film rolls out like a C-grade Hindi pulp fiction novel with garish covers that we are used to seeing being sold at railway stations.

So Chatur Singh Two Star (Sanjay Dutt) is an incorruptible and absolutely dumb Inspector who keeps ruining every case he is put onto. A corrupt minister Y.Y.Singh is murdered and his secretary, Sonia (Ameesha Patel) is charged for his murder. Chatur Singh has his heart set on her. The murderers who are using Sonia as a pawn convince her to use him to escape and she does only to have him chase her to Australia. There they are joined by Chatur Singh’s (an equally bumbling) Commissioner (Anupam Kher) and a battalion of mafia dons who apparently will prove Sonia is innocent.

The film is tacky, slapstick and unimaginably juvenile. Actors howl, scream and make the kind of faces that one would assume amuse four year olds, (but given how precocious our younger generation is these days, that seems unlikely too). When sound fails, visuals do their part with outlandish costumes and situations. The film boasts a line-up of popular faces and good actors but each one seems to simply outdo each other in their over-the-top expressions and seriously unfunny mannerisms. Sanjay Dutt, Ameesha Patel, Anupam Kher, Sanjay Mishra simply remain names with none of their regular charm we are used to. To be strictly avoided. Even by four year-olds.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Not a Love Story – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
August 20, 2011

PRODUCER – Sunil Bohra, Shailesh R Singh
DIRECTOR – Ram Gopal Verma
WRITER – Rohit Banawlikar
CAST – Mahie Gill, Deepak Dobriyal, Ajay Gehi, Zakir Hussain
MUSIC – Sandeep Chowta

Ram Gopal Verma picks up an incredibly disturbing real life story and brings us his latest ‘Not a Love Story’. The film is based upon the inhuman murder of Neeraj Grover by small-time actress Maria Susairaj and her boyfriend Emile Jerome Matthew that stunned India in 2008.

he film revolves around the murder and the only facts it stays true to are those of the heinous act. It weaves its imagination around the culprits and presents a saga full of loudness and force, now symbolic of RGV’s film-making.

Mahi Gill plays Maria Susairaj (Anusha in the film), a small-town girl who comes to Mumbai with dreams of becoming a star. Deepak Dobriyal plays her almost psychotic lover, Robin and Ajay Gehi plays the ill-fated Neeraj Grover. The film starts with Anusha trying desperately to convince her boyfriend how important a career in acting is for her. After much dissuading Robin finally agrees. Anusha moves to Mumbai and thus begins the journey on a road of no return.

Ram Gopal Verma, once again uses his infamous unusual film grammar to tell his story. The obsession with obstructive frames continue but to no clear or resounding effect. Rather it dilutes the experience by distracting the focus from what’s being conveyed to simply nothing. The over-use of loud sound never lets a steady mood build or the drama settle to its cold deathliness, the very theme of this terrible real-life event.

Even with unhelpful camera and sound for company a few things shine through in the film and these are namely Deepak Dobriyal and Mahi Gill. This is no psychological study of what leads one to kill one’s own soul and how one lives with it but a surface exploration of human reactions. Within this limited scope both actors perform with a confidence and intensity that once again speaks of their talent after their individual impressive debuts.

The film is disturbing because it brings the monstrosity of the crime too close for comfort. But it is also disturbing simply because it is a true story. The film comes across as rather perfunctory and were it to be a work of pure fiction, could have also bordered on puerile. However, the emotional tautness of the film saves it from losing face so does the amount of emotional energy Mahi Gill invests in her role. If it has to be watched, it is simply for this explosive actress who can change colours on demand and that, in these times, is a sheer treat to watch.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Sahi Dhande Galat Bande – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
August 20, 2011

PRODUCER – Preeti Jhangiani
DIRECTOR – Parvin Dabas
WRITER – Parvin Dabas
CAST – Parvin Dabas, Vansh Bhardwaj, Ashish Nair, Kuldeep Ruhil, Sharat Saxena
MUSIC – Suhas, Siddharth, Dhruv Dhalla, Master Mahavir Chopra

Our world is rife with socio-political issues of all kinds and the more we progress on an economic and technological level, the more we seem to get steeped into issues that should, fundamentally not have risen. ‘Sahi Dhandhe Galat Bande’ speaks out on one such issue; that of unfair land acquisition at the cost of displacement and ruin of poor farmers.

With a name as quirky as that the film must naturally lean on a quirky note but surprisingly the film takes a balanced approach between light-hearted-ness and seriousness. Rajbir (Parvin Dabas), Sexy (Vansh Bhardwaj), Ambani (Ashish Nair) and Doctor (Kuldeep Ruhil) are four friends working as henchmen for a local don, Fauji (Sharat Saxena) in Kanjhwala village in North India. Born of peasant parents these men have moved away from their family occupations and some also hold day jobs. One day Rajbir comes out of jail and finds that the farmers of his village are protesting against the Government grabbing their land to hand it over to an industrialist. Their plight speaks to him but life comes a full circle when Fauji takes up the job of suppressing their protest and hires the foursome to do the job. Rajbir decides to play along but support the protest in his own way, with the help of his friends. The men that they are, they know only the language of blackmail and violence. But this time the fight is not mercenary but for a greater common good.

Written with a lot of heart the film treads softly on all fronts, never idealistic, never trivialising. It builds mood and momentum steadily and does away with anything forceful. It has a thin story-line but its meat is in the narrative that treats Rajbir and the issue with sympathy.

Set in a sleepy village, the film captures its setting with perfect realism uncaring about beautification. Its beauty is in the variety of little symbols it invests in its frames which makes this debut feature a pleasing, creative effort. A vacillating character is juxtaposed with a swinging centre-piece and the death of an activist / teacher has a motionless pencil next to his dead body in the frame. Little things speak and the film is all about those.

It is this eye for detail that helps bring the characters to life even if semi-carved. Dialogues are earthy and at times accents slip but the moments are all honest and that by far, isn’t a small triumph.

The film steers clear of delving deeper into the socio-political mess our country has become and hence turns naive and dreamy towards its climax. Power gives up too easily and consciences are too easily awakened. It loses its charm in the end since it makes the solutions too easy. However, full marks to debutante writer-director Parvin Dabbas for a film with undiluted spark and honesty.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Final destination – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
August 12, 2011

PRODUCER – Craig Perry, Warren Zide
DIRECTOR – Steven Quale
WRITER – Eric Heisserer, Jeffrey Reddick
CAST – Nicholas D’Agosto, Emma Bell, Miles Fisher, Ellen Wroe, Arlen Escarpeta
MUSIC – Brian Tyler

The Final Destination franchise has made death seem like a grisly game of cat-and mouse with its own house rules. Much-touted as a teen-scream horror flick, the film, all of its five outings have never tried to step out of that definition. Final Destination 5 continues to chart the same territory with new faces and newer ways to die.

Sam Lawton (Nicholas D’Agosto) has a premonition about a bridge collapsing and killing him and all of his colleagues. He manages to convince them to leave and hence eight of them (Sam, Molly, Peter, Candice, Nathan, Jacqueline, Isaac and Dennis) escape death. Shaken and stirred, and still mourning the loss of their other colleagues, they face the death of Candice, (Ellen Wroe) one of the survivors among them. Tony Todd (William Bludworth), the coroner tells them to be careful because Death doesn’t like to be cheated. Everyone familiar with the franchise is, of course aware of this but there is a certain chilliness with which Todd mouths these lines that brings shivers nevertheless.

To be sure, Death starts catching up on them. They are also told that if they can swap their deaths with someone else’s they can survive. Nathan (Arlen Escarpeta) does so and in an action-packed fisty-cuffy climax, so does Peter (Miles Fisher). But, as the franchise has already established, the moves of Death are not to be pre-ordained neither are its rules to be gauged. Death plays by its own rules and the franchise has its characters learn this yet again, the hard way!

The series is a dedicated gore-fest and typically inventive in its manners of killing people. It does not shy of seeming too macabre and nothing is too extreme. The fifth part remains loyal to the horrification even at times making the randomness seem like a joke. But then that has always been its downside.

Unlike the earlier films, part five tries to unearth the darker side of its characters by pitting them against destiny and dangling murder as the sole weapon to earn their lives. However, it is not within the realms of the film to explore this sub-text and hence it merely remains a plot element. Not that it is something to complain about.

