dibyajyotisarma Reviews

The Queen (2006)

Simply Royal!

[10/10 · 7 July 2007]

Making a biopic is a tricky business. For one, you deal with a real-life personality and your job is to highlight the so-called 'good' qualities of the character while discreetly glossing over the so-called 'bad' qualities. While doing so, most of the biopics turn into a black and white affair, a story of extraordinary achievements of an ordinary person. It becomes trickier when you deal with a personality very much alive and kicking and attempt to tell a story, which the personality in question would rather wipe it out from the public memory, is she could. It is this aspect of film-making that makes The Queen stand out. You have to give it to director Stephen Frears and screenwriter Peter Morgan for dramatising the story which is very much part of the public memory and which involves the royal family of Great Britain. While doing so, both Morgan and Frears refuse to take a stand either to support or oppose what was happening. This is a rare achievement and one of the reasons what makes The Queen one of the outstanding movies released last year. The year was 1997. Tony Blair became the youngest Prime Minister of Britain and he promises to 'modernise' the conservative outlook of the country. Here begins the first clash between monarchy and democracy. Whatever he may do, Blair cannot undermine the royal family. Then occurs the tragic death of Princess Diana. As her body is flown from Paris to London, public expects a royal burial. Blair rides on the public support and terms Diana a people's princess. But Queen Elizabeth would hear anything about it. According to her, since Diana was no longer a member of the royal family (since her divorce) she cannot be given a royal burial. As public throng to Birmingham Palace to pay tribute to the late princess, the royal family goes for a holiday in Scotland. Here ensues the royal drama between the monarch and the democratic, modern prime minister. The queen stands by her decision while Blair would go to any extend to appease the public. The story is real. It happened exactly the same way in the week following Lady Diana's death. But what we knew was what the newspaper would tell us. The film is the behind the scenes events, how the royal family reacted at Diana's death. Most of us haven't seen the queen in her private life, and Helen Mirren as Queen Elizabeth takes us to a royal trip. Her body language, her voice modulation, her emotional outbursts all make us believe what Queen Elizabeth must have gone through those volatile days. Mirren adds such exuberance to here role that you cannot imagine any one else in that role. Last year Mirren took home all the major acting awards for the role, and she deserves every bit of it. She gives the character a rare dignity which otherwise could have been a crude caricature (like the character of Prince Charles, which ends up being a caricature.) Both Michael Sheen and Helen McCrory look uncannily like Tony and Cherie Blair respectively and lends to the authenticity of the drama. However, the highlight is Stephen Frears fearless directorial skills. He does not even attempt to positivise the actions of his characters and let the audience decide. And hence, through the film begins as a criticism to the royal family you end up supporting Queen Elizabeth for what she is. And for that the credit must go to Helen Mirren. She is the queen personified.

Vacancy (2007)

Horror, horror, kate is at it again

[7 July 2007]

Looks like Kate Beckinsale is seriously vying to the unofficial 'Horror Queen of Hollywood' title. What other explanation could there possibly be for her recent choice of roles. Remember the demure nurse in Pearl Harbor, the object of affection for both Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett. Yes, she was Kate Beckinsale. She also wooed the audience as Ava Gardner in Martin Scorsese's The Aviator. In between she seemed to have developed an uncanny fascination for vampires. In Van Helsing she playing Anna the vampire slayer and then graduated to be a vampire herself in Underworld and its sequel Underworld: Evolution. Now, she is Amy Fox in another insipid horror drama, so vacant in content and imagination that it is rightly called Vacancy. Beckinsale is, however, not on the side of dark powers this time. She is a victim, a beautiful victim especially when the villains of the piece like to film their acts of carnage. Here begins the horror tale, to the horror of the audience. The basic requirement for a classic horror film is innovation and imagination. Setting the film in a Psycho-type motel and adding a The Ring-type twist does not make a film worth all its horror. There is a vacancy in a decrepit motel where a bickering couple David (Luke Wilson) and Amy Fox (Kate Beckinsale) takes shelter for the night as their car breaks down. A classic horror situation, add to that a creepy manager and a Gothic setting. The stage is set and the couple continues to fight till they realise that the slasher movie they are watching on the TV was actually shot in the same room where the couple are staying. Horror, horror! Are you scared yet? If not wait till our warring couple joins hands to fight the creeps together. Where Kate Beckinsale is concerned you can expect some cool action sequence a la Selene of Underworld, and you are not disappointed. Actually, it is she who saves the day, not her well-intentioned husband. Overall it's an okay fare, a typical horror fare, nothing new to offer. But the creep continues.

