harpreetc Reviews

Rocky Aur Rani Kii Prem Kahaani (2023)

Loved every moment of it.

[9/10 · 29 July 2023]

I knew I'd like the movie. Because I am an Alia fan. Because I love old school family dramas. Because I enjoy Karan Johar's direction and vision. I ended up loving the movie.

RR has all the masala and the twists for a Bollywood hit. And it feels like a hit without a single macho punch being pulled anywhere on screen. It also hit close to home for very personal reasons. There are simply too many similarities right now between my life and various episodes in the film. I think that's important for a good movie. And that's why I loved it - because I connected with it.

The story is simple. An intelligent, self-made, independent, educated woman falls in love with a rich, loud, narcissistic, lovable, carefree man. Families realise the disparity and the lovers decide to test themselves in each other's spaces for a few months.

In the midst of it all, you throw in a septuagenarian romance that's links the families further. A matriarch who governs with an iron hand (already done in Ram Leela with a far greater flair) but this doesn't include physical but emotional violence. A house governed by ambition and a quest for material prosperity. The other house governed by freedom and a quest for intellectual betterment and acceptance.

The movie doesn't just tackle the romance and the odds of the hero and heroine. But interlinked within the families, each character struggles to find a voice or realises that the voice they were using could be biased at best and cruel at worst, as well.

The film has both Pride and Prejudice. It's a subtle encapsulation of how people look down upon people, how we form prejudices based on past experiences and why it is important to realise our own trauma and make peace with due apologies. Every person in the movie is flawed. And growth happens with the realisation of these flaws and seeking to better one's self through mature decisions. The only abrupt change that seemed jarring was the write-off they gave Dhanlakshmi, Jaya's character. But in a way, it was for the best, because it was in keeping with her character that the change wasn't radical or real, but implied off-screen.

Dharmendra and Jaya Bachchan are brilliantly cast in characters just made for them. Shabana steals the screen when she is on it, as the woman who experienced true love for a few days that lasted a lifetime. She battled abuse and raises a son who is different from the typical idea of what a man should be and do, in India. This is brave (uncannily) and well handled by Karan. The scene where Alia's father is ridiculed speaks to every boy who grows up different in a patriarchal society. Ranveer's Rocky wears an outfit that's vomit green as he laughs with the crowd. I noticed it, Karan.

The monologue Rocky gives addressing the ridicule Rani's father faced, after a Kathak performance, is worth an honourable mention. It speaks of the need to understand not just what is considered woke in the modern day world but also the dangers of cancel culture that circles around it. For those who say that never happens to men who are into classical dance, you truly either live in a different world or choose to ignore the problems that are very much around in this world.

Rani's character excels in her confrontation with Rocky's father. It is the frustration of all liberal mentality that reaches a crescendo there. The dangers of that is almost as bad as the despotic power that Dhanlakshmi holds over her entire family. Almost. But not quite.

The costumes were extensions of the characters. Rani was mostly dressed in the most beautiful sarees, since Sridevi's performance in English Vinglish. Red being her colour and the implication of red being the colour of true love and passion, given it being the colour of the most sensitive character, of Rocky's grandfather, essayed by Dharmendra. It is perhaps the colour that flares out when poetry is ousted by industry. Rocky thus wears a riot of colours, because he has it all in him and Ranveer can carry off all of them because he knows he can.

There are a multitude of old song covers. Mostly from a favourite film of mine, Hum Dono. And the songs set to the OST of the movie are not particularly engaging but they work for the tempo of the movie. My favourite is actually not the title song but Ve Kamleya.

All in all, I end with my personal opinion that Karan Johar has written a wonderful script. He has applied himself once again to creating a family drama for the modern world and he has succeeded. The movie is exemplary for the fact that it speaks of breaking away from issues that do not truly matter and finding ground in a world that is trying to find a place for each person's uniqueness.

Anne with an E (2017–2019)

If you love the book, you will steer clear of this dystopia.

[1/10 · 8 November 2017]

I was just seeing the revamped version of Anne of Green Gables on Netflix. It is everything that the '84 adaptation of the book is not. The book written in 1908 deals with a lot of hard-hitting issues in such a beautiful pastoral manner, and the Kevin Sullivan version actually did a wonderful job in adapting it.

The new series Anne with an E on Netflix does just the opposite. It speaks of being grittier and has conversations in it, that L M Montgomery would be rolling her eyes at. I cannot understand the utter temerity of the writer to "adapt" a classic and take in liberties with the very character that the series is famous for.

Anne is devoted, loyal, brave, resilient and an utter romantic. She is not a shrew, disrespectful, liar and nearly schizophrenic. The author of the series should have made a sequel in the lines of Breaking Bad and left Anne alone.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

From Hogwarts to Ilvermorny

[7/10 · 18 November 2016]

Let me begin with a wish: I wish that Alfonso Cuarón had directed this movie – and he would be also allowed to direct all the rest that are to follow. I don't really like David Yates' direction. The movie moves well enough, but there are some cuts and snap tos that I can't seem to digest as well-directed at all. That being said, the movie belongs to Eddie Redmayne. He has pulled off the role of Newton Scamander so well that the errors of direction seem alright.

The movie basically deals with Scamander coming in to America to release a thunderbird into the wilds of Arizona. Eddie Redmayne! Thankfully, he was rejected to play Tom Riddle way back in 2002, when he auditioned for the part in the Chamber of Secrets. Or else, casting him here would have been impossible. This man takes acting to a whole different level. He plays the part of Newt like he was born a wizard, attended Hogwarts, was sorted into Hufflepuff, was expelled from the school, and became a Magizoologist. His reticence reaches his eyes all the time. There is a wariness and diffidence that most animal lovers have when dealing with human beings, the attitude which is so deeply imbibed within them which makes them distrust humans, seeing them as beings that debase the environment and massacre other organisms they deem inferior. Eddie imbues all of this within Newt Scamander, with a faultless charm. There couldn't have been a better choice to play this. He is to Newt what Martin Freeman was to Bilbo.

