Thursday, December 31, 2009

MOVIE REVIEW - Tough to watch, Precious is a true must-see

Director Lee Daniels provides a stellar example of American independent filmmaking with his presentation of “Precious: Based on the novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire.” Armed with an exceptional ensemble cast and a powerful script by Geoffrey Fletcher, Daniels delivers with detailed authenticity a stunning drama laden with so much emotional upheaval that it is at once both fascinating and exhausting to view.

Daniels, who produced “Monster’s Ball” and “The Woodsman,” knows more than just a little about the importance of character development and how to apply the “slow burn” approach of revealing a series of circumstances and actions that punctuate the multi-layered aspects and eventual outcomes of the given characters.

Precious (Gabourey Sidibe) is an illiterate teen who is pregnant for the second time by her now absent father. After enduring a lifetime of sexual abuse along with emotional and physical abuse by her mother, Mary (Mo’Nique), Precious appears to have no hope of escaping the persistently violent turmoil of her home life.

After her pregnancy is discovered at school, Precious is encouraged to enroll in an alternative school where the motto is “Each One/Teach One.” With the help of a dedicated teacher, Ms. Rain (Paula Patton), Precious begins to uncover through reading and writing her years of hurt and bitterness, and she eventually gains the emotional strength to care for her newborn baby. Not long after leaving her mother’s home, Precious experiences another devastating blow that seems to leave her little choice but to contemplate giving up on her education.

Even though each step forward seems thwarted by setbacks, Precious remains in school and with improving test scores finds pride in the experience. When her social worker (Mariah Carey) arranges for a meeting with Mary, it pushes Precious into a confrontation that ultimately leads her to a life that, while difficult, contains the hope of her finding a level of happiness and self-respect.

Look for Sidibe to get an Oscar nod for best actress. She has more than a good chance to win, especially if her biggest competition turns out to Sandra Bullock. Mo’Nique (widely known for her comic turns) is also poised for a supporting actress win.

Additional performances by Lenny Kravitz, a nearly unrecognizable Carey and the very confident Patton are genuinely rendered and a tribute to Daniels’ ability to pull memorable characterizations from each member of his cast. This is a film that’s often difficult to watch, but it’s a must-see for avid filmgoers and one of the best pictures of the year.
Read Full Entry

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Movie Review - Avatar

The new science fiction fantasy film, “Avatar” which opened in theaters nationwide Friday, December 18th is a visual feast for the eyes.

Written and directed by James Cameron (“Titanic”) this fantasy flick is even better behind a pair of 3D glasses. The film follows the story of a veteran paraplegic Marine, Jake Sully, who has agreed to take up the task of his fallen brother on a foreign planet rich in resources, called Pandora.

As the inhabitants of Planet Earth have squandered away the last green specks Mother Earth had to offer, they charge the planet of Pandora with the intention of pillaging it for their own greedy gain.

The planet of Pandora is inhabited by a primitive tribe, the Na’vi, which Jake must become a part of to fulfill the human mission, gain the tribe’s trust; this is done by the use of half-human, half-Na’vi avatars.

The resulting story is, of course, what transforms in Jake and the other characters as the avatars take hold. With sci-fi greats like Sigourney Weaver in supporting roles, this film is pitch-perfect for a viewer who wants to be dazzled. James Cameron pulls out all of the stops with special effects, as advertised, but he also hits all the right notes in the details of the picture. Especially in 3D, everything is so realistic, though foreign, and James Cameron doesn’t leave a detail undone, even marking Sully’s shrinking physique as the story unfolds.

The entire acting cast does a superb job, and even in avatar form, you believe their emotions; Zoe Saldana in the female lead is especially believable despite the fact that her face is never seen outside avatar form. If you want to be filled with wonder as you watch the magic of a beautiful place and its people, this is the film for you. Strap on your 3D glasses and get to the theater for an engrossing and visually stunning ride to the planet Pandora via James Cameron’s “Avatar.”
Read Full Entry

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Film review - The Lovely Bones

Peter Jackson's latest project, The Lovely Bones, treats a harrowing subject with dignity and tenderness. The Lovely Bones is the tale of 14-year-old Susie Salmon, who lives in a happy family in rural Pennsylvania.

After her brutal murder she watches over her family as they attempt to come to terms with her violent death. Translating a much-loved book for the big screen was always going to be a challenge and purists might be disappointed with some of the changes Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyen made to Alice Sebold's novel.

The 1970s are recreated brilliantly, from the colour-clashing costumes to the soft furnishings and the feel of the era. In terms of casting, Jackson has surrounded himself with impressive talent.

Saoirse Ronan is perfectly cast as Susie Salmon, Stanley Tucci is suitably creepy and Susan Sarandon provides some welcome comic relief as the cocktail-swilling, chain-smoking, straight-talking grandmother.

Mark Wahlberg puts in a powerful performance as the father who refuses to give up on his daughter. There are also solid performances from New Zealanders Rose McIvor, as Susie's sister, and Carolyn Dando.

The CGI rendering of Susie's "in-between world" is wonderfully dreamlike and does the book justice but on occasion these sequences feel a little over-long. As a result the scenes back on Earth, particularly midway through the film, feel a little disjointed.

Early test screenings suggested that audiences were disappointed with Jackson's treatment of Susie's murder, but it's nice not to be spoon-fed during a movie for a change. Suggestive flashbacks allow the audience to fill in the blanks.

It's obvious that the original source material is very dear to the writers' hearts and they've tried to convey some of the innocence and charm of the original book into the film. I'll be honest, I'm in two minds about this one, I enjoyed the movie and some sections were classic Peter Jackson, but I was left feeling it could have been so much more.
Read Full Entry

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Avatar Review

James Cameron, don’t leave us for this long again. What’s encompassed in the 161 minutes that the King of the World has crafted shows us a seasoned veteran who knew what he had all along.

The feeling called back to something I felt at the 1996 Olympics when I witnessed Michael Jordan and the Dream Team make their way to another gold medal. Jordan effortlessly handled the ball unlike anyone who had played.

The game before him and ever will, no matter how many Kobe’s or LeBron’s come our way. I couldn’t help but be breathless as I witnessed a legend show why he was a true master of the art.

Simply put; Cameron has done things in Avatar I have never seen before in a film. Never before have I used that phrase to describe any movie these eyes have ever seen, and maybe it’s fitting that the director I grew up idolizing would be the one to break the mold.

Is it the game-changer he lauded it to be? Time will tell, but it’s awfully obvious he’s raised the bar just like he did with a little film in 1991 called Terminator 2: Judgement Day. Even Avatar’s worst effect shots still look just as good as anything in Star Trek or even the terribly overrated District 9.

The big question though is are the effects photo-realistic, and the answer for at least ninety-five percent of the movie, yes. Cameron doesn’t rely on cheap tricks to mask something poorly done (think Transformers with cutting away from robot action) and makes sure that gajillion dollar budget is completely present on screen. The Na’vi aren’t really, really well done CG, they’re an actual alien race hiding on a studio lot somewhere. Maybe that’s another wrong term, as the reason this film took so long to make involved Cameron and company actually flying to Pandora and filming on-location. With that still being said, it’s an understatement to how engrossing, detailed, and absolutely gorgeous the backgrounds and environments are.

Effects aren’t everything as many hacks have often proven time and again. Unlike them, Cameron has also shown us time and again he doesn’t slouch when it comes to the story and his characters. Avatar is no different, and certainly the film borrows (but doesn’t steal) from other sources. Yet once again showing what a veteran Cameron is, he tells Jake Sully’s tale in such a beautiful, expert way that its shortcomings are easily forgivable. Most won’t, and likely they’re the same people who championed some small alien film that ripped off twenty different sources. Dialogue is also a weakness, and while Cameron’s created some quotable lines over his illustrious career, this has always been one of his few faults. But again, it’s completely forgivable in the overall scheme of things.
Happily, Cameron’s assembled a cast that for the most part are tailor made for their roles. Sam Worthington is quickly turning into the perfect leading man. He’s charming, good-looking, and most importantly, can act. He’s perfect at chewing up the screen with the right amount of confidence and swagger he displayed in Terminator Salvation. Complimenting him is a more than capable Zoe Saldana who has come a very, very long way since her days a lackey in Crossroads. In that time, she’s become a decent actress and is beginning her domination in science fiction. Saldana is given a lot of work to do with Neyteri, and reminds one of what Peter Weller’s task was with RoboCop. The fiery femme is sexy, tough (as expected with Cameron) and above all, blue. The only thing anyone should be mad about with her performance is that Cameron never allows us to actually look at her real, beautiful face.

She’s not the show stealer, nor does Worthington complete that task he pulled off with the latest Terminator film. There’s an elder gentlemen by the name of Stephen Lang who seems to be the offspring of The T-1000 and Sgt. Apone. Lang takes a simple caricature and completely turns him into the most memorable character in the film. He’s pure evil, and the perfect villain for this and maybe not the most clever, but the most brash. He and Cameron had to wait twenty-three years to team up (originally, Lang was to be Hicks in Aliens) and it was well worth it. All in all, he deserves to be in contention for a Supporting Actor nod for what he pulls off.

Unfortunately not all links in the chain of actors are as tight as they should be, but thankfully it’s only held to Giovanni Ribisi. Normally a very capable actor, Ribisi’s Parker Selfridge is nothing more than a cheap Ari Gold impression. My disdain for Piven not helping me like this character, Ribisi also fails to create a sleezeball that Paul Reiser so gleefully did with Carter J. Burke. He’s Avatar’s albatross, but thankfully we’re supposed to hate this guy. Slim pickens for me.

