meghal Reviews

Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

Where is the story?

[2/10 · 8 January 2023]

Seems that after spending money and time on special effects, animation, technology and character make-up and costumes, the studio ran out of money for script writers. After spending 3,5 hours in theatre, you are left with thinking "What the hell was that chaos about"?

The movie picks up where the first movie ended. The problem is that the movie never progresses past the initial introduction.

This movie reminds of all the Bollywood "masala" movies of 70s and 80s. Characters avenging their the death of their loved ones, the "sweet and gentle at heart" characters, clansman ship, animals remembering their past and helping the characters at time of peril ("Haathi Mere Saathi", "Maa" or "Teri Meherbaaniyaan"). All the sub-plots in this movie have been done to death by Bollywood.

Yes. We understand the allegory here - about European invasion of America. But that allegory is fun to watch when it is subtle - not drilled on the viewers' forehead by the director. Yes - we can see that James Cameron suffers from "white guilt", but he does not need to spend 3.5 hours to show that.

I hope the next Mr. Cameron tries to focus more on script and less on the technology on Avatar 3.

PK (2014)

Pathetic excuse for movie

[2/10 · 24 September 2018]

I avoided all the hype surrounding this movie, and instead waited until it was on Netflix, four years after its release. I am glad I didn't spend my hard earned money on this piece of trash.

There is a song from the 1959 movie "Dhool ka Phool", which goes as "Tu Hindu Banega Na Musalman Banega, Insaan Ki Aulaad Hai Insaan Banega", the gist of which is "One is just a human being irrespective of his/her religious upbringing". The movie takes this idea and stretches into a 2.5 hour worth of torture.

The movie borrows its opening from "The Terminator", where an alien is sent to earth and hence, is completely naked. The rest of the movie is just the message "All religions are absurd, all humans are same" hammered again and again, until one looks forward for the movie to end.

On his planet, the alien can communicate with fellow planet-people just by touching each other. Yet, this alien has the ability of vision, speech and hear sounds. We will let the evolutionary biologists discuss the intricacies of such evolutionary abnormality.

The movie uses all the tired cliches to drive its point

Foreign locales - check Boy-girl romance - check Indo-Pak relationship - check Hindu-Muslim love - check Comedy - check Emotions - check Dysfunctional father - daughter relationship - check

Some of the events in movie take place in Bruges. I still don't understand what Bruges had to do with entire movie. Those events could have happened in Bombay or Karachi and could have still been relevant.

Bollywood is not very well-known for being subtle in its movies, and this movie is no exception. In every scene, we are reminded about the inconsistency between the religious beliefs and religion being of no relevance to daily living.

Acting wise - every major actor seems to think that one has to over act-over emote to be known as good actor. Nothing is normal - everything is over-the-top in the movie. Aamier wears a permanent exclamation on his face - yes Aaamir, we get it - you cannot understand the way people function on the planet. But I thought that after spending few weeks in Delhi, you might get used to the absurdity of life - at least an intelligent person would.

Anyway, the movie appealed to masses and has raked in millions. So at this point, finding faults with this movie is moot. But if you still haven't watched movie, do yourself a favour, and instead spend time with your loved ones, pursue a hobby or just enjoy the life. You will be much happier.

Tees Maar Khan (2010)

Bollywood of 2010 and beyond

[1/10 · 13 October 2013]

After having read negative reviews about this movie and seeing it in the bottom 100 list on IMDb, I decided to try out this movie. Obviously, it wasn't worth spending even a single cent on a movie that has Akshay Kumar as the main lead and is trashed universally. I was lucky enough to be able to borrow this movie from the public library.

The movie sets its low standards right from the opening credits - a dancing foetus in scenes that are just a rip-off from opening credits of Bond movies. The movie just keeps trying to fathom the abyss of movie making and never tries to redeem itself. Reminds me of what late Roger Ebert wrote about "Freddy Got Fingered" - "This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels." There is nothing in this movie that is worth mentioning - because this movie lacks anything that has semblance to the art of movie making - acting / story / direction / dialogues. This movie does not even fall in the category "so bad it is good". The movie is just based on the recent Bollywood premise that if you hire popular actors, spend money on promotion and promote it as a "brainless entertainer", there is a certain demographic that will flock to theatre to spend their (or their parent's) hard earned money. It is just like flipping a coin - some movies end as winners, some end being losers. Equally disappointing is the fact that movies that were released after "Tees Maar Khan" have followed this formula and have earned big bucks.

I do not have any admiration for Akshay Kumar's acting skills since I saw "Deedar" in theatres 20 years ago. And after 20 years, his wooden face and expressions haven't changed a bit. To expect any acting from Katrina would be akin to expect that mortal can create miracles and cure human beings. But what is painful is to see talented actors like Anjan Shrivastav, Sudhir Pandey or Apara Mehta in roles that are an insult to their acting talents. And somehwere along the lines I have a suspicion that this movie, although credits Farah Khan as director, is ghost directed by her hubby, Shirish Kunder (who has four or five other credits to his name in this movie). Farah has done a decent job in "Om Shanti Om".

I have given one star only because a)IMDb does not allow negative star ranking b) you can see Farah's choreography skills in the "Sheela" song.

