Movie Review - Ishqiya

Believe the hype - 'Ishqiya' is a bold, imaginative Bollywood entry and audiences everywhere will appreciate the naughty, clever film that Vishal Bharadwaj and his protégé Abhishek Chaubey have created. 'Ishqiya' is vibrantly original and marks the arrival of a talent to watch.

As outrageous as it sounds, the film succeeds in emphasizing the distance between the characters on the screen and the people watching them in the theater.

Throughout its runtime 'Ishqiya' has a raw energy and sense of fun that's infectious.

And lets not forget that this is a black comedy, an absolute hoot from start to finish. Chaubey has a real knack for fleshing out the foibles of contemporary sexual mores.

What's more, this film also features the best performances of Naseeruddin Shah, Arshad Warsi, and Vidya Balan to date. Shah says little, but his subtle emotions are astounding; Warsi gets the best lines, and delivers them with panache; and Balan proves once again that she's quite the powerhouse with her incredibly rendered sly, flirtatious, and amoral character.

Full marks to writers Bharadwaj, Chaubey and Sabrina Dhawan, for the film is replete with truly delicious sequences, and some biting dialogue worth killing for. Sample these: 'Is duniya sab se gehri dushmani miya-biwi ke beech hai'.... 'Yeh jagah bahut danger hain. Apne yahan toh sirf Shia-Sunni hote hain. Yahan toh Pandey, Yadav, Jat sabne apni fauj bana rakhi hai.' .... 'Tumhara ishq ishq aur hamara ishq sex!'.... "c*** sulphate". Hell yes. Its great to savour the film's wonderful off-beat tone, and the bits of satire which work with the film instead of being apart from it.

There's no doubt that Bharadwaj and Chaubey are inspired by Tarantino. The Eastern UP setting has a distinct jagged 'badlands' feeling about it, and is fascinating to behold. A special mention goes to the music (also by Bharadwaj), the songs, especially 'Dil to bachcha hai ji' and 'Ibn-e-Batuta' are maddeningly entertaining. The only feeble piece of the jigsaw is the climax, which may suggest that Chaubey bit off more than he could chew. Doesn't matter though, for 'Ishqiya' is revelatory debut, an inventive, daring, original piece of filmmaking that doesn't just hint at a new arrival on the scene, but blasts one into the film consciousness.

Final verdict? 'Ishqiya' is wickedly funny and cleverly told. Its irresistible. Its highly recommended.

Read Full Entry

Movie Review - Crazy Heart (Jan 2010)

Surprise, surprise, both Jeff Bridges and Colin Farrell can actually sing! And they are pretty good at it. That was the most remarkable thing about this nostalgic look at Country Western music in today’s Southwestern United States.

The story centers on the Jeff Bridges character of Bad Blake, an aging, alcoholic Country Western singer-song writing legend in the twilight of his career. He spends most of his time driving from one gig to another across the beautiful desert country of what was once known as the Wild West.

He is almost sixty, unkempt, appears not to have washed his long hair in at least a month or more, is constantly drinking, and spends most of his time talking to himself during the long hours on the road.

This Country Western song-come-to-life is a moral tale of redemption and second chances. While performing with what he jokingly calls some young hippies as his backup band in a fancy bowling alley in Pueblo, Colorado, the broken-down cowboy is interviewed by a young woman reporter half his age. Jean, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal is a single mom with a four-year old son looking for love in all the wrong places while also trying to become a music reporter. The romantic sparks that fly between these two characters proves the theory that opposites attract. For Bad, this is his chance to redeem himself for having not seen his own twenty-something-year-old son since he was a four-year-old. For Jean, this is probably the triumph of hope over experience, but she is willing to give it a whirl. Maybe this time things will be different?

There is lot to be said for this motion picture. It reeks of realism. There don’t appear to be many professional actors in the movie. Bad’s audience is made up mostly of elderly senior citizens of the World War II baby generation most of whom are wearing desert cowboy hats to protect them from skin cancer. The locales are modern day honky-tonk roadhouses or today's equivalent, such as the fancy bowling alley with its live music bands. Bad’s music fans appear like they are all great grandparents. They come to hear the old tunes that Bad Blake has made famous over a long career and reminisce about their own youth. Listening to him sing his lonesome ballads brings mournful, but happy smiles to their faces. One of his well-preserved female Cougar fans tries to pick him up for dinner and a date after his show ends at 1 A.M.