Getting back on a positive note, perhaps it’s fate that Michelle Rodriguez and Sigourney Weaver appear in the same film, much less one by the king of the genre himself.. Both have torn up the sci-fi circuit for some time, and while Rodriguez’s resume isn’t as prestigious as Weaver’s, she’s still contributed to the tough female persona Ms. Ripley so perfectly defined. Michelle’s at her most relaxed here, and seemingly having the time of her life as she’s along for this journey. She’s more enjoyable here than anything she’s done in the past few years, and hopefully this gets her back on the path to quality.

Then of course, Weaver. Like her director, she too knows she has nothing left to prove and does what she’s been doing for the past thirty years. While age is slowly, slowly catching her, she continues to remain just as beautiful as she has in every role not named ‘Ripley.’ In fact, this almost feels as if she’s passing on the torch to Zoe. Cameron also gives us this moment two hours in that this may be Weaver’s last call, and she’s giving the torch to Ms. Saldana.

It’s moments like that that make Avatar what it is. Is it a perfect film? No, even with it’s forgivable faults. The film is the culmination of James Cameron, a director who has mastered what it means to be an event film. Where he succeeded best is making sure these groundbreaking effects had a well-told and acted story to back them up. After twelve years away from the game, Cameron comes back and effortlessly proves why he’s still the best blockbuster director on the block. No steps have been lost, nor was there any rust. Avatar is just a master at work, creating his finest masterpiece. Oh, and see it in 3D. It demands it.
Read Full Entry

Monday, December 14, 2009

Movie Review - Rocket Singh

How does one review a movie so absurdly polished, so phenomenally original and nifty? A mere thousand-word article does no justice to this staggering achievement.

There's no way around it - 'Rocket Singh: Salesman of the Year' is a stunningly assured piece of moviemaking from Shimit Amin.

If it had lived up to its golden first five minutes, 'Rocket Singh' would have been the movie of the decade. But the film is lighthearted and enjoyable, with just enough undercurrents of human frailty to keep the story interesting.

The film glides through its well-structured script, letting the audience coast along with it and allowing the performers to create the magic. And the best thing about 'Rocket Singh' is that its the first Yash Raj film that respects its own characters wholeheartedly, without a wink.

Rocket Singh's tone is perfectly pitched, its dialogue is absolutely right and is delivered with performances that will remain in your hearts and minds for a very long time. And it's not just the character of Rocket (Harpreet) Singh, but also the supporting cast and characters who bring this story to life. Take for example the character Puri, who plays Harpreet's boss, is astonishingly, lovably villainous. Or for that matter the Hyderabadi Santosh, the perpetually befuddled porn-addict computer assembler. Or the sales shark Nitin, with his venomous demeanor, razor sharp brain and hilarious sideburns. Or Chhotelal Misra, the frustrated peon, or the striving receptionist Koena. Heck, even Harpreet's office mates in their bit roles make a big impression. The casting was just impeccable. Shazahn Padamsee was the one weak link of the film, a better actress would have been a jackpot, but that's just moaning. You can find things to complain about what it is. But nothing really compares to what it is.

Ranbir Kapoor's charming turn in 'Rocket Singh' is the greatest of his short career. Expect a Force 10 gale of a performance from Ranbir, charismatic, spirited, exasperated and restrained all at once if you can imagine that. His devotion to the character is itself extraordinary - there are genuine glints in his eyes. No doubt about it, he is the most talented lead actor of this generation.

Director Amin has managed an impressive achievement that qualifies as a great Bollywood film. He knows a thing or two about pacing, and it's relentless here. Even in its near 3-hour runtime, there is not a scene that bores or seems unnecessary. Miraculously, Amin does away with songs, and with the sleight of hand handles the love angle with refreshing nonchalance. The final confrontation scene between Harpreet and his boss is itself worth the price of admission. Screenwriter Jaideep Sahni deftly explores (mostly the humorous side of) sticky subjects like office politics, bribery, corruption, work ethics, non-exploitative profits, but never stoops to shoving stereotypes in your face. The dialogue is crisp, and each scene is terse, which makes you beg for more.

All in all, this is an absolute gem of a movie and the perfect antidote to all the trashy big budget vehicles that keep releasing. 'Rocket Singh' is a delectable film indeed, I implore you to watch it.
Read Full Entry

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Movie Review - The Twilight Saga New Moon

No Wayyy! I was soooo looking forward to seeing NEW MOON ! It turned out to be suuuch a bummer! Like so bad! This is THE TWILIGHT SAGA after all, get real screenplaythingywriters!

NEW MOON begins with a kewl shot of skanky Bella in like some forest and then Edward (audience goes yayy!) pops in out of nowhere with a constipated look on his face.

But then an old hag comes along and Edward begins creepily breathing beside her face. And like ewww grandma looks exactly as hideous as Kristen … maybe they used some kinda prosthetic like in that Curious Jenson Button movie (omg Brad was so hawt in it :p) . Anyways we learn that it was all a dream (duh!).

Cut to Bella’s dad (aww love his cute little moustache) wishing Bella a happy birthday (what is she like, 12? *scoff*). Skankella then goes to school, meets her loser friends (including the gay dude who has the hots for her), some boring pop music plays and Edward walks out of a product placement Nissan car in slow motion and proceeds to smooch Skankella in full public view. And OMG Skankella becomes sooo horny in the process and mentally does all kinds of naughty things to Edward. After Edward cracks a TOTALLY lame joke Jacob walks in!! With his huge arms!! Yayy!!

Aaaanyways, nothing else happens for the next two (or was it three?) more hours, apart from silly Edward breaking up with Skankella, Skankella bonding with hawt Jacob, Jacob losing his hair, Jacob prancing about shirtless, Jacob drooling over Skankella, Skankella behaving like a no-good slut, Skankella placing her finger in Jacob’s exposed navel (grossss!!!), Jacob turning into a werewolf etc etc etc. Oh yeahhhhh there’s even one or two scenes with some weird gay Italian vampires with British accents. And bling. I don’ geddit.

ZOMG Jacob looks TOTALLY hot n buff, he can’t act for nuts, and even comes off sooo sissy in the big faceoff scene in Bella’s home. But hey, he’s got biceps, I love it! Ooooh I wish they put a restraining order on all his T shirts. Edward looks like ewwwww! Ugly! Like when he pulls off his robe in Italy I almost barfed out my cola! He kinda reminded me of an actor called Balakrishna, what with the excessive powder, lipstick and mascara. And he’s such a wuss! Chicken-head Kristen as Skankella is soooo boring. Oh my Goood! Her dung-under-the-nose expression throughout is like so bad. And gosh her sleepy, labored dialogue delivery made me want to reach out and slap her awake.

And the other vampires? They just come and go like extras. Ditto for the werewolf clan, who are mostly shirtless, wet and are exposing their unwashed jockey underwears. Eww. And why are they still wearing shorts after turning back into humans? Or wearing only shorts and no tees? I don’ geddit.

Brace yourselves cuz New Moon is such an exercise in idiocy. Somewhere between the boredom and nausea Edward says to Skankella: 'You’re the only one who can annoy me'. I sooo agree.
Read Full Entry

Monday, December 7, 2009

Movie Review - The Maid

The Maid is a comedy of cultural conflict that could easily be remade into an absolutely horrific American vehicle. It practically sounds like a September release set to star a beautiful Jessica (Alba, Simpson, or Biel) but the wacky remake of The Maid would almost certainly miss what works about the original.

(Don’t they always?) For awhile, the set-up and plot description of The Maid plays almost like a quirky sitcom, but writer/director Sebastian Silva wisely focuses on character instead of caricature and has crafted a film that is surprisingly moving by the time it reaches its bittersweet final act.

With rave reviews, it seems almost inevitable that a story this clever will be brought up during a discussion of potential foreign remakes at a production meeting in the near future (if it hasn’t happened already). This version of The Maid isn't perfect, but it avoids so many of the pitfalls of its concept that a remake is simply too risky an idea.

One of the main reasons that The Maid works and an element that could easily be derailed is the moving lead performance by Catalina Saavedra as the title character, Raquel. The film opens on her birthday, as the family that she's been working for most of her life tries to drag her into something of a celebration.

Raquel is clearly a shy woman with the kind of sad eyes that betray a lifetime of servitude without even the conscious awareness that she may have lost something by giving everything to a family other than her own. You see, she may not be blood but Raquel doesn't see the family she works for as anything but her own. She's watched the children grown up and has dealt with the matriarch's flights of shopping fancy for more than two decades.

But Raquel is starting to snap under the pressure. She has serious migraine headaches, is clearly exhausted, and starts to butt heads with the older children in the family. When they bring in some help in the form of another maid, Raquel sees this as an advance on her territory, a potential replacement more than a helping hand, and, naturally, she reacts. She sabotages each potential new employee – locking them out of the house, letting the cat out so the new girl will be blamed, etc. Raquel is losing it, both mentally and physically, until the hiring of Camila (Andrea Garcia-Huidobro) really changes her life by reminding her what she's been missing.

With the arrival of Camila in the final act, The Maid goes from something of a diary of a madwoman to the film that's earned the nominations and rave reviews that Silva's work has been receiving around the world. Don't get me wrong. The first half of the film is strong, especially in Saavedra's compelling and consistent lead performance, but the film felt somewhat slight and simple to this viewer for a little over half of its running time.

If Raquel had driven one more maid to quit without repercussion The Maid would have lost its heroine and turned her into too much of an anti-hero. Smartly, Silva realizes this and makes a left turn with the hiring of a real friend for Raquel that exposes a sad truth of a life that's lived basically in servitude. Raquel doesn't know her mother, has no idea about love or sex, and looks like she can barely breathe outside of her little room in the back of the house. Is it any wonder that she works through exhaustion or sabotages those who move in on her turf? She wouldn’t make it in the real world.