The Big Bang Theory (2007–2019)

Already showing the signs of deterioration

[8/10 · 1 January 2013]

As an engineer, the line that drew me to this show was the "Engineers - the Oompa Loompas of Science" by the character of Sheldon Cooper. Since then, PVRing and watching the reruns has become an integral part of my TV viewing habits. The writers are not ashamed about praising the bright, clever and nerds and showing a contempt towards the ordinary, mundane and kitsch.

My exposure to American television has been limited to sitcoms - Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, Seinfeld, Frasier, Cheers. Most of these shows have maintained their quality for first 8-9 season before they lose their freshness, charm and intelligence. Sadly, for TBBT, the decline has started right in the fourth season. From a clever and intelligent comedy show, it has just turned into a comedy show - resting on past laurels. People still laugh just because the show used to be funny.

The physics jokes and references are long gone. The writers now resort to gags, fart jokes and gay/lesbian entendres to forcibly invoke humour. The characters are still physicists, but they hardly seem to discuss any kind of sciences these days. Addition of extraneous characters (Bernadette's parents, for example), just adds to the tedium and frustration. However, the major decline has come in the formation of the character of Sheldon Cooper - from a stoic physicists to a buffoon. The dialogue and character writers initially set the standards so high, that they are now finding impossible to reach those standards season after season. They have turned Sheldon Cooper into a modern day "Kramer" - invoking laughter just by gags. While Kramer gags worked because of a solid dialogues, TBBT writers have nothing to back up for Sheldon's antics.

Just like Simpsons, the show still subsists because there seem to be enough viewers to maintain the ratings. It seems that the creators of this show are still intoxicated with the show's success. But lovers of intelligent comedy will soon wash their hands of this show, I assume.

Detropia (2012)

A lopsided view of Detroit

[5/10 · 7 October 2012]

Saw this documentary at its Toronto screening - wasn't very impressed by the content. By carefully selecting the interviewees and the target demographic, the film maker somehow tends to sensationalise the issue of the decline in Detroit's population.

Most of the characters that appear in documentary are African-American, work in auto industry and appear to come from a lower middle class background. Somehow the filmmaker conveniently chooses to ignore the middle class who might also be affected by the downturn in auto-industry but is still surviving.

However, the main points that sticks out like a sore thumb is the American hubris. The refusal to acknowledge the fact that Americans no longer rule the auto-manufacturing sector. A character in the movie riles about how Chinese can produce a car at almost half the price of an American car and how this will impact the car industry, not acknowledging the fact that the Japanese has already caused the decline of American car industry.

The mayor of the city comes with a novel idea of moving the suburban population to the inner city and using the available land for farming. But that idea is ridiculed by the characters appearing in the movie. When you are drowning and somebody throws you a lifeline, you accept it. Change is an inevitable part of life and it is time Americans accept it.

I am not sure if the film makers idea was to raise sympathy for the characters affected by the decline of auto industry, but if that was the case, they seem to hardly deserve any sympathy.

P.S. - After visiting IMDb, I realised that this is the same film maker who gave us the wonderful "Jesus Camp". While I enjoyed "Jesus Camp", "Detropia" failed to impress me.

Khoya Khoya Chand (2007)

A two hour drivel

[4/10 · 1 January 2011]

It is difficult to fathom the minds of Indian directors - what drives them to create period movies with stories that are still relevant in 21st century. Whether it is Vidhu Chopra's "1942 - A Love Story" or Sudhir Mishra's "Khoya Khoya Chand". With too much focus on recreating the past, the story takes a back seat and as a result, the movie fails to impress.

Time to time, Bollywood keeps making movies about itself - mainly the struggle for new comers and its dirty ongoings, right from Guru Dutt's "Kaagaz Ke Phool" to Zoya Akhtar's "Luck By Chance" (Best among the crop being Hrishikesh Mukherjee's "Guddi"). Sudhir Mishra takes one step further - he makes a movie about 1950's Bollywood. He tries to cram everything into a story - new comer struggle, casting couch, art v/s mainstream cinema, etc., etc. But while putting so much efforts to recreate that "magical era", the story, the dialogues and the character development takes a back seat. The result is just a movie that seems to be going nowhere.

The movie centres around Nikhat, an actress, played by Soha Ali and Zafar, a script writer/novelist/director/producer played by Shiny Ahuja. The movie centres around the ups and downs in their relationship, and between other characters along a time period. However, crammed with corny dialogues, annoying stereotype characters and clichéd situations, the movie drags right from the start. After a while, you just don't care what happens to the characters. Inconsistencies and loopholes are galore. Since the main characters have a Muslim background, it is customary to speak "khalis Urdu" and observe that "tehzeeb". However after few scenes, all that mannerism seems to disappear in thin air. The height of ridiculousness comes when to show her alcoholism, the director shows Soha Ali in a car parked on Bombay street side and Soha enjoying a glass of hooch.

The character of Shiny is supposed to be some kind of deep brooding, which he plays to an annoying extreme. It reminds me of similar character played by Akshay Khanna in "Dil Chahta hai". But speaking in a slow baritone voice doesn't make you an intellectual, it just makes you look a phony.

This movie somehow reminds me of Scorsese's "The Aviator". In "Aviator" however, with emphasis on recreating past, the director did not lose focus on the basic element for a good movie - a strong solid storyline. With "Khoya Khoya Chand" however, no such hope exists,sadly. The only positive aspect that I did not spend any money to watch this drivel, a simple walk to public library is all the effort that I put in watching this movie. I still gave 4 starts to the movie, as there are still movies that are worse than this and are still popular and made big monies at box office.