Porpentina Goldstein is very well-portrayed by Katherine Waterston. An independent woman who stands up for the downtrodden by breaking rules and therefore loses status at her job which is all about upholding the rules. The magical community doesn't seem to be very lenient when it comes to the law – it literally (and ironically) is Draconian. I draw parallels again: to me, Tina is like Hermione and Newt is like Harry. Porpentina's sister, Queenie, is much like Luna Lovegood, and Jacob Kowalski is much like Ron. So at least in this historical spin-off, Harry and Hermione get together. *wink* Ezra Miller stands out. Maybe because he identifies as queer in real life, he could play this role so vividly. Someone trying to repress who he really is and that leads to his becoming an Obscurial, eventually leading to his detriment. His scenes stand out, parallel to the repressed power of acting shown by the very gifted Samantha Morton.

The MACUSA is created beautifully, one thing is for certain: the visual effects team has done a phenomenal job! Each creature has been lovingly crafted. The sheer imaginative genius of J. K. Rowling has to be hailed once again, for thinking up of these creatures in the first place. I still remember reading both "Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them" and "Quidditch Through the Ages" so many years ago, and chuckling at her sharp wit and mammoth ingenuity. Now as I see the thunderbird come to life with its six wings, and the beauty of the Occamy slither away after a cockroach, I am awestruck all over again.

Each beast – and there are quite a few in the movie – have been devotedly crafted. To match the benevolence and adoration shown to them by Scamander, the visual effects team have done them complete justice. The erumpent is wonderfully funny, the nundu is majestic, the graphorn is grandiose, and the niffler is as immensely lovable as the bowtruckle is endearing. The Swooping Evil is completely contrary to its name. It literally saves the heroine, ensnares the villain and saves the entire magical community from being exposed to the No-Maj world. The movie is about beasts and where to find them, indeed! Which brings me to a different sort of beast: Gillert Grindelwald. All of us who have read the Harry Potter books from front to back, several times, over the years, know who he is. When I read his relationship with Dumbledore, I had cocked my eyebrow on reading about it at several places. Hello, this seems like romantic love, I thought to myself – and sure enough, Rowling mentioned after it all was written and done with, that Dumbledore, my hero, was gay. So Gillert became someone he was in love with – or at least, I believe so. Colin Farrell is good – but there literally is applause in the theater when Johnny Depp is revealed as the true Gillert.

But it is in the portrayal of this character, that I find that the film doesn't add up. How has he taken the identity of Percival Graves? Polyjuice? Is Graves dead? Does Grindelwald already have the elder wand when he duels with Porpentina and then Newt? (The exact date when he gets the Elder Wand could be between 1899-1945, so he may not have it in his possession at the time of these duels.) He is 43 years old when the film is set, at the beginning of, if not already at, the height of his power. So why does he require an Obscurus? How will that help him find the Deathly Hallows? I am sure all of this will eventually be explained. But for that we must wait for another two years. And then another two more and then – oh well, you get the drift.

Yes, I would recommend the film. It's sluggish in the beginning, and apart from the leads, the rest of the cast seems incompetent in their roles. I would commend it for brilliant visual effects – the beasts are breathtaking, and now you know exactly where to find them.

Ae Dil Hai Mushkil (2016)

It is a love story, just not like the ones we are used to.

[8/10 · 28 October 2016]

I have to write this down before the feeling passes as feelings are wont to do. I just finished seeing Ae Dil Hai Mushkil. I had lost complete faith in Karan Johar's writing since Bombay Talkies and in his direction since Student of the Year. But this film resurrected quite a bit of the appeal he held for me in the late 90's.

The story connected with me on different levels. I have a best friend who is of the opposite gender. I have had heartbreaks. I have known strong, liberal women (thank the stars, for where would I be without them?) Someone I love has been akin to a disease that is life-threatening. I have shaved my head off too, for someone I love had shaved off hers – and that love wasn't sexual at all.

The tagline on IMDb states that it is a tale of unrequited love. That's just one small facet of this movie that touches the friendship between two individuals, feminism, sexual liberation, the woman's prerogative to say no, infidelity (on more than one level) and, most of all, a different kind of love – which frankly, I never expected a commercial, Bollywood movie to showcase centre stage.

Ranbir Kapoor (Ayan) is always phenomenal. I have also maintained that he feels like the brother I never had – in short, nothing very sexual about him (personally speaking that is, I am sure there are people who do think otherwise). And right from the start Anushka Sharma (Alizeh) comments on this, when – shocker! – he can't kiss well and she doesn't find him sexually engaging. She does try, initially. So the relationship builds into a friendship, and as a friend pointed out, it has a wonderful intricacy. The sari-clad scenes in the mountains were wonderfully funny.

Anushka is Anushka. As Ash is Ash. They have their roles and they move through the movie fluidly, not jarringly. I like the uninhibitedness shown by Ash in the role of Sabah. She is mature. She knows what she wants, and also what she doesn't want. Or rather, what she can handle and what she cannot. One of the reasons for her letting go of her marriage. The role is nuanced and has layers of strength and dignity, quite appealing in this case. The dialogues of the movie can be trite at places and lyrical in some others, and though her Urdu seems stilted, I loved some of the interchanges, Ash's character has. Especially with her ex-husband. The intensity of that scene is almost overpowering. I love the way the maturity of relationships evolves, even those that were dealt with in the past.

Fawad Khan's role – was it chopped? You could blink and miss him. Pity, he is an excellent actor. Just as good as Ranbir. And Imran Abbas was there too! But I must say I loved Lisa Haydon as Lisa, the gold-digger.

I liked the movie very much. Few movies make me go quiet in the end. This one did. I was absorbing what I had just seen. I understood why Alizeh couldn't love Ayan the way Ayan wanted her to. I understood her clinging onto a latent fear that friendship is destroyed when sex comes into the picture, I also understood that it could be the fear that because she didn't sexually appreciate Ayan, she could lose the man she had come to love. When people say their spouse is their best friend – I can never understand that. My best friend is my best friend. My lover is my lover. The twain can never be the same. For me. So I get what Alizeh is on about. I mean, totally.

On the other hand, there is Saba who didn't want to fall in love with Ayan, and he welcomed the fact and so went into a sexual relationship with her. She herself had realized what happened when people fell in love, as she surely was with her ex-husband, and so she chose to avoid it, despite the fact that it helped her write. Ironically, what happens is that she does fall for him and in doing so realizes it will always be unrequited and does to Ayan what he never has the courage to do with Alizeh.