I wish the entirety of The Maid was as confident and intriguing as the final twenty minutes and the "wacky comedy" that is sure to inspire the inevitable remake lost me a few times. Locking out a maid while she has something in the oven is borderline sociopathic and it's hard to root for a character who behaves so erratically. But, ultimately, Silva isn't necessarily asking us to root for Raquel. He's asking us to take a second look and realize the choices people like her make every day – to give so much while taking so little.
Read Full Entry

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Movie Review - Paa

Take your Maa, Paa, friends, uncles, aunties, neighbours to the nearest theater playing this charming little movie.

Even though you expect the tragedy nearing the climax, there is still much to love about 'Paa' and its wittily-named central character.

Auro (Amitabh Bachchan) loves fart and potty jokes, he calls his auntie 'Bum' because of her rather large posterior, he enjoys everything there is about King Kong and computers, he loves cracking jokes with his friends over the phone, and hates it when his mom drops him to school.

In short, Auro is just another loveable kid, only difference is, he's got a body of a 60-year old. One day Auro is given an award at a school function by.

The friendly neighbourhood politician (Abhishek), his single mom (Vidya Balan) realises that the man is none other than her estranged boyfriend who had dumped her after she had gotten pregnant. How mother, father and son reconcile forms the rest of the story.

Note the order - mother, father, and son. More than often, the film curiously pushes Auro to the background, which is frustrating because his presence lights up every frame of the film. This is Auro's film, why are we watching unnecessary sub plots and meandering scenes (like the one in the Metro)? Moreover, why is this film called 'Paa'? Paaji Abhishek Bachchan's performance exudes the dexterity of a little girl whose shoelaces have been tied together, but Vidya Balan is a powerhouse. Her towering screen presence nicely accentuates her quiet dignity, and her dialogue delivery is masterful. If anything, 'Paa' is more about Maa's love for Auro.

Amitabh Bachchan was an inspired casting choice, he is simply wondrous to behold as the gawky teenager Auro. He is borderline unfathomable as his gait, voice, eyes don't the least bit remind you of his own self. There is not the slightest hint of his late sixties, and the prosthetic makeup is unbelievably believable. The cinematography by PC Sreeram is top notch and Illyaraja's score is beautiful. Director Balki does well as he avoids schmaltz in favor of witty lines.

However the editing could've used a once-over as 'Paa' constantly veers off focus roving into unwanted, uninteresting territory. The transition from comedy to drama is jarring. The scene where Abhishek Bachchan attacks the media comes off as amateurish and clumsy, and the extra-smug Jr B ends up looking pretty silly in the process. Jaya Bachchan's cameo during the beginning credits was a daft idea as well.

Flaws aside, 'Paa' is still very enjoyable as it celebrates the unique qualities which make special people shooting stars. There are a couple of scenes that will have most people watery-eyed. Watch it for Big B, who is at his versatile best here.
Read Full Entry

Friday, December 4, 2009

Movie Review Everybody's Fine

“Everybody's Fine” is a quiet, light study in family dysfunction, a comedy-drama with no heroes or villains, just sad people who aren't necessarily telling the truth when somebody asks, “Are you happy?”

That's become an important question to Frank Goode (Robert DeNiro), a widowed retiree whose four adult children won't make the time to visit now that Mom has died.

Frank resolves to drop in on each of the four — surprise visits. They tell him “everybody's fine” on those rare occasions he gets each of them on the phone. But he wants the truth. Kirk (“Nanny McPhee”) Jones' movie never finds a tone that it's comfortable with as Frank amusingly bores fellow train and bus travelers with tales of his work and his family.

Contrast that with each visit to his offspring — Kate Beckinsale in Chicago, Drew Barrymore in Las Vegas, Sam Rockwell in Denver. Dad observes what the kids might have once told Mom, but not him.

The movie has one open secret and a few “reveals” — including the kids' efforts to solve problems involving the sibling we don't meet.

The patient pace and subtle disappointment the kids feel about their lives, disappointment that they worry will be shared by Dad, make for a movie of no cathartic confrontations.

A contrived and melodramatic third act seems out of character and abrupt.
But DeNiro's winning, thoughtful performance and matching work from those cast as his kids make this dramedy a tolerably sober alternative to holiday froth at the mutliplex.
Read Full Entry

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

The Private Lives of Pippa Lee

At fifty, Pippa Lee positively glows with female serenity, the devoted wife of a brilliant publisher thirty years her senior, proud mother of successful twins and a lovely and adored friend and neighbor.

But, when her husband spontaneously decides that they should leave New York for a retirement home as a "pre-emptive strike against decrepitude," and has an affair with someone even younger than she is, Pippa finds her beatific persona unraveling in alarming ways.

The truth is, the gracious woman of the present day has seen more than her fair share of the wild side. She has finally found love and security in a family of her own. And now, that cozy world, too, is in danger.
Read Full Entry

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

'The Road' Movie Reviews

Manifesting novelist Cormac McCarthy's bleak post-apocalyptic vision onto the big screen is the kind of challenging task that won't please everyone. But for the most part, critics like -- with reservations -- what director John Hillcoat has done with 'The Road,' which stars Viggo Mortensen as a father trying to teach his son how to survive -- and be civilized -- in a gray world with only a few other desperate humans left on it.

Here's what the critics are saying about 'The Road.' Entertainment Weekly: "Yet 'The Road,' for all its vivid desolation, remains a curiously unmoving experience -- or maybe not so curious, given that nothing really happens in it. In the novel, McCarthy played off postapocalyptic Hollywood thrillers, and so he gave you the heady feeling that you were seeing a movie unfold on the page.

Yet he brought off that feat without much action; the backdrop was grand, the emotions interior and refined. That's a problem when 'The Road' is done as a movie: It's like a zombie thriller drowning in tastefully severe art-house gloom. "

The Hollywood Reporter: "In 'The Road,' director John Hillcoat has performed an admirable job of bringing Cormac McCarthy's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel to the screen as an intact and haunting tale, even at the cost of sacrificing color, big scenes and standard Hollywood imagery of post-apocalyptic America. Shot through with a bleak intensity and pessimism that offers little hope for a better tomorrow, the film is more suitable to critical appreciation than to attracting huge audiences though topliners Viggo Mortensen and Charlize Theron will attract initial business."

Variety: "This 'Road' leads nowhere. If you're going to adapt a book like Cormac McCarthy's 2006 bestseller, you're pretty much obliged to make a terrific film or it's not worth doing -- first because expectations are high, and second, because the picture needs to make it worth people's while to sit through something so grim. Except for the physical aspects of this bleak odyssey by a father and son through a post-apocalyptic landscape, this long-delayed production falls dispiritingly short on every front."

The New York Times: "The most arresting aspect of 'The Road' is just how fully the filmmakers have realized this bleak, blighted landscape of a modern society reduced to savagery. A grimy, damp fog hangs over everything, and instead of birdsong there is the eerie creak and crash of falling trees. Vehicles sit abandoned on highways, houses stand looted and vacant, and what used to be towns are afterimages of violence and wreckage."
Read Full Entry

Monday, November 23, 2009

Movie Review - The Blind Side

Though much attention was given to the latest installment of the Twilight series this weekend at the box office, John Lee Hankcock’s “The Blind Side” was another stellar choice for movie-goers. At the theatre I chose, “The Blind Side” was playing on two screens, to “New Moon” on three, and it was money well spent. The movie is based on the non-fiction football book of similar title by author Michael Lewis.

It is the story of NFL player, Michael Oher’s difficult upbringing and surprising twist of fate, as he is taken in by a wealthy white family, who scoops him out of the hand of poverty and a bad neighborhood, to root him on to football stardom and success in life. But all this kid needed was a little help; he was no charity case, he had a heart of gold and the protection instincts of a mother lion, and he was built to be a football star, from birth.

Sandra Bullock plays his adoptive mother, LeAnn Touhy, in what will arguably be called the best performance of her career, thus far. She is a force to be reckoned with on-screen, laced with Southern charm and Christian hospitality.

Tim McGraw also co-stars as Mr. Touhy, and serves his role well; the couple is enjoyable to watch go through their (privileged) daily lives. In what certainly could have taken a nose dive into greeting-card-sappy sentimentality, this film takes the high road; and every viewer benefits from that choice. Michael is played by actor Quinton Aaron, and he brings a surprising amount of depth to the role of a teenaged formerly-homeless student-athlete.

However, beyond the love felt in this well-to-do family, and the obvious goodness of Michael Oher, the real treat of the film is the lessons the Touhy family learns from the addition of this kid to their clan. “The Blind Side” is an uplifting film that finds just the right balance between raw emotion and predictable football-hero movie. Two thumbs way up from this reviewer.
Read Full Entry

Friday, November 20, 2009

Movie Review - Kurbaan

KURBAAN is NEW YORK. But with a different set of actors. KURBAAN is also SHOOT ON SIGHT, again with different actors. The plot remains the same, the twists and turns fails to surprise you and the end is inevitable. However, here.

The love story has been hyped, thanks to Saif Ali Khan and Kareena Kapoor having an off-screen romance as well. But the intensity and the love undercurrents between Katrina Kaif and Neil Nitin Mukesh, and the romance between Kaif and John Abraham that was visible in NEW YORK is missing in KURBAAN.

Technically the movie is sound; acting wise, everyone chips in with a fine performance. The look, feel and action sequences are top class, but then you are not seeing anything new that has not been shown in the recent past. The above-mentioned films are just the recent references.

Ehsaan (Saif Ali Khan) falls in love with Avantika (Kareena Kapoor). Both teach in the same college in New Delhi. Avantika is back from the US, as she had to tend to her ailing father. Six month later, she gets a call from her University to come back. Ehsaan says he does not mind sacrificing his career to join her. He is traditional he says, not selfish. So off they go to the US and manage to find a home in an Indian neighbourhood. She also manages to find him a job in her college. Their neighbours befriend the new couple and that's when things spiral out of control.