In the tradition of its earlier parts, Final Destination 5 brings some striking visuals and bold VFX. 3D gives it ample scope to terrorise which it gleefully uses to its best advantage. This one is definitely not for those who cringe at the sight of blood.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Phhir – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
August 12, 2011

PRODUCER – Surendra Sharma, Amita Bishnoi, Bhagwanti Gabrani
DIRECTOR – Girish Dhamija
WRITER – Vikram Bhatt
CAST – Rajneesh Duggal, Adah Sharma, Roshni Chopra
MUSIC – Toshi Sabri, Sharib Sabri, Raghav Sachar

Karma, rebirth and redemption find a new packaging in Girish Dhamija’s ‘Phhir’, a tale of two lifetimes unfolding within the span of seven days in the lives of Kabir (Rajneesh Duggal) and Disha (Adah Sharma). Kabir is a doctor, much in love with his profession and wife Sia (Roshni Chopra). Honest, loyal and sincere the only bad habit he seems to have is tardiness. A few hours late for a dinner with his wife and it kick-starts a series of events that, as we are told, only Karma could have foreseen. His wife goes missing and in the race to find her Kabir finds the truth of his existence. ‘How?’ is a much less interesting question when compared to – ‘Does this make for riveting drama?’

Maybe not riveting, but engaging yes. The film moves steadily towards its unravelling and passes its test of keeping the interest without face-palm moments. It is a simple story really, and despite the inclusion of a clairvoyant medium (Adah Sharma) and an attempt at edgy edits, remains simple in its narrative. This probably was not the intention of the film but serves it well nevertheless.

It begins with a previous life of Kabir. Dejected and repentant at having committed a crime beyond redemption he is told by his guru that he will need to be re-born to fully free himself of his bad karma. He duly obeys and we are brought into the present. Soon, we are then introduced to Disha, who has the gift of clairvoyance and tends to help the police with cases now and then. She feels compelled to help Kabir but it is only mid-way that she realises her fate is entwined with his. But by then it is a bit late to withdraw.

Despite some jarring cinematography, the film comes across as a clean and well-meaning drama with its central protagonists filling their roles well. Except for Sia, whose performance becomes synonymous with her make-up many a times, overdone and tacky. .

For an unambitious and low-key film that aims to supply a two-hour long engaging experience this one does the job well. Of course, only if you are a believer, else everything might simply seem laughable. But then what’s a film that doesn’t make you want to drop disbelief. This one does, if you are not looking for more.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Aarakshan – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
August 12, 2011

PRODUCER – Feroz Nadiadwala, Parakash Jha
DIRECTOR – Prakash Jha
WRITER – Prakash Jha, Anjum Rajabali
CAST – Amitabh Bachchan, Saif Ali Khan, Manoj Bajpayee, Deepika Padukone, Poorbi Anand, Prateik Babbar
MUSIC – Shankar Mahadevan, Ehsaan Noorani, Loy Mendonca

In a romantic moment, Purvi, one of the leads of Prakash Jha’s, ‘Aarakshan’ teases her boyfriend Deepak, ‘Short mein point pe kyon nahi aate?’ (Why don’t you come to the point?) For a film that dedicates a complete song to this sentiment, it takes a meandering route to come to its own point and even then leaves one confused about it.

As much as the film would love to be about the much-debated and much-complex issue of reservations, it is actually about a principal fighting for, apologies, one isn’t really sure what. Dr Prabhakar Anand (Amitabh Bachchan), unbending idealist, is the Principal of Shakuntala Thakral Mahavidyalaya. A believer in equality of the rights of education he dispenses services and help to all that come to him. This selfless dispensing lands him on the doorstep of mercenary ideologies and caste-ist politics. His dalit protégé Deepak, (Saif Ali Khan) turns against him so does his upper caste loyalist Sushant (Prateik Babbar). His college Trust plays games to oust him and Dr Prabhakar Anand’s personal life gets embroiled with forces who’ve turned education into commerce. Thus starts Dr. Prabhakar’s crusade for reclaiming education and equal platform for all.

No doubt, the film upholds certain relevant issues of our times and has a lofty intention of a social change at heart. Sadly though, it fails to build a case as relevant or strong.

It starts with a dalit student throwing his thousand year-old angst at everyone he encounters, including his girlfriend. That quickly changes to building a case for the upper classes to vent against reservation. In a short while, it becomes a revenge saga of a corrupt mercenary wanting power (Manoj Bajpayee as Mithilesh Singh). From there till the end then, it remains a story of the principal fighting for his principles (pun unintended). How it all ties up in the end is a question best left unanswered.

Thundering and jingoistic debates apart, the film comes across as appallingly tacky and amateurish at every point. Prakash Jha’s fascination with silk-clad bad men continues and the forced realism in the setting shines through in its artificial bastis (ghettos) and lights. The naivete of the film jars to the point when one starts noticing how a dalit from Bhopal speaks polished Luckhnavi Hindi and a upper class boy who has to ask the meaning of ‘avsar’ (chance) suddenly starts spouting words like ‘prayas’ (Pure Hindi for ‘effort’), and that too in a moment of anger. All this, when one is meant to be absorbed by the drama onscreen that is trying to portray the real-life drama our nation is surrounded with.

Saif Ali Khan playing the dalit, probably then comes across as the most consistent and single bright spot of the film. Except the language, he portrays the body language, pain and frustration of his character extremely well. Deepika Padukone does justice to her role empowering it with energy and emotion, while Prateik Babbar, once again proves his inability to act.

For all purposes, this film belongs to Amitabh Bachchan and revolves around him. As usual he thunders and roars, suitably flaunting his towering personality at every given opportunity. Not that it does anything for a film as seriously flawed as this.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Chala Mussadi–Office Office -Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
August 5, 2011

PRODUCER – Rajiv Mehra, Rajesh Mehra, Umesh Mehra
DIRECTOR – Rajiv Mehra
WRITER – Ashwani Dheer
CAST – Pankaj Kapoor, Deven Bhojani, Manoj Pahwa, Sanjay Mishra and Hemant Pandey
MUSIC – Sajid Wajid

Developed from the popular TV series about the common man, Office Office, Chala Mussadi, tells the tale of the symbolic Mussadilal Tripathy and his travails at the hands of the System.

The original series is a satire in the vein of black comedy. The film tries to be bit more. It tells the story of Mussadilal struggling to prove himself alive so that he can get his pension. The plot makes for interesting ironical drama.

The film begins with Mussadilal trying to get his wife admitted to the hospital for a kidney problem. His wife dies a victim of corruption and incompetence and Mussadilal sets off on a pilgrimage to immerse the ashes of his dead wife. At every turn he meets corruption, the dirtiest face of the way our country functions. On his return he learns he has been bookmarked as dead in Government files and his pension stopped. He faces the twisted ghost of corruption again but this time it is so warped he has to resort to a mix of idealism and trickery. Will he succeed?

Given what the film sets out to do, this question becomes more like ‘how does he do it?’ the resolution being evident, this being a film. The declaratory intent of social awakening is not loud but evident and probably therein lies the biggest deviation from the series, which is a tongue-in-cheek expose of the dilemmas of the common man and not life-altering drama like the film.

The route the film takes is of weaving in pathos, angst and drama in equal measure. It resorts to farce and stretches symbolism to its limits using the same actors in various characters to signify the insidiousness of the disease of corruption. While, this technique works to good cinematic advantage, the narrative gets pulled with over the top performances and over-telling.

This over-telling reduces the impact of Mussadilal’s trauma and removes the viewer from the real helplessness of his situation. Trying hard to be low-brow and close to reality it employs stereotypes in secondary characters but fails to evoke a strong chemistry between them. Mussadilal, the symbol of the helpless common man then becomes a removed entity, when he is actually simply each one of us.

The film has a strong casting with performers like Deven Bhojani, Manoj Pahwa, Sanjay Mishra and Hemant Pandey in various characters. But the over-the-top treatment and naïve idealism lends little to their efforts. Pankaj Kapoor’s performance surprisingly comes across as lacklustre, with less of the conviction than what he displays in the TV series, where he almost consistently has won an award for the best performer for a number of years.