It's so complicated to explain, so it's kudos to the writer, director and the actors who tried to bring this out onto a screen, before people who wouldn't want to see the breaking of a set median, where there is no middle-ground, no structure, just a personal abstraction. It is love. It's bound to be abstract, right? So it is a love story, just not like the ones we are used to.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Great but could have been greater

[9/10 · 11 December 2014]

As usual, after a movie Peter Jackson makes on works by Tolkien, I post a small outpouring of my thoughts. This time is no different, though I will be able to get a more definite picture – literally – after I see it a couple of times more. I don't feel like letting go, and though everyone says it's #onelasttime I don't really see the last bit happening. So I am not really sad about it. Especially because I still have the Lord of the Rings to turn to for superlative story telling.

There will be spoilers from now on, so if you aren't interested to know plot details please do not read further. Fast, fast, fast does it go, and never a moment's pause in action. It begins with Smaug and that dragon is dispensed with in just about 10 minutes flat, which is pretty awkward and antithetical to all that prosaic dialogue and running around furnaces for what seemed like a long time in the previous part. There is no use of birds except the raven sent to notify Dain Ironfoot. Who by the by has done a good cameo. Everyone seems to be riding animals though: Dain on a wart hog, Thorin on a ram, Thranduil on an elk – hmmmmm. I loved, absolutely loved, the White Council scenes. Galadriel's entry, carrying Gandalf, and finally the using of Nenya, is absolutely glorious! The action scenes are fast and get over all too soon. I loved this scene, have I mentioned? Oh, well, I'll mention it again, I loved it. The Elves are everywhere! Thranduil, Legolas and Tauriel have their parts stretched to suit fandoms everywhere. I am not complaining, but I would have liked to see more Beorn, more eagles, more Gandalf and Radagast, too. Alfrid is given undue weight-age but I suppose it is to prove that not all bad guys get their just desserts, on in this case, they get the desserts they always wanted to have. I liked the dialogues of this part. They have a certain lyricism that reminded me of the Lord of the Rings. The death scenes are handled well, and grief is given its due place in the scheme of this movie and helps pass on age old morals, that do not really seem jaded in these contexts. When Tauriel asks Thranduil, "why does love hurt so?" and he answers, "because it is real" – I was moved. Honest, direct and true. No flowery stuff. It kind of sums up what the genre of fantasy means to me . The movie has a faster pace than either of its predecessors. There isn't a moment to take into consideration character movement, unless you take Thorin's descent into madness induced by possessiveness for property and want of power. The scenes flow seamlessly, but too fast, in my opinion. It's almost as if PJ wanted to rush through this one and get it over with. In fact, I think this movie had more places where the scenes could be prolonged, like the epic confrontation between the White Council and Sauron and Beorn's part in the battle of the climax, to name just two that I was really looking forward to seeing. Well, maybe in the Extended Version of the Blu-Ray then. Do I see it again? Of course!!

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Fantastic!!!

[10/10 · 13 December 2013]

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug was fantastic. There are no real endings to the movie, but the movie is still fantastic. It moves at a faster pace than its predecessor. It veers off from the book in more places than one. It is over the top at some points. But. It is fantastic. That being said, I must say the script is well written. Tauriel, who I expected much less of, is surprisingly well developed. Evangeline Lilly has done an excellent job. She is an obvious love interest, but she is much more than another Evening Star. Arwen's strength is of a different nature – Tauriel is more elemental. The digression from the book is not a necessity but I am happy to allow this bit of cinematic license only because it is done so well and it doesn't mess with anything cannon. Forgiven. Gandalf is as usual beyond par. The character and Sir Ian McKellen have nothing but praise to accept. We see a glimpse of the power that the wizard sustains in a duel of strength he has to contend with, and though there are evident imitations of the challenge with the Balrog in the Fellowship, this one sustains its energy and interest. I love the additions despite my penchant for being a pedant. The High Fells of Rhudaur and the subsequent journey, the move into Dol Guldur, which ascertains Sauron's identity, is very well managed. None of which we see in the book but which feature as the Appendices in the Lord of the Rings. Well-written. Thranduil, a Silvan elf from the First Age, is wonderfully played by Lee Pace. We see little of him in the first part, but in this one he holds the character with assurance. I am very glad to see that with him Peter Jackson gets the aspect of the size ratios right. He belittles even Legolas, and that's lovely to see. I expect Galadriel to have the same height. Thorin Oakenshield shows his descent into greed well. As does Martin Freeman with Bilbo's dark attachment to the One. Martin is indubitably the star of the movie, easily holding his own against a stalwart like McKellen and, who cannot mention, Smaug the Magnificent. The dragon is the pièce de résistance. The worm you have waited so long to see. The graphics are mind-blowingly good. The live motion capture from the very villainous Benedict Cumberbatch is astounding. Of course, we deviate again from the book when the dwarfs play hide and seek with Smaug the Golden in the halls of Erebor, but that is just to show how lovely the dragon looks on screen. Forgiven. The story moves fast and the movie gets over too soon. Nothing really ends up happening as such, all the story lines have no endings because naturally we have another part to go through. But I am sure that we shall be seeing the return of the White Council members, Galadriel, Elrond, Radagast, (don't know if they will be showing Gil-Galad or Glorfindel) to fight at Dol Guldur and the Battle of the Five Armies will culminate the movie surely. My favourite scenes? Bilbo climbing through the canopy of trees in Mirkwood and scaring off blue butterflies. Gandalf's duel with Sauron. Thranduil speaking with Thorin. The escape in the barrels to the River Running. Smaug, Smaug, Smaug. I for one thoroughly enjoyed this fare. Shall be seeing it several times more, I am sure, because, have I mentioned this? It is fantastic.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

"Where to begin? Let's see Ah yes "

[10/10 · 15 December 2012]

I've been waiting since 2003 with a hope that someday Peter Jackson would direct The Hobbit. And nearly a decade after I saw The Return of the King in the theatre, I went back to see Middle-earth on the big screen.

Was it worth it? Oh – my – God, yes!

Spoiler Alert!

The movie begins with "dear Frodo" and I smiled. Ian Holm is back as the older Bilbo and he rocks the prologue. The tying-up of The Hobbit to LotR begins right here – and it's done so well! The make-up is spectacular.