There are many loose ends. The US knows Ehsaan as Khalid the dreaded terrorist. They have his photograph. When he comes back to the US with Avantika as Ehsaan, he has just trimmed his beard to a French cut. He still looks the same, yet they cannot detect him entering Kennedy Airport! In one scene, where Saif and his fundamentalist pal are going off to dispose a dead body, they are trapped in a routine road check. Bullets are exchanged and there is a chase. It is hard to digest the fact that these cops in the US would not have called for a back up. They all get killed and Saif escapes with a bullet wound. He gets it treated at home and a few minutes later, he is in the shower. The wound is still fresh.

There are a few more loose ends but the biggest joke is the character (a television journalist) played by Vivek Oberoi. An aircraft carrying a delegation of US officials along with hordes of journalists has been blown up mid air. He loses his girlfriend Dia Mirza in that blast. In his office, he hears Avantika's frantic message asking Dia not to board the flight as there is a bomb on board and her husband too is involved. Armed with the most vital clue, Vivek decides to investigate the bombing himself! He joins their network to learn more and no one misses him at his work place. All he had to do was give the FBI a tip-off after learning of their activities in the first two meetings, if not at the first instance. I mean, c'mon, this here is a big bombing, and you are sitting on the most telling lead!

Nothing adds up but for the hyped romance between Saif and Kareena. Both are in terrific form.
Read Full Entry

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The Twilight Saga - New Moon Review

Let's get first things first New Moon is no match to its predecessor Twilight. But that doesn't make Chris Weitz directed movie bad. Robert Pattinson who has mesmerised his fans rises from the grave again to feast on blood and set teenage pulses racing in.

The Twilight Saga New Moon. The movie based on Stephenie Meyer's book comes with a stiff challenge to live up to the expectations after its Twilight had grossed more than $350 million at the Box Office.

On her 18th birthday Isabella Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) is on top of the moon when Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) the vampire she falls in love with and his family throw her a birthday party. While unwrapping a gift, she gets a paper cut, which causes Edward's adopted brother, Jasper (Jackson Rathbone), to be overwhelmed by the smell of her blood and attempt to kill Bella. To protect her, Edward decides to end their relationship, and the Cullens move away from Forks. This leaves Bella heart-broken and depressed.

In the months that follow, Bella learns that thrill-seeking activities,= such as motorcycle riding. This allows her to hear Edward's voice in her head. She also seeks comfort in her deepening friendship with Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), a cheerful companion who eases her pain over losing Edward. Bella later discovers that Jacob is a werewolf. He and his fellow werewolves protect Bella from the vampires Laurent (Edi Gathegi) and Victoria (Rachelle Lefevre), the latter of whom seeks revenge for her dead mate, James, whom the Cullens killed in Twilight.

Communication gap leads Edward to believe that Bella has killed herself. Edward flees to Italy to provoke the Volturi, vampire royalty who are capable of killing him. Alice (Ashley Greene) and Bella rush to Italy to save Edward, arriving just in time to stop him. Before leaving Italy, the Volturi tell Edward that Bella, a human who knows that vampires exist, must either be killed or transformed into a vampire. Edward tells Bella that he has always loved her and left her only to protect her. She forgives him, and the Cullens vote in favour of Bella being transformed into a vampire. Edward gives Bella a choice to either change herself after her graduation he will change her himself.

New Moon effortlessly sweeps you along in a swirl of intoxicating passion. New Moon has one major flaw, being a supernatural adventure it seems to be packed with too much of romance. Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart carry great performance from Twilight. The screenplay at times seems weak but can surely make patient characters stick to their seats.

The movie won't disappoint the majority of its teenage fans. But it is a let down for many Twilight fans who felt that Catherine Hardwicke who had directed the first flick had improved upon Stephenie Meyer's novel. New Moon doesn't seem to justify why Chris Weitz was chosen over Catherine Hardwicke. At 112 minutes of runtime New Moon seems ideal for a romantic tale of this sort. Although no comparison to Twilight, New Moon is certainly a movie worth spending a few bucks on.
Read Full Entry

Saturday, November 14, 2009

2012 movie review

As if I didn't already have enough to worry about, now we have to brace ourselves for 2012, the year the Mayan calendar reaches the end of its 13th cycle – i.e., doomsday. Or something like that. I'm only going by the press notes for "2012," which reveal that numerologists, astrologers, and geologists (which geologists exactly?) are likewise freaked out about the impending date, which makes Y2K look like a stroll in the park.

By preparing us for the coming cataclysm, the filmmakers of "2012" have performed a public service and should be given, if not the Nobel Peace Prize, then by all means an Oscar. The fact that "2012" is an epic clinker is irrelevant.

Who has time for art, or even entertainment, when Earth's tectonic plates are about to be fired by neutrinos? Or something like that. It's time to save the world – or at the very least, Hollywood, which has lately been racking up less than boffo grosses. Who better to fix things than the folks who perpetrated "Independence Day," "The Day After Tomorrow," and "Godzilla"?

Director Roland Emmerich and his co-writer Harald Kloser РI use the term "writer" here very loosely Рhave teamed with an arsenal of computer geeks and destructionists to give us a Valu-Pack of disaster scenarios: earthquakes, tsunamis, falling high-rises, buckling freeways, careening airplanes, cute puppies in peril, volcanos at Yellowstone National Park, trapped giraffes Рam I making this sound like more fun than it is? Sitting through this movie is like being pressed flat by a trash compactor. Every clich̩, every bad idea, every thudding line of dialogue, is redolent of other earlier epic clinkers. There's a certain cozy familiarity in all this but paychecks aside, you wonder how the filmmakers could summon the energy for such an enterprise. There's even a suggestion of a sequel at the end. Maybe the world isn't going to end in 2012 after all.

The plotline has something to do with the fact that solar fires are about to microwave the planet's core, a fact known only to the top Washington brass who have been covertly planning an impending Noah's ark-like evacuation of the best and brightest aboard a jumbo vehicle parked in remote China that's about the size of Duluth. This covert operation business seems a bit silly, since everywhere from Las Vegas to the Vatican is already splitting open, but let that pass.

I'll say this much for "2012": It features one good blowout early on, when L.A. – that favorite target of destructo scenarios – comes apart. It also has better aerial sequences than "Amelia," although this is like saying that "The Polar Express" is better than "Disney's A Christmas Carol." John Cusack, one of many fine actors reduced to rubble here, plays an underappreciated novelist, Jackson Curtis, who remains a doting divorced dad to his two hyperadorable children. By day Jackson is the chauffeur for a bulbous Russian billionaire (Zlatko Buric), a plot device cooked up, no doubt, because a black stretch limo looks better than an ordinary clunker while vaulting tectonic fissures. Jackson's heroic counterpart – once things start, literally, cracking – is the president's chief science adviser Adrian Helmsley, played by Chiwetel Eljiofor in a continual deadpan huff. He looks as if he wishes he was acting in "Airplane!" instead. I wish he was, too.

Danny Glover, at his most sotto voce, plays the president. Since "2012," according to those trusty press notes, was written during the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, it's worth noting that the role was originally written for a woman – until the Iowa primaries. Oliver Platt plays the president's chief of staff and doesn't remind me of anybody except Oliver Platt, a mixed blessing. His character has the surname Anheuser – a not-so-subliminal plug for Budweiser?

In general, though, given the shamelessness of the venture, the filmmakers are remarkably restrained when it comes to product placements, perhaps because no corporation in its right mind would want to see its company logo buried in an avalanche. (I could be wrong about this.) But wireless phone companies missed a golden opportunity here. No matter how high the devastation, no one in this film ever fails to place a call. My favorite moment: In the midst of a biblical-size storm, an astrophysicist in East India buzzes Adrian in a D.C. bunker and gets right though.

It occurred to me that Emmerich and Co. might be playing this whole thing for laughs. It probably occurred to them, too. Just to be on the safe side, they periodically lampoon their own handiwork. This way, if people start giggling in the wrong places, the filmmakers can always claim they were the right places. I'm pretty sure that most of the time that I was laughing, it was during the wrong places. Except maybe when that cute puppy teeters over a precipice on its wobbly way to the mother ship. That wasn't meant to be serious. Was it? Grade: C- (Rated PG-13 for intense disaster sequences and some language.)
Read Full Entry

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Friday, November 6, 2009

Movie Review - 'A Christmas Carol' looks great in 3-D

Robert Zemeckis hits a few flat notes as he takes on Dickens' "A Christmas Carol," using the same motion-capture technology from his adaptation of "The Polar Express."Much of the story looks great, dark and brooding. It's scary when it needs to be, grotesque when required. And it doesn't dumb down the dialogue or go for modern snarky jokes; instead it uses many of Dickens' actual words, that embroidered language that will go over the heads of little ones (but to which they still should be exposed).

Still, despite the obvious care given the story, at its heart it is a dry lump of coal. This "Christmas Carol" is curiously remote and cold - it may wow you with its visuals (particularly if seen in 3-D), but it likely won't mess with your emotions.

This time around, the transformation of the misanthropic Scrooge has little appeal: It never seems in doubt, and doesn't seem that earth-shattering when it happens. Much of that has to do with that motion-capture technology. As whiz-bang as it is, it can't get the human face right; they're waxy, plastic, cartoonish, without the spark of real life.

I would rather have seen the real Jim Carrey as Scrooge (and the three ghosts), the real Gary Oldman as Bob Crachit, and a real smudged-face kid playing Tiny Tim.

"The Polar Express" worked far better as a Christmas story, seeing how it captured the dreamlike state of that tale.

"A Christmas Carol?" It needs to be grittier, grounded in the grime of Victorian London. The motion-capture tricks smooth too much of that out - it looks more like a theme park populated by mannequins.