Religulous (2008)

Take on World Religion?? My foot!!

[4/10 · 16 August 2010]

It is difficult to classify this movie. It is certainly not a documentary, it is not a feature film. It could be classified more with "Borat" - something that resembles a reality TV and is supposed to shock the viewer due to its offensive content.

The biggest problem I have with this movie is that Bill Maher does not try to get into intelligent discourse with the religious leaders. He just asks provocative questions to people who do not seem to have proper grip over the philosophy of Christianity. He picks the interviewees that are most vulnerable and easy to poke fun at. As with any movie, this seems to be edited to include only the portion that gels with Maher's belief. It fails to show the other side of all the arguments. He also confines himself within the comfort of his own country most of the time, with few takes here and there in Holland, Britian and Israel. IMDb's plot summary describes this movie as "Bill Maher's take on world religion". However, except for poking fun at Christianity and Judaism, he hardly confronts any Islamic leader, and totally ignores Hinduism and Buddhism. He seems to be oblivious to the fact that civilization does exist in Asia, Africa and South America.(a typical American trait ;-))

The second problem I have with people like Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins is that they are so firm in their belief in Atheism that they themselves become fanatic like any religious zealots and seems to get provoked when anybody questions their disbelief in God. This is an another extreme of fanaticism. Why does your bad experience with a certain religion makes all the religions evil? Why can't rationality and faith exist together?

This movie is a popcorn flick and should be watched purely for its entertainment and shock value. For documentaries that deals with more serious issues, there are always CBC documentaries on Sunday nights.

Rocket Singh: Salesman of the Year (2009)

Bollywood getting mature

[9/10 · 28 December 2009]

With a funny sounding name and Ranbir Kapoor as a lead character, I assumed that this might be one of the popcorn movies that target the college going demographics, who want a "time pass" movie. But boy I was wrong.

This movie is not a typical Bollywood movie. There are no spoilt rich college kids, characters do not hangout at McDonalds or other "hip" joints, no designer clothes, no gaudy weddings and "balle balle" dances, characters do not break into a song every 5 minutes. There are no "Rahuls" and "Priyas" and "Poojas".

The movie deals with the issue of business ethics - especially ethics in sales and its importance in customer relations. The hero - who is almost a failure in studies, but has very high moral standards, tries to fight and survive in the dog-eat dog world of selling assembled computers.

The story line is taut, focused and do not deviate from the main theme, the direction is excellent. In directorial terms, Rocket Singh is far ahead of Chak De India. I think that has more to do with storyline.

The only weak point is an unnecessary love angle - the director could have complete avoided that character. Also, the storyline could have avoided a predictable mushy ending

Also, why does characters have to swear so much - "s**t" word is careless tossed around in the movie, while the female characters uses the word "a@@&**e". Is swearing in English considered to be "hip and cool" while criticising Vishal Bhardwaj for using Hindi swear words in "Omkara"?

But the real show stealer is Ranbir Kapoor. He breathes life into the role of computer salesman. He gets into the skin of character, he is not afraid playing a role of loser and does not look uncomfortable speaking Hindi or Punjabi. I hope he gets a nomination for this role.

9/10 - 8 would have been fine, but 9 because it is a Yash Chopra production and still avoid all the clichés of Yashraj banners.

Jaane Tu... Ya Jaane Na (2008)

A typical Naseer Hussain movie

[7/10 · 8 December 2009]

Welcome to that magical Bombay city, where everybody is rich and can afford magnificent houses with lawns (not flats), where even a son of a widowed mother (vidhava maa ka eklauta beta - Naseer Hussain special) can afford to go to a night club, where horses and carriages roam freely on streets, where characters hangout in suburb but go to a night club in downtown, where the roads are deserted at night and hero has the courage to escort the heroine at midnight near the deserted library (near Fort), where being artist means growing a beard, wearing an earring and uttering absurd dialogues, where the security at international airport is so lax that anybody can run to the departure gate and sing a song without getting shot, where the characters do not have to worry about finding a job after they graduate. The only upset one can face in life is a break-up from love one.

Nasir Hussain movies are always about escapist entertainment and Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na is no different. In 60s, it was Asha Parekh and Joy Mukherjee dancing to OP Naiyyar music in hill stations, now you have Imraan Khan and Genelia dancing to ARR's music in Bombay. The director has tried hard to add glitz and glamour and modern day touch to an age old story, but the soul remains the same.

There is nothing new in the story. Girl and boy are already together. By the time they realise that they are in love, it is too late. So the chase begins..

Considering the fact that Mansoor Khan and Aamir Khan are credited as producers of this movie, it is disappointing to see them following a time-tested safe formula. Music by A R Rehman is top notch, but the songs are ill-placed in the movie and tend to hamper the flow of story. The only saving grace comes in form of Naseeruddin Shah and Ratna Pathak, although I was never able to figure out the Ratna Pathak's exact occupation - is she a social worker? A human right activist? A lawyer?

A 6.5/10 - just for the music, pretty faces and the polished look of the movie.