Epic Movie (2007)

Spoof again...??

[7 July 2007]

If they can make successful spoofs of Hollywood movies in the Scary Movie series and even make a spoof of romantic comedies in Date Movie, why can't they make spoof of fantasy and epic movies? Yes, why not, indeed, even if the product looks sick and hardly funny? Welcome to epic movie, a royal spoof on the films you saw last year, from The Da Vinci Code to Pirates of the Caribbean, from Casino Royale to 300, everything at one place. What more do you want? Even if you want more you won't get it, so be satisfied with what you have. The film is the story of four orphans who meet their adventures in unlikely places. While Lucy falls into the world of The Da Vinci Code, Edward gets a chance to visit Willy Wanka while yet another, Susan is being adopted to the family of warring Mr and Mrs Smith and the last orphan Peter finds himself among the X-Men. What follows are a crazy plot twists that make you revisit all the major Hollywood blockbusters you have seen in recent times. And unfortunately you haven't seen them you may find it hard to appreciate the film. That happens with the parodies. If relies so heavily on the original that if you do not have any idea of it, then you may miss the whole point. So here's it is. You can go to Epic Movie just to check how much you know about the movies. It can be quite funny to just to spot the original film in the spoof. And just that!

Premonition (I) (2007)

Poor pretensions

[7 July 2007]

Disclaimer: This reviewer did not understand the film in question. Therefore, if you don't understand the review or find it incomplete, please excuse us. Well, you better play it safe when you are dealing with a film like this, and you should try to avoid, as much as you can, talking about the movie. The premonition this review has is that this review is utterly meaningless, just like the film. Time travel films have their own set of rules, that's quite okay, if you stick to the rules, like The Forgotten, or like Groundhog Day where Bill Murray finds himself living the same day over and over again. Whatever the rules may be, one thing is constant, that is, the protagonist must stand up to face the situation and try to find out what was happening. To start with both these things are missing in Premonition. One wonders what's wrong with Sandra Bullock, a fine actress with terrific potential. Why should she act in one supernatural dud after another (The Lake House, a time traveling hotchpotch of a romance!)? She should stick to simple romantic comedies like Two Weeks Notice or outrageous Miss Congeniality. Anyway, we can't avoid talking about Premonition. So, let's try. Linda Hanson (Sandra Bullock), a housewife is informed that her husband had died in a car crash. Linda, a mother of two, is understandably shocked. As her mother comes to share the grief, Linda finally goes to sleep. The next morning she wakes up to find her husband very much alive and kicking. But that's not all. She also finds that she had woken up on a wrong day. It was a Thursday, or a Friday, no, no, it should be a Sunday today! Never mind! But Linda does mind, and she is pretty confused. It's because her husband keeps dying and keeps coming back alive. Linda goes to sleep and wakes up in different situations, sleeps again, wakes up again and it goes on and on, until you desperately expect her to get a life. What's wrong her? Is her husband really dead or not? Is someone plotting against her? The bigger question, however, is what's wrong with the movie? A simple answer would be, everything. The film begins well, with right amount of thrills and right amount of problems, the marital life of Linda and her husband, throwing a few clues along the way. Then the film begins to slip away, as it finds itself into the mire of past and present, this date and that date. And when the film ends, you feel cheated, as if you were promised a stupendous lunch and was offered only a cold cup of tea, that too without sugar. Sandra Bullock is good to look at. But she fails to command your sympathy. That's the first barrier and one of the many reasons why the film fails. You do not even want to know who wrote the film or who directed it. If you thought M Night Shyamalan's Lady in the Water was supernaturally pretentious, chances are that you will reconsider your opinion after watching Premonition.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

Fun-tastic???

[6/10 · 7 July 2007]