While Bad’s alcoholism has caused his career to crash and burn, his young protégé, Tommy Sweet, played by Colin Farrell, has become famous singing some of his mentor’s original songs. He travels the music circuit in a fleet of custom-fitted buses and a huge back-up crew. Tommy and Bad are not entirely comfortable with how their relationship has turned out. Colin hires his former mentor to open for him at a major venue of 12,000 of his much younger generation of country music fans. When they meet in the parking lot surrounded by Tommy’s fleet of buses and stage crew busily going about their business of setting up for the concert, the repressed conflict between them is obvious. Colin does an excellent job of under-playing that difficult role of a man who owes his career to his mentor, but feels guilty about how it has worked out or maybe how that came to be? The details of this situation aren’t detailed, but only hinted at. Tommy is also in need of new songs and he wants to see if Bad still has the ability to write such magic music. He finally awkwardly, nervously admits that is what he hopes Bad can help him with. He promises to pay top price for new music composed by his mentor. It’s obvious that both men still need each other even though when they meet face to face, they metaphorically circle each other like two wary wrestlers sizing up their opponent.

This is an excellent film for adults. Robert Duvall plays one of Bad’s long-time true friends who over the years has attempted to save his friend from himself. The texture of this movie is palpable. Scott Cooper’s script writing and directing brings out the best in his cast including all the local members of the community used as extras. Jeff Bridges actually becomes the character Bad Blake in this motion picture. In the picture’s many close-ups of Blake the audience is going to be struck by a feeling that they are not seeing Jeff Bridges, but are looking at a close-up of Kenny Rogers, Kris Kristofferson or perhaps even Willie Nelson? Maybe it’s just the salt and pepper hair and untrimmed grey beards and rugged, weather-harden looks, but it’s there and the audience will experience the same surprising feeling?

The music written by T-Bone Burnett is perfect for the film. The only very minor flaw in the film that caught this reviewer’s attention was that in some of the panoramic scenes of Bad Blake driving through some spectacle scenery, it appeared that the towering volcanic formations were slightly fuzzy—as if they had been filmed with a low quality digital camera or a telephoto lens that focused on the car while the background went slightly soft or out of focus. For a film with ultra-sharp images throughout (the audience will see every scar, pore and skin imperfection), this particular phenomenon was puzzling but most people will probably never notice it. Despite this very minor technical problem, the film is definitely an engaging look at the world of honky-tonk in transition. This is definitely a keeper. The audience will never again see Jeff Bridges in quite the same way. When they do see him they will probably subconsciously hear him singing and playing honky-tonk songs in the background?

Read Full Entry

Movie Review - Legion

Webster's Dictionary defines legion as "a great number of persons or things." However, it should read, "Don't see this movie, it is pure crap!"
Stop me if you heard this one before: "The last time God lost faith in man, he sent a flood, this time, He sent Angels."

Basically, the world is in peril and most of humanity gets destroyed. "Legion" is the feature directorial debut of Scott Stewart who is no stranger to special effects. He has worked on numerous big-budget, edge-of-your-seat thrillers such as "Jurassic Park," "Superman Returns" and "Pirates of the Caribbean," to name a few.

"Legion" is visually dark, beautiful and saturated with talent. But all that is wasted on a script that leaves the audience scratching their heads and the movie quickly just goes to hell. Dennis Quaid may very well be the most underrated actor of this generation. He has been in so many films, but it seems he never really springs to mind when you think of great thespians.

(Personally, I think Meg Ryan and her people have something to do with this, and I want to tell her, "Sure, it was a bitter horrible divorce played out in the tabloids, but the guy has suffered enough, give him back his career.")

Taking place in the desert, which serves as a psychological image to the desolation that God feels toward humanity, angels are sent to bring about the Apocalypse via possessing "weak-minded people" and utilizing them to exterminate the rest of the population.

Fallen angel Michael, portrayed by British actor, Paul Bettany, who is the singular seraphic force standing between the Creator and the abomination of the planet's only hope of redemption.

He drops to earth, trades his metal wings for machine guns and vows to alter destiny. His charge is to protect a waitress played by Kate Walsh, who is pregnant with the Messiah.

The movie is far less interesting than my experience getting into it, so I will digress from the review for a minute.

For press, when a movie premiers, you walk into the theater, address the PR rep and someone escorts you into a designated area devoted for the purposes of reviewing the film.

As this was my very first film review, I was overly excited and dressed the part with my corduroy fitted jacket, beret and horn-rimmed glasses (that are for aesthetic purposes only).

I approached the smartly dressed woman and stated my name and my purpose. To which, she forthrightly declared that press was not welcome and they had decided not to allow any reviews of the film at that time.

After seeing the film, I completely understand why she did not want me going into the screening with a steno pad.

Now, back to the review.

