Change Your Image
sowvendra
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Jaane Jaan (2023)
Good, simplified Suspect X
Jaane Jaan is a clever film that packs the complexities of Keigo Higashino's novel in an easy-to-grasp bundle. Sujoy Ghosh's Kalimpong stands in sufficiently for Higashino's Tokyo. It is large enough to have a cinema hall, several eateries (that would serve several purposes), and also a karaoke bar; but it is also small enough to make its key character a familiar figure-a departure from the novel, but the film makes it clear why it was done so. Also, there's a lot of mist - it's Kalimpong, after all - creating a convincing atmosphere. The ending is as powerful and heartbreaking as in the novel; but since Jaane Jaan is a simplified Suspect X, there is a certain closure in the ending. A worthy one-time watch, even though I re-watched the sexy karaoke bar sequence three times! It is that sexy (and half the credit for it goes to the performance of the "Aa jaane jaan..." song).
Rogue One (2016)
Maybe I am not cut for sci-fi, but I seriously did not understand Rogue One
I don't know what others have to say about Rogue One, but this is what I have to say. I am in the multiplex, Rogue One is showing, and I am writing this review. This is what the film is doing to me. It cannot even hold my attention.
Maybe I am not cut for sci-fi. But James Cameron's Avatar, too, was sci-fi. It had me engaged. And I watch Avatar again and again on DVD. Why isn't Rogue One holding my attention? In January 2016, I saw another Star Wars film. I don't even remember its name. It is understood that Star Wars, despite the Lucas name attached to it, doesn't really appeal to me.
Rogue One seems to me like a politically correct film aimed to please everyone in this galaxy. The female lead is played by a British. The male lead by a Mexican. There is an African-American actor, a British-Pakistani actor, and two Chinese actors. The father of the female lead is played by a Swedish actor. I could see some characters wearing a garment that resembled the burqa. Then there is a reprogrammed droid with a sense of humour and huge machine quadrupeds.
There is the done to death father-daughter angle. And dialogues that try to be inspiring but sound straight out of a self-help book. The special effects and the 3D effects are well done, but they are nothing that we haven't seen before. And the names of the planets in the galaxy - Jedha is the only one I can remember, though I am still watching the film - do not help either. Why couldn't they think of easier names for the planets? Something like Mars and Jupiter. And - honestly, I do not know how else to put this? - is there even a story in Rogue One? I am sorry, just a big name and big franchise alone do not make an engaging film. Rogue One is strictly for the fans of Star Wars.
Urumi (2011)
Better than Asoka and Before The Rains➖also, I appreciated Urumi's anti-mining bent
Does watching both the original Malayalam as well as the dubbed Hindi version (Shoorveer: Ek Yodha) of Santosh Sivan's film, Urumi, make me a better judge of the film? Because by a freak coincidence I got to see both the versions. I saw the original Malayalam version on DVD; and, just a week later, the dubbed Hindi version was released at the local cinema hall. I saw both versions and couldn't stop marvelling at how different the Hindi dubbed version is from the original Malayalam version. First, the "Vadakku Vadakku" song, the very first one in the film, featuring Prithviraj and Prabhudeva, has been deleted from the Hindi version. That is OK, doesn't make much difference (except that one is not exactly made aware of the circumstances of Prithviraj's and Prabhudeva's characters, Krishna and Ali, respectively, in the present day). But even the dubbing is such that it seems that the Hindi version just tries to pander to as many people as possible. I am not familiar with the history of Vasco da Gama in Kerala, but I am sure it is not a pleasant one. A history of colonisation can never be a pleasant one and, on that very account, I can trust only the original Malayalam version of Urumi because it says that when Vasco da Gama first landed in the Malabar coast, he called the local men "pretentious" and the local women "ugly". And I can believe that. When you come with the intention of colonising other people, you, obviously, do not have any love for those people. Otherwise why would you colonise them? In the dubbed Hindi version, the "pretentious" and "ugly" become "intelligent" and "beautiful", i.e., the Hindi dubbed version of Urumi tells us that when Vasco da Gama first reached the Malabar coast, he called the local men "intelligent" and the local women "beautiful". Seriously, why this deliberate losing the plot in translation? Who were the Hindi distributors and those responsible for the Hindi dubbed version trying to please by portraying Vasco da Gama in a pleasant light and, in the process, losing the reason why characters like Chirakkal Kothuwal (Arya), Kelu (Prithviraj), Ali (Prabhudeva), Ayesha (Genelia), and the king (Amole Gupte) and princess (Nithya Menon) of Chirakkal actually went to war against the Portuguese and their friends in the Malabar? Urumi was released in 2011, the Hindi version is already five years late. Those who had to see Urumi, whether in India or abroad - including Portugal - must have already seen it in original Malayalam. They know what Urumi is about and who/what Urumi is against, so why the pretence now of pleasing everyone? Or is it plain indifference on the part of the people connected with the Hindi version to cash in on the presence of Bollywood stars, Tabu and Vidya Balan, in the film because, despite having mere cameos (Balan's is a proper cameo and she shines in it➖Tabu's is just a two-minute appearance in a song), Tabu and Balan have been given prominent spaces in the posters of the Hindi version?
As far as the film goes, I found Urumi far more tolerable than the last two Santosh Sivan films I saw, both historicals: the Shah Rukh Khan-Juhi Chawla co-production, Asoka (SRK has been thanked in the film's credits, the second person after Mani Ratnam); and the Merchant-Ivory production, Before The Rains. Both were stunningly shot, but both dragged like something. I know that Santosh Sivan is an internationally renowned cinematographer, the first Indian cinematographer to be inducted into the American School of Cinematography, but being a world-class cinematographer is different from being a film director. As a world-class cinematographer, Sivan has given Urumi his signature look. But, after having seen Sivan's signature look in several films now - Asoka, Before The Rains, Raavan (Mani Ratnam is the first person to be thanked in the film's credits) - and the done-to-death monsoon scenes in Kerala, Urumi, though stunning to look at, did not really invoke any new feeling in me. Yet, I appreciated that Sivan has taken a populist approach in Urumi. It is plain to see that Urumi is targeted, first, at regular cinema-goers, and then at festivals. Genelia's action scenes are believable and better than Kareena Kapoor's action scenes in Asoka. Also, Urumi, I believe, has an anti-mining and anti-capitalism bent. The multinational Nirvana mining company in Urumi can very well be the Vedanta mining company of real life. I just wish real life were as easy to sort out and saying "no" to a multinational mining giant were as easy as shown in Urumi.
Shivaay (2016)
An irredeemably bad film➖a total waste of resources and time involved
Shivaay is an irredeemably bad film. Neither the sleek special effects nor the beautiful cinematography could save it from becoming what it actually is➖an illogical - and might I add racist and misogynist too? - mess. And I wonder why so much hard work and money was spent on the beautiful set design, cinematography and special effects when all of it was going into such a terrible wreck of a film! And there are all big names involved with the technical aspects of the film. Cinematography by Aseem Bajaj, set design by Sabu Cyril. And I don't blame them, for they have done their work very well. But what is the use of any of it, good cinematography and all, when the maker of this film was hell bent on producing a clichéd, regressive, copied product? I can forgive actor-producer-director, Ajay Devgn, for doing those mindless Golmaal series films directed by Rohit Shetty, for they don't claim to be anything extraordinary. I can even forgive Devgn for copying the human trafficking theme of Shivaay from the Liam Neeson-starrer, Taken. But how do I forgive him for a regressive plot that makes a villain out of East Europeans? The Bulgarian heroine is shown to be an inconsiderate woman who does not want to have a baby despite the Indian hero wishing to have that baby, which, by default, places our Indian hero on a higher moral ground. Also, our hero goes all the way to Bulgaria and takes on a superhero avatar - defying gravity; running nonstop after racing cars; dodging bullets from huge, dangerous-looking guns, etc. - to bust the human trafficking racket in Eastern Europe. Had he just studied the human trafficking scenario in India, we would have had a far better film➖maybe a film like Mardaani, which wasn't a superior film, of course, but Mardaani addressed the issues in India and drew our attention towards the human trafficking scene in India and was, story-wise, making-wise, acting-wise, compared to Shivaay, a far better, logical, and believable film. Had Ajay Devgn made a serious film on human trafficking in India, instead of this almost-superhero flick, it would have suited his National Film Award-winning profile, the profile of the Ajay Devgn of films like Zakhm, The Legend of Bhagat Singh, Khakee, and Raincoat. Alas! Shivaay justifies neither the emotional angle (the father-daughter bond) nor the issue angle (human trafficking), and the flawless cinematography and special effects just end up becoming expensive, useless gimmicks. In the end, only one thing remained in my mind➖a dialogue spoken by Girish Karnad: "Ultimately, someone has to take a stand. Or else what will happen of these young girls? How will they return to their homes?" Shivaay - the character - took a stand, very good; but I think Ajay Devgn should have made Shivaay take a stand in India, keeping the ground realities in India in mind➖that would have given us a far better film.