God save us! Another sequel this week! This summer has quite turned out to be the summer of sequels. Hope this one is the last! Move aside, Super-man, here comes the Fantastic Four. Who wants to see one single superhero fighting his inner demon, or whatever? Here's four of them, each with their unique powers and a supervillain, who is equally fantastic, and there's also Fantastic Four's perennial nemesis Dr Victor Von Doom. But first, the Fantastic Four. For the uninitiated, the story began in the 2005 original film, which was based on Stan Lee's comic book heroes, where a scientist Reed Richard, along with his two friends and ex-girlfriend, and Dr Doom, goes to space looking for some clouds of cosmic energy. The cloud soon engulfs them, turning into superbeings. How they return to earth and try to negotiate with their newfound powers formed the crux of the first film, which really did not set the box office ringing. That did not deter director Tim Story and the producers to come up with the sequel. The highlight this time is the Silver Surfer, who himself is quite heroic in the comic book world, having starring roles in quite a few Marvel publications. Without going deep into his genealogy, he is an alien and a servant of the fearsome cosmic entity known as Galactus. Now, this G-guy eats planets, and our surfer (complete with a surfboard that can fly anywhere) provides them to his master. Predictably, the next delicacy happens to be our dear earth, and Fantastic Four must get their act together to save the world. But there are problems galore in the quadrangle's life as well. Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd) and his girlfriend Sue Storm (Jessica Alba) want to get married. But it's not easy for superheroes to get married without getting public attention. The other two Johnny Strom (Chris Evans) and Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis) has two their share of women-related problems. But the major problem occurs when the surfer appears and Johnny Strom aka Human Torch has an encounter with the surfer and all his powers seemed to be disintegrated. Now, how does the foursome save the world without having their powers in place? Will they join hands with their nemesis Dr Doom? The highlight is certainly the silver surfer, with a metallic body and the voice of Laurence Fishbourne. How he moves and swishes is awesome, despite the fact that it's all CGI. And for a change, instead of fighting over city skylines (they do that too), they go to the space for the showdown. And unlike Spider-Man, the film retains its comic book flavour. It does not go all hyper about realism, and in their own why their the superheroes impress, not to mention a beautiful Alba! And, thank god, they have got a good sense of humour, if not a strong plot line, despite the director being called 'Story!' You are disappointed with Super-Man because you expected much more from him. Don't expect much and you wouldn't be disappointed.

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

When there is a Willis

[7 July 2007]

Okay, enough of these sequels thingy. We are not even talking about Die Hard, one, two, three, and compare them with the new one. Thankfully, the film does not need to latch on its famous predecessors. It can pretty much stand on its own, trust Bruce Willis. Oh, yes, it's a Bruce Willis movie, frame-to-frame, action-to-action. So let's talk about Willis as John McClane, a role that made him a star in the first place. Willis rocks like never before. There are two shades of character that Willis is good at playing, a doting, overprotective father to his teenage daughter (Armageddon) and a good cop taking it all to save the day (Mercury Rising). Here, he does both the job perfectly. He's not the McClane of the earlier movies. He has aged, but boy, he's still a handful. Talk about aging gracefully! Vampire specialist Len Wisemen (Underworld) turns his attention to cyber crime this time, and if you can handle the idea of blowing up a computer by pushing the delete button, let him guide you through the action, cyber or otherwise. Gun fire, explosion, car races and other action set-pieces are the highlight of any Die Hard film, and here, you have them in abundance — computers blow up, cars go flying, flyovers come crashing, and McClane survives all these to save the day. And you don't complain, they are all first rate, something that you have seen on the big screen after a long time (if some scenes reminds you of The Italian Job, Underworld or Hollow Man, you can always ignore them.). There was a super nerd called Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) working on government cyber security programme, told the government that the countries cyber security is vulnerable and they must do something about it. But the bosses would not hear anything about it and he was duly fired. Now, the nerdy boy is all fired up to teach the government a lesson by systematically hacking all the computer systems in the country — telecom, electricity, energy, everything. It's a virtual 9/11 situation out there and none have a clue what's going on, except for Matt Farrell (Justin Long), a hacker and our good ole' detective McClane gets embroils into the scenes when he was asked to escort Ferrell for an interrogation. Then follows the classic situation, two unlikely partners in a desperate journey to save the world: A geek and a gunslinger. Sit tight for a jolly good ride. Long complements Willis old-style cop with his geeky sweetness (If all the computer manipulations look simplistic, that okay, the film is about the action, right, not how far can you take this cyber crime business!) A feast for all Bruce Willis fans, after a long time.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

A sea of adventures

[8/10 · 7 July 2007]