The entry of Frodo brings back wonderful memories and, ironically, it takes you into the future and yet fills you with the wonder of the present. The links between the LotR movies and this one is most prevalent in the scenes with the older Bilbo and Frodo. For instance, links of dialogues like "dwarf doors are invisible when closed" said by Gandalf – who, pauses and realizes that since he is seated amongst 13 dwarfs it would be quite pertinent not to mention 'even their masters cannot find them'. Or one of the trolls saying, "make him squeal". Or Gandalf telling Thorin to not talk at all with the elves and let him do all the talking, just like he did with Pippin in the RotK.

Bilbo's prologue takes us to Erebor. The Heart of the Mountain is shown – and it's unlike anything I pictured when I read about it, which doesn't mean that it is bad. It just takes on a different image now in my mind. A quite beautiful one. Thror is resplendently shown – and we get to see Thrain, Thorin and Thranduil all in the flashback. Spectacular halls. Brilliant mines. Magnificent treasure. And the need that arises withing Thror to hoard it all. Possessiveness and greed – which brings me to Smaug, the Magnificent! His arrival is shown very cleverly. A flash of a wing here, a swirl of the tail, a stride of the front legs there – but that is all that Peter Jackson gives us. Sir Ian McKellen carries the role of Gandalf with such élan that a few extra wrinkles can promptly get unnoticed. His acting, comic style, a flair for dialogue rendering make him superlative by default.

Which brings me to the younger Bilbo – Martin Freeman. He is just astounding! The role of Bilbo was made for this Free man! I think he has done a truly splendid job. The unsociable, very human Bilbo taking on the mantle of an intrepid adventurer who faces his own fears is amply brought to life by Martin.

The dwarfs are introduced well. There are 13 of them and there's no pressure to learn any of their names which is a good move on Jackson's part. Each of them is easily identifiable as different from the other by makeup and prosthesis – my favourite happens to be Balin. Thorin's entry and his personality marks him the Aragorn of The Aragorn of The Hobbit. His is a brooding personality completely befitting Thorin's and he is handsome, as are his nephews, Fili (Dean O'Gorman) and Kili (Aidan Turner). Balin, Dwalin, Fili, Kili and Bofur are given ample screen time. The cinematography and the story boarding are just amazing.

Radagast the Brown, quirky, devoted to the flora and fauna of Middle-earth, is brought to life by Sylvester McCoy. I think he did a fantastic job of being the quirky, brave, eccentric passionate lover of nature that Radagast is … I enjoyed his fight with the Witch King at Dol Guldur and quite liked the rabbits from Rhosgobel, too. And yes, they are fast!

What is Peter Jackson's own invention is the Morgul blade that Radagast manages to wrestle from the Witch King. But even that fits into the storyline – it is well-woven in.

Also the fact that he gives an animal lover like me a chance to sigh with relief. Jackson allows the ponies to go 'missing' before the dwarfs reach Rivendell. I didn't want to see the ponies being taken by the goblins in Moria.

Galadriel, Saruman, Elrond and Gandalf have the meeting of the White Councl. Círdan, Glorfindel and Radagast are not shown in the film. Cate Blanchett is a goddess! It is here that Gandalf says the most poignant dialogue in the whole movie about how it is not great power that changes the world but small acts of kindness and love.

Apart from tricky action sequences in Goblin town, what is essential and really worthwhile to note is the scene with Gollum and Bilbo. The scene between the two is electrifying. Andy Serkis as Gollum has surpassed himself yet again! The execution of the Riddles in the Dark is amazing. And the finding of the Ring of Power heightens the entire situation to electrifying levels. It is diffused only between what I know now to be my favourite scene of the movie: the point where Bilbo has a choice – to kill Gollum or to spare him. "The pity of Bilbo will rule the fate of many." The surrealism of that scene is tackled beautifully.

The movie ends with a thrush and the awakening of Smaug – the look of the dragon's head, graphically, was not pleasing, it looked unreal. I hope they rectify this within a year before they show him in full, golden scales and all!

10 out of 5.

My Week with Marilyn (2011)

This Date With Marilyn

[9/10 · 24 February 2012]

I have loved Marilyn since before I knew why she was called a goddess, why she appeared 7 times on the cover of Life, why they called her life tragic and why I was not nor would I ever be one of the few who love her. She was the epitome of a star, and I found myself tracing her life history many times through out my own life. I saw this movie with a lot of apprehension. Firstly because I did not think that Michelle Williams would do justice to the role of this mega star who went super nova so early in life, and secondly because I know how cruel biographies can most times be. Though tragic, this movie took me beyond my doubts and left me sated. It showed her as an essentially flawed human being, like most of us, but with the burden of the stardom that she so desperately sought herself. So the inherent tragedy of it all was brought forth splendidly. Michelle is not Marilyn, because the grace that Marilyn had, Michelle doesn't have - but good God, the woman is a brilliant actress and she has tried so well to get the part of Marilyn, that though Michelle doesn't get her sexuality, she gets her vulnerability and complete charm. I thoroughly recommend this movie to all - and especially to those who never knew the luminescence that was Marilyn Monroe.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

I suggest you read the book first.

[6/10 · 31 July 2009]

Expectations were particularly higher for this version of Harry Potter for many reasons. It is based on the second last book of the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, wherein Ms Rowling reaches a scintillating grasp over the prose she writes and her fans get various insights over the plot of the series taken as a whole. There is the utter darkness of Voldemort's past that is included in this book and though his current self as Lord Voldemort never features greatly in the book, the portrayal of his former self is more than enough to cast a shiver down one's spine – I mean who can forget the rabbit hanging from the rafters? But most importantly, one of the central characters of the book, the mentor, the guide, the teacher leaves the hero alone to face the most famous villain of our times at the very end.

Therefore, expectations ran high. Did the movie live up to this hope? I would merely state that it was passable fare. Quite a few of the die-hard Potter fans would disagree, for they were left with a teenage love story and all of its angst and confusion. A sub plot of the book was taken and made into the chief plot of the movie. The love stories of Ron and Hermione and Harry and Ginny are meant as a balm against the darkness of a Marvolo Riddle and his subsequent grandson. Hermione casting the enchanted birds at Ron as weapons elicits a smile in the book because it circumvents the horror of Tom Riddle killing his father and framing his uncle. The movie merely shows one side of the plot and leaves all the rest to guesswork. I mean, what if you have not read the book? The movie does nothing to create the tension that leads to a suitable climax.

