Change Your Image
abhinav-prakash
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againBtw- if you feel like throwing mud on my sense of movies and choice, then take a look at list of my most favorite movies- may b u will find a better use of the mud in your hand then. http://www.imdb.com/list/sZ5r8kSaD2U/
Reviews
Horrible Bosses (2011)
A laugh riot from beginning to end
This movie is probably the best comedy to have come out in 2011. The plot, the dialogues and the acting all are absolutely hilarious. Nothing in Oscar winning category but just perfect for the occasion. I remember, we were 4 friends watching it in theater and with 300 people laughing at almost every other second, I couldn't hear half of the lines and yet by the end my one side was aching with laughter. Anyway I went to see it again the next day and came out with both sides aching this time! So It's an absolutely crazy, mad, OTT and knock-out movie, right into the class of stuffs made in 80s. I would go so far to state that its best comedy in last 3 years of Hollywood production
The Three Musketeers (2011)
Enjoyable
Outlandish, zany and slightly loopy, but enjoyable to the core. There is not a single dull moment, action is syringed in every scene and the story, though (ehm uhm) non-linear and predictable, holds good till the end. While dialogues are slightly trite, the effects are nippy. The beauty of 17th century Paris and the grandeur of royal palaces (though certainly overdone), is nothing short of breathtaking. In all fairness, and especially when contrasted with Pirates of Caribbean 4, and HP8, it's one of the better movies of this year. So if you miss it, you don't miss the world, but if you don't then you are in deal for a exhilarating 2 hours.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011)
It could had been much much better
Time for your OWL marks Mr. Yates and Kloves! No- don't bite your fingers; You don't get a Troll nor a Dreadful either- you have just managed yourself a resounding Poor though. Hmmm, better luck next time!- not for you but for HP fans who may want to see someone else re-doing the entire series in future.
Death Hallows Pt 2, for some time to come, will remain as the foremost example of a movie that could had been a classic if not for the grand opportunity missed, or rather wasted by the director and the crew. It had every resource at command- a very talented set of actors, latest 3D and computer technologies, and a 10 years old legacy to guide its way to greatness. But quite inexplicably it refused to even say 'accio' to these sources, and instead, after running impressively through half the way to summit, it wandered, stumbled, and then jumped off the path into same abyss where Harry is made to throw the Elder wand at end. The movie starts convincingly from part 1, and holds itself really well until the time the trio of H.R.H enters into Hogwarts. The scene in vault where artifacts start to multiply or the flight of dragon are superlatively done, there is no question to it. But once inside the castle, the fizz suddenly goes off the movie.
Yates wanted to rush towards boom boom explosions with such haste that it let the thing implode on itself. And so the second half becomes a rubble of montages and frozen frames crashed in a monumental heap where Harry Potter fans like me are still trying to find some meaningful pieces together.
To put it another words, the entire second half of the movie is just arranged together- there is no feeling introduced, no association built with the characters, no bridges created (but blown away certainly). It just compilation of images one after another. Pretty, no doubt, but Mr. Yates, ought to know that in wizarding world people in images also have soul; and the second half had not a shred of soul in it.
And therefore, I did not feel any personal sense of loss when Hogwarts shook and crumbled, when Fred, Lupin , Tonks and so many others died, and quidditch ground burned to ashes. Damn you David Yates- I had loved Hogwarts more than my own school, had ROFLed at Fred's quips and jeers, followed wizard quidditch more than Ron, and had made friends with Harry's batchmates. You dehumanized the entire saga, and left me with not even a feeling of mourning at these losses and worse-- neither one of jubilation at Harry's triumph.
And this is my principle discontent. In the movie, the climatic fight between Harry and Voldi occurs completely isolated and away from everyone. There is no one to watch watch this epic struggle which was building since last 7 years of the movie chronology. It was absurd and spoiled the movie for me. I had never liked the 7th book much, but still the conversation between Voledomort and Harry at the end was thrilling and enthralling – equally moving was Harry's conversation with Dumbledore's portrait. Yate's machination constructed an altogether different and vastly inferior ending.
As a foot-note, this is still a tolerable movie- and certainly not 'OMG-worst-movie-i-ever-saw' kind of stuff. Pity is that, it could had been much much much better.
Batman (1989)
A Jack Nicholson master piece
I wont' deny I had my bag of doubts before watching this movie. Primarily because I had first seen The Dark Knight and to me it is the apotheosis; so what's the point in watching an older Batman-Joker tale, which would be sub-standard anyway to the Nolan-Bale-Ledger master piece- right? Well not quite so; You see I forgot to include the factor called Jack Nicholson and the results he could introduce in the equation! So after seeing him deliver a great performance, I am glad I did not succumb to my doubts.
Before saying anything further I must mention that it will be unfair to compare Batman on point to point basis with The Dark Knight; Movie technologies have quite obviously advanced to a different realm in the ensuing 19 years gap and Christopher Nolan is far more visionary and complete director than Tim Burton ever could be. But the point where comparisons can converge has a painted grin spread all over it. The grin of the Joker!