Although the talents of Charles S. Dutton and Quaid were wasted entirely on too many cheesy lines and an insipid script, I doubt that it will affect their careers because I don't anticipate a "legion" of people will see this movie.

Read Full Entry

The Book of Eli - Movie Review

Denzel Washington has stepped where few A-listers dare tread – religion. He stars in and produced this hard hitting morality tale, a seriously devout story about he protection of the only Bible that exists in a post- apocalyptic future. Salvation is possible only through the word of God – that’s the theme and it is embraced not just by the good guy but also by the bad guy.

That’s a radical recipe for a big budget film 2010, light years away from the usual Hollywood thinking that religion is an anathema to movie house audiences. Someone besides Mel Gibson thinks it matters. There’s a lot on the line here including the A-list star, A-list producer Joel Silver and a nice budget.

A disaster has taken place 30 years before we meet Eli, which burned off most of the earth’s vegetation, water, and life forms. He is living on cat but mostly starves like the rest of the population. Despite the absence of the basics of human existence – water and food - the human species has rebounded, and a new generation of people – who never saw a television, is forging a life out of dust and nothingness. We don’t learn what the disaster was but it looks like a big ass nuclear bomb hit, if I know my movies.

Washington plays Eli, a mysterious wanderer who holds the only existing copy of the St James Bible. God has told him to take it to ‘the west’ and that’s his mission – if he can get by the dangers that lurk in the dusty desert. There are roving gangs of thugs who will kill to eat the body.

Eli is surprised to find a small town on the road going west, led by a western style ‘boss’ Carnegie (Gary Oldman). Carnegie wants what Eli has - redemption – through whatever means possible – and the Bible. He remembers how powerful the Bible was ‘before’ and now he will kill to get it. The Bible as a reason to kill. Sounds Biblical. Eli will liberate the enslaved females (Mila Kunis and Jennifer Beales) living under the thumb of the bad guy. His passion to fulfil his bond with God fires his awesome fighting powers and defence instincts.

The film is total instant gratification the way westerns are. Eli knocks heads like a lunatic, personally dispatching endless criminals. The redemption seeker and his posse, road thugs, crazies and a suspicious elderly couple give Eli plenty to worry about.

It’s not just a hyped up revenge fantasy, it’s an emphatic bird flipped in the face of consumerism (Eli: “People had too much before. They threw away things they kill for now”).

The film has a hard edged sepia look, reminiscent and harsh enough to be whatever future can be imagined. The environment recalls Terminator 2 and current Middle East war in which dust is a dangerous character.

Eli is an action-packed adventure with a moral angle, as all good westerns, with a leaf taken from Mel Gibson’s other hit, the dusty Road Warrior. The noble loner is an appealing character especially if he is on a mission. Eli is a survival spectacle, Grand Guignol theatre, an old fashioned western and familiar looking war story re-imagined by the Hughes brothers for an economically worn out world. The idea of good versus evil has rarely been so obvious in a film, and at times it is riveting.

But just a few questions - how do people go for weeks at a time without water in the burning desert wearing heavy clothes and weapons? What makes Eli such a great fighter considering, well, you’ll see? Why does Jennifer Beals’ makeup look so terrific if her character hasn’t shampooed in 30 years?

Read Full Entry

The Last Station - Movie Review

The high point of Michael Hoffman’s engaging period film “Last Station” is the wonderful Golden Globe, and Screen Actors Guild nominated performances by Christopher Plummer and Helen Mirren. In playing immortal author Leo Tolstoy Plummer has much bigger shoes to fill than in his previous role of Dr. Parnassus in Terry Gilliam’s “Imaginarium” romp. Indeed, fill them he does in the blustery, cantankerous witticisms of the genius storyteller in the last several months of his life.

Helen Mirren’s role is even better. She gets to play the role of the dutiful wife Sofya Tolstoy combined with the suicide-prone hysterical performance of ex-wife Penélope Cruz in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona.” After fifty years of devoted marriage and the bearing of an unbelievable thirteen children to the legendary writer Tolstoy is seriously considering granting all of the royalties from his books to “the people” of Russia. She is even better in this film than in her three previous Oscar nominated performances including her Oscar winner in “The Queen.”

This idea is promoted by trusted Tolstoy counselor and confidante Vladimir Chertkov played fabulously by Paul Giamatti. Chertkov is a fanatic disciple of Tolstoy’s new self-founded religion christened “Tolstoyism.” Its followers are a radically socialist society of communes, free sex and unencumbered smelling of the roses. The encumbrances the followers free themselves of include money. Thus the idea of Tolstoy giving all his money away is formed.