For a feel-good idealism, the film does its job well. But for the times in which we live in it proves naïve and jingoistic, bringing all it does on the table to a naught. Guess, we shall have to stick to the TV series.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Rise Of The Planet Of Apes – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
August 5, 2011

PRODUCER – Peter Chernin, Dylan Clark Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver,
DIRECTOR – Rupert Wyatt
WRITER – Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver (based on Pierre Boulle’s book)
CAST – James Franco, Freida Pinto, John Lithgow, Andy Serkis
MUSIC – Patrick Doyle

The Planet of the Apes series has reversed the world order and back a couple of times. In the latest film, ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’, director Rupert Wyatt yet again reverses it giving apes a par-human intelligence and sensibility, and the war between the humans and apes continues. The film, as the name suggests, is a prequel to the Charlton Heston film of 1968, ‘Planet of the Apes’. The entire series is based on Pierre Boulle’s 1963 book ‘La planète des singes.’

The film chooses not to be faithful to the original book borrowing only certain elements from it. So it is set in the world of today complete with genetic engineering and the works. Will Rodman (James Franco) is a genetic engineer working on a cure for Alzheimer’s disease that would repair brain cells. What he invents is a means to modify brain cells and the subject he is testing it on starts developing an advanced intelligence. This test subject is an ape called Caesar (Andy Serkis). Soon, human authorities deem Caesar a threat. But he is now a discerning animal. He understands freedom, rights and domination. He takes it upon himself to win all of it back for himself and his species from uncaring humans.

The film is fittingly captioned ‘Evolution to Revolution’ and that in a nutshell describes it. Sporting stunning CGI and filmed in the live-action technique, it manages to successfully simulate expressive human traits in digitally manipulated figures. This brings the interactions alive and makes the world of the film relatable.

The film is stylish, largely due to the sweeping direction of Rupert Wyatt and this makes for superb drama. James Franco effortlessly plays a typically engrossed and removed-from-the-world scientist diligently working away at his goal. He has Freida Pinto for company, a co-scientist who is a Primatologist and his love interest. Together they join Caesar in the war between humans and apes.

Arrogance, victory, defeat, racial supremacy, justice, equality, survival of the fittest, domination and subjugation, jingoism all have found their way into the series at some point. This film too isn’t devoid of it, bringing into contrast degrees of intelligence and the question of – does the survival of the fittest automatically mean inheritance of the earth?

However, the film is a drama and doesn’t stop to pontificate on these strains leaving them merely as thematic strands. The film is meant to thrill and entertain and it does both with reasonable aplomb. It is faithful to the world it creates and the story it sets out to tell. That is reasonable enough, isn’t it?

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , ,
Comment

Gandhi to Hitler – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
July 29, 2011

PRODUCER – Dr. Anil Kumar Sharma
DIRECTOR – Rakesh Ranjan Kumar
WRITER – Nalin Singh, Rakesh Ranjan Kumar
CAST – Avijit Dutt, Raghuveer Yadav, Neha Dhupia, Aman Verma, Lucky Vakharia
MUSIC – Arvind, Lyton

It is the late1930’s and Germany is about to wreak an unrevocable havoc on Europe. The second WW seems imminent. In contrast with Germany’s struggle for supremacy India is fighting against domination from another imperial power, the British.

Both these historic events became symbolic of ideologies that shaped the face of these nations. At one end of the spectrum was Adolf Hitler, autocrat and fascist. At the other end was Mohandas Gandhi, a leader fighting for Indian independence with his ideologies of truth and non-violence. ‘Gandhi to Hitler’ is about Gandhi’s correspondence to Hitler in an attempt to change his course of action.

Ideological and well-meaning, the film aims to bring about contrasts in philosophies while clearly being sympathetic to Gandhi and his seminal ideology. It does so by contrasting the protagonists in their own spaces. Hitler is shown during his last days in his bunker and Gandhi, striving for India’s freedom. A faction of the Indian army, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s army is returning home after having fought Russia with Germany. At home the wife of the leader of this faction awaits her husband while supporting Gandhiji’s beliefs. Done without a smoothness, this contrast appears fractured as well as shallow.

Not only are these contrasts shallow, but the portrayal of Hitler, Russian and German forces laughable. Raghuveer Yadav’s Hitler wears an over-wrought nervousness that is not terrifying in the least and the fact of all foreign characters being played by Indian actors removes any semblance of historical importance the film might try to invest in. The events are interspersed with a clunky voice-over and black and white footage of WWII but to little effect. The performances lack conviction bringing together a film that is shabby, under-researched and limp in its scale.

The film attempts to send out a powerful message of peace through exploring this part of little-known history. Above applauding the intent there is little of cinematic, philosophical or historical value in this very amateurish and shoddy film.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Bubblegum – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
July 29, 2011

PRODUCER – Sushma Kaul
DIRECTOR – Sanjivan Lal
WRITER – Sanjivan Lal
CAST – Sohail Lakhani, Apurva Arora, Sachin Khedekar, Tanvi Azmi
MUSIC – Hanif Sheikh, Bapi, Tutul

There is a cusp of change that is as tumultuous as they come and it is popularly known as adolescence. That time of our lives when transition brings a world of conflicts and choices, that defines who we are going to become. Standing at this cusp of change, Vedant (Sohail Lakhani) struggles with the naiveté of childhood and the angst of growing up. He rebels, fights, sulks and thrashes but little does he know that it is a time for evolution that is temporary but inevitable.

A secure childhood has never meant a chaos-free teenage. Neither does it ensure a smooth transition. Yet, it is this very stability that ensures the cross-over becomes a strength in the toughest times. Mukund (the ever-dependable Sachin Khedekar) and Sudha (the talented Tanvi Azmi) embody this ideal of parenthood that Vedant seems to be blessed with. His anchorage also comes from his brother Vidur, (Delzad) who is hearing-impaired but stoic. From a distance he may seem protected and lucky. But Sanjivan Lal chooses to delve a little deeper into his dilemmas to unearth what it really means to be a teenager when every problem seems bigger than it is.

One of these dilemmas is Jenny, (Apoorva Arora) whose attention Vedant is fighting for with Ratan (Suraj Singh). The film treads this territory of young love with a touching innocence. While Vedant fights this battle outside, at home he is struggling with having to share his parent’s attention with his physically challenged brother Vidur, who is back for holidays from his hostel. His feelings of neglect leave his parents concerned and Vedant rebelling. His parents decide to handle it with tact and sensitivity and Vidur supplies his own maturity. Nowhere does the film trades real issues for drama or entertainment and this very insightful treatment is delightful.

The film handles conflicts as delicately as it shows the parents doing, showering sympathetic and understanding attention to Vedant but never forgetting the bigger picture. The picture of his arriving into adulthood as a responsible and sensitive individual. In many ways the film can be seen as Vedant’s journey into adulthood yet the time frame is short and episodes minimal, making the film universal yet focused.

It is probably the balance it achieves in drawing out characters vis-à-vis their stations in life and making them instantly likeable despite all, that makes it a winning film. Be it the vignettes of Vedant and Jenny’s blushing romance or Vedant and Vidur’s unshakeable bond or Mukund and Sudha’s parental dilemmas, the film touches each aspect with thoughtfulness and insight. The world it creates is relatable and that has more to do with the engagement of the writer-director as well as the carefully built setting.

The film is not a modern film. Set in the 80’s in the small town of Jamshedpur, it talks of lives without the entrapments of technology and globalisation. Yet its beauty remains in the universal and timeless conflicts it addresses and the layers it builds into this seemingly simple story. It might seem slow yet boring it is not. It might not be entertaining but empty it is not. You will be glad you watched it.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Lion King-3D – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
July 29, 2011

PRODUCER – Don Hahn
DIRECTOR – Roger Allers, Rob Minkoff
WRITER – Irene Mecchi, Jonathan Roberts
VOICE CAST – Matthew Broderick, James Earl Jones, Jeremy Irons, Nathan Lane, Ernie Sabella
MUSIC – Hans Zimmer

Simba takes his place in the circle of life in 3D. The much-loved saga of Simba, Timon, Pumba, Mufasa and Scar comes back after seventeen years with enhanced sound effects and visuals in 3D.

For those who haven’t seen it yet, Lion King is a story of a little cub (Simba) who is led to wrongly believe that he is responsible for his father’s (Mufasa) death, by his uncle (Scar). Disheartened and wracked with guilt, the little cub leaves his kingdom which his father ruled with courage and compassion and which is now taken over by the conniving Scar. He finds friends in a little hyena and stinky skunk who are living similar outcast lives away from their communities. Together they live it up with their philosophy of ‘Hakuna Matata’, meaning ‘no worries’.

Years pass by non-chalantly. Until one day, Simba’s past comes calling. He is faced with an opportunity to move on or move away. In his choice lies his true freedom and true coming-of-age.