David Yates has tried to recreate the furore of the Order of the Phoenix but he has failed in doing so, because in this instalment, he lacks a proper villain and so places most of the onus on romance and comedy. The movie begins well with the attack of the death eaters and the rise of Voldemort's power. The scenes that are worth mention are the ones in which Draco Malfoy displays the torment of carrying the burden of Voldemort's instructions. They are juxtaposed with the two memories that Dumbledore asks Harry to witness in order to understand Voldemort's past as well as the scenes in which Katie Bell (the Opal Necklace), Ron (the poisoned wine) and even Draco (Sectumsempra) nearly die; but they are not enough to withstand the barrage of the love angles the movie carries throughout. The scene in which Bellatrix, played by Helena Bonham Carter, arrives with Fenrir Greyback at the Burrow is completely alien to the plot. The two purposes it served were to cast some dramatic element in an otherwise bland fare, smack in the middle of the movie, and to broaden Ms Carter's role.

Besides the gritty execution of Draco by Tom Felton, the performance given by Jim Broadbent was stellar. He brought Horace Slughorn to life and brought out the complexity of the character to the screen, either by showing his calculative side while arranging the Slug Club meetings or his compassionate side when he reminisces with Harry about Lily Potter. Daniel Radcliffe has certainly grown as an actor and carries his part with élan and comfort, as do Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. Alan Rickman's portrayal of Severus Snape exceeds expectation and one of the best scenes in the movie belongs to him as he makes The Unbreakable Vow or when he declares who he is to Harry in the climax. The acting then is not an issue, the screenplay is.

The climax of the movie had much to look out for. The scenes of the Cave are well-managed. The tension is ripe as Dumbledore and Harry walk into it. The terrible drinking of the emerald potion shows the magnificent chemistry between Daniel Radcliffe and Michael Gambon, the presentation of that particular scene was superb and it elicited empathy for both the characters. The lasso of flames that Dumbledore uses to get rid of the Inferi was the highlight of the movie. However, the edge of the seat excitement created then failed to last once the scene shifts back to Hogwarts. The scene with Snape and Dumbledore is almost an anti-climax, especially since Harry is made to look utterly gullible, for he is made to trust Snape whom he actually hates and the Death Eaters (notice Ms Carter's role being enlarged here again) are allowed to merely saunter into the corridors of Hogwarts and up to the Astronomy Tower, without any opposition by a single student, teacher or guard.

The premise of the movie, perhaps, is the assertion of the part love has to play in everyone's lives, whether it is between friends, or a boy and girl, or teacher and student, or mother and child – and Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince clearly does this. What it fails to do however, is create sufficient depth for the motives of either hero or villain. By itself, it is, as I said, passable fare; but if you want to understand a character's intentions, motives or make-up, I suggest you read the book first.

The Black Stallion (1979)

I count this movie as my favourite! And it never ceases to amaze me each time I see it.

[10/10 · 8 October 2008]

The first time I saw 'The Black Stallion' was when I was six years old. I remember it released in India sometime early in 1980. I don't remember who took me to see the movie – but I do remember the awe I felt when I saw it. I, like any other kid who loves horses, wanted to be a part of that movie, that world, just to have a horse like the Black. I didn't find the movie slow or monotonous – when I see the DVD of it now at the age of 33, I wonder how, as a child, at some of the prolonged silent scenes of the movie I didn't lose my patience. I still don't – but as a child I could have – but the intensity of the movie was such that I found myself engrossed in it completely. That is saying a lot indeed about the power of this film.

The chemistry between Kelly Reno and Cass Ole is fabulous and they light up the scene whenever they come together. The scene when 'Alex' is feeding the Black a leaf of seaweed, and the play that occurs there, totally makes you smile. The backdrop of the setting sun, the silhouettes – what a scene! Let me not forget to mention the scene where the Black runs across the beach – and the music that accompanies this scene is haunting and makes you wonder if you are seeing magic happen before your eyes. The beauty of Nature exists right there for you to wonder at!

Mickey Rooney as Henri and Teri Garr as Alex's mother do a wonderful job at characterization. I love the scene where she comes to the Black at night, and thanks him for saving her son. The only thing that I didn't like about the movie was when they didn't stick to the novel and had Alex's father die in the beginning of the movie. But the scenes of the sinking of the Drake was very well managed for the time they created in. Worthy of being compared to the 'Titanic' in some places.

Finally, the race! I cannot in words express the majesty of those scenes. The camera work and the strides of that magnificent horse! The flashback scenes create the feeling of being essentially free – being one with the exquisiteness of Nature – its rawness, its appeal and its triumph.

To this day then, I count this movie as my favourite! And it never ceases to amaze me each time I see it.

The Famous Five (1978–1979)

A Sunday Treat

[9/10 · 10 March 2008]

The Famous Five were the first 'novels' I had picked up to read when I turned eight. Enid Blyton's Five brought a lot of adventure into my life and I couldn't wait to read all of them...and then this series was aired on our telly as reruns in the early '80's, every Sunday morning at 10:00 am. The first thing I still remember about this series is the song: We are the Famous Five, Julian, Dick, Anne, George and Timmy the dog.

Michelle Gallager as George and Timmy are the two characters I really liked in the adaptation. Marcus Harris was also another child actor who I immediately liked...the story lines were well adapted, as far as I remember - from the perspective of a kid, these episodes were sensational. I watched parts of these shows on youtube again a while back and they still are full of memory. The food that the children eat, the places they have their adventures in, the characters that they portray are all wonderful and take one back to the time when we were children and would love to be a part of one of the Five's fabulous adventures!

Jodhaa Akbar (2008)

I cannot say for certain, I liked this part of the movie or that part. I will go back to see this movie one more time.

[7/10 · 14 February 2008]

The movie is made on the scale of a classic, but it falls short of the mark because it needs crisper editing. On the whole, it surely leaves a mark! No doubt.

I am not a historian, so I cannot mention how accurately history was depicted in the movie; but the feel of the movie – ah, the feel! – is surely something that takes you to that Era. The clothes, the sets, the jewellery! Let me get rid of the flaws first: Ashutosh Gowariker is not an action director, so the battle scenes and even the action sequences lack panache – when they could have been executed brilliantly – especially since Hrithik Roshan can do action fabulously well. The first battle scenes are reminiscent of The Lord of the Rings, down to the swinging of the swords in linear movement, much like the Elves did when the Orcs attack. The march of the elephants is much like the Mumakil that come out to crunch the riders of Rohan in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

Some of the lesser character actors have terrible dialogue delivery. And in most cases, the dialogues themselves get weighed down by verbosity – and surprisingly, the characters who speak Hindi sound more uncomfortable with it then the ones who have to deal with Urdu diction.