It's fair to say that Batman is all about Joker and nothing else. Remove him and everything collapses; Keep him and you have a compelling reason to not leave your seat for 2 hours. The jolly mad murdering maniac dancing in the purple suit conveniently dominates every scene and though the movie is liberally spewed with him, he is never one time too many.
Regrettably there is nothing much substance beyond it. The story line is an one-dimensional fairytale – a knight on the quest to save a maiden from a demon and accomplishing the scripted task at the end; There are no surprises and no twists, which is good in a sense or Michael Keaton would have completely disintegrated in coping up with them as he couldn't cope up being Bruce Wayne and Batman in the first place. His performance was like seeing the engine of a Mini Cooper trying to run Mercedes in one scene and McLarren F1 in another. No wonder, long before the end I had completely sided with the Joker and his gang. It's difficult to support a batman with a hunted, pitiful, afraid demeanor who seems eager to hand over his vigilante duty on silver platters if only the director had permitted him to do so. The rest of the cast just form the background. They are there because Tim Burton did not think it appropriate for the movie to just have solo performances of Jack Nicholson- although I hadn't been complaining.
It's in these finer points that the Dark Knight kills Batman. It's a dark and grim tale with a wonderful cast. There are so many characters who, despite the incomparable Ledger, live their imprints indelibly. Harvey Dent is not only limited to TV interviews, Albert 's only job is not serving drinks to his master, Gordon is a man who shows the strains of running a police department in a corrupt town, and why even little Gambon doesn't like to hear he can't give a nickel to his grandma! Of course the biggest differentiator is Christian Bale- who looks every bit as Bruce Wayne and Batman as he was made to enact these roles. Take a look him in his luxurious apartments and restaurants and he does seems to own them. Take a look at him as Batman and he seems the vigilante he has set himself out to be.
This is a quite a long review now; but I can't close it without comparing the performance of the central character in each of the them- yes, I am talking about the Joker.
The Joker of Nicholson is a murdering maniac, with a genius in chemistry and one who likes to kill for the fun of it. He is a man who has given himself to idiosyncrasies for deliberate theatrical effects, and he loves to flaunt his madness before an audience. In fact, his madness at times appears to be a consciously fake facade, adopted due to a history of attention deficit syndrome.
The Joker of Ledger on the other hand is a character dipped, smeared and fried in evilness. He is not only genius but an intellectual genius- a self confessed agent of chaos, but too intelligent to conform to his own self descriptions; Murder is not fun for him, nor a weapon of intimidation; it's just a means to grab and hold power; His obsession is not women, it's achieving a supremacy he sees himself destined for. His rivalry with Batman is not about enmity; it's simply a medium to demonstrate his own superiority over the most superior of the forces. He is a true psychotic who was born the way he is; there is nothing acquired, nothing enforced, nothing pretentious; he is the a guy who enjoys in being what he is. And that's why while Joker of Batman dies, the Joker of Dark Knight lives on; (how ironical though it is that in real-life just the reverse happened)
The Big Lebowski (1998)
A retarded tale by a retarded duo
My close pal persuaded me nuts to watch this movie. The fact that I agreed to his persuasion shows that I learned nothing from my experience from O'Brother Where Art Thou and 'No Country for Old Men'; the fact that I was persuaded to see this movie is the reason why i am still eagerly looking for this close pal with a poison dripping machete in the hand( Hope he doesn't read this review till we meet again).
It's said everything in the life has a reason behind it. Of course those who say it haven't seen The Big Lebowski or they would have furiously denied ever having said such rot. Apparently Cohen brothers don't believe in making a movie with a reason behind it, or within it. What's more apparent is that they also don't believe in making movies with any storyline, plot devise, characterization or a rudimentary sense of storytelling. So in this respect The Big Lebowski can be held as one of their crowning achievements.
There is nothing much to say except that even your best of pals are not to be trusted these days- the guy I spoke about in the first line just called me and hearing that I have forgiven him for his sin, he has agreed to come over for a drink. I am going to get my machete now.
Casino Royale (2006)
Most Un-bond Movie Ever Made
I have never seen James Bond more helpless, unsure, lost, pitiful, weak, and left to circumstances than in this Bond Movie. The masterful and and man-in-control aura given to the character of 007 by Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnon are so thoroughly shredded apart that Bond in this movie is a better impersonation of a dimwit street thug, than a deadly operative of British Secret Thugs.
There are at least three sequences in movie where Bond is completely at the mercy of fate for his survival. Such humane angle are good if you are making a sensitive, heart touching movie, but out of place for a screen name legendary for its toughness.
The action sequences are okay but the story line is so stretched that it becomes considerably thin by the end. And Daniel Craig seems like the the silliest of the Bonds to play role ever and there is a movie which should be avoided at all cost.But of course, if you are comfortable viewing Bond writhing to death by poison, or getting his balls beaten to pulp, then go for it.