Sofya objects passionately to the point of attempting half-hearted suicide while those around her dither in their inability to understand half of what the great writer is saying. The story is rife with hilarious irony as Tolstoy finds himself incapable of describing his feelings to the person who loves him the most. An example of the great lines in this film echoes the feelings of mystified husbands everywhere, “You don’t need a husband, you need a Greek chorus!”

The female members of his following seem as interested in exploring unfettered sex as they do ensuring the sanctity of great literature. As Tolstoy’s followers hang on his every word and scribble every priceless syllable onto notepads as if scrambling after pennies from heaven Sophia screams, “Stop writing!” But it is to no avail. The notes are taken as the deck chairs are rearranged on the Titanic.

Into the middle of this parachutes James McAvoy as Valentin Bulgakov, recently hired by Chertkov to be Tolstoy’s chief secretary and personal assistant. McAvoy is nothing if not a perfect casting choice for the role considering his sterling performance in the hard-bitten dramatic thriller “The Last King of Scotland.” In that film he was hired from afar to be the personal physician to one of the greatest lunatics of the 20th century, Idi Amin. His performance in this film is even better. He has much more to think about and much more interesting people to think about it with. Besides, this film is genuinely warm and funny and “The Last King” is like watching Hitler’s last days in the bunker.

Overall consistently near perfect performances by Plummer, McAvoy, Giamatti and Mirren. These are supported by Anne-Marie Duff as the persistently perplexed daughter Sasha Tolstoy and Kerry Condon as the free living Tolstoyan Masha who plays Penny Lane to McAvoy’s Russell Hammond.

The crew consists of nearly twenty producers, co-producers, junior producers, executive producers and other producers. The film needed an additional director just to direct the producers. Bright and witty original music by Sergei Yevtushenko and first cinematography, costumes and production design. The costumes and sets are legitimate and believable. However, Tolstoy believed in a simple life (Sofya described him as dressing like a shepherd) and the sets and costumes are simple as well. All the better for the film which has the chance to shine in the light of the acting and dialogue.

Read Full Entry

Movie Review - Chance pe Dance

If you are reading this review I would suggest you go see this movie. If you have the slightest interest in dance movies or Shahid's abs you already know how ridiculously unnecessary the world 'storyline' is. 'Chance pe Dance' is the equivalent to pornography - it is just a series of boring scenes slapped in between what you really came to see... the dancing.

From that perspective, 'Chance pe Dance' is majah paisa vasool with big beats, saucy dance sequences, a nice cast and dare I say a non-existent plot. Of course the big beats don't make any sense considering the music by Pritam Singh, Adnan Sami, Ken Ghosh & Sandeep Shirodkar is as interesting as counting hair.

And the dance sequences are few and too far apart. And the cast tries too hard to make things interesting. Sizzling on the dance floor and miserably fizzling when the dancing stops, 'Chance pe Dance' is a cliche-ridden movie by people to whom formula is clearly mother's milk. There is no chance for the flick to dance at the box office.

The film's hackneyed, predictable script is a giant step in the wrong direction. The dialogue is clunky, the plot is derivative, and as a result 'Chance pe Dance' collapses in a heap, like a dancer's discarded sweatshirt. Sameer Behl (Shahid Kapoor) is a struggling actor with big dreams. A high profile movie director notices his gifted booty shaking skills and signs him on as the lead for a big project, and then fires him. Poor Sameer is broke and begins living in his car. With no dough to eat, he applies for the job of a dance teacher at a school and is hired to train his students for an inter-school dance competition. Will the kids win the tournament? Will Sameer become a mega Bollywood star? Its so hard to guess. Meanwhile there's the ekdum thanda predictable romance between Sameer and the charming choreographer (Genelia). And all the while Sameer looks like he is working out at the most expensive gym in India even though he has no cash to eat.

The good news is that both Shahid and Genelia are just enough to best the bum script, they are likeable and their dance talent is undeniable. And thankfully the moves are choreographed (by Ahmed Khan & Marty Kudelka) to show off their entire forms rather than just flashing body parts. The film might enthrall younger viewers who are unfamiliar with this time-tested formula. Know that Shahid infuriatingly veers from confident to supreme hamming, especially during the comic moments. And the chirpy Genelia is stuck one again in a poorly written thankless role. Director Ken Ghosh ought to stick to 30-second commercials or 4-minute music videos, instead of 2 hour-long ones.

Watch 'Chance pe Dance' if you love feeding coins into a cliché meter, because for a movie about dancing, it is pretty clumsy in its feet.