Don't shortchange the craft of Zemeckis and co., though. It looks great, in 3-D, when the snowflakes start falling around you. And several of the movie's showy sequences are stunning and playful, especially an early one in which we swoop up and down the streets of the city.

Just as he did in "The Polar Express," though, Zemeckis eventually overdoes the roller-coaster action stuff. That's particularly evident in one drawn-out chase sequence in which Scrooge gets turned into an itty-bitty creature for reasons, I admit, that seemed rather arbitrary to me.
Read Full Entry

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Movie Review - Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

I didn’t see the original. I feel that whenever someone reviews a remake of a film, they should state early on whether or not they saw the original. That way, you know whether you’re in for a comparative review, or a fresh take on the story. So with that in mind, I have to say that I really enjoyed THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123. It didn’t have an earth shattering story and it wasn’t all that original, but it had some intense moments and enough witty banter to keep you entertained throughout.

Ryder (John Travolta) is a man on a mission. For reasons that will later be revealed, he’s hell bent on taking over a subway train in NYC and holding its passengers hostage while the city scrounges to come up with his money. His only contact with the city is Walter Garber (Denzel Washington), a man with issues of his own, but today he happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

The highlight of this film is the banter between Travolta and Washington. But what makes it unique is that they don’t share any screen time, except for a few brief moments in the third act. But even as they communicate via radios, watching them go back and forth is a blast. It’s a credit to both actors that they really spend most of the film acting opposite a handheld radio and still manage to illicit emotions and responses from the audience. And even though the shaky-cam, fast editing style of Tony Scott is getting old, give him credit for timing the dialogue scenes perfectly to allow his two stars to really shine.

John Travolta should also get his fair share of credit here, if only because I’ve been so hard on him for his streak of unwatchable films in recent years (I’m looking at you, WILD HOGS). But he’s at his best when he gets to cut loose and get crazy with his bad guys. BROKEN ARROW and FACE OFF were two great examples of how good he can be when playing the bad guy, and I would say he matches those performances with Pelham. There’s just something about crazy, bad-guy Travolta that’s really fun to watch.

As much as I loved Travolta’s crazy character, there were some aspects of the film that Tony Scott should have been able to avoid. We didn’t get any resolution to the relationship between Garber and his boss, then they threw in some worthless moments between Garber and his wife. Those scenes have their place, but they were so underdeveloped that they only served to distract from the intensity. The audience wanted more exchanges between Ryder and Garber and I would have happily sacrificed other moments for more of banter.

Despite that, this film serves its purpose, which is to entertain you. It moves at a very brisk pace, has some good, intense moments and features a good performance from Mr. Travolta. It won’t wow you with any special effects and you can probably guess how it’s going to end, but overall it’s a fun ride.
Read Full Entry

Monday, November 2, 2009

Movie Review - The Maid

The excellent Chilean black comedy The Maid opens with a scene that should represent joy – a surprise birthday celebration. The upper-class Valdez family is attempting to surprise their maid, Raquel (Catalina Saavedra), on her 41st birthday with a cake and gifts. Sitting alone in the adjacent kitchen, Raquel, with her wild mane of black curls and fixed scowl, is wise to their plans.

She’s worked for them for twenty-three years and her heavy gaze seems to suggest that this happens year after year without variation. When they ask her to come into the dining room, she refuses.

She’s content, it seems, to spend this day like the rest, simmering with resentment. When they finally manage to bring her into the dining room and celebrate, she briefly allows the celebration to enter, a momentary smile appears on her face as she feels part of the family.

But, soon, when the celebration ends and the family departs to enjoy the rest of their evening without her, her frown resettles, as the maid still has work to do, including the additional dishes brought upon by her own birthday. Such is the complicated relationship between boss and hired help presented by director Sebastián Silva’s superb film, winner of the 2009 Sundance Film Festival’s World Cinema Jury Prize Dramatic, Special Jury Prize for Acting and a recent Gotham Independent Film Best Feature nominee.

Getting to the root of Raquel’s dissatisfactions takes some time and the film’s pace and direction allows us to both sympathize with Raquel for her twenty-three years of service and question her sanity and fortitude in the face of such monotonous and occasionally absurd work. In fact, her health is already deteriorating early in the film. Severe migraines attack her throughout the day, leaving her dizzy and, occasionally, completely incapacitated.

The trigger to these migraines can be anything and the film explores Raquel’s complicated relationships with several family members as a source. There’s Camila (Andrea Garcia Huidobro), the eldest of the Valdez children, who continually challenges Raquel’s authority, reminding her that she’s not a third parent, that she’s only “hired help.” While this briefly stings, it’s Raquel’s relationship with the eldest boy, the pubescent Lucas (Agustin Silva) that sincerely affects her. His slightest remark of admiration or condemnation improves or worsens her condition.

Further adding to her problems is the family’s insistence in finding her help. They remind her that she no longer is the young woman who first came to their household and that an additional maid would make her work and her life easier. With the family failing to see that her work and her life are one and the same, they proceed in introducing a sweet girl from Peru, Mercedes (Mercedes Villaneueva), to the household. This might as well be an invasion, as far as Raquel is concerned. Raquel attacks Mercedes any chance she gets. She treats Mercedes like a filthy dog, disinfecting anything they share and constantly questioning her every move.

Soon Mercedes resigns and the family decides to bring in a much tougher bird, Sonia (Anita Reeves). Sonia is a lifer; she’s old and mean, she snarls in her cynicism and she ain’t about to take any of Raquel’s shenanigans. It’s these dueling sequences between Raquel and Sonia that are some of the most humorous and revealing, as they allow us to understand the lengths Raquel will attempt to protect her position within the Valdez household.

When Raquel vanquishes Sonia, the family introduces yet another maid, Lucy (Mariana Loyola). Third time is the charm as Lucy is different. Whereas the other maids have no identity outside their work, Lucy has plenty going for her. She jogs in the morning, she sings loudly in the shower and she talks openly about anything, though mostly about the family she misses on the other side of the country.

When Raquel attempts her previous tricks on Lucy, Lucy confronts Raquel with hugs and tears of sympathy, asking Raquel over and over “What have they done to you?” It’s Lucy’s unique take on life, her ability to confront Raquel’s pettiness with kindness and her exuberant appreciation of life’s possibilities that finally bring Raquel face to face with her own dreary situation.

It’s in this last third of the film that Catalina Saavedra’s performance as Raquel carries the film to excellence. Raquel’s character could easily have devolved into caricature. Instead, Saavedra allows her to experience these newly discovered truths with equal measures of joy and regret. Often, it’s just a face – a momentary expression of the eyes and mouth – that say so much about Raquel’s life in the shadows, the years lost to servitude. It’s also this face we see at the end of the film, adjusting to a life worth serving.
Read Full Entry

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Movie Review - Aladin

Aladin (the film) is no Genius as Amitabh Bachchan's character is, but the movie does transport you to fantasyland, as its genre promises.

Right from Boman Irani's voice-over in the beginning, the film carries you to a place called Khwaish, where Sujoy Ghosh rubs his palms, has his actors in slick get-ups, and sets to match the mood.

Its fantasyland all right when Aladin (Riteish Deshmukh) is bullied by his friends from childhood to rub a lamp in the hope of a genie appearing. ''Aladin, Aladin kahan hai tera genie,'' his friends harass him all through his growing-up years.

However, things change when Jasmine (Jacqueline Fernandez) walks into his class on his birthday. Kasim (Sahil Khan), the big bully organizes a birthday bash to impress Jasmine. He convinces Jasmine that Aladin likes lamps and they buy him one as his birthday gift. Once again, they force him to rub the lamp. He refuses, but on Jasmine's insistence, he does oblige. Out comes Genius the genie (Amitabh Bachchan).

From then on, its all between Genie and Aladin. He has three wishes but he wastes them all on Jasmine! There's also a twist in the tale in the form of Ring Master (Sanjay Dutt) who plays the bad Genie who wants all powers for himself.

Jacqueline waltzes through her part with the grace of a gazelle. She has the looks and the talent to make a mark. Amitabh is in 'high energy' mode giving the formulaic image of a fat man who we have come to identify with a Genie, a novel twist. Whether he is dancing or fighting, he is still 'Ab Tak Bachchan'. The style and the charismatic power are there for all to see. Riteish is slowly but steadily making a mark of his own. Dutt injects the necessary evil ingredient.
Read Full Entry

Thursday, October 29, 2009

House Of The Devil Movie Review

he House Of The Devil is as perfect an 80's horror film as we'll ever get in this decade. The only thing missing is the giant clamshell VHS case. The look, style, tone, pacing, even the credits nail the feel of a flick your friends would've rented out for a slumber party, but weren't quite sure what it was about. It's fun for fans of the genre (yes, 80's possession horror is a sub-sect) but ADD-editing style fanatics should move along to the next defanged crappy remake.

The House of the Devil is the classic story of a nubile young coed Samantha, played by Jocelin Donahue and who could be the younger sister of Marion from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Samantha is enrolled at a sleepy college and has roommate problems.

Namely, her roommate is always having raucous sex, distracting from her scholarly duties. Samantha wants out, and has found an apartment that would suit her just fine. The only problem? She doesn't have the money to cover her check.

Samantha takes a long walk to the student center and finds a simple ad that reads "Babysitter Needed". She calls and speaks to Mr. Ulman (Tom Noonan, whose creepy voice you can tell immediately, and will alert you to the fact that something bad will probably go down). After a lengthy series of misunderstandings, Samantha finally makes her way to the house, where she meets Ulman. He is indeed creepy, but Noonan plays it so well, you're not sure if he's sinister or just a normal, albeit strange, individual. However, in case you couldn't glean it from the title, some bad things are about to go down at this house.