Taken (I) (2008)

Sunny Deol, I owe you an apology

[1/10 · 5 May 2009]

Sunny Deol, I owe you an apology!!

When I saw you in Gadar single handedly fighting the entire Pakistani Army, I thought, Gadar did not deserve that much praise and money as it earned. Until I saw Taken.

SPOILERS ***************************************************** Taken is a Hollywood's reply to Bollywood. The basic premise is same - get a loved one (of "weaker" sex) captured by bad guys, then have our hero go overseas, fight the enemies and bring back the girl. Add to it, some mushy crap like a divorced father, a daughter who dumps a cheap gift by biological father over an expensive gift given by step dad, a teenager who has the latest phone but still is old fashioned enough to have a map in her bag with the journey route clearly marked on the map carelessly stashed in the bag so that dad can find it.

The entire movie is just an exercise to show the superhero antics of a middle aged Liam Neeson, who is intelligent than the entire Paris police crew. The enemies are stupid enough to trust a French police officer who speaks impeccable English with an American accent. If it is not the Russians, these time it is the Albanians and Arabs who are the bad guy. The hero breaks all the traffic rules to reach the target and yet not one police officer is able to catch him.

So if Taken can earn 8 stars on IMDb and generate millions of dollars in Box office revenue, why not Gadar?? If Liam Neeson can, why can't Sunny Deol?

Sorry again, Sunny!!

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

What a waste!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[1/10 · 9 October 2006]

This movie is a classic example of how bad Hollywood movies can be. It falls into same category as 8 mm starring Nicholas Cage (predicatable storyline) or an attempt to cash in the celebrity status of the on-screen duo (Gigli).

*****************Spoiler***************************************** The only interesting portion of this movie is the opening sequence involving dialogues between the marriage counselor and the couple. The movie then shows the boring live of a suburban couple which serves as a camouflage for actual identity of the couple. Surprisingly enough, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie lives in a mansion that could give event the wealthiest suburbanites a severe inferiority complex. They drive the most expensive cars and still Angelina Jolie cooks the dinner (a gardener to cut the lawn but no house maid/butler to cook and serve the food and do the dishes) - although an explanation is given for the absence of cook in late part of the movie.

This movie is more suited to 70s Bollywood with Amitabh playing the role of Brad Pitt and Zeenat Aman playing the role of Angelina Jolie. Sadly, Brad is no Amitabh. He tries hard to play the role of a spy performing daredevil stunt, but there too, lacks the charm of Pierce Brosnan.

The movie has no solid storyline to write about. It becomes as predictable as it can get. The chicks, who serves as sidekick to Angelina Jolie looks ridiculous in their black outfits, mouthing dialogues full of technical jargon. Vince Vaughn as Brad's buddy, is totally wasted in an inconsequential role.

Don't waste your time and money on this movie if you want to see a good thriller movie. You can re-rent "Pulp Fiction" or "Reservoir Dogs" instead. This movie can only be watched with your friends on an evening, when there is nothing else to do and you want to spend some fun time together.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

The critics are proved wrong - once again

[9/10 · 22 May 2006]

The critics prove themselves wrong again. If opening collections of any movie are a barometers of its quality, than the box-office collections of Da Vinci code speak for themselves. The second best opening next only to Star Wars.

I haven't read the book, nor I am familiar with the European history, so I do not know as to how much justice, the scriptwriter has done to the original story, but as a thriller, Da Vinci Code is successful in making you glued to your seat for two and half hours.

The strength of the movie lies in its script. The direction and photography are excellent. The sights of London and Paris are a visual treat for somebody who has not visited those places. The movie moves at a satisfactory pace - not to slow to test your patience, nor too fast to leave you baffled.

The only minor disappointment is in form of Tom Hanks, as his character does not demand any extraordinary acting abilities. Having said that, it does not mean that even Adam Sandler or Ban Affleck would have been able to play the character of Robert Langden, but maybe it is the script and the story, that puts restriction on the character of Tom Hanks.

On the whole, the movie was fully worth my $8.95 and two and half hours of my Sunday evening. I would not mind watching the movie again.

Rang De Basanti (2006)

A hard-hitting film - a masterpiece

[10/10 · 11 February 2006]

Most of the movies remains with you only until the closing credits start rolling down on the screen. Rarely do you come across a movie that haunts you for a long time after you leave the theatre. "Rang De Basanti" falls into the second category.

The story of the protagonist(s) taking law into their own hands is not new to silver screen. Amitabh has done it umpteen times during his "angry young" days, Om Puri did it in "Ardh Satya", Nana Patekar repeated the act in "Ankush" and "Prahaar". But it is the treatment and the contemporary touch given to "Rang De.." that makes it fall apart from the other movies.

This movie does not have the shallow patriotism of Manoj Kumar movies, neither it has the hollow feeling of morality depicted in "Dev" or "Bombay". It is a very down to earth movie that asks the same question again - the purpose of life of an average Indian and the corrupt system.

I entered the theatre expecting it to be some kind of either a biography of Chandrashekhar Azaad/Bhaghat Singh, or some antics of so called "collegeians". But right from the opening scenes do you realize that you are not watching a typical "run-of-the-mill" kind of movie. The setup of the movie is Delhi University - but there are no sissy principals, no stupid professors, students do not dance in the corridors. In fact, college is just used as a sort of backdrop to show the contemporary youth of India.