Writing about the second part of the Pirates of the Caribbean saga, Dead Man's Chest, one reviewer wrote that it was 45 minutes film stretched into one and half hours. Now, the concluding saga At World's End is even longer, two hours and forty-seven minutes, to be precise. But you can't complaint about it being stretched. Rather, it's crammed, to the point that you wish if some of the plots were not there at all. Director Gore Verbinski seems to have taken a leaf from Spider-Man director Sam Raimi cramming as many things as he can, thinking perhaps that it's his last chance with the seafarers. But as the film ends, finally, you half expect that there's a next one coming. But first, the world's end! It begins at Singapore. The destination is Devey Jones' (Bill Nighy) locker where Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) is trapped. For that the crew, comprising of the usual suspects, captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), Elizabeth Sawn (Keira Knightley), and the mysterious sorceress Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris), must first obtain the navigation chart from a formidable pirate Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat). By why do they need captain Jack? Because, Lord Backett has obtain the heart of Devey Jones and he's on a pirate hunt with the help of the Flying Dutchman. Now, Jack is one of the nine pirates who's part of the council that can stand against the might of the East India Company. But the adventure is not as smooth as it looks when everyone of them have a plan of his own, and when everyone of them seek to outwit the other at any cost. Will wants his father free, Jack wants to get rid of his debt, Barbossa has promise to keep and so on. Add to that Devy Jones love affair and Lord Backett's politics you have quite a complicated plot, and it's all happening at the sea, in one ship of other. And did we mention a host of new characters meandering through this complicated drama, including the Rolling Stone guitarist Keith Richards in a miniscule role as Jack's father. Add to that loads of pirate myths, rules, and such mumbo jumbo and the mandatory sword fights, cannon fires and battles at the sea, you have quite heavy stuff hear, as heavy as the Black Pearl, which change hand for god knows how many times. But the film is far more superior than its predecessor and takes you the same kind of adventure that made Curse of the Black Pearl so popular. Rush is back, but not as formidable as before, Harris gets bigger and better footage, Nighy gets to show off his tentacles, Bloom fights as usual and the new addition to the franchise Yun-Fat shines as a Chinese pirate. But it's Knightley all the way. She gets to do everything possible aboard a pirates vessel and she does them all convincing well. The star of the show is however, obviously is Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow. His solo acts of delusion with so many of Jacks filling the screen is just awesome. You go to see Pirates of the Caribbean for Jack Sparrow and he lives up to your expectations, a marvelous achievement, especially when the scenes are so crowed with so many interesting characters. There are no skeletons here. But the special effects are the real winners, especially when you wouldn't even realise that they are graphics. Watch out for the journey into the other world and watch out for the final battle. So, get aboard folks, and set the sail. Only be on the track and if you get confused, don't complain.

Ocean's Thirteen (2007)

Cool dudes, uncool jobs

[5/10 · 8 June 2007]

***The review may contain spoiler***

Hollywood has this tendency to overstuff you with the same delicacies until you had had enough and ready to throw up. Sometimes back, it was the graphically gory films, Apocalypto, 300, The Hills Have Eyes. Then came the avalanche of sequels, 'threequels,' as they are popularly called, Spider-Man, Pirates of the Caribbean, Shrek, all showing up for the third time around… Ocean's Thirteen is the part of the same group. Steven Soderbergh's latest is probably the archetype of this whole 'threequel' thingy. For, the current film exits just for the heck of it, just because, the earlier two raked good moolah, the actors concerned agreed to do another film, and the producers had money flowing to back the project. After all, the film boasts of some of Hollywood's best looking men, Don Cheadle included! Other things, story or screenplay are just incidental. Soderbergh is the master of the art. No doubt about it. And the film works solely for this reason, George Clooney, at al notwithstanding. The original Ocean's Eleven is a 1960 heist film directed by Lewis Milestone starring Frank Sinatra as Danny Ocean. Soderbergh's 2001 film was a remake; the way the 2003 film The Italian Job was the remake of the 1969 movie. Then something happened. Its box office success warranted that a sequel should be made. In 2004, people paid for Ocean's Twelve as well. Hence, here's the 'threequel.' The common thread between Eleven and Twelve, was Andy Garcia. Ocean's band steals money from him in the first one and struggles to return it in the next. This time too, Garcia lurks around, but not as an adversary, but as an accomplice. In one sense he's number thirteen in Ocean's band of smart and handsome conmen. The adversary this time is Willie Bank (Al Pacino), an hotelier, one of the richest men in Las Vegas. Pacino provides a dignity to the role which otherwise would have appeared improbable in an already childish plot line. To say the plot is childish may be little harsh, but how do you appreciate a heist drama without the sophistication its demands. What the film lacks, desperately, is innovation. There's no nail biting, 'what will happen next' sequences. Everything happens too smoothly, to believe. First improbability, why would one of Ocean's original eleven would go to work for hated Mr Bank? But Reuben Tishkoff (Elliott Gould) does, and ends up in the hospital after a heart attack. Danny Ocean (George Clooney) comes to cheer his old buddy up with his friends Rusty (Brad Pitt), Linus (Matt Damon), Basher (Don Cheadle) and others and decides to bring Bank down. You see revenge is a funny thing, and interesting than a simple heist job. So they plan to make Bank bankrupt on the day his new casino opens. And they do it, all too easily. Phew! Why then, all this hullabaloo? The film scores on production design. It's sleek, very posh, with the beautiful Las Vegas location giving ample support. And it's filled with beautiful people, including two of the sexiest men alive, and with Clooney and his band having a ball. They are all friends in real life, and this shows on the screen. And when it's all over you are treated with a Frank Sinatra song. After all, he was the original Ocean!