Read Full Entry

Movie Review - Sherlock Holmes

Whether the new Sherlock Holmes movie is any good is a mystery that may be impossible for even the famous detective himself to solve. The truth is, director Guy Ritchie’s film is rather schizophrenic; at times fun and exciting and at others dreadfully tedious and boring. The plot or central mystery is all but incomprehensible, yet watching Robert Downey Jr. as the veteran sleuth solve said mystery is quite pleasurable indeed.

This new Sherlock Holmes is very much the intelligent master of deduction that he has always been but now he is also a straight up action hero, who does as much thinking with his fists as with his brilliant mind. It’s kind of like Sherlock Holmes mixed with Lethal Weapon with a dash of Indiana Jones thrown in for good measure. The fact is the film is more concerned with being a buddy movie than creating a satisfying mystery that the audience can participate in.

As always, Holmes is partnered with the more sophisticated Dr. Watson (Jude Law) but this time around they act more like Felix and Oscar from The Odd Couple or Riggs and Murtaugh from the Lethal Weapon series, constantly nit picking at one another while also having major bromantic feelings for one another. The pair have plenty of ongoing jokes between them, but as an audience member it’s a bit boring because you don’t know exactly what they are referring to.

As enjoyable as Downey and Law are to watch together, it’s also a bit tedious due to the fact that we never really get a sense of how their relationship started to begin with and that just may be Sherlock Holmes biggest flaw. I understand that the character is famous and has been around forever, but there is no origin story. If you are going to launch a film franchise, it would be nice to see how the characters start out. Perhaps the first installment of the series should’ve centered on the first case that Holmes and Watson worked on together. This film feels like you are watching Sherlock Holmes 3: The Case of the Resurrecting Man without ever having seen parts 1 and 2.

The central mystery as it were involves the villainess Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) a murderer who is caught by Holmes in the very beginning of the film and sentenced to death. Shortly after, Blackwood apparently comes back to life, kills a few more people and the plot snowballs into him wanting to gain control over the whole world through the use of black magic or some such nonsense. When Holmes explains it all at the end, it makes sense, but at that point you won’t care. The fun of watching a great detective is to be able to play along with them, but there is no way to do that here. The only reason there is any mystery attached to this film at all is because the character is famous for solving them. I can’t help but feel that director Guy Ritchie was more interested in making a period piece version of Lethal Weapon than crafting an engaging plot.

There are some great things about the movie however. The action scenes are exciting and cleverly staged with an Indiana Jones flavor to them. One fight in particular between Holmes and a giant of a man is very reminiscent of the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indy is fighting the big bald German mechanic. One of my very favorite ideas the film employs is that Holmes is as thought out with his punches as he is with his deductions. During a fistfight, Holmes thinks out the series of punches he’s going to use on his opponent before actually throwing one. The film is electrifying when Holmes is fighting or sorting out clues, but everything else in between is rather bland and ineffective.

The best thing about this film is the inspired casting of Downey as Holmes and the effortless chemistry he shares with Law. I was excited to see Downey’s portrayal of Holmes and was not disappointed in the slightest. He is endlessly watchable, balancing precariously on the thin line between genius and insanity.

Downey has a supercharged intensity about him every time he is figuring out the nearly indecipherable clues in front of him. Unfortunately his thought out deductions aren’t used enough and the film relies more on the physicality of the character, which Downey also excels at. Jude Law is also very good as Watson but because the film never explains how he and Holmes became such good friends, he is nothing more than a sidekick, lacking any major stirrings of character development.

Read Full Entry

Dulha Mil Gaya Movie Review

Marriages are as integral part of Indian cinema as they are a part of Indian culture. Be it about arranging marriages, finding the special someone or, as in the case of Dhula Mil Gaya, avoiding the special someone.

Indeed Mudassar Aziz has put together quite an intriguing family entertainer. It has the packaging of a typical entertainer with a great story and if it hadn't been for the several flaws in writing the post interval, the film could have been perfect, but it looks like that'll just be a dream for both the audiences and the makers.

Dulha Mila Gaya begins when ignorant playboy Donsai (Fardeen Khan) has to rethink his party animal life after his father passes away, leaving him with a completely unreasonable term in his will. This term states that he can only inherent his share of the property if he marries the girl chosen for him.

So out of desperation, Donsai heads to Punjab to marry the village belle chosen for him, Samarpreet (Ishita Sharma), planning to abandon her the moment the ceremony wraps up and to return to his high life - leaving her with the promise that he'll return soon for her (with no such plan in mind). The real story begins when Donsai's bride Samarpreet arrives in West Indies to claim what's hers only to find that the man she married foolishly was nothing more than a cheat and liar. The rest of the story is about how Samarpreet aka Samara gets to her happy ending with her prince charming with the help of Donsai's diva friend Shimmer (Sushmita Sen) who is adamant to get the naive Samarpreet the love of her life and teach her good friend a lesson of a lifetime!