The story goes likes this. Sue, a movie-maker, who is grand-daughter of a jailer during British rule comes to India to make a movie based on lives of freedom fighters. She has a hand written diary, handed down by her grand-father,which accounts the details of last days of these freedom fighters. How she manages to shoot the movie and how the movie affects the life of the "actors" who enact the roles - forms the crux of the movie. Since I have not seen Denys Arcand's Jesus De Montreal, it would be difficult to tell as to how heavily does "Ran De.." borrows from "Jesus.." But for Indian spectators, "Rang De.." sure brings a change from the routine cinema.

Rakesh Mehra proves , that you do not need the lavish plains of Europe or Alpine backdrops to make a successful movie. There are no designer outfits, no lavish sets and homes, no BMWs. The actors are as "next door" as they can be. The good part is - there are no songs that ruin the pace of movie. Songs are only there when they are needed and do not obstruct the flow of the story.

The movie is in two parts - One that depicts the life of Chandrashekhar Azaad, Ram Prasad Bismil, Bhagat Singh and his fellow freedom fighters. The other part depicts the moral dilemma that the actors face after having gone into the "skin" of these characters. But these two parts are very cleverly interwoven, without any shoddy patchwork. The "past" has been deftly shot in the "sepia" , which really sets the tone of the "documentary". The story frequently switches between the past and the present, and this switch is very skilfully handled.

The photography is one of the foremost strength of this movie. Whether it is the friends hanging out in an old fort or whether it is the Golden Temple in Amritsar - the cameraman has done excellent job. It proves once again, that the good movies should be always seen in theatres, not on a TV.

All the actors have given their best. It is difficult to point out any particular performance. Although, I believe Aamir sometimes goes on top, re-enacting his "tapori" kind of role in Rangeela. Even though it is Soha Ali Khan's sixth movie (as per IMDb), her acting shows a lot of maturity. The only disappointment comes in form of Om Puri, who has a very brief role.

AR Rehman once again reaffirms his position as the topmost music directors of recent times. Music has a contemporary feel - yet it is not jarring to ears. Nowhere does the music overpowers the movie. Still it is very effectively used to set the mood of the movie.

To summarize, it is after long time (perhaps after "Lagaan") that Indian screen has seen such a masterpiece. Hope it sweeps all the awards during the next year, and maybe get nominated for Oscar. Let us keep our fingers crossed and pray....

In Cold Blood (1967)

The precious two hours of my weekend that I am never going to get back

[1/10 · 20 November 2005]

Me and my friend went to see the movie "Capote". However, the show was sold out, and we ended up watching "In Cold Blood" at his home (which incidentally is based on Capote's book).

He told me it was a new movie, so I thought at least it would be in colour. But damn, as soon as the credits started, I realized it was a black and white movie.

Well, I thought at least the plot would be engaging. Now, I am not an expert on Hollywood movies, but still like to watch movies that makes you rivetted on your seat. But for first 15-20 minutes I had no idea what is going on. Add to it, the main characters continuously using slangs, and I was already uncomfortable in my cosy sofa.

I am a generation X'er, and recently exposed to fast paced and slick movies such as Kill Bill, Ocean's Eleven, Matrix to name a few. So this movie obviously tasted my patience. Add to it the stern faced Robert Blake, which continuously reminded me of Sunil Dutt's character in Mother India. I believe that you do not have to remain stiff to play a cold blooded killer. YOu can be as smooth as Dr. Hannibal Lecter, and still be a cold-hearted killer.

To cut long story short, the movie finally ended and so ended my misery, and I was back to my home, thinking about my ruined weekend evening

Veer-Zaara (2004)

Women's lib!!!!!!!!!!! at last

[5/10 · 17 December 2004]

I do not had any high expectations from Veer Zaara. I know how Yash CHopra's movies are meant to be, larger than life, glossy, but devoid of soul (perhaps Silsila was exception). I wanted to watch Veer Zaara for two reasons. It had been a long time since I had seen a Hindi movie. Second, music was by Madan Mohan, and although it was not great music, just wanted to pay homage to one of my favourite MDs.

SO here I go, driving 30 kms to Mississsauga/Oakville border, on a rainy-snowy late evening. The route was unknown to me, and all the road signs had been covered by snow. But still I took right turn at the right road, and landed in AMC theatres. I was bit late, but the movie started as soon as I took my seat, so did not miss anything.

The movie is shot in Gulzar "ishtyle". Starting with the present, and than periods of flashback and return to present, and ultimately, the grand finale.

The story is nothing new to talk about. It is an age old story of boy-meets-girls, falls in love, then the usual stuff "Yeh Shaadi Nahin Ho Sakti", then the chewed-to-death theme of "ghar and khandaan ki izzat", then the usual sacrifice and how high it is valued in Indian culture, then the usual gloom, then the "O-Henry twist" and then as it says in Gujarati, "Khaadun, Pidhun Ne Raaj Karyun (And the prince and princess lived happily ever after).

I am not very clear about Yash Chopra's obsession with sacrificing lovers, or Aditya Chopra's fixation with "maa baap ki agyaa" in marriage.

Poor Amitabh had to give up Raakhi in "Kabhi Kabhi" as he could not think of going against "maa baap ki asha and umeed". Poor guy again had to get married to Jaya in Silsila just out of moral duty, and forget about Rekha. Even after brief extra-marital affair with Rekha, he had to give "balidaan" of his feelings, and has to get tied down with Jaya.