Neelakasham Pachakadal Chuvanna Bhoomi (2013)
Ah! I saw this film only for Dulquer Salmaan, and I was...well, disappointed!
"Neel Akasham Pacha Kadal Chuvanna Bhoomi" is so sweet in parts that I just feel like giving it 10 stars straightaway. Also, there is this cute pair of Dulquer Salmaan and Surja Bala Hijam; and, more than that, the dazzling chemistry between Dulquer Salmaan and Sunny Wayn. Also, there are some memorable characters and sequences. Yet, the film falls short for some reasons.
First, the politics. This is not a political film. It is good as a love story, and even better as a road/biker film. I do not understand why the suicide of a Dalit student, the SFI, the lead character Kasi's (Dulquer Salmaan) father being a prominent person, etc. were put in the film? Couldn't Kasi and Assi (Surja Bala Hijam) have met at a college festival, or in their college corridor, or in the library, or in a coffee shop, instead of at a students' protest march? The religious angle, Kasi's Muslim family not accepting a Christian Assi is understood. The Naxalite zone somewhere in Telangana (Andhra Pradesh, at the time when this film was released) is understood. A village somewhere in northern Odisha or southern West Bengal that has been taken over by mining companies, that is understood. The communal riot in Assam is understood. Even that part where a man convicted of killing one of Kasi and Assi's friends tries to bump off Suni in northern West Bengal is understood. But why politics for no reason during Kasi and Assi's college days? If this film has been inspired by "Diarios di Motocicleta", then I am sorry, this inspiration doesn't work at all even if one were to argue that politics has become a part of campus life nowadays. For a film like "Diarios di Motocicleta", one needed a political theme, and "Neel Akasham Pacha Kadal Chuvanna Bhoomi" is, I repeat, a love story, not a political story. Assi rides from Kerala to Nagaland for love, not for politics. And even if Kasi took this road trip to discover himself, like Che Guevara did in "Diarios di Motocicleta", then what happened to that self-discovery and, ultimately, his politics - he has a memorable dialogue in the college politics sequence: "I fought for a student's right to live" - once his road trip was over? He just fetched Assi from her home in Nagaland and fled, apparently, to a city like Bangalore or somewhere where a Malayali Muslim boy marrying a half-Marathi-half-Naga Christian girl wouldn't raise eyebrows. Why couldn't the makers of this film keep it simple and only deal with Kasi's trip to meet Assi and the difficulties Kasi and Suni faced on their journey instead of raising major issues, like, a Dalit student committing suicide, education loans, campus politics, politicisation of the death of a Dalit student, etc., they had no intention to resolve?
Second, some parts of the film seem quite stilted. And I am very sad to observe that these parts feature the lead pair: Dulquer Salmaan and Surja Bala Hijam. They are just so cute I just kept staring at them as I saw them on the screen. In fact, Dulquer Salmaan is the reason why I purchased the DVD of "Neel Akasham Pacha Kadal Chuvanna Bhoomi" in the first place! But though Dulquer and Surja Bala look fantastic together, most scenes featuring them, especially the college parts, look too lame to be believable. Yes, some parts of theirs are quite memorable, like, Dulquer grabbing Surja Bala's hand in the college corridor and pulling her in his direction while she was walking the other way. But it is a sad fact I have to painfully accept: The chemistry between Dulquer and Surja Bala is just flat. On the other hand, Dulquer's chemistry with the two other girls, Paloma Monappa (playing Ishita) and Avantika Mohan (playing Fathima), is just fabulous.
Ultimately, it comes to the hero's sidekick, Suni (played by Sunny Wayn), to rescue the film. And what a rescue it is! Suni is the first character seen on the screen, and he is a scene-stealer! In fact, Suni's "love or lust" dialogue and his sequences with Gauri (played by Ena Saha) and Paru (Abhija Sivakala) are more interesting than the sequences between Dulquer and Surja Bala. Sunny Wayn is the life of this film➖the blue sky, the green sea, and the red earth of "Neel Akasham Pacha Kadal Chuvanna Bhoomi".
Sunny Wayn, and some scenes that stayed on in my mind even after the film was long over. Like, Kasi reading the book, "Long Way Round", by Ewan McGregor and Charley Boorman, that, apparently, inspires him to make that Kerala to Nagaland road trip on his Bullet motorcycle; Dhritiman Chatterjee's character saying, "I will wait for the sound of the Bullets"; Assi, an architecture student, reading a book by Gabriel Garcia Marquez; Assi's home in Nagaland full of books; Kasi and Suni meeting a Malayali motor mechanic in northern West Bengal and Suni remarking, "That is why there are so many nails on this road!"; Suni amused at the sight of a potato in his biryani in Kolkata; and, perhaps the most touching sequence in this film, even more than the love story and anything else, Kasi realising, after experiencing a death in the Assam riot, that he should have performed his basic duty of looking after his aged parents instead of coming on a road trip (anyone living alone and far from one's family would identify with this scene). These are the scenes that are still running in my mind.
Even with so much going for this film - a very promising plot, a to-die-for lead pair, an amazing actor playing the sidekick, lovely cinematography, a background score that often reminded me of Shigeru Umebayashi's "Yumeji's Theme" - "Neel Akasham Pacha Kadal Chuvanna Bhoomi" fails to deliver much. Another disappointment: These two dudes rode up to Babhanhati in northern Odisha, they missed Jharkhand by just a whisker! It would have been lovely to see Dulquer Salmaan here.
Pink (2016)
Flawless
I am just out of the cinema hall after watching "Pink" and it was one numbing experience. While I was watching the film, I did not dare to move my eyes off the screen for fear of missing any vital plot element. "Pink" is one of the most talked about films of recent times, so I do not need to really repeat its plot. I will just mention the parts that I found good and, in most cases, touching and quite relevant to the situation around us nowadays.
1. I liked the way the defence lawyer, Deepak Sehgal (played by Amitabh Bachchan), conducts the proceeding in the courtroom as a "Rule Book for Safety of Women". This rule book includes points like whether a woman should go out with an unknown man or not, whether she should smile or be friendly or not, what kind of clothes she should wear, the difference between different kinds of women (women from good families, women with questionable characters, etc.), which women drink at parties, etc., and then he uses these same points against the prosecution.
2. Kirti Kulhari (as Falak, the only breadwinner in her family) comes across as the more powerful performer. Of course, Tapasee Pannu (playing Minal, and Tapasee Pannu is terrific) is the person around which the story revolves, we see that Minal is already a strong character. Her modesty was outraged and she retaliates. Falak wasn't involved at all. However, Falak, not wishing to push matters further, calls for a "compromise" between the two parties. Till this point, she is a vulnerable and insecure character. However, when she realises that her apology doesn't mean anything to the men who had tried to molest her friend, she snaps and turns into a more powerful character. Even in the courtroom, Falak is restrained. But when she realises that the prosecution is hell-bent upon proving the three women are prostitutes, her breaking down scene is worth a mention.
3. Andrea (played by Andrea Tariang) is from Meghalaya. Her mentioning that as a girl from the northeast India, the humiliation she faces is different and severe from the humiliation that women from the mainland India face, that is, perhaps, a reality that has been stated very clearly➖and, surprisingly, in a mainstream Bollywood film. The first time the issue of harassment of women from the northeast India was raised in a mainstream Hindi film was, perhaps, in Yash Raj Films' "Chak De! India", released nine years ago➖and, coincidentally, set in Delhi. But "Chak De! India", despite its serious cinema garb, was an out and all commercial film, and the girls in it were hockey players, a complete team. Those girls could fight and break the bones of those who harassed them. The three girls in "Pink" are ordinary women working in a big city; and though they are strong-willed, they are not rich or well-connected or even in a huge group of 12 or 15. So the situation of women in "Pink" is different - and more closer to reality - than in "Chak De! India".
4. In the scene where Minal and her lawyer, Deepak Sehgal, are shown jogging together early in the morning, Minal, conscious that people are watching her - now that she is fighting a case that has become so public - pulls the hood of her sweatshirt over her head so that no one is able to see her face. Deepak Sehgal, her lawyer, pulls her hood off. This is a very significant scene that implies that the lawyer trusts his client, knows that she is innocent, and that she has nothing to be ashamed of or hide her face for.