There have been a lot of movies lately that try to ape the aesthetics of past movies, but successfully incorporate them into the narrative. Some miss this point (The Good German, Grindhouse) while some are successful (Black Dynamite, this). The key is that they don't let the storytelling get in the way of the story. Ti West, the director, clearly loves his 80's horror films, but I sense that he went into this movie with the intention of making a film that could easily stand alongside these movies, not looking down on them. To this extent, he succeeds! He has crafted a wonderful sense of tension and dread that could also just as easily be paranoia in the mind of a cute young coed who hasn't been inundated with horror films.

(He also does a great job with the period setting details. My favorite being Samantha's walkman that's the size of a novel).

The performances make the film rise above as well. I have not seen Jocelin Donahue before, but she looks like she stepped out of the 80s. She's nice to look at, and she plays the character with the right amount of naivety and desperation that you believe she would put herself in the situations that she does. And Tom Noonan is just fantastic. Everytime he's on screen, you chuckle nervously, never sure what he's going to do next. The supporting actors are quite good as well, including A.J. Bowen, a familiar face to fans of The Signal.

The movie is deliberately slow. The pace is there for a reason. You have to invest in the film to get more out of it, but it sinks in long after viewing, and it is creepy. It's not about cheap scares, it's about subtle layers. If you're tired of the what passes for horror these days, and are looking for a fun, spooky flick with loads of atmosphere, do yourself and check out House Of The Devil.
Read Full Entry

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Michael Jackson Movie This Is It Review

The Michael Jackson movie “This Is It” left me disappointed. Don’t get me wrong here, the movie was masterfully put together from rehearsal footage.

Director Kenny Ortega’s compilation of over 250 hours of all the footage is nothing short of genius. The movie runs pretty seamlessly, trying to give the viewer a “real feeling” of what this tour would have been if Michael hadn’t suffered his untimely death. All of Michael’s multi platinum songs are there.

We see Michael trying to make sure the shows were up to “his” standards and how he always would be polite and loving, even when giving criticism.

“This Is It” delivered on its promise to show us the “inner” workings of a Michael Jackson concert and it showed us why the “King Of Pop” was one of the greatest showmen of our time.

In “This Is It”, the “King Of Pop” moves more like a man of 20 than his actual age of 50. In some of the scenes, the singer moves at a slower pace and is quick to point out that he is just “holding himself in”, which is understandable because it is a “rehearsal” after all.

The “This Is It” tour would have been one of the greatest shows of all time. The movie is a fitting tribute for the beloved Michael Jackson and is sure to be talked about and watched for a long time to come. Fans will swoon over it and all of Michael’s critics will trash it.

This movie was made for the fans and they will enjoy it tremendously. It is very entertaining and gives you almost everything a “live” concert would have. So, you may be asking why I am disappointed? “This Is It” left me disappointed because I realized what a great show a Michael Jackson concert must have been and I am disappointed I never got to see any of the “King Of Pop’s” concerts in person.
Read Full Entry

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

London Dreams

Cast: Ajay Devgan, Salman Khan, Asin
Music: Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy
Director: Vipul A. Shah

Two childhood friends had little in common, except the connection their families had with music.

While Arjun’s (Ajay Devgn) life was consumed by a passionate drive to get on stage and realize his grandfather’s unfulfilled dream, Mannu (Salman Khan) had little interest in his father’s music instruments and was content with remaining a child at heart; bold, loud and boisterous, and enjoying the good things in life.

Never had they expected music to solidify their friendship and then test it with catastrophic results…

Arjun, an abandoned child, ran away from an uncle who was his only family in an unfamiliar land. He roamed the streets of London struggling to pursue his sole dream of foraying into the world of music and showmanship.

He forged a band with Zoheb (Rannvijay Singh) and Wasim (Aditya Roy Kapoor), two brothers who’d duped their relatives in Pakistan to travel to London in pursuit of their musical aspirations, and Priya (Asin), a beautiful and young music enthusiast.

Far away in Punjab (India), Mannu took to playing in local wedding bands to make ends meet. Shortly after bringing Mannu to London to make him a part of his band, Arjun realized that he had blundered by creating the biggest threat and obstacle to his ambition.

Manu, incredibly gifted, became an instant opiate of the masses with his unique and irreverent style of performing. What took Arjun years to achieve, Mannu did overnight.

Arjun felt betrayed by the God to whom he’d surrendered everything in exchange for eminence in music. His (Arjun’s) pangs of jealousy and insecurity became worse when Mannu won over his secret love, Priya.

Battling his inner demons and consumed by rage, Arjun devised a sinister plan to destroy his best friend and adversary.

Over a three-city tour spanning Paris, Rome and Amsterdam, Arjun sent a naïve Mannu on a downward hurtling rollercoaster ride of sex and drugs before a grand finale at the historic Wembley Arena, where Arjun hoped to regain and enjoy his moment of glory.

But as a rude shock awaited Arjun, it also turned into a humbling and introspective experience that taught him the real meaning of acceptance.

From Vipul Shah, the maker of supreme blockbusters as Namastey London and Waqt, London Dreams, lavishly mounted and embellished, is an intense and powerful drama about passion, ambition, envy and realization, with a distinct musical backdrop. With a stellar cast, it promises to be one of the most compelling motion picture experiences of 2009.
Read Full Entry

Monday, October 26, 2009

Antichrist - Movie Review

In a March 2009 interview with iconic uber-indie writer/director Lars von Trier (“Dogville,” “Dancer in the Dark,” “Breaking the Waves”) the devil-beset film maker described the circumstances surrounding the writing of this screenplay.

He described himself as suffering from depression, everything seeming unimportant and trivial and his being incapable of work.

In this condition he wrote the script for “Antichrist.” If you think you have seen heavy films you ain’t seen nuttin’ until you see this. Regarding the Not Rated rating, this film is not rated for several very good reasons. Any one of the most disturbing five or six scenes alone would garner a solid “X” from the less than understanding MPAA (The MPAA discussion of the film on IMDB is longer than this film review. Squeamish viewers might want to take the time to read the discussion even though it contains some spoilers).

The film consists almost entirely of two characters. Married couple “He” played by twice Oscar nominated Willem Dafoe (“Platoon” and “Shadow of the Vampire”) and “She” played by Charlotte Gainsbourg. Gainsbourg, a two time French Cesar winner pocketed the coveted Best Actress award at the 2009 Cannes FF for her scintillating performance in this film. She does everything but set the piano on fire in this powerful story of grief and loss.

The film starts with the death of the couple’s infant child who dies while they are making passionate love. This event causes intense guilt feelings in the couple. “He” is a psychological counselor who tries to talk his wife out of her near-coma obsession over their child’s death but she slips further and further into an abyss that eventually becomes homicidal.

The two retreat to their once-favorite idyll in the pristine forests of the mountains where they plan to rest and get their life together. At this point the film takes on the feeling of the horror classic “The Shining” where struggling writer Jack Nicholson goes bonkers at the isolated Colorado retreat. The screenplay could be considered both pornography and a horror story although the latter part of the film is solidly in the horror genre. He is trying to escape while saving the life and sanity of his partner while she is in an uncontrollable deadly rage apparently bent on killing them both.

As in von Trier’s’ earlier films this one has a marvelous stripped down look and feel consistent with the guidelines of the “Dogme 95” convention. The visual expression is as pristine as the mountain streams. There are no sets, no artificial lighting, and no costumes. Director of photography Anthony Dod Mantle rejoins von Trier after their past efforts in the blockbuster “Manderlay” and “Dogville” (“Manderlay” also featuring Willem Dafoe). Mantle has done much of his previous work with Thomas Vinterburg in creating the brooding, overcast feelings of impending doom in “Last King of Scotland” and “Dear Wendy” and this film is creepier than either of those (beating out Idi Amin in the creepiness category is not easy…). There is something about the flat light and rainfall of the mountain idyll (named “Eden” with a full measure of irony) that amplifies the entrapped horror the two characters are feeling. Death is the only relief they have but it continually eludes them.

The movie makes enthralling diversions in and out of surrealism as well as the over-riding horror and carnal themes. The symbols of the "the 3 Beggars" (a deer who represents grief, a fox who represents pain and a crow who represents despair) are recurrent with the crow/raven finally exposing He in his hiding place where He is discovered by his insanely wrathful wife. Another fascinating symbol is the acorns that fall against the roof of the cabin in a natural tattoo that eventually expands into a crescendo of maddening noise as the two protagonists come closer to the realization that their options are almost exhausted.

This film will not go down in history as one of Lars von Trier’s greatest but it is still worth watching if you are a fan of his or of Dafoe’s or Gainsbourg’s. Her performance is one of the most intense ever filmed and would be every bit as powerful without the worst scenes of bloody violence and without the most explicit scenes of sexual activity. Many will end up considering Nicole Kidman’s performance in “Dogville” to be more expressive even though it is considerably less outrageous.
Read Full Entry

Friday, October 23, 2009

Movie Review - 'Amelia' circles but is sadly off-course

Considering the risks Amelia Earhart took, losing her life in the call of aviation, Hilary Swank and director Mira Nair don't put much on the line in their film biography "Amelia."

Swank and Nair play it safe to the point of benumbing this woman's life, leaving Earhart as remote and muted as she is in the black-and-white photos and news footage of the aviator included at the film's end.

"Amelia" is a biopic on autopilot. We get the facts of Earhart's pioneering achievements, her marriage to her promoter (Richard Gere), her fling with a fellow pilot (Ewan McGregor). And we get pretty pictures of airplanes in flight.

But this dowdy movie rarely embodies Earhart's passions, whether for flying or for the men in her life.

Much of the fault lies in the screenplay by Ron Bass and Anna Hamilton Phelan, a script remarkably based on not one, but two Earhart biographies.