Mudassir Aziz is a one man army when it comes to DMG - director, screenplay writer, story writer and even dialogue writer. However, perhaps doing so many tasks at once isn't recommended. Whilst the first half of the film is rather entertaining and has no real flaws, the post interval shows flaws in abundance. Firstly, you question why on earth Donsai can't recognize Samarpreet. Just because of a minor makeover? Honestly didn't we already encounter such a naïve mistake on part of the makers with Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi? However, it looks like Mudassir didn't learn from all the criticism that came Aditya Chopra's way for doing the exact same thing. Secondly, the writers were highly confused in the post interval portion of the film with the introduction of Shahrukh's character and re-entrance of Mohit Chaddha and Tara. It seems that the makers wanted to split the amount of screen time between the 3 couples and failed miserably at it. You in fact sit there confused as to what the film is truly about now because as far as you're concerned, the first half only boasted of the complication in Donsai and Samapreet's love story; but suddenly post interval, two more are brought into the picture and you're expected to follow each one through. This leaves the audiences confused and soon they find themselves getting impatient and ready to walk out. The film would have benefited far more if the focus had remained on Ishita Sharma, Sushmita Sen and Fardeen Khan's characters.

Furthermore, characterisation of Donsai is rather questionable too. He's portrayed as the typical playboy, however when he sees the goodness of his in-laws in Punjab he melts. Still, he heartlessly leaves his naive bride and return to enjoy his life in the West. Post interval, you see an extra mean streak of his character that just doesn't match with whatever you've learnt about Donsai until that point. Sushmita Sen's character Shimmer is consistent for most parts, but at times she is portrayed as a powerful woman, other times she's just a dumb model, and the next minute she's an emotionally driven young lady again. If the audiences are confused, imagine how confused the man who wrote all this must have been!

Now, we come to a much less disastrous part of the film - the performances. Sushmita Sen seemed to be the highlight of the film so it's natural to begin with her. No matter how many Deepikas, Bipashas and Priyankas we see, no one can ever come close to the sex appeal of Sushmita Sen. Watch only a second of her introductory scene on the beach and you'll be nodding your heads in agreement in no time. There could have never been a more perfect role for such a diva than the role of an out and out diva! What is most admirable about this sensational diva is the fact that despite knowing quite well that she rocks no matter what, she puts 110% in every role. Still, one cannot help hankering for more meatier roles for this talented diva.

Ishita Sharma proves to be scene stealer and is highly competent in her role despite being only three films old. The young actress holds her ground well and handles a very lengthy and important role with ease. We hope to see her return to the screen soon! Fardeen Khan gets a lot of scope in the first half but sadly disappears quite a bit post interval.

The glitches in his characterization makes you question his performance. Let's hope he makes some wiser choices in his selection of films in 2010. Shahrukh Khan, on the other hand, is utterly forced into the film and is nothing extraordinary. Whilst he's adorable as the loving companion of Shimmer, who loves her despite knowing that he'll never be a priority in her life, he fails to hold up to his King Khan status. More than anything, his heart did not seem be in the movie and this was highly apparent onscreen.

Music by Lalit Pandit is well composed for such a genre and is adequately placed in the film to aid the story along - a great call on the director's part to insert scenes in between songs because it truly makes you feel the songs are worthwhile and not a waste of your time. In the 21st century, when everyone lives life in a rush, audiences have very limited time to spend at the cinemas. Directors need to think more and more about the decision to place songs when, where and how.

To conclude, let's say that Dulha Mil Gaya will be one SRK release that will surely not cut it at the box office. The film is likely to suffer for one big reason and that is the prolonged making. The audience's hype about the film has simply died down and they've moved on - sadly, this will be very bad for business. We have to say with great regret that this one is nothing to spare time from your busy schedule for. Save it for a DVD watch on those lonely, rainy nights when you truly have nothing better to do.

Read Full Entry

Review Nine

When Rob Marshall decided to adapt the stage musical “Nine”, he was actually taking on the adaptation of an adaptation of an adaptation.

“Nine” is based on the 80’s Tony Award-Winning Broadway production of the same name, which was an adaptation of an Italian play by Mario Fratti, itself inspired by Federico Fellini’s immortal classic “8 ½”.

After a successful revival of the Broadway show a few years ago, the Weinstein Company decided to take this story back to the big screen, and to make it bigger than ever. Of course, after so many reinterpretations, it is no surprise that the substance of the movie has been diluted to nothing.