5. When the three girls, along with their lawyer, Deepak Sehgal, visit Sehgal's dying wife, Sara (played by Mamata Shankar), in the hospital, Sara gifts Minal a packet of biscuits and tells the three girls: "Khao." ("Eat.") This is a very short scene, but quite a touching scene.
The entire film is full of lines like "Tum log toh ladki ho" ("You three are mere women") and "You should have been careful". However, the two lines that stayed with me are:
1. Falak, accompanied by Andrea (Minal is in police custody), telling - rather pleading before - lawyer Deepak Sehgal: "Sir, we are just ordinary working women."
2. Deepak Sehgal's "No means no➖whether it's your friend, lover, or even wife" argument ending monologue at the end of the film. That sums up the entire theme of "Pink". A "no" means just one thing: "no".
I couldn't really find any fault in "Pink". The film sticks to its theme and purpose so steadfastly without diverting anywhere that it works absolutely well. A flawless film. 10/10. And maybe I will watch it again. Also, I saw "Pink" in an ancient single-screen cinema hall which has Qube satellite projection and Dolby Digital sound, but where the ticket prices are still ₹15 and ₹25, and the colour of the ticket I purchased was - and it always is - interestingly, pink!
Spectre (2015)
God help Christoph Waltz, and thank god for Ben Whishaw and Naomie Harris
I am so biased towards James Bond films that I might end up giving 8, 9 or 10 stars to all the Bond films that I have seen. But I give "Spectre" only 7 stars. Of all the Daniel-Craig-as-Bond films, I have not seen only one, "Quantum of Solace". Bond is brooding again, and there is hardly anything in "Spectre" that I have not seen in any of the Bond films featuring Daniel Craig as Bond. Also, there is quite some introspection and retrospection - though not as much as in "Skyfall", thankfully - and Bond is again fighting ghosts from his past. The villain, Franz Oberhauser alias Ernst Stavro Blofeld (played by Christoph Waltz, and he is a complete waste in this role; someone please ask him if, after films like "Inglourious Basterds", "Django Unchained" and "Carnage", was it so important for him to do a Bond film just because it is a Bond film??), heads a mafia-like organisation called Spectre, which is connected to most of the important people from our current Bond's past. Be it the last M (played by Judi Dench), Le Chiffre (played by Mads Mikkelsen) from "Casino Royale", Silva (played by Javier Bardem) from "Skyfall", or Vesper Lynd (played by Eva Green) from "Casino Royale" - I have not seen "Quantum of Solace" so I cannot name characters from that film - Spectre is connected to all. It is Bond's job to nab Franz and finish Spectre. "Spectre" is stylish, no doubt, but I liked it only for one thing➖for giving more screen time to two vital characters from the Bond franchise who mostly have fleeting roles in most other Bond films: Q and Moneypenny. Ben Whishaw as Q and Naomie Harris as Moneypenny are fabulous; also, there are some hilarious lines between their characters and Bond. The bad thing about "Spectre", which is also the bad thing with most post-Daniel Craig Bond films: Bond girls are just ornamental. Yes, Bond girls have always been ornamental. But the earlier Bond girls, till "Die Another Day", despite just being an accessory to Bond, had spunk and an individuality. Remember Michelle Yeoh's kung-fu and motorcycle ride in "Tomorrow Never Dies", Halle Berry's jump into the sea in Cuba in "Die Another Day", Sophie Marceau's ambition in "The World Is Not Enough", Rosamund Pike's sophistication in "Die Another Day", or Famke Janssen's uninhibited sadistic sexuality in "GoldenEye"➖those were the Bond girls who could do their own things on their own. Wai Lin (Michelle Yeoh in "Tomorrow Never Dies") and Jinx Jordan (Halle Berry in "Die Another Day") did not need any man to rescue them. Even Natalya Simonova (Izabella Scorupco in "GoldenEye") and Christmas Jones (Denise Richards in "The World Is Not Enough") were able to manage on their own. But post-Daniel Craig Bond girls, despite being kind of intellectually superior - Vesper Lynd was an agent of the British treasury, while Madeiline Swann (Léa Seydoux in "Spectre") is a psychologist - have been given mostly dark and sad back-stories, maybe to match the broodiness of the current Bond. There is glamour galore in the Bond girls in "Spectre". Monica Bellucci's stilettos and shades and Léa Seydoux's dresses and shades are to die for➖but what else is there in them? Unlike the pre-Daniel Craig Bond girls, they can't even fight their own fights and need Bond to rescue them. And in post-Daniel Craig Bond films, most Bond girls die. Eva Green's and Caterina Murino's characters died in "Casino Royale", Bérénice Lim Marlohe's character died in "Skyfall"➖thankfully, Lucia Sciarra (played by Monica Bellucci) and Madeiline Swann do not die in "Spectre". But, seriously, this new brooding Bond has taken away all life, all individuality from the Bond girls. Also, the theme song. While Adele's "Skyfall" worked excellently as a standalone piece, Sam Smith's "Writing's On The Wall" could be brought into perspective only if one sees "Spectre" right from the beginning till the end. Just 7/10➖and that too because of Ben Whishaw and Naomie Harris; and because Daniel Craig, with his gym-toned body, appears topless during the opening credits. Also, trivia check: In the climax of "Spectre", in the list of names of all the MI6 agents - written on a wall in the bombed MI6 building (check "Skyfall"), hence, Sam Smith's "Writing's On The Wall" - who laid down their lives in the service of their nation, I spotted a name "Emma Peel". Ms. Peel was the heroine of the TV series, "The Avengers", whose film adaptation I saw, with the rubber-limbed Uma Thurman playing Emma Peel. I still have superb memories of that Ralph Fiennes-Uma Thurman-Sean Connery-starrer, "The Avengers", released in the late 1990s. Who knew that one day something called "Marvel's The Avengers" would come out of Hollywood and spoil the British beauty?
Dum Laga Ke Haisha (2015)
I would like to give "Dum Laga Ke Haisha" 20 stars because it is just so good
This film is just so good! Right from the opening titles, when it is Kumar Sanu's voice - and not Lata Mangeshkar's aalaap - that accompanies the Yash Raj Films logo, you know that you are in for something fabulous. And just how fabulous, how familiar "Dum Laga Ke Haisha Is"! I have grown up in the 1990s. The very sight of Maxell tapes, the old Sony television set, the push-button telephone set placed in a small alcove in the wall, Bhimsen Joshi's "Mile Sur Mera Tumhara" on Doordarshan, the Reynolds pen with a blue lid, and the name of the choreographer Chinni Prakash in the titles were enough to push me back on a nostalgic trip. If the setting of the film is just-so-perfect, the story and its execution are something to tell everyone about. The daily nitty-gritties of the Indian middle-class life - like, elderly ladies talking to each other in their beds before falling asleep - is just so true to life. Some sequences in the film are just worth watching again and again, like, the musical war between Prem (Ayushmann Khurrana) and Sandhya (Bhumi Pednekar), where Sandhya attacks Prem by playing the "Woh Meri Neend Mera Chain Mujhe Lauta Do" song from the film "Hum Hain Rahi Pyar Ke" and Prem retaliates by playing the "Abhi Zinda Hoon Toh Jee Lene Do" song from the film "Naajayaz" (incidentally, both films were directed by Mahesh Bhatt, who was a star-filmmaker in the 1990s). I cannot believe how a film can be so well-written and well-made and yet remain so down-to-earth. The chemistry between every actor in this film - and not only the main lead - is just fabulous. I am afraid I will just go on giving out more spoilers, and that is because I just loved this film! There is a scene with Sheeba Chadha (who played Aishwarya Rai's cousin in "Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam" and one of John Abraham's lovers in "Jism"➖I am naming these films only to bring in some nostalgia factor) who plays the hero's aunt - bua - who has been disowned by her husband, so she lives with her brother's family. This scene has the bua being informed that her husband, who disowned her all those years ago and practically made her live like a widow all her life, has died; so, being the deceased man's wife - although disowned - could she attend the funeral? The character's rage and emotions in this scene is worth seeing, where she first rebukes the informer for insulting her by informing of the death of her husband and inviting her to his funeral, and then she weeps inconsolably at finally being really widowed. This is one of the best scenes. Another scene has the hero's mother attending the divorce court even as she has been fitted with an IV line. This sequence is hilarious to say the least. In the race sequence, when Sandhya, being carried by Prem on his back, tells him: "Humein kahin nahin jaana, rok lijiye humein" ("I don't want to go anywhere else, please stop me"), this part is an absolute tearjerker. IMDb allows just 10 stars. I would give "Dum Laga Ke Haisha" 20 stars. This film is just so good.