In stumbling, choppy fashion, the movie intercuts between Earhart's doomed last flight around the world in 1937 and the achievements leading up to it over the previous decade – her Atlantic and Pacific crossings, her mentoring of female fliers, her efforts to establish regional passenger shuttle service.

Lovely aerial images, lush landscapes and rich sets and costumes are the film's lone strengths. In almost every other regard, "Amelia" veers off course.

All the other components for an engaging chronicle are there. A grand life that ends in tragedy and epic mystery. Period drama that offers the chance to craft glorious images and play puppetmaster for fascinating characters. A filmmaker in Nair ("Monsoon Wedding," "Mississippi Masala") who has a keen feel for bold women and zestful lives.

A sturdy supporting cast includes Christopher Eccleston, as the navigator who disappeared with Earhart on her final flight over the Pacific, and Cherry Jones, who briefly enlivens the film as Eleanor Roosevelt on a night flight with Earhart.

"Amelia" flirts with potentially interesting aspects of Earhart's story. Sadly, these moments are tossed in to no purpose, like stuffy airport layovers in really interesting destinations you wish you had the time to go out and explore.
Read Full Entry

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

All The Best

Starring Sanjay Dutt, Ajay Devgn, Fardeen Khan, Bipasha Basu, Mugdha Godse
Directed by Rohit Shetty
Rating: ** ½

“I’m doing action for thirty years. Comedy I’ve recently taken to, ” says Sanjay Dutt in the ‘won’-and-only explosion of dhishum-dhishum.

You got it, brother. In his first really decent and meaty role since Munnabhai Dutt gets into the satirical groove effortlessly and fluently playing a visiting Bade Bhaiyya from abroad whom his kid- brother Fardeen Khan (tolerably befuddled) must fool into believing he’s married and decent.

The guys in Rohit Shetty’s comedies are anything but decent. Rascals and rogues of the first order Devgan and Khan, are splendidly supported by a sparkling cast of comic actors ranging from Asrani to Johnny Lever to the wonderful Ashwini Kalsekar (remember how cheesy and charming she was in Rohit Shetty’s Gol Maal Returns?) to Sanjay Mishra (as a zonked out wannabe householder who says ‘Just chill’ as though his tongue had just been through a sugarcane – juice machine).

The screenplay (Robin Bhatt) juices the material for all it’s worth.

The constant flow of cheesy-breezy dialogues is littered with high-school humour but blessedly no vulgarity. This is one comedy you could take your mom to see without once walloping a wince into the wanton soup.

The burlesque is fast –paced though surprisingly restrained and has room galore for PJs.

The one-liners are so silly and graffiti-like in their basic humour, you can’t but titter at the trivia wrapped in gloss that makes welcome room for Pritam’s pacy music without getting in the way of the one-liners.

So ok. This one doesn’t leave you …er Blue in the face. The comedy is purely situational and the style purely ‘ Rohit Shetty’. That means a bit of slapstick, a bit of that rapidly-moving tongue in the cheek, and a lot of Ajay Devgn.

And if you add Sanjay Dutt to the bubby buncy comic brew…man, you’ve got show that’s on the road from the word, go.

This time the setting, if you must know, is Goa. Shetty doesn’t use the touristic spot as a character. You suspect he places his colony of characters in the Goan location so they could all be camera-framed into a streamlined stampede.

There are only 3 female characters in the show, the resy are all guys playing con men, goons, gangsters, wheeledealers, warriors and worriers all of whom display an exemplary comic strength.

Sanjay Dutt gets it right after a long time. He has a lot of fun doing his part and he lets us share his enjoyment.

Ajay Devgn’s comic timing has gotten rapidly dead-on under Shetty’s tutelage. He gives Dutt tit for tat, and then some more.

Not all the material is uniformly amusing. Towards the finishing line you do begin to wonder how much longer it would take this wonky wacky world of wispy and reparable wickeness to set itself right.
Read Full Entry

Blue

Starring Sanjay Dutt, Akshay Kumar, Zayed Khan, Lara Dutta, Katrina Kaif
Directed by Tony D’Souza
Rating: ** ½

First things first. The villain of the show is not Akshay Kumar. It’s the screenplay. What was the writer thinking when he wrote this underwater escapade with well-toned bodies posing against the breathtaking Bahamian backdrops?

The treasure-hunt could be straight out of Enid Blyton’s Famous Five…The quintet here are from an altogether different age group from what Blyton had intended.

Samjay Dutt and Akshay Kumar are friends. We are made to believe they are in the fishery business, though we don’t ever see them doing a day’s work. All they do is soak their lips in the bubblies and their toes in the pristine-blue waters.

Oh yes, they also get into the boxing ring. But their pugnacious proclivities never get beyond the first chapter of Enid Bylton’s ‘ Famous 4 Get Frisky’. If Enid never wrote it, then here it is. The screenplay writer doing the needful. The two grownup boys who relentlessly talk about undersea treasure.

This is Dhoom going thousands of feet under.

We get very little insight into what motivates these overgrown boys to think green –backs in their blue environment.Fast cars and furious wheels just don’t make for a meaningful existence. But who’s going to tell these people they are interesting only to themselves?

Interestingly the only rounded and remotely cohesive character is that played by Zayed Khan. We first see him as a brat in Bangkok racing mo’bikes and wooing the puckish and punky Katrina Kaif with bedroomy looks. Zayed penchant for the two wheels give us two very lengthy and very stylish chase sequences which are among the best we’ve ever seen in Hindi cinema.

But do skidding wheels and somersaulting cars constitute a substantial film? Often in the midst of the breath-taking stunts you look for a relevance beyond the cosmetic confection that Blue so insouciantly throws in your face.

The characters’ single-minded obsession with self-preservation in the most superficial sense, keeps us guessing about the true reason for their existence.By the time they find the treasure we still don’t have a clue as to what motivates them to skim the surface of existenc.

Director Anthony D’Souza is completely in control of the character’s outside world. The underwater sequences are truly a plunge that Hindi cinema has never taken. The camera follows the characters underwater with a masterly aplomb.

It’s the world above sea level that leaves us hankering for oxygen. The world that these characters inhabit is utterly devoid of a third dimension. A multiplicity of cameras are used to capture their rapidly-moving world. But that essential peep into the characters’ hearts and minds eludes the keen camera lenses.

Blame the writing. Lara Dutta looks wow in a bikini. But the cast could do with a serious crash course in how to have a whale of a time without getting in the way of the sharks.

Sanjay Dutt should have kost 20 kgs before getting into underwater gear. Oh yes that’s Kylie Minogue doing jiggwiggy to A R Rahman’s music. Does anyone really care ? These are scuba-diving hedonists busy having a ball. We really don’t want to intrude on their very private world of cars, cruiser boats and water sports.

At the end Akshay Kumar speeds into the ocean on his mo’bike. We don’t blame him for forgetting the difference between earth and water. Blue blurs the line between water and land somewhere in the first two reels.

And then it’s just a plotless journey into the heart of the ocean.
Read Full Entry

Adann Movie Reviews New

“Couples Retreat” (Comedy/Romance: 1 hour, 53 minutes); Starring: Vince Vaughn, Malin Akerman, Jason Bateman, Kristen Bell, Faizon Love, Jon Favreau, Kristin Davis, and Jean Reno; Director: Peter Billingsley; Rated: PG-13 (Sexual innuendo, crude and sexual humor, mild language and brief violence)

Movie Review: As a single person, complaining couples are not the entertainment one would like to see. Such a situation is the case with “Couples Retreat,” a comedy written by stars Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn, who is also a producer.

This tolerable comedy becomes a somewhat agreeable romance as the relationships of four couples are revealed while on a couples retreat on an exotic island. The couples complain, argue and find themselves in very precarious situations — a yoga scene goes on far too long, ruining the scene’s jokes. Actor Billingsley directs, his second time helming a production. He allows his cast to run amok, a condition of directing your boss (Vaughn).

Even more, the story is forced. The characters all do the “right thing,” even when it appears their actions are too easily resolvable. An example is Jennifer (Tasha Smith, in a very petite role), the estranged wife of Shane (the token black guy role played by Faizon), telling her husband that it took sleeping with multiple men and partying some everywhere to realize he was the best thing for her. Immediately, he takes her back, seemingly with no reservations.

The wives are smart, beautiful and genuine. The men are goofy husbands. The wives should drop their zeroes and get with heroes. As to why the women seem more serious than their male counterparts, the answer is not because the plot demands such. Women are typically less funny in comedies due to sexist prejudices of men in moviedom. Movie producers, who value the almighty box-office dollar, think of women as the less funny of the sexes as dictated by ticket sales. Therefore, the comedic lines belong to the men in this film, while the women are given the grounded, less humorous lines, making them appear much smarter than their men.

Comedies rarely make total sense, but they contain laughs. Despite some flubbed lines and over-the-top characters, “Retreat” has its moments. Some scenes are good, smart humor, and other moments are tragically funny because the scenes are goofily under par. Either way, it provides a few laughs.
Read Full Entry

Monday, October 19, 2009

ONG BAK 2 Movie Review

A little while back, I was invited to an advance screening of Ong Bak 2 and, being a fan of Ong Bak, I was very excited to see Tony Jaa do his thing again.

Ong Bak 2 is marketed as a prequel to Ong Bak although it really has nothing to do with it. The story revolves around Tien (Tony Jaa) who, as a teen, saw his parents being slain by a political rival. Through some adventures, he ends up in this gang of thieves who teach him the different martial arts that will serve him to prepare for his ultimate revenge.