So "Veer Zaara" is no different than "Kabhi Kabhi". It just takes a single heart attack to Boman Irani and few tears from Kiron Kher, to make Shahrukh change his mind and give up on his love and his feelings, and accept 22 years of imprisonment.

Damn it!!!!!!!!!All directors of Bollywood should be given a lesson in respecting a young person feelings. All Bollywood characters (actually Story - Screenplay writers) should be made to repeat the sentence "I will not kill my feelings" million times, till they give up the whole "drame-baazi" of "icchaaon ki qurbani", and have the guts to run away from home and revolt against parents, just for the sake of their own feelings. It is 21st century, and it is so archaic to think about sacrifice. (Hey, isn't that what Raj Kapoor endorse in 1971 in Bobby?? Yeah, but seems Raj Kapoor does not know much about Indian "values and culture")

Surprise, Surprise - Yash Chopra has only recently found out about women's lib and woman's empowerment. So no wonder, that it takes just a few words of wisdom from Preity Zinta to make Amitabh change his mind to build a girls school in some remote village of Punjaab. Cut and paste those dialogues on Rani Mukherjee, and now you have some jailer and Anupam Kher dropping down their weapons. Well well, so Mr. Yash Chopra, what are those woman's rights doing, when Preity Zinta is forced to marry against her will. Isn't the same thing a human rights violation? But if Preity Zinta starts talking about women's rights just before interval, how are we going to drag the movie for 3 hours?

So again, we have Shahrukh doing the reenactment of his DDLJ role, traveling to Pakistan to get his love, only to return empty-handed. What else he can do? He is just a puppet in hands of Aditya Chopra (Story-Screenplay-Dialogues) who won't let him develop the guts of fighting against the society just for the protecting his feelings (One thing is for sure - Aditya is kind enough on us - poor audiences - as to not make Shahrukh a-la Sunny Deol in "Gadar" - fighting single handedly against Pakistan army - thanks a zillion for that). But yeah, but now Indo-Pak relations have improved, and hence we cannot depict Pakistanis as villains.

And what is this directors fixation with rain? Shahrukh-Preity meet - it is raining, they depart - it is raining, they meet again - it is raining. So what is rain supposed to symbolize. That too, when you can clearly see the sunlight in background. Thank God, the camera man is not stupid enough to show us the sprinklers. Seems as if the characters are based in Cherrapunji rather than an arid Lahore.

Technical snags - lots of - starting with the starting scene out of Shahrukh's cell, which is clearly an artist's impression of Lahore instead of real Lahore, "Natraj" pencils on Judge's dais, big downpours while sun is still shining, characters uttering the word "cool" in early 80s (presuming that present is 2004), the accused seating on bench and having the liberty of going to the exit of court, lawyer having the ability to meet the convict right in his cell and bringing food for the culprit. Never in the movie can you realize of figure out that 22 years have passed by. Everything still feels the same, the hairstyle, the clothes.

But there is one thing for which Yash Chopra needs to be sincerely applauded. He does not fall into the trap of giving a contemporary feeling, with characters speaking "cool" and "s***" at end of every dialogues and eating McBurgers and drinking Coke. There are no Mercs-BMWs-foreign locales, no tulips (mustard or "sarson" has taken the place of tulips). No internet-e-mails.

Performance wise - none of the roles require special acting abilities. Shahrukh Khan plays Shahrukh Khan, the egocentric self. He told in an interview in rediff "I sleep walk through romantic roles". One should praise his candour. Preity Zeinta has a bit of "ameer baap ki eklauti bigdi beti" role, which she plays without any glitch. Rani Mukherjee is wasted in an inconsequential role. The biggest and pleasant surprise is the special appearance of Bacchan and Hema Malini.

So critics like me will continue to find faults with each and every movie produced by Chopras, public will praise and love them. Awards will be showered for best performance as side kick, or best performance as heroine's "saheli". Producers-distributors-theatre owners will make addition to their bank balance. And Yash Chopra will announce one more movie starring Shahrukh.........

Cellular (2004)

A "ride" spoiled by the script

[4/10 · 15 September 2004]

When I saw the trailers for "Cellular", I was under the hope of seeing another thriller, on the lines of "Speed". An unknown call, an abducted woman - the plot seemed to be interesting.

However, what had a potential to be an "edge-of-the-seat" thriller, instead, turns out to be a comical or farcical ride, full of glitches and coincidences. This movie is a "popcorn fare", targeted for teenage audiences.

Nowhere in the movie can you feel the stress of Kim Bassinger. The hero seems to be enjoying his ride rather than enduring the pain of performing his moral duty. William Macy is totally wasted in an insignificant role.

It is hard to imagine that a guy is riding a car in LA violating all the rules of traffic, and not a single police is present to follow or capture him. He enters the road in wrong direction, creates a huge pile-up, and escapes scot-free. Also, there are no other police stations in his entire journey. The only police station, he manages to enter, has police who are busy chasing other trouble makers.

Once the mystery is revealed, the only curiosity remaining is how the bad guys gets punished.