Shame (2011)
Steve McQueen's "Shame" is a devastating masterpiece
Steve McQueen's "Shame" is a depressing mix of loneliness and sex. Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan play, respectively, Brandon and Sissy, a pair of siblings. Both are successful in their own way. Brandon is a successful executive who lives in New York City in a luxurious apartment with glass walls, has a huge LG television placed right on the floor next to his bed, and listens to Bach. Yet, he does not have friends outside his work circle, brings home and visits prostitutes, has random casual sex with any woman who is interested, is addicted to internet porn, and, on one occasion, when he is unable to seduce a woman at a bar and is roughed up by her boyfriend, he, just in one night, first walks into a gay bar, shares a passionate kiss with a man and then makes that man fellate him, and then walks over to two prostitutes and has a threesome with them. However, his acts of sex aren't for enjoyment. He is such an insomniac - or so lonely - that he gets up even before his alarm goes off. He masturbates even after he has just had sex. And, while he is penetrating a woman or being fellated by a man, you can't see even an ounce of pleasure on his face. He is in pain, frustrated, and angry. And accompanying those sex scenes is a hauntingly morbid background score that underlines Brandon's loneliness. While he is engaged in an act that should be pleasurable, you feel sorry for him. On one occasion, when he dates a colleague and brings her home, the colleague is prepared to have sex but Brandon is unable to do it. Is he commitment-phobic? Does he deliberately wish to remain alone? "Shame" puts forward these questions in a very stylish and subtle manner. And those face close-ups of Brandon and the sad background score reminded me of two other stylish films on the theme of loneliness and relationships: Wong Kar-wai's "In The Mood For Love" and "2046". Sissy, on the other hand, is not like Brandon. She is a successful singer who has gigs at posh venues all over the US, but Sissy doesn't have a permanent place to stay. "Shame", through Sissy's loneliness - or her choice to remain unattached - also seems to ask questions about what is permanent? Sissy is supposed to be averse to having possessions of any kind except what she really needs. Despite being successful, she does not own a car, does not know how to drive one, and prefers to take a bus or a taxi. However, unlike Brandon, she wants to connect➖to anyone who would care for her. She is heard pleading to her boyfriend on the phone that she would leave everything if he just accepts her. The boyfriend doesn't relent. Before her show in New York City, Sissy calls up Brandon a number of times to inform him of her arrival, but Brandon lets all her calls go to the voice mail and ignores her completely. When she finally turns up, apparently unannounced, he calls her a burden, a hindrance in his apparently well-laid out life. Sissy just wants to be held, to find a root somewhere. The scene where both brother-sister are sitting on a couch, watching some black and white cartoon on the TV, and they have just had this argument - Brandon calling Sissy a burden, while Sissy reasoning that they are, after all, brother and sister and have no one else in their lives except one another and that they need to look after one another - Sissy tells Brandon she wants to be hugged, and Brandon, after some thought, holds her close to his body, comforting her. This entire scene has been shot from the back of both the actors. The cartoon on the TV can be seen, but not the expressions on the face of both the actors. All the drama, all the pain, all the garbled chemistry between this brother-sister duo is realised through the voices of the actors alone. And this is one brilliant scene! In another interesting scene, as dusk falls, Brandon watches a posh, well-lit, multi-storeyed, glass-fronted building where, on one floor, a man is taking a woman from the behind, the couple pressed against the huge glass window; on another floor, a lone suited man - perhaps as lonely as Brandon - is walking to and fro aimlessly; while, on another floor, a man - perhaps wary of the world outside and trying to feel secure in his glass house - is drawing the curtains➖scenes from a modern, urban life. Finally, after a tragedy, Brandon accepts Sissy as his only family. Michael Fassbender is awesome. He cries, he curses, he is broken down completely. Same with Carey Mulligan. Though I will always remember this cute British girl as Kitty Bennet from Joe Wright's film, "Pride & Prejudice", Mulligan, in "Shame", is more in the mould of her character of Lynn Barber in the film "An Education": cute, yet, intense. Also, Mulligan's chemistry with older actors is magical. Remember her chemistry with Peter Sarsgaard in "An Education"! Steve McQueen is some kind of genius. Both "12 Years A Slave" and "Shame" are about bondage, but of different types. While "12 Years A Slave" was about a freed slave being pushed into slavery again and taking twelve years to get the authorities to free him again, "Shame" is about being tied up by our circumstances in the contemporary era when all of us are supposed to be free and independent. "Shame" is highly disturbing, but it is also highly touching. Hats off to everyone involved in the making of "Shame"!
Raaz Reboot (2016)
Good, in parts; but avoidable, overall
In 2002's Raaz, only the husband had a secret. In 2016's Raaz Reboot, both the husband and the wife have a secret➖a shared secret. The wife doesn't tell the husband because she felt that it was all over. The husband didn't tell the wife because he too thought that it was all over. So the secret himself (this "himself" might be a spoiler) comes haunting the couple.
To give credit to the film, Raaz Reboot is scary, especially the first part. The scares are of the shock-scare type, but they are scary. I saw this film only last night, in the balcony of an ancient single-screen cinema hall. There seemed to be only twenty other people besides me in that space which could house about 200 or so people. I had been given an aisle seat and the rows near and behind me were all vacant. So, starting from the first scary scene, I was looking all around me. There was not much in the story, but the scares kept me glued, and I expected even more scares in the second half, but I was terribly, terribly disappointed.
It wasn't just the second half of Raaz Reboot that made it disappointing - let us not talk logic and all here - it was also the revelation part which was a complete letdown and where it differs from the Raaz of 2002➖which I would call a superior film despite being an unabashed copy of the Michelle Pfeiffer-Harrison Ford-starrer, What Lies Beneath.
In 2002's Raaz, women were all-powerful. It was almost a feminist venture, Vishesh Films style. Malini Sharma was the manipulative and malevolent spirit, while Bipasha Basu was the unafraid and protective wife. But I will still not call Raaz a good film. Entertaining, yes; but good, no➖simply because it very conveniently turned Malini Sharma's character, who we are told is unstable, into the villain. This was not the case in Raaz's inspiration, What Lies Beneath. Amber Valletta wasn't projected as the villain. A spirit seeking salvation, yes, but not the villain. Harrison Ford, who killed Amber Valletta, was the villain. Years later, in Prabhu Deva's Action Jackson, Manasvi Mamgai, who again plays an unstable character who falls in love with a married man, Ajay Devgn, is made a villain. When will Bollywood learn to respect psychiatric conditions? But, well, that's a different issue altogether.
In Raaz Reboot, the scenario is totally the opposite. In Raaz Reboot, it is the woman who has been called the weaker link. In several scenes, the two male leads - Emraan Hashmi and Gaurav Arora, one of who is the antagonist - are seen debating the fidelity of the female lead, played by Kriti Kharbanda. One of the major plot elements involves a mangalsutra which, if the woman has on her body, no evil spirit would be able to touch her. In one tense and indecisive moment, Kharbanda's character - who is married to Arora's character - takes off her mangalsutra and has sex with the other man, played by Hashmi. Now, the woman is possessed by an evil spirit, and her man has to actually hold her tight with the mangalsutra in his hand to exorcise the spirit. Isn't it like tying up the woman completely? When the woman isn't tied up by the spirit, she is tied up by the mangalsutra. So, it's almost as if a woman's fate lies in being tied up, and I could actually imagine most of the audience thinking, "It is the woman's fault. She should have told her husband her secret." Well, what about the husband's part of the secret then? Wasn't he a responsible party too? Raaz of 2002 didn't have such confusing and questionable moments. It was straightforward. The man was the villain - or a criminal, at least - and it is the woman who was the hero. In Raaz of 2002, both Basu and Sharma were both glamour and fury. In Raaz Reboot, Kharbanda is mostly glamour and some body contortion which has become a staple in Hindi horror films nowadays. Raaz of 2002 at least had memorable songs, songs whose lyrics I remember even today. Raaz Reboot has such songs that I remember that one song was sung by Arijit Singh, but I do not remember at all how that song went! Like Raaz, though, Raaz Reboot too has a cameo by a crow.
Hashmi does best whatever he had been asked (or expected) to do. Arora seriously needed a haircut.
