valsalahb Reviews

Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)

A letter to the world

[8/10 · 16 July 2010]

Severity is a success when cinema portrays it in the form of war epics, usually in the lines of more familiar and popular perspectives. The mere lack of gentleness when blended with a lot of poignant scenes works extremely well with the audience and gives them no less than patriotic embankments in their hearts. More or less, that's what the creators aim for and in most cases they achieve their goal. Moving out of the genre of action and adventure, war movies have carved out a place for themselves in cinema categories and each carries out its message or story in every different way than the other. Love, hatred, struggle, decisiveness and inexpressible sadness are some of the themes of the many battle stories exemplified on screen. It becomes a journey for the viewer while watching the epic and brings out emotions in its truest nature and leads the mind to reminisce the story again. Letters from Iwo Jima was indeed a long journey through war, sadness, love, anger and most importantly, kindness and forgiveness. Probably, a first time in Hollywood where a war involving America is not seen through the eyes of an American which when done tends to erase the picture of humanity on the enemies' side. Director Clint Eastwood, gracefully understood the need for change and tells us the story of the island Iwo Jima and how the Japanese army defended their home island from the American marines. The complete narrative is from the Japanese point of view and tells how they fought bravely, a losing war against the massive American force. The director has taken three different standoff's to state, that of the commanding general and two privates and the letters they write to home with the very little hope left inside them. But the most striking feature in the entire picture was magnifying the human touch among both sides of the conflict. Clint Eastwood has etched out the scenes so intricately with all the subtleties required and helps us in understanding that it is only humans who fight wars and not emotionless beasts. The scene where the American soldier is treated by the Japanese even with very little medicine left is extremely intriguing similar to the case where the Japanese patrol soldier is forced to shoot an innocent dog. The screenplay and editing is fascinatingly smooth as that of a spotless green pasture. Music though comparable to the lines of Thomas Newman, is neatly composed and sails along with the sequences. One another important fact of the movie was the use of the native Japanese language displaying the creative genuineness. As the soldier in the movie understands that they are the same as that of the enemies in their feelings and emotions, it enlightens him and us too that wars are in a way fought for nothing. This is even more firmly supported with the final scene where Saigo is rescued by the marines and he looks out with a smile. Letters from Iwo Jima is indeed a letter to the world which conveys in the most definite sense a message, a message that says everyone is human and that part of gentleness cannot be erased even during critical times of warfare.

Raavanan (2010)

Mani Ratnam's Toofan

[8/10 · 27 June 2010]

Ravanan is probably one of the hardest movies for which I'll be writing a review for. For most people who have already watched the movie, when they think in retrospect, it becomes easy to term it as 'very disappointing; or 'a complete waste of their time'. Well for one thing, this verdict shows the still conservative, yet to be unconventional mindset of the general audience towards Indian cinema. The most important aspect that I learnt after watching the movie was that, one cannot ever question a filmmaker's viewpoint, especially not of someone who has brought Indian cinema to great heights with movies such as guru and Bombay. Usually in the initial phase, a director has his thoughts aligned in a manner which only he can understand. It is converted to the screen only when he brings his ideas to everyone's comprehension. It is the latter fact that Mani Ratnam has not brought to complete satisfaction, which though he might be clear of, in a way puzzles the audience. In this film, the director has made us understand the importance of looking through a particular situation or argument through a different perspective, more specifically, a perspective which we might fear to judge. Ravanan can be said to have a definite storyline comprising that of a modern storyteller's as well as the ancient sage's. The modernized and refurbished version of the Ashokavanam episode and lanka war is re-enacted and cinematographed in different locations with different character descriptions and names, different, yet similar situations and most importantly looking from a different viewpoint, the perspective of Raavana himself, who we are accustomed to the knowledge that he is the villain.

The idea is different and definitely in the best of its ways. Not everyone is ready to take a blind shot at the vague parts of an epic like Ramayan and Mani Ratnam to the most part has handled the concept well. The support team including the expert actors have contributed to their best and have brought their abilities to near perfection. Vickram as Veera steals the movie with ease, giving one of his best performances. The fierceness in his depiction of modern day Raavana is apt and does quite a lot of justice to Valmiki's image of Raavana. Aishwariya rai who plays Ragini, modern day Sita otherwise, gives another artwork that will always remain as one of her pioneer roles and so do Prithviraj and Priyamani who play Dev (lord Rama) and modern day Shoorpanaka respectively. On the technical front, the music though not the best work of A.R. Rahman does pure justice to the theme of the story and BGM gives you a wonderful thrill. But, the most exemplary aspect of Ravanan is the direction of photography by Santosh Sivan and V. Manikandan. The lens men have captured the scenes in a manner seen never before in Indian cinema. The location, the camera angles and clarity are brought to near precision and gives the most delicious treat to the eyes of the viewers.

