'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

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

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

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

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 – I use the term "writer" here very loosely – have 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 – am I making this sound like more fun than it is? Sitting through this movie is like being pressed flat by a trash compactor. Every cliché, 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

Watch Jail (2009)

Read Full Entry

Watch Ajab Prem Ki Gajab Kahani 2009 PDVD

Read Full Entry

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

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

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