Apocalypto (2006)

Magnificently savage

[7/10 · 9 March 2007]

What's wrong with Mel Gibson's tale of apocalypse of the Maya civilisation? As the film ends you're thoroughly dissatisfied. Yet, it's difficult to pinpoint what went wrong. A tale of degradation of a society on the verge of self-destruction, the film has an epic sweep which Gibson handles with all his mastery. If nothing else, you have to admire the director's eye for details. Even a fleeing one second shot is filled with telling details. Add to that breathtaking photography, and make-up and costume that brings to life an era already forgotten, and Yucatan language to add to the authenticity, and you expect a winner. And the winner the film is, except that Gibson chose to tell a story as short as the loincloth his actors wore. It begins with a philosophical quote and ends up being a 'primitive thriller,' a Fast and Furious on foot. This is where the problem lies. The decline and fall of Maya Civilisation you expect to see is nowhere. The story is this. The empire is affected by the famine. The land needs blood. So the warriors of the city raid villages in the jungle and take the men as sacrifice. Among them is our hero Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood), who in the meantime hide his pregnant wife and young son in a well. Now he must outwit his captors and escape and, he does. That's the story. Where Gibson has nothing must to tell, he fills the scene with details, and raw graphic violence. If the city scenes, with the human head falling down the stairs, give you a sense of claustrophobia, or the chase scenes make you sit on the edge of your sit, consider the film as successful. Finally, what the film wants to convey? Read it as an allegory of our time if you will. But it is worth a watch, for the sheer recreation of the age which even history is not very sure about (never mind to the fact that critics are crying hoarse that the film is ahistorical.) One word of caution: this film is not for faint-hearts and certainly, certainly not for children.

Rob-B-Hood (2006)

Jackie's Day Out

[9 March 2007]

Mr Nice Guy Jackie Chan turns evil. This is the highlight of the film. But like all Jackie Chan movies, this one too fun-action fare. So don't worry. Finally, everyone will be happy. The film follows a group of thieves made up of Thongs (Chan), Octopus (Louis Koo), and Landlord (Michael Hui). They steal for different reasons. Thongs is a compulsive gambler who faces debt collectors at his door. Octopus spends his fortunes to court a rich girl. Landlord does not spend his loot, but saves all of it and keeps it in a safe in his house. Soon the safe is broken into, and in a desperate bid to earn money they become the privy to a plot to kidnap the grandson of a rich tycoon. Predictably, things go wrong, and the thieves end up taking care of the baby, from singing lullabies to changing his diapers. If the plot sounds familiar, then you have seen this kind of films before, from Home Alone to Baby's Day Out. But when there's a Jackie Chan in the project, it's bound to be hilarious. The film has its funny moments, and Chan's signature action set-pieces as well. Sadly, however, Chan is past his prime. It's not the Rush Hour anymore. Yet, he does his best with admirable flexibility. The kid in question also lights up the screen. Even if you are not a Jackie Chan fan, you can have a dekko, provided you have nothing better to do.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

twists without tales

[9/10 · 6 April 2006]

On the surface, the film is a recipe you've never tasted before. Yet, Quentin Tarantino's 'Pulp Fiction' makes for stupendous movie diet. There is no such narrative in 'Pulp Fiction', only situations. The film is a collage of situations. It is the twists in the tales that Tarantino is concerned about, not the tales. And twists, there are too many. As if, Tarantino's playing music, and once the tune hits the crescendo, he shifts to another. The beauty of the film lies in the detailing of the scenes Tarantino creates, how he fuses breakneck action with slow, lazy scene sequence, how he combines different emotions within a single sequence, how he makes weird characters utterly believable, and how he makes them talk. Shocking and sensational, yes, but Tarantino's 'Pulp Fiction' is a riveting experience.