So what could be the possible letdown for the movie, to begin with, it lacks clarity towards the climax which most usually matters to the audience because it is the final sequence that tend to have the final impression on them. The ending is clouded with smoke giving no clear idea of the exact feelings of Ragini toward Veera and the tryout of grey shading Prithviraj's character tends to be a little more than required. The scene where he ruthlessly shoots Veera's brother gives us a feeling of hate towards dev and love for Veera. Apart from all these things, once you step out of the movie hall, you are forced to think back about the story, about the characters and most importantly, whether you liked the movie or not, you have a propensity of conflict in your mind about who was right and who was wrong. After all that's what cinema is all about, the primary aim is to make the audience analyze and contemplate and Mani Ratnam pulls of that objective with finesse. With Ravanan, the director has carved himself a niche in greatest epitome of Indian Cinema.

Up in the Air (I) (2009)

Thank you for the wonderful flight

[8/10 · 18 June 2010]

There is always a solid difference between the terms 'cinema' and 'movie'. Let me explain it in a simple manner. A cinema is a motion picture that not just entertains the viewers but also makes them think about it especially, the story and the characters. Makes them realize that the story, if not realistic is at least understandable, clear and appreciate it whole heartedly. Whereas a movie is also a motion picture which tries to entertain the audience mostly by unrealistic portrayal and innumerable scenes involving a lot of action, sex and cheesy dialogues. It absolutely lacks in a proper storyline or a storyline which can be too complicated to be understood by the viewers. Well to make things clearer with respect to the present aspect, Up in the air, directed by Jason Reitman and starring George Clooney, comes definitely under the category, cinema. Director Reitman has provided us with yet another sensible and realistic work following his Oscar nominated Juno. Easily one of the best pictures produced in 2009, Up in the air revolves around the life and happenings of a single man named Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), who works as an executive agent in a firm that is primarily called upon by other major companies to fire their employees. Ryan is one of the most experienced people in his field of work i.e. firing other people of their jobs. As the title suggests most of the story or at least the basis of the story lies up in the air or simply because Ryan travels a lot across America to tend to his clients. The last time I saw Vera Farmiga in 'the departed', she did not quite catch my attention, but in this case, where she plays the beautiful Alex Goran is definitely commendable and proves to be of worthy note. Natalie Keener depicts her character in a wonderful style as the inexperienced colleague of Ryan Bingham (Clooney). The film consists of a simple storyline which primarily concerns human emotion and relationships. It portrays beautifully the relationships between a brother and a sister, between two colleagues, between a man and a woman etc. George Clooney plays the style and suave executive and gives a memorable performance and so do Vera Farmiga and Jason Beitman. A simple story, excellent screenplay, great editing, appreciable music, wonderful acting and a seamless direction makes Up in the air always remain Up in my heart and mind.

Iron Man 2 (2010)

corroded man

[6/10 · 18 June 2010]

I've always had and in fact always will have a sense of awe on the level of technology Hollywood manages to apply in creating motion pictures. The sequences, sets, artwork etc. look extremely genuine on screen that gives us a real time experience. Now, there is a popular sect of movies in Hollywood that boasts extravaganza in everything except a logical storyline and among them as one of the front runners is Iron Man 2. Directed by Jon Favreau, the director for the first venture of Iron Man series casts all the same actors in the previous roles and the new ones being Scarlett Johansson, Don Cheadle and Mickey Rourke in this sequel which boasts almost twice the quality of the visual effects produced by the first film. Tony Stark is back, this time as the most popular figure in the world because he is the IRON MAN. After the dramatic revealing of his secret identity, Tony Stark pledges to achieve universal peace. But all superheroes cannot carry out their 'good job' so easily; there are always obstacles in the form of villains. So does iron man, who faces hostility in every clichéd way possible. Very much like Spiderman 3 , Iron man 2 fails to impress due to two reasons. Robert Downey Jr plays very redundantly throughout without experimenting and Gwyneth Paltrow plays her role like a zombie. I doubt whether Don Cheadle actually had any idea about his role in the movie because he moves back and forth with the nature of his character. Scarlett Johansson looks stunning but again lacks a well defined role. The only relief in terms of acting was Mickey Rourke who did justice to his role though not given much screen space. So in first case the lack of character definition provided the major flaw to the movie. If the actors had done a good job, I wouldn't have cared much about the complex storyline. For one thing, the sequences are so startling that one thing struck me immediately; the filmmakers have lost all respect for the world. So here, the second factor too comes to effect where the director has complicated the theme with less of logic and more of mindless destruction and in a way terrorism too. So if you are ready for a thrilling and chilling ride with lot of explosions, firing and iron man vs. iron man and if you think the story accounts to nothing, then iron man 2 is the one for you.