Audiences world-wide have loved the film for its warm story and touching theme. Its story is known to be inspired by stories from the Bible and William Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The film carries the wealth of these texts ably and invests its own layers of depth making it a story for all ages and times.

Did a film as rich in its text and tender in its telling really need 3D? Not really. The substance of Lion King lies in its story and loveable characters. Its sub-texts of choice, responsibility and coming-of-age dilemmas draw a wonderfully human animal world that children and adults alike love to revel in. Visually it offers little for transformation into a larger than life panorama. Also, unfortunately the original 2D format offers little space for a fully satisfying 3D experience.

So 3D may not be a fantastic reason to watch it on its re-release, but of course, any reason to revisit this classic gem is good enough, isn’t it?

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Singham – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
July 24, 2011

PRODUCER – Reliance Entertainment
DIRECTOR – Rohit Shetty
WRITER – Yunus Sajawal
CAST – Ajay Devgn, Kajal Aggarwal, Prakash Raj
MUSIC – Ajay Gogavale, Atul Gogavale

He roars like a lion and struts around like one too. The good old days of the all-powerful, one-man army, angry young hero seem to have come back to Bollywood to stay.

Ajay Devgan plays the upright, fearless Bajirao Singham, the just and fair police officer of the idyllic Shivgad. He is the king, the judge and the benefactor, all rolled into one, of the little town. He kicks with a fury and punches with power and disseminates justice like a ruler out of the Satyug. While he is doing his duty he even finds a pretty young thing (a little too perky Kajal Aggarwal) to prance around and fall in love with. All is happy till he crosses path with the big bad villain of the big bad city. Jayram Shikre (A dashing Prakash Raj) rules Goa city with a stony terror reign just as Singham does his little town with steely honesty. Singham is transferred to the city so that Shikre can take his revenge. Singham finds a bigger cause to fight there and fight he does in all glory. The forces of good and evil clash, making for the pot-boiler-est Hindi film since, well, Dabangg.

Also, just like Dabangg, Singham is a remake of a Tamil film of the same name. Its action is hence, high-octane and so is its pulse. Its morals are straight-forward and motivations simplistic. It rejoices in the sweat-drenched, taut muscles of its hero as he bashes twenty men at the same time and reforms a whole army of policemen with an impassioned speech. The film tries to bring in a contrast between rural and urban ethics and carries its hero as a human through the whole journey but ultimately having him make the choice of cleaning up the system. Of course, its up to him after all!

The film is entirely populist, catering to our numbed with corruption sensibilities and providing trigger happy extreme solutions. It is feel good all the way and owes nothing to realism or logic and does it with swashbuckling style winning enough for us not to miss either.

Ajay Devgan shines through the role of the toughie with equal parts style, charisma and vulnerability. His muscles ripple adequately and his voice thunders menacingly. He sashays onto the scene with aplomb and bashes the goons heartlessly, looking every inch the lion his name calls him out to be. In his first of a kind all-powerful role, Ajay Devgan makes you root for him and Singham, as he portrays the iron-clad police officer with amazing conviction. He is well-matched by Prakash Raj, whose histrionics range the whole gamut of hysteria to comic to uber-dynamic. His personality is towering and his charisma appealing. He throws himself into the extreme role with heartening confidence and even if what he is required to do is too old-world or Tollywood-ish, he combines with Ajay Devgan to give what we went for, total paisa vasool.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows-2 – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
July 15, 2011

PRODUCER – David Barron, J.K. Rowling, David Heyman
DIRECTOR – David Yates
WRITER – Steve Kloves (screenplay), J.K. Rowling (novel)
CAST – Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman
MUSIC – Alexandre Desplat

Potter’s world is at its darkest hour and only he can save it from disintegrating completely. The last film in the Potter saga is dangerous, grand and mighty. Much like the task Potter himself faces. That of eliminating You-Know-Who.

Harry, Hermione and Ron have found most of the horcruxes that have a part of Voldemort’s soul but three more remain. The second part of the grand finale, ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows’, begins with the search for one of them in the dungeon vaults of the Ministry of Magic. Soon, as it is pre-destined the battle moves to Hogwarts, an already ravaged battlefield. Snape is the Headmaster and he rules with a Slytherin grip over the old school. Potter and his pals return to find rebellion seething under-ground and it is not long before it turns into a full-fledged battle. A battle that immediately drives Voldemort to Hogwarts.

But the war began with the two and will end with them. Harry doesn’t know a valuable secret that binds his existence with that of Voldemort’s and when he does is when tables turn and the saga takes a magnificent twist. Fans of the book who are aware of the twist will not be disappointed with the menace, darkness and imagination it has been captured with. And the heartbeats will continue to thump loud.

Probably the most satisfying aspect of the finale is the attention it pays to mood and pace. Like the earlier films, this one too juggles between the importance it gives to certain events and people at the cost of others. But nowhere do slight variations take away from the journey of the hero and his friends, both physical and emotional.

Every book in the series has its characters grow and overcome more than physical obstacles. The finale particularly emphasises these moments bringing more than mere dramatic value to the end. The film does fantastic justice to these parts. It eases while capturing Neville’s bravery and deliberates on the pain of the humungous loss of Hogwarts’lives. It pays attention to Potter’s dilemmas and is respectful of his sorrows and tumult. Pauses, silences and minimal dialogue balance the grandeur of imminent danger. It is this balance that brings a completeness of experience and makes the film a magical human journey.

As a saga at its most dangerous edge it extracts intense performances from its principal cast but more than the central three it is the affiliate cast that shines through. Professor Gonagal’s taking of charge, Bellatrix’s consummate evil, Snape’s torment and Voldemort’s desperate vindication bring alive the deathly disorder the world of magic is plunged into.

The film boasts of spectacular graphics, befitting a magical world. Especially the flashback’s, time travel and unfolding of the pre-Potter history revealed to him are done with a stunning appeal yet keeping an edge to the story, never saying too much or too little. This treatment however will be thoroughly confounding to unfamiliar audiences.

Filmed with a panache and an ecstatic visual charm it is a beautiful experience that takes Potter’s (and our) journey to its most fitting end, with high drama and sombre emotion. And a memory that will last as one of the satisfying ones in film history.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
July 15, 2011

PRODUCER – Ritesh Sidhwani, Farhan Akhtar
DIRECTOR – Zoya Akhtar
WRITER – Reema Kagti, Zoya Akhtar
CAST – Hrithik Roshan, Farhan Akhtar, Abhay Deol, Katrina Kaif, Kalki Koechlin
MUSIC – Shankar, Ehsaan, Loy

It is rare to see gorgeous faces drop attitude and become human in feel good pop corn films yet remain attractive. Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara has Hrithik Roshan and Katrina Kaif do exactly that and probably that is the winning formula of this very entertaining, very enjoyable film.

Three friends decide to make good their college pact of going on a bachelor trip before one of them gets wedded and play a dangerous sport each of each other’s choice. Kabir (Abhay Deol) is soon-to-be married to his girlfriend Natasha (Kalki Koechlin). Imran (Farhan Akhtar) is a copywriter and otherwise with questions in his mind about his father’s identity. Arjun (Hrithik Roshan) is a stock broker come up the hard way with a singular focus on earning as much money as possible at the cost of everything else in his life. The three set out to Spain to face the adventures waiting for them. During those adventures they meet Laila, (Katrina Kaif) a deep sea diving instructor who becomes an intimate part of this journey that becomes more than just a fun trip.

Each one of them learns to let go, face their fears and comes to see a completely new way of living. While the sports they choose reveal some aspect of themselves, being together also rubs off its dust on them, opening them up a little more. Characters transform as they learn to let go a little and take control a little.

The film has all the trappings of a feel good commercial film especially with its overdone theme of living life to the fullest. But Zoya Akhtar chooses to explore human facets and moments more deeply than the drama of travel and living. It is with a unique sensibility and sensitivity she peels of layers off her protagonist’s lives and keeps adding a perspective to their behaviour bit by bit. If anything it comes across as a wonderful study in human behaviour.

The film’s characters are urban chic but nowhere does their class get into the way of their lives being any less real or much-endowed. There is a regular every-day-ness to them that is immensely charming. Their fragility and vulnerability is as appealing as their banter which has a startling chemistry of actors and freshness of humour. Each actor portrays the character and shines through with no barriers of having to live upto a stereotype of ‘hero’ or ‘heroine’. Apart from the humour and sensitive screenplay it is this aspect that gives the film its freshness. A very warm special mention needs to be made of Deepti Naval and Naseeruddin Shah’s cameos, few of the finest actors we have today.