Another drawback of Raaz Reboot is its language and setting. If Raaz could be set in India with Indian themes, why was Raaz Reboot taken to Romania? There are so many English dialogues - minus subtitles - so many Caucasian characters (including a Gypsy woman who works as a medium), and so many references to spirits of the Western world, that it seems one is watching a Hindi remake of The Exorcist or The Conjuring. Also, believe it or not, they actually mentioned Count Dracula's castle and there was a building called Hotel Transylvania! However, there was one quirky part in the film that shocked me - in a delightful way - even more than the shock-scares. Kriti Kharbanda, whose character is supposed to be from Kolkata, in a scene with Emraan Hashmi, quotes a line by Rabindranath Tagore, first in original Bengali, and then its Hindi translation for the benefit of the audience.
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
A beautiful, understated, gem of a film
Nothing could have prepared me for what I saw in "Eyes Wide Shut". Stanley Kubrick takes the stars out of Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise and makes them any ordinary, self-searching people. Kidman of "Eyes Wide Shut" was certainly not the Satine of "Moulin Rouge" or any star character of any of her other films. Tom Cruise was not the Tom Cruise we are so used to seeing: Maverick, Ethan Hunt and all. Both Cruise and Kidman were both disrobed and demystified in "Eyes Wide Shut" that I felt sorry for them. They are vulnerable, they cry, and they are absolutely not the stars or heroes we are used to seeing.
As a film, "Eyes Wide Shut" works excellently. Though it has been billed as an erotic thriller, it is also a study into human relationships, especially between married couples. There is a line in the film: "Don't you think one of the charms of marriage is that it makes deception a necessity for both parties?" This line was spoken in a flirtatious way at a party, but this line seems to be the message the entire film seems to be built upon. In a married couple, who shows the most honesty, the husband or the wife? Alice and Dr. Bill Harford (played by Kidman and Cruise) are a well-to-do New York City couple. Bill is a general practitioner, while Alice used to be a manager at an art gallery who is now a housewife looking after Helena, their only daughter, aged 7. In a cannabis-fuelled haze, Alice reveals that she had wanted to be unfaithful to Bill once, though she hadn't. Bill is unable to stand this revelation, though he doesn't show it, and roams the streets of New York City that night watching apparently committed people turning to adultery, morals (depending upon how one defines "morals") being disregarded, and, the highlight of his introspective adventure, gatecrashes a secret party where orgies are being held and that nearly endangers his life.
After a lot of revelations and catharsis, the film ends well. But it leaves behind a number of questions, the biggest one being: Who between a husband and a wife is the most honest? We see Alice being honest to her husband, but Bill - because of several issues, including the doctor-patient relationship of secrecy - cannot be that honest with his wife even if he wished to. So was it right for Bill to get so upset about something that Alice said she had wanted to do but she, ultimately, didn't? Was it right for Alice to tell her husband something that she didn't do? Is it right for couples to discuss their fantasies involving other men and women? Or was that joint Alice and Bill rolled that was to be blamed? With a lot of self-searching questions, "Eyes Wide Shut" is an amazing and beautifully understated thriller.
Also, check out the background score. There are a lot of classical music pieces. But what really caught my attention were the menacing piano solos that pop up all of a sudden at critical points. Also, piano - or, rather, a pianist - plays an important role in the plot. Hats off to Stanley Kubrick for giving us this gem of a film called "Eyes Wide Shut" just before he departed!
Rustom (2016)
Good one-time watch
The Nanavati case of the 1950s seems to be hot on the literary and film scene in India right now. Just a few weeks ago I read R. Raj Rao's novel, Lady Lolita's Lovel, a clever and entertaining juxtaposition of the Nanavati case and D. H. Lawrence's novel, Lady Chatterley's Lover. Rustom, inspired by the Nanavati case, is entertaining to say the least. Just like Akshay Kumar's previous films Holiday, Baby and Airlift. And because Akshay Kumar seems to have mastered the formula of creating fast-paced thrillers with quick lessons in patriotism and nationalism, even Rustom, apparently inspired by an incident of adultery, too has been injected with liberal doses of patriotism.
Most things work for Rustom. Though the period setting does not really impress, the writing does. The courtroom scene, especially, has been written quite well. There is humour in it, and a tongue-in-cheek feeling.
Akshay Kumar, despite being the lead star, is not the best thing about Rustom. It is the supporting cast. Be it Pavan Malhotra as the investigating police officer, Kumud Mishra as the newspaper editor who turns the public opinion in Rustom's favour, Usha Nadkarni as the Pavris' domestic help, Sachin Khedekar as the prosecution lawyer, or Anang Desai as the judge➖the supporting actors have been given opportunities and they have delivered.
The weakest thing about Rustom is, perhaps, its female lead: Ileana D'Cruz. Maybe the cue given to her was "look sad", so she has a crestfallen appearance throughout the film. Esha Gupta is better, though quite over the top. With a Zeenat Aman-ish appearance, Esha Gupta brings a certain femme-fatale-ish glamour to her character➖her fashion style and poise, breathing fire in anger at the murder of her brother (played by Arjan Bajwa) at the hands of Rustom Pavri (played by Akshay Kumar), smoking a cigarette through a long holder while being given a back massage by a young man, reacting furiously in the courtroom, vowing to get Rustom Pavri hanged, etc.
Not perfect - in fact, far from being perfect - Rustom is a good one-time watch.
Fever (2016)
Avoid Avoid Avoid! Run as far away as possible from this film!
I am so ashamed I am writing this review. Curiosity killed me. Or, rather, curiosity killed my 150 rupees. I was curious about what Bond girl Caterina Murino (Solange in 2006's Casino Royale) was doing in a Bollywood film. That was why I went to see Fever. Also, the film looked sleek, what with all those gorgeous Swiss locales and all. I was deceived quite easily. I ended up sleeping through a nice part of the film before the interval. The film hardly made any sense in the first 30 minutes. This, together with the air conditioning in the multiplex, made me sleep. A loud noise just before the interval woke me up. I realised it was a very badly composed background score. For once it is hard to believe that the background score has been composed by Ranjit Barot! But that is how bad Fever is. Except those Swiss locales and some beautiful photography nothing else is good in Fever. But why am I praising the cinematography? The camera-work is good, but, in the end, everything is just like some beautiful picture postcard from Europe. In fact, when a range of logos of European travel firms and Swiss government organisations is displayed right after the censor board certificate and the no smoking ad, you know what is in store: A Bollywood-style promo of Swiss tourism. Caterina Murino has a you-blink-and-you-miss-her role, but the most heartbreaking thing about Fever is Victor Banerjee's role. The veteran actor has only a short and absolutely unimportant cameo. It looked like they needed just a star or a big-name actor to do that cameo➖hence, Victor Banerjee. And better to say nothing about Rajeev Khandelwal, Gauhar Khan, Gemma Atkinson, and debutante Ankita Makwana. I read somewhere that Gemma Atkinson is a big star of British television. What kind of fever compelled her to act in this Fever? Seriously, Fever is just a 127-minute-long, made-by-Bollywood commercial for Swiss tourism featuring six big and small celebrities from India and abroad. I have given Fever 2 stars out of 10. One star is for the guts of the makers of this film who believed that they could get away with making such a joke of a film. The second star is for making me fall asleep, for the first time in my life, in a cinema hall! Yet, Fever is still far better than another film I saw on this fiction/reality theme: the Arjun Rampal-Jacqueline Fernandez-Ranbir Kapoor-starrer, Roy. I could still sit - even sleep - through Fever. In Roy, I just walked out in the interval and did not return for the rest of the film➖the film was so unbearable!
Jason Bourne (2016)
Matt Damon is the only saving grace
I have just come out of the multiplex after watching JASON BOURNE and I do not know how to sum up my feelings for this film. I understand that the Bourne franchise is a huge one and it has spawned a number of successful films. Unfortunately, for me, I am not at all familiar with Jason Bourne. Neither have I read the Bourne novels by Robert Ludlum, nor have I seen any of the films starring Matt Damon as Bourne. There is only one Bourne film that I saw in parts. That one which had the opening sequences shot in Goa. And I saw that film only because it co-starred Franka Potente, an actor I like; and it really disappointed me to see her bumped off in that film, so I switched off the TV the moment Franka Potente's character dies right at the beginning of that film. (Please also read my review of The Conjuring 2 to know how disappointed I am to see Franka Potente star in films that do not have anything substantial for her to do.)
I think it would be wrong for me to say that I would not see a film just because a character played by a favourite actor dies in it. Fact is, I couldn't follow that Bourne film. Worst - for the Bourne franchise, of course - I cannot even remember the name of that Bourne film in which Franka Potente's character dies.