Kim Basinger does a "Hollywood Meenakumari or Nirupa Roy" - she has nothing to do in the movie except crying. William Macy is more busy in his wife's beauty salon than to chase the goons. The whole story is centred around the main young guy, who has nothing to offer as far as acting or action skills are concerned.

I watched movie on the first day, in accompaniment of teenagers. And they seem to be laughing their way into the movie, rather than sympathizing with the victims.

In nutshell - avoidable. Better watch "Speed" on TV for nth time

Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)

Never believe the critics

[7/10 · 22 August 2004]

If I had seen avoided this movie based on critics ratings, I would have sure missed a good movie.

If you are looking for some soul searching or diving experience, this movie is not for you. But if you are looking for a good thriller, and a good way to spend your weekend evening, this movie is for you.

I had seen the original Exorcist when it was re-released in 2001, and did not find it scary. I felt it was too overblown. Now that I did not have high expectations from the prequel, I enjoyed the movie.

Agreed, that the technical portion leaves much to be desired. The settings do not look real, and look more like cardboard cutouts, the horror effects are only limited to violent shaking and blood-gore, but it is much better than psychological thrillers like Mulholland Drive or THe Unbreakable, where you tear out your hair in frustration, waiting for action to happen.

After being terribly disappointed by movies like "The Eternal Sunshine of Spotless Mind" and "Being John Malkovich", I hardly care what critics has to say. If I enjoy the movie, it is worth it.

Ishq Vishk (2003)

Storyline from 60's repeated again in 21st century

[4/10 · 8 August 2004]

Yesterday, I watched the movie "Ishq Vishq" for the first time on TV, and was surprised to see how this movie was hit or popular?

It is not that it is a bad movie, or I would have never watched the movie completely. But what is surprising is that there is no storyline to tell, or even if it has the story, it is the same old story - same case of old wine in new bottle. Boy meets girl in college, here it is the turn of boy to reject girl's feelings, and then ultimately coming to terms. So what is new here?

The movie has the feeling of "deja vu" in its entire run. In 60s, Shammi Kapoor (and his clones) tried to woo Asha Parekh on tunes of OP Naiyyar, in 70s it was turn of Rishi Kapoor to gyrate on Pancham's tunes, in 90s, it was turn of Aamir Khan / Akshay Kumar and Madhuri Dixit (and others) to romance on tunes of Anand Milind/Nadeem Shravan / Jatin Lalit. And now, in 2004, you have Shahid Kapoor

The most irritating part is the never changing psychological profile of girls in the movie. Even in the year of 2004, they are as "pativrata" as their black and white counter parts (Meena Kumari in white saari singing a Bhajan in front of Lord Krishna). The girls are foolish enough to fall in love, when the guys fake their feelings towards them, just to get some favour. It feels they haven't learnt anything from their mothers and grand mothers. Falling in love is so easy for them.

And for gods sake, a 19 year old performing a "karva chauth" for his husband-to-be!!!!!!!!!!!. Gimme a break. The Indian directors do not seem to be free of DDLJ hangover. And please, Karva Chauth is only a North Indian tradition. When will our producers learn, that there is a whole India out there who is culturally very different from Northern India.

Women's liberation movement or political correctness is almost unheard of in Bollywood. Just showing heroine wearing skimpy ultramodern clothes, and gyrating in discos does not make them independent. It is the thoughts that count. But hell, who cares ???

And the teenagers in the movie always are wealthy sons of their wealthy parents. They study in south Bombay college, drive cars, wear expensive clothes, live in palace-like homes where they have their own separate bedrooms, eat burger-coke-fries, go to discos.

And what is the deal with the hero Rajeev? Isn't he mature enough to analyze his own feelings? Why he suddenly abandons the other girls without proper reason? Just because the first girl loves him does not mean that he will find true love only from her. What about the other girl's feelings?

The story writers even cannot think new name for the characters. The hero is "Rajeev", heroine is "Payal". Even before 20 years, we had the same name. The characters are of new generation, but can't have new names.

But hey, who cares. The producers made money, the actors had their share of fame, the public enjoyed the movie. So who gives a damn about the logic. And in that case, when did logic took a front seat in Bollywood movies

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Deserves the Razzie for the stupidest movie

[10/10 · 27 March 2004]

After watching good movies with the "memory" stuff such as Paycheck and Butterfly effect, I thought, this movie would be a good way to pass a weekend evening - but boy, it royally spoiled my weekend.

THe movie has no storyline to tell - it is just a collage of absurd events pasted together - making no sense. The photography is even worse, as if done by an amature video-photographer. I do not understands the directors fascination with close-ups and profiles and poor lighting. It adds to the viewers woes, who is already tortured by a non-existent storyline.

No wonder, the movie is doing poorly at box-office. I saw people walking out of the movie in between. The auditorium was empty barring the last 3-4 rows.

Avoid it - unless you are an art-movie buff

Being John Malkovich (1999)

Pathetic display of absurdity and stupidity

[4/10 · 11 January 2004]

Since my video store, did not have much choice when it comes to Video Cassettes, I randomly selected John Malkovich, as the synopsis seemed interesting.

However, it seems as if the movie was shot by some amateur video photographer. Bad camera work, and add to it, the absence of natural or sufficient light. I do not understand the director's obsession of dark or less lighting. Could not even see properly, the faces of all the characters.