Closer (I) (2004)

Closer and closer to real life

[7/10 · 14 June 2010]

I watched this movie over the internet nearly six years after its release and I'm very sorry for myself for having delayed it so much. Closer took my ideals about love and emotional attachment to another level, in the sense it quite exposed the actual want and outlook of human love and feeling rather than the mostly clichéd portrayal of the same. Usually when we see a movie which comes under the genre romance and drama, we quite often find that the emotions or feelings about love between two people are exposed in a manner which we think is what exactly happens in real life but sadly it is not so, in most cases. Closer, directed by Mike Nichols makes us understand the true nature of human relationships in a diverse and solid style by staying loyal to the real human psychology. Well to start with, this movie involves four people (just four) and how their lives are interlinked by this tricky and invisible rope called love. This rope plays a game with them and finally complicates their life with a near irreparable result. The actors in particular, brought immense life to each character, especially Julia Roberts with her surprisingly young looks, less talking and more of expressions. I did feel rather irritated sometimes with Clive Owen's whining and begging, maybe because I'm not used to seeing him in those shoes. The dialogues between Jude law and Natalie Portman are very interesting and intelligently crafted and both have done a great job. Some scenes in particular were very intriguing like the confrontation between Anna(Julia Roberts) and Larry(Clive Owen) and the final exchange between Dan(Jude law) and Larry felt real. Like every other movie Closer has got its demerits too. The story could have been organized in a more understandable manner, For example, half way through the movie you tend to get confused about who is with whom and maybe even jump to a conclusion of Larry being gay, like I did. Otherwise I felt the movie was perfectly fine with wonderful actors and appreciable music with one of a kind direction. Closer is definitely a must watch for all those who have got bored of or rather hate watching the usual romance of Harry and Sally.

Duplicity (2009)

"A cool sexy caper"...or is it?

[7/10 · 13 June 2010]

The main reason I chose Duplicity from the DVD store was that, it was a Tony Gilroy creation. The fact that he had been the writer for some great works and the director of Michael Clayton gave me an impression that he was a person who knew what he was doing. Well to be a painfully straightforward, with duplicity, Mr Gilroy proved me wrong. The only thing which could be identified clearly was that duplicity was originally supposed to be an espionage thriller with some great twists in the story and give the viewers and edge of the seat experience. In fact, the movie does satisfy the above criterion but with a very disappointing score.

Duplicity, starring Clive Owen and Julia Roberts is yet another addition to the endless collection of espionage and spy game thriller movies produced in Hollywood. The movie, primarily set in New York narrates the story of how two super cool spies, Ray Koval(Clive Owen) and Claire Stenwick(Julia Roberts) get together and plan to trick a multinational company of 40 million dollars. Initially the movie starts off quite impressively with the distinctly funny scenes during the opening credits and gives us the vague feel of Guy Ritchie style opening. Further into the story, you can find ill placed flashback scenes which might be a bit bothering but does not harm the present time. The non linear time frame really did not bother me though and the witty one liners and intelligent dialogues give a supporting hand to the movie. The music too provided a good deal of back up and lead pair did justice to their roles even though i found the bossing around of Claire and giving instructions to Ray very annoying. Some of the dire facts of the movie were the less screen space for Tom Wilkinson and the type of acting from Paul Giamatti which proved to be redundant throughout. But the part which troubled me the most was the final scene were the twist is not near as expected and not near as considerable. Duplicity is definitely a onetime watch and a decent entertainer but an easily forgettable movie which is not worthy of an in depth analysis.