Let me get this straight. Jason Bourne is not James Bond, nor is he even Ethan Hunt. I know die-hard Jason Bourne fans would kill me after reading this, but somehow this brooding spy/hero just does not catch my fancy at all. Had it been some other actor playing Jason Bourne, I wouldn't have gone to see even this new Bourne film. But it is different with Matt Damon, another actor I like, so I went to see JASON BOURNE. Man! Was I disappointed! I think I might like (or appreciate) Bourne films if I see the first Bourne films, films that made the Bourne series the power it is. But here I am talking about JASON BOURNE and I found it a complete waste of time. To start with, Julia Stiles, another actor I like (I loved her - and everyone of her posh girl gang - in Mona Lisa Smile), is bumped off. Next, the plot devices are nothing new. I must have seen the tropes displayed in JASON BOURNE in several other spy/thriller films. In the end, the only saving grace is Matt Damon. And, to some extent, Alicia Vikander. And why do I think that Alicia Vikander looks like the next Emily Blunt?
Dishoom (2016)
Not a strong enough Dishoom, Akshaye Khanna's part disappointed me
The only hope I had with Dishoom was Akshaye Khanna. This was supposed to be his comeback film and I was looking forward to the kind of presence he had in some of his previous films, especially Humraaz, as he had a negative role in that one. Alas! All my hopes were deflated. Except a few mildly strong one-liners, Khanna has nothing substantial to do in Dishoom despite being the film's main antagonist. He has no action or fight scenes with the film's two main leads, John Abraham and Varun Dhawan, maybe because two brawny hulks like Abraham and Dhawan beating up an actor like Khanna (who, I think, still has some credibility because of some of his films in the past) would have been terribly unwatchable. Dishoom, I felt, was saved by just two people: Varun Dhawan, and Akshay Kumar in a special appearance. Varun Dhawan repeats his cute-and-naughty-boy-next-door act from Main Tera Hero and Humpty Sharma Ki Dulhania and, trust me, he just excels in it. The entire film is tolerable only because of Varun Dhawan. His cherubic smile, his comic timing, everything added up to create an endearing character that made me smile even as I walked out of the multiplex thinking of Dhawan's character while everyone else had vanished from my mind. As for Akshay Kumar's special appearance, I wonder if his playing a gay character is a progressive step for Bollywood. Whatever, Akshay Kumar just charmed me. I wonder if Dishoom intends to be a gay-friendly film, because there are enough eye candies on offer: John Abraham, Varun Dhawan, Saqib Saleem, Rahul Dev, Tarun Khanna, Akshaye Khanna (if one seeks intellectual/mature-looking studs), and Akshay Kumar and his all-male harem as well. As for the rest of the film, the story is, obviously, forgettable and does not demand much thinking or logic. I hope this is not a spoiler: A bulldog plays an important role in the film. There are few good action and chase sequences (but nothing that we have not seen before) coupled with a thumping background score which also includes portions from that catchy song "Sau tarah ke rog le loon", and a Houdini-like act involving dislocation of one's shoulder. Other than that, there is a loud jingoism of the cricket kind. And other than that, and other than Varun Dhawan, there is Satish Kaushik doing a terrific cameo as a voice on phone (the kind of cameo that Bharati Acharekar did in Ritesh Batra's The Lunchbox➖and she too was fabulous in it). Check that out.
Kabali (2016)
Despite starring Rajinikanth, Kabali is more than a mere big budget entertainer
I saw Kabali in Hindi. I think I need to see it again in its original language, Tamil, because I feel that there are certain issues this film raises that can be understood in a better way only if one watches them in Tamil. There are several references to history of Tamils in Malaysia. Kabali (played by Rajanikanth), his wife (played by Radhika Apte), and several other Indian and Tamil characters in the film are supposed to be new generation Indians/Tamils in Malaysia whose ancestors were taken to the Malaya peninsula from the India as workers in plantations run by the British. In these plantations, these Indian/Tamil workers were treated as being inferior to the Chinese (another community present in Malaysia). Kabali, in the first half of the film, has never been to India. He is shown as leading a revolt in one of the plantations demanding an equal pay for Indian/Tamil workers. This episode of the history of Indians/Tamils will, I am sure, never be shown in mainstream Hindi films. A Tamil film has shown this and this is an important thing. I did not understand if most of the Indian characters in the film Kabali were Tamils or a mix of north- and south-Indians, for some of them had north-Indian sounding names. For example, a villain named Vijay Singh. It could also be that some Tamil characters were turned into north-Indian characters in the dubbed Hindi version to appeal to north-Indian viewers. This method does not work, because it reduces Kabali to a mere entertainer. And Kabali, I felt, was not a mere entertainer. There were several slices of history in it that we need to mull upon. The history of the Tamils in British plantations in Malaysia is one. Then, there is the chemistry among the Indians (or Tamils) there. In one dialogue, Kabali explains the importance of wearing suit to one other Indian. Kabali says: "Mahatma Gandhi gave up wearing suit and Babasaheb Ambedkar started wearing suit for one reason." In Hindi, this dialogue seems powerful and entertaining enough. But why did Kabali speak this dialogue? What is the background behind this dialogue? This, perhaps, could be understood in a better way if this film is seen in Tamil, or if we get to see more films (in Tamil or in any other language, but best in Tamil) on the lives of Tamil plantation workers in Malaysia. Also, there is another scene where a Tamil character thinks that just because Kabali started wearing suits, he has become very arrogant. There are sequences like these which made me think about the lives of these Tamil workers, their journey from India to Malaysia, their history in Malaysia, etc. It is a remarkable thing that a completely commercial and mainstream film - that too one starring Rajinikanth - speaks of these things, speaks of the politics. How many Hindi mainstream films starring the biggest 200-crore-plus-earning stars of Bollywood would be able to talk of politics like this? I wouldn't say much about Rajinikanth. He is endearing, as usual. He plays his age; and even in his younger looks, the special effects have been suitably executed. He does his trademark style once in a while, though it was not needed. Rajinikanth looks special the way he is. The scene where he sits like a king on a couch with the Petronas Twin Towers in the background, that is one memorable scene. Radhika Apte shines in every scene. Reminiscent of Aishwarya Rai of the mid- and late-1990s, Apte lights up the screen the moment she comes in. I was intrigued by Dhansika's presence in the film's trailer➖her action scenes are awesome. However, more than its stars, I admired Kabali for its characters and the issues it talked about. Kabali is, I will say it again, more than a mere big budget entertainer. I need to see it again, in original Tamil, because, I think, much was lost in its Hindi dubbed version.
Court (2014)
Well made, but flawed; yet, elevated because of the performances by its lead actors
I found Chaitanya Tamhane's COURT to be like a "thriller". It is well written and nearly as true to life as possible. I can vouch for this because I have faced this "taareekh pe taareekh" situation in a sessions court➖there was a case where I was called as a witness on 26th of May, but since the judge was on leave on that day, the case was adjourned to 12th of August. There are several other such instances. However, despite all the pluses that it has, COURT also has a number of minuses because there are so many clichés and at least one important plot element is left open and unexplained.
What I liked most about COURT was, certainly, its writing. Also, the way the film follows the personal lives of the people involved in that case➖the two lawyers (prosecution and defence), and the judge. This is also where the film, I felt, failed because the portrayal of the lawyers and the judge is quite cliché-ridden. The prosecution lawyer, who thinks that the folk singer is guilty of having driven a Dalit sewage cleaner to commit suicide, has been shown to be a middle-class Marathi woman. She is into beautiful saris and gives up eating sweet and oily foods because her husband is diabetic. So this lady is a typical sacrificing type, an apparently ideal Indian woman. Also, she enjoys watching popular Marathi plays that show people from north India (read Uttar Pradesh and Bihar) based in Mumbai as enemies to the local people in Maharashtra. On the other hand, the lawyer who represents the folk singer is shown to be a progressive-minded young man who attends meetings organised by social activists who come from the upper echelons of the society and speak proper English. He comes from a wealthy Gujarati family but lives away from his parents. He meets his parents and NRI sister for lunch at expensive restaurants. He parties with both male and female friends and drinks alcohol. He is single and is in no hurry to get married even though his parents worry about his marriage. His face is blackened by some goons because he apparently hurt the sentiments of some community. He weeps alone over this incident and then goes to a salon to get his face treated with mask and bleach.
This characterization, I felt, was terribly flawed. This type of characterization tries to push the view that all a middle-class Marathi woman is capable of doing is walk the line and blindly argue in an apparently absurd case; while a seemingly forward-thinking, English-speaking, and salon-going man is always rational. Also, that important plot element - the incident of a Dalit sewage worker committing suicide - gets abandoned once the plot gets into the personal lives of the lawyers and the judge.