Penned with a keen insight into human psychology Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara is a buddy film on the surface. It is also about ‘carpe diem’, living life to the fullest. It is about fun, frolic and friendships and lots of beautiful visuals. But at the heart of it is an engaging saga of human relationships, choices and facing one’s fears. Bring free to really live life the way it is meant to be lived. ‘Coz we all know it’s not coming again.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Chillar Party – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
July 8, 2011

PRODUCER – Ronnie Screwvala, Salman Khan
DIRECTOR – Nitesh Tiwari and Vikas Bahl
WRITER – Vijay Maurya (Screenplay) Vikas Bahl and Nitesh Tiwari (Story)
CAST – Irrfan Khan, Naman, Divij, Sanath, Vedant, Aarav, Chinmay, Sherya, Rohan, Visshesh
MUSIC – Amit Trivedi

Children’s films are about the charm of simplicity that surrounds their world. ‘Chillar Party’, captures that world with ease and flair while rooting issues of the adult world through their struggles.

The film revolves around a bunch of kids standing up to a minister’s drive to evict a dog from their colony. It begins with a beautifully notorious plot of the kids themselves being against the little pet of Fatka (Irrfan Khan), an outsider who comes in from the village to clean cars in the colony. This bunch includes a motley of lovely performers with even more interesting character names – Jhangiya (Naman), Shaolin (Divij), Enclyclopedia (Sanath), Silencer (Vedant), Aflatoon (Aarav), Panauti (Chinmay), Toothpaste (Sherya), Akram (Rohan), Second Hand (Visshesh). The sub-plot of exclusion and clanism establishes itself strongly with the children trying little mischiefs to make Fatka miserable and make him and his dog leave.

But things take a turn when a minister gets harassed by the same dog and decides to have it removed on a note of pure personal vengeance. The children undergo a change of heart and decide to stand up to this injustice. What follows are signature campaigns, underwear marches and an impassioned motivation to correct the unjustness of segregation.

The film sets its tone in entertainment even as it establishes itself in the broad battle of good vs evil. It brushes within its purview larger and adult issues of separatism and acceptance while throwing at us little notes on social evils such as child labour. The film is well-intended and this intention shows in all things from the naughtiness of the children to their perspective of the world around them to their actions in making a difference.

After a series of feel-good and engaging events the climax becomes a little over-done and flashy as is the woeful trend of mainstream entertainers taking away a little of the steam of the well-done film. The children perform with a gusto, very unlike the stereotyped versions of themselves as shown in mainstream Bollywood and that becomes a pleasure to watch.

For a film that bridges the gap of the child and adult world and makes its little protagonist the mouthpieces of the ills of the adult world, it works really well. With no star-cast yet having children do what we grown-ups should be doing, it does what most films try so hard to do. It remains within the confines of a feel-good entertainer but redefines ‘hatke’ as few are capable of doing. A treat for adults and children alike.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Murder 2 – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
July 8, 2011

PRODUCER – Mukesh Bhatt
DIRECTOR – Mohit Suri
WRITER – Shagufta Rafique (Screenplay) Mahesh Bhatt (Story)
CAST – Emraan Hashmi, Jacqueline Fernandez, Prashant Narayanan, Sudhanshu Pandey
MUSIC – Harshit Saxena, Sangeet Haldipur, Siddharth Haldipur, Mithoon

Murder 2 comes with the expected stamp of sex, sizzle and story as is the custom with the Bhatt stables. A sequel to the 2004 hit ‘Murder’, it is directed by Mohit Suri who tells the story of an ex-cop on the hunt of a serial killer. It is dark, sensual and a gripping ride till the end. Calling a similarity with the Korean thriller ‘Chaser’, the film twists its plots and colours it narrative so ‘filmy‘ that any comparisons become superficial.

The film begins with ecstatic New Year celebrations in Goa with Arjun (Emraan Hashmi) out to grab a serial killer on the behest of a gangster running a flesh trade, who wants to know the mystery behind the disappearance of his girls. A much-in-need-of-money Arjun takes up the challenge and it whets the appetite of the investigator in him. The chase brings him to Dheeraj (Prashant Narayanan) and the case gets tighter as Priya, Arjun’s girlfriend (Jacqueline Fernandes) gets involved in the dangerous game. It is a matter of time until the scales tip.

The film has a number of things going for it. The pace is haunting and the drama edgy, never revealing fully and leading the audience to the conclusion in a shielded manner. The film wears a distinct tone of evil lurking around the corner and takes the rarely done task of painting negative shades in most of its protagonists. There are no easy answers in this world and the fact is captivating.

The film is a suspense thriller that travels the route of a murky entertainer while we hang onto our seats to simply know who-dunnit. The primary achievement here is the take-away of having a satisfying thrill ride at the revelation even as the journey is engaging enough.

The performances of the central characters remain a plus point. What they invest in their roles is primarily what gives the film its finish. Emraan Hashmi continues on his dedicated path of being the favourite serial kisser boy as Jacqueline Fernandes adds enough sex appeal with her presence and attitude. Prashant Narayanan makes for a brilliant watch as he performs with a flair and dishes out a real experience of the shady and twisted. A decent entertainer from start to finish if you are not looking for more.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , ,
Comment

Buddhah Hoga Tera Baap – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
July 3, 2011

PRODUCER – AB Corp
DIRECTOR – Poori Jagannath
CAST – Amitabh Bachchan, Hema Malini, Sonu Sood, Sonal Chauhan

Buddhah Hoga Tera Baap ends with a slate that says, ‘This film is a tribute to Amitabh Bachchan’. Indeed, the film is more of a tribute to worshipful fanboy-ism and the lengths it will go to deify its heroes.

In this amazing example of a tribute Amitabh Bachchan plays an ex-gangster Viju, come back to the game to save the life of his ACP son. The angry young son is the ACP of the area who has antagonized the goons enough to have them baying for his blood. Viju jumps into the fray of the gang and thwarts their plans ultimately re-uniting with his family.

But all this not before he gets his son the girl he has heart set on (Sonal Chauhan). Viju also, in the meanwhile has a once-besotted by him girl (Raveena Tandon) come back in his life.

The film, even though completely in love with the Big B has a semblance of a decent story that keeps moving ahead even if it is constantly interrupted with flashing the leading man’s charm and machismo. All the other actors and characters are made to pale in comparison to this towering personality’s dynamism. A wasted Hema Malini and incongruous Raveena Tandon hang in there as two women in his life that polarized it, one he wants to go back to but who won’t take him back and the other who is chasing him but he is merely suffering. Among all this there is Sonu Sood’s angry young man constantly escaping his enemies with a filmy bravado and his lady-love Sonal Chauhan who loves spurring his love overtures.

Carefully designed to project Bachchan as the invincible superstar, the film has him play a cool version of himself in colourful scarves and shades. He is the suave ladies man, gutsy gangster, charismatic charmer and extra smarty pants to boot. The only thing missing is the humaneness and vulnerability of the hero we loved. What is Vijay without his tender emotionality and hurt anger? The film has Tollywood masala written all over it making it seem lesser of the real Amitabh film it proclaims to love so unabashedly.

Without any remarkable production values to speak of the film comes across visually banal and unimpressive for a superstar vehicle. The settings and art direction is unspeakably tacky and it is only the superstar that lends any watchability to the film. By no means is he jaded or tired, the shine in the star remains sparkling just that he sky he inhabits this time around is dull and drab.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Transformers-3 – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
July 3, 2011

PRODUCER – Ian Bryce, Tom DeSanto, Lorenzo di Bonaventura, Don Murphy
DIRECTOR – Micheal Bay
WRITER – Ehren Kruger
CAST – Shia LaBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley and Tyrese Gibson
MUSIC – Steve Jablonsky

The saga of mean machines and earth-saving heroes continues with the third installment of Transformers. This time round it is the hunt for the cylinders Centennial Prime has invented and are stranded on the moon on the ship called Ark. Those cylinders are meant to attract Cybertron to Earth. Megatron is in hiding in Africa but he and his Decepticons are at work. Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) with his beloved Bumblebee finds out what they are up to and enlists the help of Agent Simmons (John Turtorro) The CIA is at work too and so is Optimus Prime. In this race to claim Earth, who will win and how?
Straight out let us establish that this one is for fans. There is no dearth of magical mechatronics as the story unfolds in plots more twisted than the best roller coaster. The story begins right at the beginning and takes you through the various ups and downs at leisure. Good intentions suddenly reveal to be bad and characters change colours quicker than you can blink. There are a number of sharp curves in this wild ride. Along with the pyrotechnics of the giant robos turning into sexy cars not to mention a gorgeous Carly in Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, as Witwicky’s girlfriend, there is enough to keep the fan rooting and hooting.