Sonu Sood who plays Sujamal, Jodhaa's cousin, enacts his part with restraint and he kept reminding me of a young Amitabh Bachchan. Suhasini Mulay as Jodhaa's mother, Padmavati, is apt for the role, in fact, her stature was wasted in Lagaan and Ashutosh finally casts her perfectly. Kulbhushan Kharbanda as Jodhaa's father, Raja Bharmal, does what he did in Lagaan. This felt like an offshoot of the same character he played there.

Nikitin Dheer who plays Mirza Shariffuddin Hussain has done a good job for a newcomer and he suits the role of a solid warrior who thinks Akbar unfit to rule. Mrs. Punam S. Sinha, who plays Akbar's mother, surprisingly carries off the role with poise – despite a strong accent in her voice that interferes with the use of the Urdu dialect. But Ila Arun performing the role of Maham Anga is someone to watch out for. Her intensity vibrates from the screen as she plays power games with the new woman in Akbar's life. The jealousy she exudes is almost tangible and the pathos of the character's end is touching indeed – she truly deserves a reputable mention.

Aishwarya Rai-Bachchan is – well, Aishwarya Rai-Bachchan. She fits the role because she is usually stiff and aloof. If anyone was to play a queen she would be it – so her role was well-cast. She has worn brown contact lenses for the role, which shows that Indian film-makers are now thinking of certain details that need to be thought about.

Though I am a fan of Hrithik Roshan, I felt that the role of Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar did not suit him to a tee – like say, for instance, a Krish or an Aryan Singh. I cannot pinpoint the reason for this, maybe it was the bad moustache sitting above his lips, or maybe because I never pictured Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar to have such a beautiful body. Maybe. But I did say, 'did not suit him to a tee' – which leaves me room to add further, that he tried his best and that shows in his acting. Also the director's vision was to show the Mughal Emperor as a sensitive soul and that is what Hrithik evocatively brings about either in the vulnerability he portrays, while apologising to Maham Anga, or the passion tinged with restraint he exhibits when dealing with his distant wife.

The cinematography by Kiran Deohans is fabulous. The scope of most shots is all-encompassing – but somehow the feel of an epic lags behind. The feeling that one gets is something that closes inward rather than something that opens outward. And in some scenes, the lighting could have vastly been improved upon. Neeta Lulla's costumes are fabulous, too – and the jewellery provided by Tanishq is awe-inspiring. They, combined, bring about the look and feel of the movie more than what actually should be created by the story, the actors and the director.

What touched me most within the entire movie was the picturisation of the song "Khwaja Mere Khwaja". It was completely surreal - the melody and rhythm in this Sufi song mixed with the pristine costumes and depiction of the scene completely enraptured me. Much like the character of Akbar, I felt like standing up and joining the singers in this moment of rhapsody! Truly a delight! Apart from this, I cannot say for certain, I liked this part of the movie or that part. They are parts which have been put into a whole and made coherent, somehow; but yet, I will go back to see this movie one more time. I feel it is a movie that needs to be viewed more than once in order to grasp the different nuances that are spread throughout. It ebbs and flows with its own life and at places, the creators of the movie themselves lost control over it, and that is noticeable. But one cannot blame them for that for that is the wont of any creative process. Although perfection comes when restraint is used over unnecessary unravelling and digression.

In a way, I am glad that the director hasn't used much restraint within the movie, because it would kill this feeling of 'je ne sais quoi' that flows through my enjoyment of this movie.

300 (2006)

Sadly, Another Troy.

[5/10 · 23 March 2007]

The rating is most for the outstanding visuals that take over the entire movie. Apart from the breath-taking lighting and cinematography to the above-average special effects, there is nothing else that I can state that is good about the movie. The acting is average, the direction good, the story - completely, historically and politically incorrect!

***Possible Spoiler warning***

Whoever heard about a Xerxes being a black drag queen, wearing Indian jewellery? Good God, I mean, what was the need for being so totally incorrect. The Spartans who were actually the "boy lovers", use the phrase loosely for the Greeks. While all the Spartans spout is unbridled machismo against a hedonistic and incredibly tall Persian who is nearly effeminate (shaped eyebrows and all) and completely devoid of any traits of a warrior.

I hated Troy for being completely different from the Troy that Homer created. As for "300" - I can say that it is a visually spectacular movie - but for me - it was just another Troy. Historically wrong and politically incorrect.

Superman (1978)

Reeve Rocks!

[9/10 · 20 June 2006]

When I saw this movie for the first time, I was five years old! I think I have never stopped my admiration of this super hero from then, mainly because of how he was portrayed by Christopher Reeve. Whenever anyone mentions Superman to me, I picture the extremely handsome, black-haired, blue-eyed Christopher, smiling into the camera as he takes a turn around the planet in space! The plot of the movie leaves a LOT to be deserved, but I realised that as I learnt more about movies and I grew maturer. But that hasn't stopped me from giving this a nine rating because I feel that this movie impressed the hell out of me as a kid and that is what a good movie on a comic book should do! If kids can suspend their disbelief at certain plot holes, than I shall do so now! No qualms.

However, I never thought Margot Kidder failed to do justice to Lois Lane's character! I mean c'mon! She just isn't pretty firstly, and secondly what's with the scratchy voice?? It grates on one's nerves. She has her moments - "you've got me? who's got you?" - but overall, I think the casting sucked here.

Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor! Stupendous! He is funny, but an absolute scamp and no one doubts that he is cold-hearted.

This movie is a must see for those who haven't seen it - I wonder if there are many out there who haven't - and if you haven't I recommend this one highly! Your perception of Superman will take life!

Mission: Impossible III (2006)

Hopkins should have been called back.

[6/10 · 11 June 2006]

I think the classy feel of the second was completely lost in this one. Hopkins was sorely missed. Hoffman was a good nemesis, but his calibre was wasted utterly in this movie. He has style, no doubt, villains should always have that, but I was expecting something - well, more! Tom Cruise looks fab, he has hit his 40's with a resounding bang! And I must say, the heroine angle was ludicrous! I mean I can understand the need to be different from Bond and therefore the need for Hunt to actually commit to a woman, but Monaghan is too saccharine sweet and Jamie Lee Curtis did a better job of playing the dumb wife of a double agent in True Lies. Maggie Q - ah - she has something to DO in the movie! Overall, it's cool to watch if you have nothing to kill your time. It's a fast paced movie, thankfully, the editing is superb and one doesn't get bored while watching this action drama.