Yet, despite such fundamental flaws, COURT is rescued by its setting and the performance of its actors. Vira Sathidar, Vivek Gomber, Geetanjali Kulkarni, and Pradeep Joshi are just terrific in the roles of, respectively, the accused folk singer, the defence lawyer, the prosecution lawyer, and the judge. They seem to have put lives into their roles➖they are so convincing. Another short, understated and terrifically real performance comes from Usha Bane, who plays the dead sewage worker's widow. For its setting, the work of its lead actors, for giving us a quirky look at how courts work in India (in one instance, the judge refuses to take up a case because the plaintiff, a middle-aged Christian woman, had come to court wearing a sleeveless top!➖the judge adjourns the case to some other day and advises the woman to come to court dressed decently!), and for shaking us badly in just 115 minutes flat, I will give Chaitanya Tamhane's COURT 8/10.
Tip: Try to get the DVD of COURT (Reliance Home Video, All Regions). There is a special feature on how the casting was done. This is really interesting.
Cannibal Holocaust (1980)
Gutsy, prescient work
I think people who make films like CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST are real visionaries. How did Ruggero Deodato know in the 1970s itself that the scenario he created then would come true 2-3 decades after that scenario was released? This film is a prescient exploration (done in the 1970s!) of the age of exploitation and voyeurism that we are living in now. Yes, CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST has its shortcomings. At times, the film seems amateurish. But that is maybe because the film required that raw look. As for the violence shown in the film, yes, it's graphic, but that perhaps compares nothing to the age we are living in now. I wonder if CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST would create any ripple now, when videos of public beheadings are easily available on the internet and circulated via WhatsApp? For being such a prescient and gutsy work, I rate CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST 10/10. I think am lucky I got to see this film.
Udta Punjab (2016)
Udta Punjab belongs to Alia Bhatt and Diljit Dosanjh
In the opening scene, where a smuggling of a bag of narcotics is shown, the person who is shown delivering a bag of narcotics into the Punjab is, apparently, a Pakistani inside the Pakistani territory. He just holds a huge bag - weighing, we later come to know, 3 kilograms - of narcotics the way an athlete would hold a discus. Then, just like a discus-thrower, that Pakistani throws that bag of narcotics into the Indian territory! Well, in the wildest of fiction, such a feat might be possible. But in a film that is supposedly based on facts, this method of smuggling narcotics into India from Pakistan - across one of the most heavily guarded borders in the entire world, and also add that wide no man's land - is quite unacceptable.
Next, it is difficult to accept that Kareena Kapoor Khan's character, a medical doctor in a drug rehab centre - who seems to be the only doctor there - spends all her waking hours (during which she isn't working in the rehab) preparing reports on anti-narcotics activism on her Macbook. I do not doubt her integrity or her dedication, but the way her character jumps from being a cool doctor to an intrepid anti-narcotics activist is so sudden that I was left wondering what this woman is made of. Not once does her character display the frustration that comes from fighting against the system and narcotics➖that too when she is shown constantly working on her computer. Even when she reminds Diljit Dosanjh's character about the police being involved in the drug nexus, her character is calm➖not a hint of anger that should naturally be present in a fight.
Apart from these two discrepancies, UDTA PUNJAB is a must-watch. It turns on its head the usual image of the Punjab that mainstream Hindi films have served us for decades. No colourful Bhangra sequences or sprawling yellow mustard fields here. Abhishek Chaubey does to the Punjab of Hindi films what Anurag Kashyap - one of the producers of UDTA PUNJAB - did to Saratchandra's Devdas of Hindi films in his 2009 film, 'Dev.D'.
Alia Bhatt's Bihari accent might not be perfect, but she perfectly gets into the character of a migrant labourer from Bihar working in the farms of the Punjab. Her "hockey stick to sickle" sequence with Shahid Kapoor is fabulous. In the same sequence, she abruptly kisses Kapoor on the mouth and tells him, "Except this, everything else has happened with me". This part just touched me in some way.
Somehow, the screen seems to come to life when Dosanjh's character comes. Is it his looks? (He looks stunning, by the way.) Is it his endearing, rustic way of speaking his dialogues? The drug-stabbed scene where he proposes to Kapoor Khan is worth a mention. Also, the scene where he persuades Kapoor Khan to fight against the drug menace, and when Kapoor Khan tells him that she is just a woman, he tells her: "The men of the Punjab are all stoned, so now it is up to the women of the Punjab to fight against drugs."
Shahid Kapoor's best scene in the film is when he, limping after being beaten up, enters a hospital ward to ask an injured truck driver the whereabouts of Alia Bhatt's character. In return, the truck driver asks him to sing a song for him and Kapoor sings a cappella: "A girl named Love has gone missing". This sequence is a memorable and touching one.
Despite her poorly written/developed character, Kapoor Khan brings in a certain gravity to the role of a medical doctor moonlighting as an anti-narcotics activist. When she flashes a torch to check the pupils of her patients and soothingly, but sternly, tells them, "Open your eyes, child", I had this feeling that yes, she has got her part right. UDTA PUNJAB is the type of film that Kapoor Khan used to do in the beginning of her career - remember 'Refugee', 'Asoka', 'Chameli', 'Dev', and 'Fida' - till some dolt advised her to do almost-cameos in Big Bollywood Films starring the Three Big Khans Of Bollywood in the lead.
UDTA PUNJAB is not without shortcomings. Yet, it is an important film. First, because of its theme; and second, because of the fact that a film like this actually got made in mainstream Bollywood. We need more films like UDTA PUNJAB.
The Wicker Man (1973)
Subversive, brave, atmospheric➖a must-watch
Robin Hardy's film, THE WICKER MAN, written for the screen by Anthony Shaffer and based on a story by David Pinner, was released in 1973. How many eyebrows did it raise then? And how many controversies would have this film raised had it been made today? A remake was done in 2006➖is it as good as the original?
What begins like a delectable musical, with a song about wheat and barley playing over an aerial photograph of the beautiful Scottish land- and seascapes, soon turns into something as subversive as possible. The "landlord's daughter" song, couples having sex in the open, the May Day "tree-man-woman-man-grave" song, young schoolgirls learning about "phallic" symbols from a stern school teacher, naked pregnant women dancing around and jumping over a bonfire so that their babies come out healthy, a live frog being pushed into a little girl's mouth (and then taken out a moment later) to cure her sore throat, the school teacher telling a devout Christian police officer that the concept of reincarnation is more acceptable to children than the concept of resurrection because reincarnation doesn't demand much of "childish imagination" as much as the resurrection of a "rotting" dead body does➖THE WICKER MAN is a brave and terrific attack on the concept of organised religion and making one's own choice in the matter of faith.
The acting is top notch. If Edward Woodward is earnest as Sergeant Neil Howie, an officer of the Mainland Police and a devout Christian, investigating the disappearance of a young girl on the island of Summerisle; then Christopher Lee is terrifyingly sinister as Lord Summerisle, a self-proclaimed master of everyone and everything on the island of Summerisle. I would especially mention Britt Eklund, who brings in a throwing-caution-to-the-wind and I-don't-care kind of sex appeal as Willow, the innkeeper's daughter. What I liked most about THE WICKER MAN is that despite being a horror film, there are no visible elements of horror in the film; yet, the film is so atmospheric, I had this feeling that something was definitely not right on the island of Summerisle. Like I mentioned earlier, the film starts like a beautifully shot musical set in a picturesque location and progresses like one. Even the subversive scenes - scenes that powerfully challenge one's faith - are accompanied by songs➖beautifully rendered songs which are, again, of a subversive nature.
There are three films I am really thankful I was able to see: Pier Paolo Pasolini's 'Salo', Ruggero Deodato's 'Cannibal Holocaust', and this one, Robin Hardy's THE WICKER MAN. These films are shocking, no doubt, but they also raise some important questions. THE WICKER MAN is a must-watch and I am happy that a film like this was made.
And this just occurred to me so I am editing my review a bit (I would still give THE WICKER MAN 10 out of 10 because I found it to be a brave and well-made film). What was the actual intention of the makers of this film? Did they want to push the view that anyone who practises the so-called "pagan" rituals and does not conform to Christianity is evil?
The Conjuring 2 (2016)
Avoid
A man I trust very much told me to not see THE CONJURING 2 because it is a bad film. I did not heed his advice because I had just loved THE CONJURING though I had seen it on DVD. So I went to see THE CONJURING 2 in a multiplex. I really should start listening to wise things that people tell me.
THE CONJURING 2 was disappointing. Vera Farmiga, Frances O'Connor, and the child actor Madison Wolfe are the only saving grace. I still don't understand what Franka Potente was doing in this film. I could find only one scare moment in the film➖when the demon makes a sudden appearance before Vera Farmiga's character towards the end of the film. And this wasn't exactly a scare-scare moment, it was a shock-scare moment. In fact, the only exciting part during this film was when in the basement scene with Patrick Wilson and Frances O'Connor, someone in the audience made a scary noise. Quite obviously, the rest of us laughed.