Needless to say, my expectations were modestly high. The plot had a lot of things going for it but unfortunately, my expectations were not met. Let me tell you why by breaking out the good and bad parts of this movie:

The Good Parts of Ong Bak 2

The fight scenes are certainly dope. In Ong Bak 2,Tony Jaa goes beyond the classic Muy Thai moves and explores different disciplines and fighting techniques. The whole movie is essentially a set up to fight scenes where we see Tony do some crazy stuff. In this movie, you will have the answers to the following questions:
Can Tony Jaa fight a crocodile?
- Can Tony Jaa fight with weapons?
- Can Tony Jaa fight a gazillion enemies at the same time?
- Can Tony Jaa fight a gazillion enemies at the same time AND use an elephant to do so?

The answer is yes across the board.

During these fight scenes, there is some really cool camera work and editiing that only enhance them. So overall, great scenes.

Now the question is: What else was good in this movie? Well, the answer is not much else.

The Bad Parts of Ong Bak 2

The bad parts of the movie can be summed up in two words: Everything Else.

The story was so badly put together that my 5 year old niece could have done a better job of writing it. There were major plot holes that just were too glaring to ignore and yet they found a way to ignore them. The feeble attempt of introducing some sort of love story was so exceptionally bad that it was better if they didn't try.

The acting was painfully awful. Even the subtitles could not hide how bad the characters were portrayed. Tony Jaa was the worst of them all. The character he portrays spends almost the first 25 mn of the movie saying exactly NOTHING. Jeez.

Now, the end was the worst part. There was none. It litterally ended on a freaking cliffhanger. When the light came on, people were expecting more. One guy was like: "Is that really it?"

Basically, aside from the fight scenes, this is one of the worst movies I have seen all year. I suggest you do the following: Save your money, wait for this to come out on DVD, rent it and fast forward throughout the movie until you see the fight scenes. That will be a much more pleasant experience than sitting through the entire movie.
Read Full Entry

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Fantastic Mr Fox Movie Review

This is much more of a Wes Anderson film than the Roald Dahl classic on which it's based. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it could cause problems with fans of the book. The central themes are still there, but this is essentially a quirky dysfunctional family romp.

Mr Fox (voiced by Clooney) has a pretty fantastic life as a newspaper columnist living in his den with his wife (Streep), surly teen son Ash (Schwartzman) and visiting nephew Kristofferson (Anderson). After Fox convinces his wife to move aboveground to a tree, he becomes tempted to go back to his bird-stealing ways.

And with his possum pal Kylie (Wolodarsky), he goes on a spree that enrages the local farmers, led by the furious Bean (Gambon), who vows revenge. But this puts the entire local animal population in danger. By focussing on the offbeat family and extended animal community, Anderson shifts the story into his usual exploration of internal angst and interpersonal carnage.

While Dahl's central tale about creatures outwitting humans is still there, this is much more a story about a man rediscovering who he really is, namely a wild animal. Fortunately this is explored with wit and energy, some hysterical dialog, terrific characters and absolutely gorgeous animation.

Visually, the film looks timeless, as the old-style stop-motion is deliberately jerky and goofy. This makes it that much more tactile. And the animators brilliantly bring the characters to life, complete with strong emotion and sharp personalities, energetically conveyed by the great vocal cast. And Anderson directs the action with his usual brand of straight-on camerawork, yellow-orange colour scheme and amusing little touches.

At the centre is the idea that a fox can't really be happy without a chicken in his teeth. Obviously, this idea resonates on a deeper level, but the film's essentially a snappy, lightweight comedy. Why Anderson decided to make the animals American even though the humans and the above-ground setting are firmly in Dahl's Britain is anyone's guess. So if the message is a little simplistic, at least the film shows astounding visual innovation. And it's a thoroughly engaging place to spend 90 minutes.
Read Full Entry

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Black Dynamite Movie Review

"Watch out, Shaft! Black Dynamite's in town!" is what I would write if I did was not raised to honor and respect the private dick that's a sex machine to all the chicks.

(And had a lack of respect for myself). Regardless, Black Dynamite proves itself a worthy successor to the blaxploitation classic, and wouldn't be out of place on a double bill, although, Dolemite is the more obvious comparison film. Black Dynamite is also the hardest I've laughed during a movie all year. In the good ways, too!

Black Dynamite is both a cheeky parody and a loving homage to the blaxploitation films of yesteryear. From the poor production design, to the mistakes left in.

From gratuitous nudity to the big names used in just one scene, it all adds up to a movie that's in on the joke, but doesn't think it's better than what it's making fun of. It might not be able to sustain the joke the whole way through, but it's thoroughly entertaining enough in it's own right, and nowhere near as arch as it could be.

Michael Jai White plays Black Dynamite, a pimp and a hustler, who is skilled in kung fu and kicking ass. He has a blackbelt in TCB. (Takin Care of Business, for those who are out of the loop). He's also accompanied by an awesome musical sting that lets you know Dynamite is about to do (or just did) something cool. When we begin the adventure, Black Dynamite's brother is killed. Since he promised their mother on her deathbed that he would protect his brother, Black Dynamite goes on a rampage.

Along his journey of kicking ass and taking names, Black Dynamite encounters a social worker, who informs him of the increasing smack problem that's overtaking the local orphanage. Infuriated, Black Dynamite sets out to clean up the streets, and fight smack in the orphanage! This leads to a fantastic scene full of actors you love in ridiculous outfits, with hilarious results.

The plot isn't really what's important. Hell, about 2/3 into the movie they sort of run out of things to do. (Although they make up for it with a spectacularly gonzo final battle that involves two former presidents AND nunchucks!) What matters is the affection for the characters, and the genre that the filmmakers put in. Sure, it's easy to make fun of Shaft and Dolemite, but do you have any idea how difficult it is to create an entirely new hero of the same genre, and not have be a pale imitation?

Credit goes to co-writer/director Scott Sanders, and to Black Dynamite himself, Michael Jai White. White has this remarkable ability to play it straight while winking at the camera. On top of that, he really can kick as much ass as his on screen persona, and he takes great pride in showing you his kung fu skill. (Between this, and Blood and Bone, I'm starting to question why he doesn't have a career as big as Van Damme at the very least. the man knows his kung fu is better than yours).

Love should also be shone upon the music selection for the film, which contains a whole lot of badass funk, in addition to hilarious musical interludes with lyrics that literally point out what's happening before your very eyes. It's kind of ridiculous, but there are many previous films in this genre that pulled off the same thing, while being absolutely serious about it.

Have I mentioned how damn funny the whole thing is? There's one scene that's a slice of pure comic gold. It involves Black Dynamite and his crew at a diner, figuring out the plot of the film. How they come to their realizations (and payoff a joke from a half hour earlier) is achieved with such wit and brilliance, that the joke became sublime, and I was crying with laughter. Pure Comic Gold.

I feel I'm leaving so much out, but this film is a treat to discover. Whereas Black Dynamite could have been a one-off-should-be-an-SNL-sketch, or a retread of Undercover Brother, instead we get a treat that loves blaxploitation films and the fans, and wants to make room for one more hero on that mantle. "DY-NO-MITE!"
Read Full Entry

Capsule reviews - `Wild Things' and others

Capsule reviews of films opening this week: "New York, I Love You" The title is "New York, I Love You," and it's a collection of shorts intended as one big love letter to the city and all the romance it has to offer. The result is a curiously bland hodgepodge not terribly evocative of such a famous place, and not all that inspiring in the connections it depicts.

Following 2007's "Paris Je T'Aime," this is the second in a planned series of "Cities of Love" films. Each features a group of eclectic directors and well-known actors coming together to concoct brief clips. Inherently with such a structure, you're going to have hits and misses. Not all the segments are going to work for every viewer.

But whereas "Paris Je T'Aime" had a healthy number of hits, "New York, I Love You" is the unfortunate opposite. The challenge presented to filmmakers was intriguing, too: Each of them had two days to shoot, then a week to edit. Each short had to take place in an identifiable New York neighborhood. And each had to involve some kind of love encounter.

Except for Shekhar Kapur's entry, with its dreamy, ethereal light, nearly everything in "New York, I Love You" has a dark, gritty sameness that feels smothering. Aside from references to Central Park and the Dakota building and restaurants like Balthazar and Pastis, "New York, I Love You" could take place in any bustling, densely populated metropolis. Mira Nair, Brett Ratner, Joshua Marston and Natalie Portman are among the directors; James Caan, Orlando Bloom, Julie Christie and Robin Wright Penn are among the actors. R for language and sexual content. 103 min. Two stars out of four.

"Where the Wild Things Are" The book is just 339 words long, but in turning it into a feature-length movie, director Spike Jonze has expanded the story with a breathtaking visual scheme and stirring emotional impact. What keeps the film from reaching complete excellence is the thinness of the script, which Jonze co-wrote with Dave Eggers.

The beloved and award-winning children's book, which Maurice Sendak wrote and illustrated 45 years ago, still holds up beautifully today because it shows keen insight into the conflicted nature of children the delight and the frustration that can often coexist simultaneously. With its warm lighting and detailed production design, "Where the Wild Things Are" remains lovingly faithful to the look and spirit of the book but functions assuredly as its own entity.

Jonze also gets the feelings of fear and insecurity that the wild things of "Wild Things" represent, and he's taken the bold step of showing the creatures not through animation but rather by using actual people in giant, furry costumes.

The monsters were voiced by an all-star cast and enhanced through digital effects to make the facial features seem more lifelike. And because talented character actors like James Gandolfini, Forest Whitaker, Catherine O'Hara and Paul Dano had the benefit of voicing their roles on the same stage at the same time rather than recording their parts independently of each other, which is standard practice their interplay feels more organic.

At their center is Max, played by 12-year-old Max Records, a lonely, misunderstood kid who runs off to the magical land where the wild things are and becomes their king. PG for mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language. 101 min. Three stars out of four.
Read Full Entry