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

The rise of the Phoenix.

[9/10 · 26 May 2006]

Been a fan of the Xmen for a while now. Was mighty glad to see Beast make an appearance in this one! The special effects are awesome in this movie - especially in the scenes with Magneto! I cannot say much without giving away most of the movie, but there are many scenes which are just picked up from the Uncanny Xmen comics and they make the movie all the more entertaining to watch if you are a fan. Famke does a good job in this one, considering she is quite a wooden actress... Halle's winning the Oscar seems to have made her role in the movie quite significant, but that doesn't stop her from getting thrashed by the villains in this one as well. *wink* Ian McKellen is Brilliant!! As always! Somehow villains get the best lines and when Ian uses his intonation and accent they seem surreal! The best scenes to look out for - i feel - is the scene where Magneto rescues Mystique and when he uproots the bridge! And of course, the telekinetic/mental battle between the Phoenix and Xavier! A must watch!!

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

The book is better.

[8/10 · 26 May 2006]

But of course, there is hardly any chance that a movie would be better than the book. There is such a veritable mass of information given in the book, Howard has tried his best to fill that into the movie. The overall perspective is quite clean, to understand the movie one doesn't need to read the book. So that would indicate that the movie has done well in making itself understood to the audience despite the complexity of theme. Ian McKellen shines!!! He is brilliant, but then I always knew he would be. Audrey Tautou warms up in her acting as the movie progresses, but Tom Hanks does nothing to enliven the scenes. I was shocked to see Paul Bettany as Silas. I mean I loved him in Wimbledon!! Here he does a good job but still it was a shocker. :)

The Da Vinci Code created a lot of protests in my part of the world, though it was passed through, I really saw no reason for it to create such a furore. I mean, the book merely makes one think - the movie moves too fast for us to think. On the whole, I would see this movie again!

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

POA still the best!

[8/10 · 16 December 2005]

The movie: I would rate it as Good instead of Excellent. I would rate POA excellent! After Alfonso's direction, Mike's direction was back to Chris' structure. The movie was NOT boring...no, not at all... but the book has been chopped away! There is NO quidditch at all - that is played - just the players making an entry. There is no Madness of Mr Crouch, no WINKY! The other champions' games have been snatched away - and Fleur has been made to look quite silly!! She becomes a weeping, hysterical woman in the Maze. I wonder why they did that to her character... (This is all a hotchpotch of my thoughts so bear with me - after 10 hours of being in a theatre it sort of makes me run rampant!) Ah, so where was I?

Ah yes!! My favourite scenes: 1. The Unforgivable Curses in Mad-Eye Moody's classroom: It was terrible. I have never felt as sorry for an insect as I did when I was watching those scenes!! Watch out for this one!

2. THE RESURRECTION of Voldemort!!! MAN!!! The entire scene - was spectacular. The special effects were great - but I am not talking about them - R A L P H F I E N N E S ! ! ! He absolutely IS Lord Voldemort!!! The scene of Flesh, Blood and Bone is way out there in the creep out factor - but man! the resurrection and Ralph and then the PRIORI INCANTATEM scene - BLOODY BRILLIANT!

It is a fabulous climactic point in the movie.

Many scenes are worth noticing - Hermione stands out in the Yule Ball, which is to be expected. And I particularly liked Padma Patil. ;-) The tasks were done well, they should have focused a bit more on some of the other champions instead of just Harry - but I understand about the time factor.

I don't understand why Krum had to go all white-eyed after being struck by the Imperius...? I guess it was to make him look sinister and - er, Imperio'ed?

Ginny had a few lines to say - the one that left an impact was "It's ghastly!"

The ferret bouncing scene was well done as well. Hehehe. Though why the ferret had to travel down someone else's pants I fail to understand. Hmmmmmmmm.

By and large, I think the movie was worth seeing - definitely! But it lacked the utter finesse and polish of Prisoner of Azkaban.

King Kong (2005)

Jackson excels again!

[10/10 · 16 December 2005]

I saw "King Kong" today. I loved the movie. I had to see it because after what Jackson did with LOTR, he is currently my favourite director. And believe me, he doesn't disappoint in the least.

Well, the earlier half of the movie does drag a bit, but it is important for characterization, but he needed a little more editing to be done there. The scenes when the ship gets grounded are signature marks of the brilliance of Jackson, and I am wondering how he would have worked with Titanic... But thoughts digress.

The Gorilla - once again Jackson uses Serkis for the modelling of the CGI effects! and it pays off! - is fabulously portrayed! Naomi Watts is effervescent here...and there are these moments when her eyes do all the talking and those moments are quite priceless. I am glad to have seen the relationship between the character of Ann and Kong develop a chemistry. I mean in the version that I saw, starring Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange, the relationship between the Ape and the Heroine is not well jotted down or explanatory in any way of a certain kind of filial bonding.

The dinosaur scenes were cool, but the raptors looked contrived! Spielberg did a better job with them, no doubt. But the dinosaurs were necessary to pit against Kong and create the need for protection for "Ann".

In this movie there is a distinct progression from fear to sanctuary to protection to love. There are classic symbols to look out for, the Depression provides as a back drop for the paucity of human kindness, the archetypal feeling of Man destroying Nature and the age-old war of ruthlessness/callousness versus pure love.

The recreation of the 1933 story is fantastically handled by Jackson, especially the climax scenes atop the Empire State Building! The expressions and the entire blood red hue of morning! Terrific! On the whole, the movie is a must-see!!

Bride & Prejudice (2004)

The only movie in which I liked Ms Rai.

[9/10 · 20 February 2005]

Let me just put this upfront: I liked the movie a lot. Always been a fan of what Chadha has to put in front of the camera. Though I would say the first movie i saw of hers (Bhaji on the Beach) was the best - and that is saying a lot for that one. But I am not reviewing BOTB, so I am going to nip the praise for it right here.

I have been a fan of Austen too, being a literature student, and always admire movies that do her work justice. In its own wonky way, I liked Chadha's interpretation of the book. From the very title we realise that the movie has been "inspired" by the novel, and the inspiration tends to move toward tongue-in-cheek humour.