Avoid.
Raman Raghav 2.0 (2016)
Smashing!
RAMAN RAGHAV 2.0 is smashing! Well, quite literally.
Nawazuddin Siddiqui does steal the show (I really cannot forget his "ek cigarette, maachis nahin" parts), but I would like to commend Vicky Kaushal's work. Gone is the sweet, innocent, lovable Deepak of 'Masaan'. In Deepak's place, we have Raghavan➖a coke-snorting cop who has no qualms about bludgeoning a man to death only to clean his cocaine-dusted footprints. He is misogynist➖not just a commitment-phobic who treats like trash the woman who loves him and wants to marry him, but also a total control freak who has sex with (or rather rapes) an other woman right in front of the previous woman who loves him and wants to marry him just because he suspects that the woman who claims to love him and wants to marry him has relationships with other men!
Divided into several chapters, like a tight thriller novel, RAMAN RAGHAV 2.0 is atmospheric and scary without any act of violence actually being shown. Nawazuddin Siddiqui and Vicky Kaushal make the film scary with what they do on screen and the dialogues they speak. In what can, perhaps, be called the most goosebump-inducing sequence in the film, Ramanan (the character played by Nawazuddin Siddiqui) tortures a family of a man, his wife and their child even as he cooks chicken and rice in their kitchen. After that, he bludgeons all three to death, eats the chicken and rice, and leaves.
Adding to the scare and suspense is the natural lighting the film is shot in - the visuals are as dark as the plot - and an effective background score that pops up just at the right time.
By the time RAMAN RAGHAV 2.0 ends and the characters of Raman (the serial killer) and Raghav (the cop) merge, we have already made a harrowing trip into the terribly skewed minds of two psychopaths. This trip is not to be missed.
Lan Yu (2001)
Just a love story➖pure, heartbreaking, brilliant.
First, I wouldn't call LAN YU a gay love story. Let us just call it a love story instead, because all the hurt, heartbreaks, and disappointments that are there in any relationship are here in this love story➖the only difference being that LAN YU is a love story between two men.
Lan Yu and Chen Handong touching - or rather grabbing - each other after a long separation, Handong wishing to put Yu away from him with his "When two people come to know each other too well..." dialogue, a heartbroken Yu repeating the same dialogue and surrendering himself to Handong, Handong searching desperately for Yu during the Tiananmen Square massacre, and Yu coming to Handong's rescue financially at the end of the film➖these are all elements of any love story. It's just that this love story is between two men.
I have seen other gay love stories (or films, rather): Gus Van Sant's 'My Own Private Idaho', Pedro Almodovar's 'Law Of Desire' and 'Bad Education', and Wong Kar-wai's 'Happy Together'➖all splendidly made movies, but somehow Stanley Kwan's adaptation of the book 'Beijing Comrades', LAN YU, seemed a notch above these masterpieces I have mentioned. LAN YU doesn't have the rawness and desperation of 'My Own Private Idaho' or the in-your-face sexuality of 'Law Of Desire', 'Bad Education' and 'Happy Together'. LAN YU lays emphasis on love and not that much on sex.
LAN YU is calm, non-filmy, a beautifully composed love story. Only, it is between two men. If one removes the nudity from the film - there is hardly any sex scene in LAN YU (I saw the Strand Releasing DVD version) - it would remain what it is: a beautiful love story.
The performances of the lead cast is remarkable, especially of Ye Liu who plays Lan Yu. He is young (the film released in 2001), handsome, and looks vulnerable enough. The transformation of his character from a poor, diffident student completely under the shadow of a much older, wealthier and cocky Handong (played equally well by Jun Hu), to a successful professional who can look Handong in the eye and also rescues him financially is remarkable. And this has been expressed brilliantly in the scenes.
In the scenes earlier in the film, Handong struts around cockily in his bedroom, ordering his young lover to do things, while Yu just lies in the bed naked, listening to Handong, not knowing what to do. At the end of the film, when Handong's character has just been released from prison and is staying at Yu's place, Yu is already a professional architect, earning his own livelihood, no longer dependent upon anyone. In a scene in this part, Handong, now not as rich as before, is lying in Yu's bed, while Yu is ready in formal clothes, shaving himself with an electric razor, getting ready for work. These two scenes defined the two lead characters, the journeys that they made, together and separately.
I have just one grouse. LAN YU moves too fast. Handong and Yu have to mention to each other that it has been three years since they saw each other for me to understand that three years have passed in just three seconds. In an other scene, Handong has to inform Yu that he is divorced➖neither Handong's divorce nor his wedding were shown. Perhaps, showing Handong's wedding and divorce would have thrown some more light on his character. However, despite this flaw, I was satisfied with LAN YU. I have the novel, 'Beijing Comrades', the English translation by Scott E. Myers published by the Feminist Press, and it is quite a tome! I have not read it yet because I found its size intimidating. To adapt that tome into an 86-minute film - a film shot entirely within China without the government coming to know of it! - is a remarkable achievement in itself. Kudos to screenwriter Jimmy Ngai and director Stanley Kwan for achieving this feat!
LAN YU is a lovely film about love, but it has a sad ending. Why? Why do love stories between two men have to be sad? Why is separation inevitable in such films? Whatever, for me, LAN YU will remain what I have already mentioned at the beginning of my review. It is a love story➖pure, sad, heartbreaking➖but a love story, nevertheless. I wouldn't try to fit in LAN YU into some niche category. LAN YU is a love story, the way a love story is meant to be. Period.
Antichrist (2009)
Some things remained unexplained
The sex and the violence - that seem to have hogged all the attention in this otherwise beautifully crafted film - did not shock me much. No, honestly. There was just one scene, where The Woman snips off her own clitoris resulting in a fountain of blood, shook me a bit; otherwise I liked the rest of the film for its starkness - a typical Lars Von Trier thing - and, of course, its audacity.
Yes, what did ultimately unnerve me were those parts that Von Trier chose to leave unexplained. Like, The Woman walking through the forest - as The Man tries to make her imagine in order to cure her - and those pale bodies mangled with one another, apparently under the ground. Then, the bodies and the hands emerging from the ground as The Man and The Woman have sex in the open, under that huge tree. Then, The Child's shoes--what connection did The Woman making The Child wear wrong shoes on both feet have with the plot of the film? Finally, who were those "faceless" women who The Man encounters after he leaves the cottage? These unanswered, unexplained things in Lars Von Trier's film, Antichrist, were far more eerie, far more disturbing than the sex and the violence or the dead fawn foetus hanging out of the vagina of a doe or a fox disemboweling itself and talking in a human voice at the same time or even the scene of The Child falling down to death as his parents have sex with one another and, apparently, do not see him climbing up a window.
This film was made to shock, no doubt➖but then, Von Trier, like any other artist, has every right to express his vision; no matter if his works shock his audience. I appreciate Von Trier's vision, and his ability to pose questions - and also not care enough to answer those questions (or maybe there were hints that I missed) - and his ability to provoke curiosity. Also, I should mention the stark-at-times-surreal-at-times cinematography by Anthony Dod Mantle. Also, one more thing I commend about Antichrist: It's length. I was so happy when the film shook me up a bit, disturbed me with those unexplained things, and got over in no time. I remember how my bums had turned numb while watching Von Trier's Breaking The Waves.
The Cell (2000)
I couldn't take my eyes off the screen
I just saw this film on DVD on my laptop - how I wish I saw it on the big screen! - and it just blew me away. There was not a single second when I turned my eyes away from the screen. Right from the opening scene, with Jennifer Lopez - looking quite a vision in white! - riding a black horse in a desert, with a very catchy, Indian/Middle-Eastern music playing in the background, to the beginning of the end credits (with the same haunting Indian/Middle- Eastern music playing), this film is quite something!
I wonder how did they ever think of such a plot? I mean, OK, they thought of going inside someone else's mind--but to actually show it with such visuals, that's what needs all the appreciation. The entire film is a vision, like a dream, like an exquisite artwork. And the best thing is that the director doesn't waste any time in establishing the plot and his surreal - and a bit disturbing - visions. It's like snap snap snap!--and a scene is done, and I was like: What did I just see now? The locations, the sets, the costumes, the looks of the three main characters when they enter their subconscious zones--the visuals will attract you like a magnet. Take my word for this.
Beautiful, beautiful movie! This was released in 2000. Today, in 2016, this might have been made - I am sure - in 3D.