For the one unaccustomed to the saga it might be ride too confounding. Even with the knowledge of the history of prequels the twists in the plot may become too many and coming too quick to handle. The music of the franchise has always been thumpingly gripping and the third part in the series matches in step right down to the climax.

Coming to the 3D experience, once again the technology becomes an impediment in real enjoyment. The experience adds nothing to the charm of the franchise because the real pleasure is in the transformations and the loyalty to the characters. There is the real high of the film.

There is also some quirk and humour along with relationship dilemmas. It keeps the interest in the several stories running parallel too because each has distinct tone to it. There is sure to be a part four the manner in which it ends and given the ride the current part offers there is going to be ample anticipation of it.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Delhi Belly – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
July 2, 2011

PRODUCER – Ronnie Screwvala, Aamir Khan, Kiran Rao, Jim Furgele
DIRECTOR – Abhinav Deo
WRITER – Akshat Verma
CAST – Imran Khan, Poorna Jagannathan, Shenaz Treasuryvala, Vir Das, Kunal Roy Kapoor, Vijay Raaz
MUSIC – Ram Sampath

Three friends get into a mess and run around in a frenzy to get themselves out of it. Tashi (Imran Khan), Nitin (Kunal Roy Kapoor) and Arup (Vir Das) are friends and flatmates with nothing much that works in their lives, from dysfunctional water supply to similar love-lives. They live in a run-down bachelor hole somewhere in the belly of Delhi trying to piece their lives together doing meagre jobs. Tashi is a journalist, Nitin his photographer and Arup a designer. Tashi has a rich girifriend he isn’t sure he wants to marry. Arup has a girlfriend who is sure she doesn’t want to marry him and Nitin has severe stomach and money issues to keep him occupied. Among this all, Sonia, Tashi’s girlfriend asks him to courier a packet to an address. Needless to say there is a goof up and in comes the baddie Somayajulu (Vijay Raaz). The packet had diamonds worth millions and until the boys find them they are not going to be spared, of course. But is the film going to be as easy as that?

You are divided when you watch it really. The diamonds make a mess of the boys lives more than they managed to make themselves. However, crimes, violence, love and changes-of-hearts later things sort themselves out. But not before it has gone on a roller coaster of crass, slapstick and black humour with a salubrious overdose of abusive language and double entendres. What this does to the film is give it a yuppy effect it may or may not have been intending to achieve.

The drama is twisted, kept flat for inducing the element of reality and giving an edge to the humour. But does the humour work? For most part yes. The lines are everyday banter with no forced deliveries. The plot twists itself silly to add more colour to the goofiness going around. The settings provide more interest than the main actors whose performances lack chemistry, screen presence and enough power to take back home. Yet, a sure hand at delivering a kitschy, over-the-top comedy that is rooted in the everyday lives of the youth makes it a decent watch where the (lack of) strength of performances do not really interfere with the audience experience.

A lot of madness spills on the screen in this interval-less ride that largely rolls out in Hinglish, the language the modern-day urban educated Indian speaks and abuses in. While all the madness may not be worth splitting your sides with, there is enough craziness in the capers of the three to keep you hooked. All in all, a fun ride, for sure.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Double Dhamaal – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
June 24, 2011

PRODUCER – Ashok Thakeria, Indra Kumar
DIRECTOR – Indra Kumar
WRITER – Tushar Hiranandani
CAST – Sanjay Dutt, Arshad Warsi, Jaaved Jaaferi, Riteish Deshmukh, Ashish Chowdhry, Mallika Sherawat, Kangna Ranaut.
MUSIC – Anand Raj Anand

Cashing in on the success of sequels has become a trend that has given rise to this week’s release, ‘Double Dhamaal’. Not really a sequel it attempts to make a franchise of the series that revolves around the frantic antics of four buffoons to get hold of some easy money.

These four are Adi (Arshad Warsi), Baman (Ashish Chaudhury), Roy (Riteish Dehsmukh) and Manav (Javed Jaffrey). The film begins with them bumping into Kabir (Sanjay Dutt) their nemesis from part 1. He is rich and affluent and the four hatch a plan to get involved in his business by blackmailing him. But they do not know that Kabir along with his girlfriend Kamini (Mallika Sherawat) and sister Kiya (Kangana Ranaut) is playing a con game with them. The foursome that had come to dupe Kabir get duped themselves and swear revenge. Revenge takes them to Macau where Kabir has bought a huge casino. More con games follow until the movie finally reaches it closure.

The film takes the route of outlandish costumes, bizarre plots and caricaturish performances to provoke laughter. It spoofs a number of film stars in attempts to bring colour and raucous fun. Unfortunately, the abundance of twists and in-your-face humour kills any scope for genuine entertainment. They lack a chemistry and neither is the comedy played with timing. It has an incredibly loud and school-play humour that seems to have no emphasis on anything except peculiar looks and banal puns to pass off as funny lines.

The film has an abundance of song and dance sequences each full of gaudy colours, tacky costumes and no good tunes to hum later on. The film also has an abundance of cons that twists the plot again and again till one loses track of the plot completely.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Always Kabhi Kabhi – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
June 18, 2011

PRODUCER – Gauri Khan
DIRECTOR – Roshan Abbas
WRITER – Roshan Abbas, Ranjit Raina, Ishita Moitra
CAST – Satyajeet Dubey, Ali Fazal, Zoa Morani and Giselle Monteiro
MUSIC – Aashish Rego, Shree D, Pritam Chakraborty

It is evident that Always Kabhi Kabhi was floated as an idea and invested in as a film for the sole reason of cashing in on the youth audience of our country, the supposed largest section of film-goers.

It is a story of four youngsters Sameer (Satyajeet Dubey), Tariq, (Ali Fazal), Nandini (Zoa Morani) and Aishwarya (Giselle Monteiro). They are school-kids who don’t look like it and go to schools in a la la land that Hindi films manage to dream up with an amazing disregard for authenticity. However, Always Kabhi Kabhi also shows an amazing disregard for its own script and story.

It unravels at a lazy pace with not much happening on the screen for the first one hour other than snazzy zip cuts and overlaps, and loud dances. The story awakens out of slumber in the rear end of the film and quickly wraps itself up in a matter of minutes mumbling something about generation and communication gap.

Sloppy and unengaging, it perpetrates the myth that Kuchh Kuchh Hota Hain started. This is the world of orange tables and chairs, cartoon-ish teachers and happy-go-lucky high energy bunch of extremely stylish and good looking youngsters. Somewhere in between it brings in stories of parental pressure and assumes to start a revolution against it with a tacky item number.

Performances are saccharine sweet and over the top even as characters are flaky. After being bombarded with a series of unwanted dances and flash cuts one is left caring for little more than the end credits to roll and that is definitely not for the gimmicky SRK item number in the end.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Bheja Fry-2 – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
June 18, 2011

PRODUCER – Mukul Deora
DIRECTOR – Sagar Bellary
WRITER – Sagar Bellary
CAST – Vinay Pathak, Minissha Lamba, Kay Kay Menon, Amole Gupte, Suresh Menon
MUSIC – Ishq Bector, Sneha Khanwalkar, Sagar Desai

Bharat Bhushan is back with his simpleton middle class-ness and corny laughter. This time he has a con-man tycoon and TV show producers in tow to give him company. The setting is no longer a cubby-hole house but a lavish cruise and an idyllic island.

Bharat Bushan has won a trip on a cruise on a reality show and happens to rub shoulders with Ajit Talwar (Kay Kay Menon), a swindler who is on the cruise to escape the IT department. Bharat Bhushan’s colleague and righteous IT officer MT (Suresh Menon) is on Ajit’s trail too. Ajit gets wind of the IT department having sniffed at his cons and in a comedy of errors assumes it is Bharat Bhushan who is behind him. He conspires to have him eliminated but instead lands up on an isolated island with Mr Bhushan alone for company.