Another thing: the supporting cast excels in this movie! They are the ones worth watching the movie for. Nadira Babbar is as three dimensional as Austen's Mrs Bennett. The suitor visiting from America is absolutely wonderful! Martin Henderson was not quite comfortable with his lines and perhaps it was his character in action, but he appeared awkward and ill at ease. Though the Hunk quotient worked in his favour and he passes with good colours.

Aishwaria as I said, never has been a favourite of mine. She looks stunning - but then she is Aishwaria so I wouldn't expect anything else on the physical front, but her acting was adequate in most scenes and being an Indian, her character probably endeared me to her in this one. Albeit, i'll just let you guys know that I didn't think Martin and she made a couple that lit the screen on fire with their chemistry. No, sirree! But one can watch them together, since their love scenes are thankfully short and their animosity well played.

As for the plot, I sort of enjoyed the globe trotting with the Bakshi family. The songs at first seemed gauche, but when I got the DVD and played the movie again, I liked them. Especially Ashanti's "Payal Bajake", "Balle Balle", and "No life without wife".

This is quite like the commercial fare we get from Bollywood, India, but in a classier way. WARNING: If you are interested in seeing a movie true to the novel, or you cannot deal with chocolatey romanticism, unbelievably happy endings, or loads of songs interrupting the plot - do not watch the movie.

Food of Love (2002)

Play on.

[10 December 2004]

When I saw the movie, I expected the ending to be sad, since most of the gay-themed movies I have seen ultimately end in tragedy - and this was no exception. I don't know WHY this has to happen, but, let's admit it, it does. So I wasn't surprised if none of the main characters end up happy. Content perhaps - but not happy.

Anyway, the best thing about the movie was Juliet Stevenson! Her portrayal as the "hysterical" mother is quite good. And I believe Derek above mentioned the chemistry between Paul (kevin bishop) and Richard (paul rhys) - which is absolutely true. But again as he says and I shall reiterate, it was too short a thing! I am a helpless romantic and so I would rather they ended up together. But - alas!

The movie is not slow paced it moves along just fine...the progress of Paul from an idealist to one who accepts the reality of the world he lives in is touching ... elements of 'what-if's' abound, the duplicity, the jealousies and the vindictiveness in human nature as well - and all of this lends to the tragic distortion of romance in the movie.

The relationship between mother and son however is endowed with vibrancy and the final scene where she accepts her son's homosexuality is beautiful despite its figurative rendition in the discussion of Ganymede being the largest moon of Jupiter.

If you are looking for a happy ending, watch something else. :)

Alexander (2004)

Nearly as awesome as Alexander.

[10/10 · 8 December 2004]

Ever since I read "The Persian Boy" in my teens, I have had an incomparable feeling for Alexander. There was this insatiable need to know all there was to know about Alexander, the Great. Renault did his life justice when she wrote about him in her trilogy ... and after seeing Stone's movie, I believe that he, too, has done his very best in being faithful to the character of one of the greatest of men who ever lived!

I think that each character in the movie was very well cast! Jolie was a brilliant Olympias, Kilmer WAS Philip!!! Frankly, Farell would not have been my first choice as Alexander, but he carries off the role with a great deal of responsibility - and a flair that can be seen in -not all but - some scenes. Like the scene with his mother after the assassination of his father! It is a well-grafted scene - but Jolie has outdone herself!

Stone has used a lot of salient facts within the movie and THANKFULLY, Alexander's love for Hephaistion has been depicted as it truly was in the annals of history! Unlike the hideous distortion of the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus in Troy, the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion retains its originality! Stone has shown his utter conviction to keep with the truth of history and even shown the relationship between Alexander and his Persian slave, Bogoas. The topic of which was the central theme in Renault's "The Persian Boy".

Troy seems like a complete farce when compared to this movie!

The plot moves at a steady pace and Stone knows just what factors should be engaged in the depiction of the biographical sketch and what factors should be left out. The story of how he tamed the beautiful and spirited Bucephalus, a horse that no one dared to touch or ride is skillfully shown as well as the fact of how this famous steed carried him as far as India, where it died! And then again, his sacking of Thebes has been neglected in the storyline.

His annexation of Persia and the battle of Arbela - also known as the battle of Gaugamela - is the highlight of the movie. Though I was saddened about the exclusion of his victory over Tyre which is considered to be his greatest military achievement.

Despite the fact that this genre of biographical moviedom caters to the valor and the zeal portrayed by one of the greatest heros that ever lived, there is the infusion of a softness, of aspects of love and of devotion. There is the love between Hephaistion and Alexander, the devotion of Bogoas towards Alexander, and the love-hate relationship between Roxane and Alexander!

As I saw the final scenes of Alexander hallucinating in the final stages of malaria, his anguish bound to the ring Hephaistion had given him, I mentally saluted Oliver Stone for creating this movie. For years I have wondered what a movie on Alexander would be like - if it would retain the truth of who and what the man behind the warrior was - and frankly I am very glad that Stone's vision was not too far from mine. I highly recommend this movie to all those who want to know what sort of a person Alexander was - for this is a faithful description.

Hats off to you, Mr Stone!

Food of Love (2002)

Play on.

[1 December 2004]

When I saw the movie, I expected the ending to be sad, since most of the gay-themed movies I have seen ultimately ends in tragedy. I don't know WHY this has to happen, but, let's admit it, it does. So I wasn't surprised if none of the main characters end up happy. Content perhaps - but not happy.

Anyway, the best thing about the movie was Juliet Stevenson! Her portrayal as the "hysterical" mother is quite good. And I believe Derek above mentioned the chemistry between Paul [kevin bishop] and Richard [paul rhys] - which is absolutely true. But again as he says and I shall reiterate, it was too short a thing! I am a helpless romantic and so I would rather they ended up together. But - alas!

The movie is not slow paced it moves along just fine...the progress of Paul from an idealist to one who accepts the reality of the world he lives in is touching ... elements of 'what-if's' abound, the duplicity, the jealousies and the vindictiveness in human nature as well - and all of this lends to the tragic distortion of romance in the movie.

The relationship between mother and son however is endowed with vibrancy and the final scene where she accepts her son's homosexuality is beautiful despite its figurative rendition in the discussion of Ganymede being the largest moon of Jupiter.

If you are looking for a happy ending, watch something else. :)