A lot of show and flashes and even consecrated names like Sophia Loren’s can’t disguise the void. Like the protagonist of the film, Guido, who loses himself in his larger-than-life project “Italia”, this was a far too big production that crushes almost any human element it could have had in it.

Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a renowned Italian director known for his genius as much as for the sex and beautiful women he showcases in his movies. He is also an avid womanizer who keeps his wife Luisa (Marion Cotillard) at home while he flirts, cheats and has affairs.

As he tries to come up with the plot for his much-awaited new movie “Italia”, his life will be torn and tangled by all the influences and women around him –his current mistress Carla (Penelope Cruz), his leading actress Claudia Jenssen (Nicole Kidman), the sexy journalist on the prey Stephanie (Kate Hudson), his costume designer and guide Lilli La Fleur (Judi Dench), his mother (Sophia Loren), and all the moral analysis, public expectation and pressures from the outside world. Lost, his search for inspiration will be a search for his humanity, and an answer to the cunning question: of all the women who loved him, has he ever loved any of them?

The plot of “Nine” is a rather dysfunctional thing that only works as a character study. This movie revolves around Guido, and the scrutiny of his self-absorbed, susceptible and fantasist persona. For a director like Fellini, surrealist and idiosyncratic, a loose structure like this one is not only not off-putting but helps create the dream-like quality of his work (of course that has a lot to do with his brilliant delivery). And yet his movie still depends on one central thing: Guido, and how the audience connects to him. Now, in the case of “Nine”, the uneven plot is not compensated by exceptional form or the sublime visual style and storytelling one might hope for, given the freedom a musical allows. Even worse the character of Guido, who should at least carry the movie and win the hearts and minds of its audience, remains unapproachable and difficult to relate to. Guido’s problems are so overshadowed by his lack of direction and of any emotional capacity that we don’t really care about them – as we don’t really care about his movie.

It is not a matter of bad acting. Daniel Day-Lewis has proven numerous times that his performances can be portentous – but that is when the character suits him. Guido, a conflicted egomaniac who doesn’t know what he wants and is oblivious to the damage he causes on his way to get it, was not an easy character to sell to the audience. But the character didn’t need to be inaccessible: we, as viewers, have proven that we can like and root for criminals, thugs and even psycho-killers if they are appealing enough. A self-absorbed, lying womanizer can be a fascinating protagonist precisely because of his bad habits, if only he perpetrates them with a certain charm, confidence or magnetism that makes him as alluring to us as he is to the women around him. Raul Julia and Antonio Banderas both played the role on Broadway to great general acclaim. They are not better actors than Day-Lewis, but their success is probably explained because their Guido was more youthful and enchanting, likeable despite his bad choices and his apparent indifference. A role like this needs an actor who can be pardoned for his misdemeanors. Daniel Day-Lewis is a dramatic heavy-weight, and, despite his talent, he doesn’t have the pull for the audience that Guido needs to have. Marshall’s first choice of casting, Javier Bardem, would probably have suited those qualities better, drawing and enticing women despite his lack of feelings for them. Day-Lewis is too serious and withdrawn for that. His cheating, lying, and lack of any big redeeming actions only make us pity the girls who fall for him – and question why they love him in the first place.

While the right casting could have transformed Guido’s search for inspiration into something either poignant or just fun to watch (and in the case of a musical I would opt for the fun), our detachment from him in “Nine” makes us turn to other places for the enjoyment we were expecting, and for some amendment on Marshall’s part. That, given that Marshall was a choreographer and Broadway director, would have to be in the musical fragments. But “Nine” is even more disappointing in its musical parts than it is in its characters. Yes, a couple of numbers do have some interesting content that is translated into good lyrics, music and choreography. Penelope Cruz’s number is overtly sexual and perfectly defining for her character – although I would still have liked something more elaborate than her alone singing “Squeeze me”. And Marion Cotillard’s number has an emotional charge that the actress conveys with talent. But even those numbers are not extraordinary. Marshall’s last musical film, “Chicago”, might not have been a masterpiece. But the musical fragments, although not bold enough to not be justified as fantasy sequences – when will musicals dare to just have people sing again? – were at least fun and imaginative and relevant enough that they narrated entire scenes and offered us new insights into the characters. In “Nine”, all the numbers are tame and limited by the soundstage that is used as background. It is unexciting and a waste of the fantastic potential a musical film has – what other genre allows you to let your imagination loose and push your characters as far as you want from reality, while singing and dancing? And when lyrics like the ones for Kate Hudson’s song come out of the speakers, the experience becomes almost painful.