Soon enough though they have more company and the ‘bheja fry’ gets oilier. You may expect the outlandish humour of contrasts and extremes here too but in a surprising departure from the prequel, Bheja Fry-2 remains merely goofy. It has no hair-tearingly stupid antics of Bhushan making Ajit’s reactions to him over the top. The joy of the earlier was in the subtlety of the fun that we had at the expense of Bharat Bhushan but here although the jokes are tame he is made out to be a complete buffoon by everyone involved.

The film seems trying too hard to entertain even as Vinay Pathak’s persona as the central character is ticklish. The cinematography does not utilize the potential of the script using too many close ups and cuts and diluting the chemistry of characters and situations. The humour hardly develops as one remains glued to lines being thrown by extreme close ups. This sense of claustrophobia gets some room on the island (which has some pleasing water shots) but the turn of the script towards the end to introduce more humour and fun renders it rather tedious.

Bheja Fry-2 does not work as a film with its loose script and unimaginative jokes. Minissha Lamba’s character seems practically wasted in the film as it seems Bharat Bhushan’s is too. Kay Kay hams away in his typical demeanour and so does Suresh Menon. Amole Gupte’s islander psycho hardly raises any interest for lack of originality and newness. For fans of the prequel and new audiences alike the film promises to be a disappointment and not much else.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Bhindi Bazaar Inc. – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
June 18, 2011

PRODUCER – Karan Arora
DIRECTOR – Ankush Bhatt
WRITER – Ghalib Asad Bhopali
CAST – Kay Kay Menon, Prroshant Narayanan, Piyush Mishra, Pawan Malhotra, Shilpa Shukla, Deepti Naval.
MUSIC – Sandeep Surya

Neo-noir finds a voice with this gangster film based in the gangster pocket of South Mumbai. It is a gritty story of the rise and fall of two pick-pockets among a gang of goons in a world of crime, deceit and disloyalty.

Fateh (Prroshant Narayanan) and Tez (Gautam Sharma) are childhood friends who have grown up dreaming of becoming the crime duke of their area. Ambition takes over them and their lives become a game of cat and mouse as characters fall like nine-pins in a drama of suspense and irony. Fateh eliminates the reigning crime lord Mamu (Pawan Malhotra) even as gang wars between him and Pandey (Piyush Mishra) hots up and suspicions fall away from him. In a back and forth narrative of slow-building drama Tez and Shroff (Kay Kay Menon) play a chess game while the former recounts his part in the politics of the whole game. The film gradually moves towards a climax of black irony and poetic justice that brings it full circle.

Although the film has colour when it shows its female characters, it largely maintains a monochrome while dealing with its men and the city. The sweat and grime is portrayed with a gritty reality and the film never sacrifices authenticity for beauty or entertainment.

It gets convincing performances from its lead cast but under-utilises the talent it boasts of. Deepti Naval as the wife of Mamu gets incredibly small and meaningless screen time and so does Pawan Malhotra. Piyush Mishra’s eccentricity and intensity gets no showcase and Jackie Shroff’s cameo is merely an appearance. Prroshant Narayanan and Shilpa Shukla hold the screen together with their presence and conviction even as their language and diction falters from cutting street-talk to a forced roughness.

With the slowness of its pace and low-key drama it is a thriller that’s a mild film. For thriller aficionados there is so much more better out there but for lovers of dark and dirty realism the film offers a certain visceral experience even if not visual or memorable.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Cycle Kick – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
June 18, 2011

PRODUCER – Subash Ghai
DIRECTOR/WRITER – Shashi Silgudia
CAST – K.P. Nishan Nanaiah, Sunny Hinduja, Girija Oak, Ishita Sharma, Dwij Yadav

Cycle Kick is a simple story of two young boys Ramu and Ali, and their desire for a cycle. They also happen to be in the same football team of their college and will learn friendship and team-work while fighting for the Cup.

Ramu (Nishan Nanaiah) and Deva (Dwij Yadav) are brothers with little to look forward to except their simple dreams. Ramu wants to have a cycle so that he can ride his handicapped brother to school everyday and can make better money at his job. He also has a wish to be in his college’s football team and play for his college. He finds a broken cycle and along with his brother and mechanic friend makes it spanking new. He also gets selected for the college team and love blossoms in his life too. Just when things couldn’t get better his cycle gets stolen.

Ali (Sunny Hinduja) on the other hand is sulking because his father doesn’t have enough money to buy him a cycle right-away. So Ali steals money from him and buys a cycle that happens to be Ramu’s.

A chase for ownership ends up in both having to share it. A thwarted love affair leaves Ali heart-broken and the fight that ensues out of that not only leads to the final football match but also to the final bonding of the two.

Authentic and down-to-earth, the film is set in the beautiful Savantvadi of Konkani Maharashtra. Shot with an eye for pleasing locales and generous space, the film is extremely easy on the eye with the simple yet breath-taking visuals of water, cliffs and greenery it offers. The quiet, wet roads of the quaint town beckon with an old world charm and the simplicity of the lead characters as well as their world befit the nicety of the overall experience.

The film commands some convincing performances from the fresh faces. A certain confidence in the simplicity of the film lends it a tightness despite it being low on drama or emotion. It is a rather unlikely and surprising piece of cinema on a weekend full of much-touted mass entertainers.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , ,
Comment

West is West – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
June 10, 2011

PRODUCER – Leslee Udwin
DIRECTOR – Andy deEmmony
WRITER – Ayub Khan-Din
CAST – Aqeeb Khan, Om Puri, Ila Arun, Linda Basset
MUSIC – Robert Lane

While the first part of the series espoused a certain screwball light-heartedness, West is West is a rather painful and serious study of ethnic identities and lost opportunities. Jahangir or George finds his teenage son becoming extremely wayward and takes him to his hometown in Pakistan to bring him in touch with his roots. The story of Jahangir is such – Jahangir is an NRI in London who left his homeland (Pakistan) and wife (who had borne him only daughters) to make a new and prosperous life. He gets himself another wife, an Englishwoman who gives him two sons. The elder one, Maneer is already in Pakistan close to his roots and now it is the time for the younger one, Sajid to reconnect.

Reconnect he does and with him we do too. Slowly Sajid opens up to the sights and smells of his Punjabi hometown with the loving guidance of Pirji and the friendship of Kamal. As he is settling into a sweet and comfortable reunion his father is re-opening old wounds. His coming back has shaken up the thirty year long dormant anger and pain of his first wife while the depth of her pains shocks him. As he confesses in the end, all his life he cared for his family back home and regularly sent them money and was satisfied in thinking he was a good man. But the hurt he faces on his return disturbs his self-satisfied world.

The film is strewn with multiple touches of complex relationships and personal choices that resonate in crippling ones identity. Both father and son find themselves within this journey of coming back. Life comes a full circle for Jahangir and both his wives as each confronts, accepts and moves on with their destinies.

The film commands strong performances from the ever-dependable Om Puri and multi-talented Ila Arun. It has touching moments of discovery and confrontation with pain and the writing and direction show a mature understanding of human relationships and the gender identities of men and women. A beautiful and lilting score completes this slice of niche realist cinema with its folk, traditional and Sufi music binding the narrative tight.

The film does not make all its characters lovable but their stories are strong and rooted. Although it captures native Pakistan with a Western documentarian eye, the earthiness is unmistakable. It may not be spell-binding and definitely is not a ‘time-pass’, West is West, unlike its name is rather a universal story of humans caught between two times, two nations and two choices.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Love Express – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
June 10, 2011

PRODUCER – Subash Ghai
DIRECTOR – Sunny Bhambhani
CAST – Sahil Mehta, Vikas Katyal, Mannat Ravi, Priyam Galav, Om Puri
MUSIC – Jaidev Kumar

Love Express is a romantic comedy of a couple who first tries hard to break their forced arranged marriage and then tries hard to get together. The couple is engaged and on their way to Mumbai for the wedding along with both their families. Stuck in their coupe with each other they hatch a plan to disrupt their wedding successfully. But soon enough they no longer want it that way.

The film is loud and garish with all the trappings of a Bollywood Marriage Film. It has obscenely over-dressed aunties, gossipy relatives and random song and dance sequences. It has humour but unfortunately which is rather forced and unpleasant. The film has a tacky packaging and it is as much a reflection of the middle class protagonists it showcases as it is of the sensibilities of the film itself.