The idea is nice, but wish, director had made it a fantasy movie like Terminator or Matrix, with proper character development, rather than creating such absurd piece of junk

Mystic River (2003)

An overhyped movie

[1/10 · 27 October 2003]

This movie lacks the vital element - emotions. It is like an ordinary item, packed in a very attractive wrapper, and advertised in very efficient manner. But when at the end of the movie,you blame yourself for relying on the critics for unworthy praise. For the whole movie, you remain detached to every character, and by the time you are out of the auditorium, you have forgotten the movie. You do not sympathetize for any character - not even for the murder victim.

Most of the incidents in movie are unrelated. The friendship between three boys, or the mental anguish Dave suffers due to kidnapping, has nothing to do with the theme of movie. Even if they would not have been friends in childhood, the story could still hold ground, as no hint of friendship is visible in current relationship.

Even the character backgrounds are quite irrelevant. Jimmy is a convenience store owner, but also a mafia. Sean is separated from his wife. I wonder if this aspect really helped the movie anyway. As for Dave, I wonder, if he ever worked to sustain his family. All the time, he is seen walking on the street like a drunk man.

The movie tries too heavily to create a feeling analogus to "Road To Perdition". Typical grey looks, old buildings, no glamorous characters, a pessimistic feeling throughout the movie. However, it ends up like a body without a soul.

An overrated film, but looks more like unrelated incidents coupled together. There is a scene where Jimmy goes to morgue to look at dead body of his daughter. You can clearly see the girl breathing, with the dress on her body going up and down to breathing. I wonder, how director can make such mistake

Matchstick Men (2003)

Disappointing fare

[6/10 · 22 September 2003]

After reading the synopsis of this movie, I was expecting some sort of "Catch me if you can" or "As good as it gets". But somehow, the movie falls far short of these two movies.

Nicholas cage as a con-man having obsessive compulsive disorder, does not really make you have any respect, love or hatred towards him. In fact, there is not justification for his dis-order, and he looks ridiculous, when he tries to act like a person having some kind of mental problem. He does not look that convincing.

At same time, the focus is hardly there on the tricks played by him and his partner on other people - even though the theme is the core of movie. The movie simply drags during the first half, and is interesting only after his daughter appears in the movie. Also, the director-script writer seems to have been confused, whether to focus on father-daughter relationship or Nicholas Cage's profession.

However, I have given 6/10 just because of the novelty in story. I would rather watch "Catch me if you can" for its humour and content, and "As Good as it gets" for Jack Nicholson's acting

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

Nice movie

[8/10 · 14 July 2003]

It is an enjoyable movie, if you are expecting some action, and ready to letgo any inconsistencies or loopholes. There are many instances, where T3 could have killed John Connor with her weapon. But just by director's grace, she changes her mind. Also, it is impossible to believe, that machines with so advanced features cannot track down a single person, or can have X-Ray vision, as to track down John Connor when he was locked inside a cage.

The picture does not appeal emotionally. The whole scene of Sarah Connor in mental asylum was quite touching one. Even chemistry between Arnold and John Connor was interesting in T2. However, here, as in the case with "The Matrix Reloaded", emphasis is more on technical wizardary rather than emotions. The relation between Arnold and John Connor is taken as granted. It seems as if there is no emotional bonding between them.

But still the movie is worth watching once. Too bad, it does not have a repeat value

Analyze That (2002)

Adventures of Paul Vitti

[4/10 · 13 July 2003]

Since I had nothing to do this Saturday evening, I switched on Pay-per-View movie to watch the movie I had missed when it was released. Good to know, I did not wasted my money in theatre.

This is a sequel to a movie which did not need any sequel. Psycho-therapy takes a back seat in this sequel. While the dialogues and chemistry between two lead actors were highlight of "Analyze This", the sequels relies heavily on gags and vulgar dialogues to evoke laughter, but fails miserably. There is no emphasis on the psycho-therapy, which was the basis of prequel. Instead, the character of Paul Vitti is transformed into some sort of "Saviour" who helps Billy Crystal.

Though Robert De Niro and Billy Crystal tries hard to put life in the movie, the script and dialogues are too below-par to make this movie noteworthy. It looks like we are watching some episode from "The Sopranos" and the movie "The Score" combined together.

Hope we do not get any sequel for "Analyze That"

Identity (2003)

Leaves you dissatisfied and cheated

[7/10 · 30 April 2003]

When I first read about "Identity" on IMDB, and watched the trailer in theatre, I thought it might be a really good movie. The synopsis made me remember the 60's Bollywood movie "Gumnaam". "Gumnaam" had same plot of 10 people being stranded in Island, and getting killed one after another. It was a real good movie with some excellent music by Shankar Jaikishan

So the synopsis of "Identity" felt more like a "remake" of "Gumnaam". I was thrilled by the thought of seeing a good suspense movie after a long time. And true, the first hour of movie is worth watching for the goosepimples and chills it gives time to time. However, when the curtain is lifted from the suspense, you feel very cheated and angry.

I think Hollywood is churning a seris of psycho-supernatural thrillers . "Sixth Sense" started a trend. Then came "Unbreakable", "The Others", "Vanilla Sky", "Minority Report", "Beautiful Mind" - to name a few. "Identity" is a movie that tries to fit itself in this category, but fails miserably. I should have given 6.5/10 rating, but no decimals allowed.