“Nine” does have a good group of female actors that try their best to elevate the quality of the whole. Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruz, Marion Cotillard, Judi Dench or Sophia Loren are usually strong actresses independently, and their job in the movie is as good as it could be. But their work is damaged by the lack of development of their characters, and the fact that the casting as a whole is as incongruent and all over the place as the movie itself. Marion Cotillard’s character Luisa, who goes on a journey to face who Guido really is, is the most interesting in the movie.

The scene in the screening room, when she sees her husband talking to another actress exactly as he did to her, is genuinely painful. Penelope Cruz also does a good job as the mistress, although the character deserved much more exploration.

As it is barely limited to Cruz’s passionate and sexual appeal. And Judi Dench is perfect and strong as always. But the one who gets the worst cut is clearly Kate Hudson. Not only is her musical number cringing – and it is not because she lacks the ability –, but the character she plays is as easily forgettable as if they had eliminated the two scenes she has.

“Nine” could have been a great production, with talented actors, remarkable numbers, interesting characters and an overall engaging story. Instead, it is an empty package, with big names written on top of a bland, under-developed story.

Most of the characters are not interesting enough, and the visuals and style are rather predictable. But most disappointing of all is the waste of the freedom that the musical genre allows – particularly on film. Even though there is no limiting stage, the musical fragments are still as restricted as in a theater production – and not half as imaginative. It is a shame; with a better direction “Nine” could have been an electrifying experience. Instead, don’t be surprised if you see people walking out of the theater.

Read Full Entry

Raat Gayi Baat Gayi - Movie Review

With a head-spinning narrative about the aftermath of an intoxicating late night party, Raat Gayi Baat Gayi is like wine that takes time to mature but is your perfect partner on a lazy evening. Rahul (Rajat Kapoor) wakes up with heavy hangover after a late night party and is unable to remember just where he ended last night.

All he remembers is that he started outrageously flirting with a stranger named Sophia (Neha Dhupia) with whom he lands in an isolated room in an inebriated state. Post that his memory is almost swiped off and he’s just inquisitive to know till what extent he went ahead.

The next morning Rahul’s wife Mitali (Iravati Harshe) is not on talking terms and leaves the house without explanation. With his neighbourhood friend Amit (Vinay Pathak), Rahul visits Saxena (Dalip Tahil) who had thrown the party to explore what happened the night before.

Opening post the party, the story keeps going back to the night through frequent flashbacks and individual perspectives of the party attendees. It however doesn’t follow a hyperlinked storytelling pattern but has a more straightforward approach. Interestingly everyone in the party is hitting on someone other than their spouse and these adulterous inclinations form the crux of the plot.

The writing by Saurabh Shukla and Rajat Kapoor comprises of casual conversations from everyday life with a very slice-of-life feel to it. The scene where a tarot card is being picked and predicted over the phone is hilarious. Rajat Kapoor seems to loosely derive characters and climax from his earlier films. Like Aamir Bashir’s Prasad is parallel to Milind Soman’s character from Bheja Fry , both being ex-flames of the protagonist’s (played by Kapoor himself) wife. Also the smart twist in the climax is faintly reminiscent of Rajat’s Mixed Doubles .

The pacing at times gets slow and some party scenes tend to get repetitive. Both, the length and the writing could have been crisper. Also the film appears protracted, primarily because it revolves largely around a single conflict of learning what happened that night. Rohit Shetty’s film Sunday , too, had a similar premise though it was designed more as a thriller. Neha Dhupia’s character seems half-baked with her familial and paternal (Sudhir Mishra) ties purposely kept peripheral to the plot.

The performances are just perfect for their parts. Rajat Kapoor persuasively plays the glib-tongued flirt. Vinay Pathak shows spontaneity in his comic timing and gets the best lines. For a pleasant change, Dalip Tahil breaks his stereotype to play a light-hearted character. So is the case with Navneet Nishan who thankfully doesn’t ham and is likeable as the ignoramus high-society woman. It’s good to know the charming Anu Menon beyond her Lola Kutty image. Iravati Harshe is flawless. Neha Dhupia is decent. Ranvir Shorey and Makrand Deshpande are merely used as complimentary add-ons.

Though not as exceptionally hilarious as Bheja Fry or as deeply poignant as Dasvidaniya , Raat Gayi Baat Gayi (from the Rajat Kapoor – Vinay Pathak camp) is entertaining in its own small-n-smart way.Raat Gayi Baat Gayi is not everyone’s cup of tea – rather glass of wine. But then again it’s not targeted towards teetotalers of cinema. This one night stand is worth indulging for some wild-wacky-wicked fun.

Read Full Entry