It has a string of debut performances by a number of fresh faces and the lead pair impress with their presence. The remaining are an assorted bunch of unimpressive actors that sadly does not make for an entertaining or pleasing experience. Om Puri, the grandfather of the bride, plays his role with his usual panache but his stature is sadly reduced by the overall tackiness of the film.

The screenplay or the narrative has nothing to write home about either bordering on convenient and downright listless. Not much love in this express.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , ,
Comment

Little Big Soldier – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
June 5, 2011

PRODUCER – Jackie Chan, Solon So
DIRECTOR – Sheng Ding
WRITER – Jackie Chan
CAST – Jackie Chan, Leehom Wang and Rongguang Yu

The Little Big Soldier is one of those films that may or may not engage deeply while viewing but remain memorable for the experience it leaves you with. In culinary terms it is called the ‘after-taste’.

The film is set in the Warring States Period of China when the divided country’s states fought for supremacy over each other with bitter rivalry and aggression. The film starts at one such battle between the armies of Liang and Wei, a bloody ambush at the end of which only two men survive. An older foot soldier from the army of Liang (Jackie Chan) and a much-younger, high-ranking general of Wei (Leehom Wang) are the only two men alive. The Soldier takes the General hostage to win rewards from his native royalty and probably exemption from military service. The film travels with them through the merciless terrain of Yunnan till the shores of battle-ravaged Liang.

The film is an action-adventure-comedy said to have been in production for about twenty years. It is a long way for a film to travel but nowhere is this fact evident as the journey of the two continues through forests and dry stony lands. The film is woven through with a strong thread of patriotism and nationalism yet keeps its tone light and fluffy through the unequal relationship between the protagonists.

So Chan plays this earthy, low-brow, mild buffoon who is adept at survival using all of his faculties and Wang plays a hot-blooded General with a toughness and aggression keeping up the interest in their chemistry of opposites. The General’s people and younger brother are looking for him and the chase is as rustic and unsophisticated as the terrain. The screenplay recognises its setting and replays it in its events truthfully even using it well for drama, action and comedy.

The cinematography of this largely outdoors film is stunning with its desaturated colours almost making it look monochromatic. The visual appeal is in the portrayal of reality in the dryness and coldness that enveloped China in that troublesome period. The use of hand-held camera is extremely gripping and experiential helping the beautifully choreographed action and dramatic sequences many times over.

The film is rather slow and the comedy light. The focus of the film is more on the journey of the two than on the relationship which gives a sort of unfulfilled dryness until the end. It joins the several events that happen to the two during the travel with quirk, danger, drama and suspense. It comes together in the right tone yet does not let go of realism or emotion and makes the take-away worthwhile. It is imaginative and authentic, even if sluggish at times. Not Chan’s best, nor his typical fare either but worth taking something back home.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Ready – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
June 3, 2011

PRODUCER – Rajat Rawail, Bhushan Kumar, Nitin Manmohan, Kishan Kumar, Sohail Khan
DIRECTOR – Anees Bazmee
WRITER – Salim Khan (Story) Rajiv Kaul, Rajan Agarwal, Ikram Akhtar (Screenplay)
CAST – Salman Khan, Asin, Paresh Rawal, Anuradha Patel, Mahesh Manjrekar
MUSIC – Pritam Chakraborty, Devi Shri Prasad

Who is exactly ‘ready’ for what is not quite clear in the film but the film itself is quite a ready entertainer. It is a remake of the Telugu super-hit film of the same name, and many a times seems like along with the plot it has carried those sensibilities home too.

So Prem (Salman Khan, who else but him can be behind that name?) is a good-for-nothing and his family guruji predicts marriage to one Pooja as an answer to all his wayward ways. Meanwhile, Sanjana (Asin) is busy running away from her forced marriage and lands up at Prem’s doorstep impersonating the real Pooja. They fight and promptly fall in love but soon trouble lands in the form of Sanjana’s two uncles who want to lay hands on her inheritance by getting her married to their sons. The now-in-love Prem steps up to sort matters and set everyone in line. He does that with the help of his ever-supportive family and Balidaan Bhardwaj (Paresh Rawal) that is a treat to watch even if the loud-ness and crassness is a pity.

There we have said it. Ready is loud and crass but not as woefully cheap as some of the director’s previous films. It has some genuine laughs and twists that keep the ride going even if at times it isn’t as pleasing as it is meant to be. The quirky screenplay keeps the jokes going one after another in a range of screwball, goofy humour at times self-parodying (In a hilarious sequence Asin imagines Prem removing his shirt and showing off his muscles, a joke on the now-regular act of the star) and also taking digs at contemporaries (An action sequence begins with Prem landing on the table in the same stance as Shahrukh Khan is shown to do in Ra.One promos).

So is the pot pourri funny? Yes, if one is able to remember the million characters in the film with their names and functions and relationships while one is also keeping track of the million plot twists. There are songs that sprout of nowhere and one-liners that range from silly to forced to funny. The production values are stunning and the performances helpful. There is a chemistry between the family members and except the to-be-redeemed villains, Akhilendra Mishra and Sharat Saxena, everyone steers clear of loudness or over-acting including Asin. Salman Khan plays his character nice and light infusing it with some quirk here and some nicety there. He isn’t the lovable rogue here and that’s a change to watch. Paresh Rawal and Mahesh Manjrekar perform with conviction and energy and so do Anuradha Patel and Manoj Joshi.

If toilet jokes do not offend you then there is quite a bit of colour and humour to please in this one. But if you like your movies ‘correct’ and authentic then just remember this is that type of a movie whose characters, are fully conscious and functional even while in coma, just to provide laughs.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Hannah – Review

Filed Under: First thoughts, Reviews — Fatema — Comments Off
June 3, 2011

PRODUCER – Marty Adelstein, Leslie Holleran, Scott Nemes
DIRECTOR – Joe Wright
WRITER – Seth Lochhead, David Farr
CAST – Saoirse Ronan, Eric Bana, Cate Blanchett
MUSIC – Tom Rowlands and Ed Simons (as The Chemical Brothers)

Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) is a teen who fights well, ruthless to her opponents, a store-house of knowledge and on a mission to kill Marissa (Cate Blanchett). Marissa and Eric, Hanna’s father (Eric Bana) are rogue spies and have unfinished business left to be done. Hanna wants to finish that business now.

When we meet Hanna she is a protected child in the snows of Eastern Europe, brought up away from civilisation so much so that she knows music only from its definition. As the movie continues Hanna learns a little more of the ways of the world but the stakes get higher when the hunter becomes hunted. Does she accomplish her mission?

The film is a thriller and tells Hanna’s story with backhanded strokes. It balances vignettes of slow-moving experience as well as fast-paced action. It takes us with Hanna into the world of a novice who is a stranger to these experiences. To see a fifteen year old who defends herself like a pro and kills with stunning coldness fumbling in social situations is interesting. But the film does not make a point of it. It is a grim world where humour does not have much place. So Hanna’s first tryst with the modern world is almost traumatic and rightly so.

The film is largely the chase where Eric and Marissa are looking for each other and Marissa’s goons are chasing Hanna while she runs to save her life. While it is a tepid and largely predictable chase that even gets convenient at times, the world it creates is its own and original. If not for the pace it is an experience to immerse in the world it creates.

If not for the unimaginative plot the film could have been memorable. The set-up is fantastic and locales exotic. Hanna takes us with her from the snowy mountains of Eastern Europe to Morocco and Germany. She also acquaints us with local Arabic hospitality and a quirky British family. But the film lies in its hunt and that unfortunately, is mechanical, cliché and largely convenient. The plot twists, complicates and resolves itself without logic or chance threading the events. Portions of information are left unexplained giving the movie a rather tacky premise than the solid foundation it intended.

Talent like Cate Blanchett and Eric Bana seem undermined in this well-mounted but badly scripted film. Cate delivers an intense and controlled performance bottling venom, frustration and anger in her largely scowling persona. Yet it becomes uni-dimensional as the film pans out and her role refuses to rise up from that of a formidable opponent leaving out the whys and wherefores of her character. While Eric has little to do in the film Hanna delivers her role with equal parts grit and vulnerability and it is largely this charm that carries the movie ahead.

The music of the film is worth mentioning with its edgy beats and contemporary tunes. Despite the authenticity of its settings and the consistency of its tone the film refuses to become a visceral experience neither it is an intellectual ride. With the ‘thriller’ experience missing, the film comes to a naught and that is probably saying it all.

Originally published here

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment
Powered by Blog.com