Reviews

Coming from the prodigious mind of Richard Linklater, Slacker is the forebear of Waking Life, a look at the lives of ordinary people doing ordinary things. The film does not require a description of its story, because narration is not its objective. It is not about telling a story, or teaching us morals. It is not about making us feel one way or the other. In its jumble of stream-of-consciousness, Slacker tries to escape from all expectations of normalcy and form.

Slacker is a fly on the wall that puts us in the middle of the lives of regular joes and janes. The camera, and we along with it, flit from one coversation to another, never staying long enough to get attached. The shifting speakers show us how much happens in every single instant. We might all agree that man is a social animal, but few of us ever stop to think about the magnitude of life that teems around us. The fears, joys, and frustrations with which the world deals are lost on most of us.

Slacker explores a multitude of ideas ranging from anarchy to new-age philosophy, from the human condition to the nature of reality. The nature of conversations is quite surreal, and one is never quite sure if the entire thing truly happened. Although just as random as Waking Life, Slacker, knowingly or otherwise, does not avoid bland conversations. Where every conversation of Waking Life at least involved us to a certain degree, Slacker does not look away when confronted with triteness. This is both a shortcoming and a success. There are many occasions when extended conversations stir nothing, and yet, remind us that we need to free ourselves from setting boundaries on art. We are chided for expecting dialogs to have punchlines, and for wanting to see more of certain characters.

Although Waking Life is far superior in its execution and ideas, Slacker is still special for what it achieves with the filmmaker's limited budget and experience. The lack of direction (narratively-speaking), the "relay race" of the film's characters, and some interesting dialog make for an engaging 96 minutes.

Watching this film was long overdue. I had heard of Kevin Smith's cult following and had experienced the wonderful ride that Chasing Amy was. To add to that, the concept behind Dogma was pretty darn cool. The cast was big, the canvas huge, and the agenda enormous. But none of it could salvage this sinking vessel. All the king's horses and all the king's men, and so forth.

Kevin Smith's greatly touted skill has been his dialog. He is arguably among the finest pens that write long-winded tirades, witty comebacks, and insightful observations. Remarkably, Dogma showed an utter lack of sophistication or tact. The moments that made me laugh could be counted on the fingers. Of one hand. Of E.T. I have seen the man in action not more than two days ago, when he had come our university for the third run of his An Evening with Kevin Smith show. I just can't imagine how someone who had our rapt attention for five whole hours could come up with embarrassing dialog like in this film. The trite and corny lines almost overloaded my Cringe-o-meter.

The whole affair had a thick coat of amateurism on it. No doubt, films such as Clerks and Chasing Amy aren't known for their polish and slickness, but this film has the sensibilities of a high-school production. Blocky edits and choppy transitions make an already tedious film all the more unbearable. The characters are mere sketches, with a pretense of a background or a personality. It almost seems like everyone's just being themselves while knocking off a few beers and reading out the lines half-assed. It is hard to believe anyone took anything seriously on the sets.

Dogma begins with a few disclaimers about how it is supposed to be humorous and not intended to offend anyone. I seriously doubt anyone who sees the movie would be offended by it. Except perhaps fans of Kevin Smith and the discerning members of the audience. The "philosophy" presented in the movie is so thin you could have it instead of the Atkins diet. I have heard deeper words from people who have put a gallon of beer behind them. I am sure some (or most) of the ideas have come from such evenings of drunken revelry.

This is a film without redemption. Quite unbecoming for a film that (almost) embraces the teachings of Christ.

The last few years have been some of the most fertile years for terrorism. The embers of terror and threat refuse to die down after being fanned almost on a daily basis. The incidents of that fateful day in 2001 took terrorism from the realm of a few hot spots and hit the world at its center. It would seem that from that point on, there was no place safe from the wrath of those who feel they have been wronged. The events that followed have their repercussions to this day, and there's promise of more to come, thanks to the theatrics of Kim Jong-il and Khamenei. Public outrage to the American retaliation has been on a high not seen in the last few decades. The melodrama of news networks notwithstanding, the threat to a peaceful life has never seemed more tangible to such a large percentage of the populace. At a time as volatile as this, what effect would the assassination of the President of the United States have? Death of a President, a remarkable faux-documentary by Gabriel Range, shows us just such an event but restrains himself and refuses to show us a full-blown Orwellian dystopia.

A fictional story pitched as a documentary, this film is not nearly as gimmicky as it could have been. The feel of a documentary is meticulously retained even though the film has a larger charter. The seams of it being a fiction are seen in a few places, but they can be excused for the otherwise great detail with which everything is executed. Through carefully-paced narration, we see the events leading to the assassination and some of its aftermath. The film goes above an average documentary's mere depiction of events, and brings several related points to our notice. The thin line that public demonstrations tread, with nary a tear-gas shell needed for violence to break out is the focus of the pre-assassination part of the film. During the post-assassination hunt, we see the story from the eyes of those usual suspects, the almost voiceless minorities that are regularly the victims of witch-hunts. After the capture of the suspect, we see how even an open-and-shut case is dismissed because it is not as easily acceptable as the solution at hand.

It will be a real shame if this is movie is dismissed for its ostensible topic - the assassination. A bigger shame would be if it is patronized by pubescent (mentally speaking, of course) for the very same reason. This movie isn't meant to take pot-shots at the incumbent president or to fantasize his violent death. This film has a larger role, in providing us with an almost-real feel for a situation that is not improbable. Where it goes from there is for the audience to decide. How right are we in pointing fingers at outsiders? How far would we take our prejudices? What will the face of the planet look like after waves of terrorism and its reprisals? Death of a President will make us ask these questions much louder.

Kinky Boots has perhaps the most charming beginning I can bring to mind. A young girl sits on a bench, bored as she waits for her father. As music starts playing in her head, she springs to her feet, puts on glam stilettos, and dances to the tune. Her angry father sees her and glowers, admonishing her with a "Silly boy!". What we just witnessed were the humble beginnings of Simon, the drag-queen. Intrigued? So was I, as a wholly unique kernel of story unfolded - a dying shoe factory is spurred to life when the reluctant owner Charlie Price finds a niche market making durable shoes for men who wear women's shoes. With the help of flamboyant transvestite Lola, the stage-name of ex-boxer Simon, Charlie tries to turn around his family business, making new friends and finding love along the way.

Kinky Boots is heavily reminiscent of the Hindi film Hum Hain Raahi Pyaar Ke (starring Aamir Khan and Juhi Chawla). Both are stories of a reluctant non-entity burdened with the responsibility of the family business, facing difficulties from both inside and outside the workplace, and turning it around before it is too late. The plot isn't terribly innovative. In fact, with the exception of Simon/Lola, almost every character is someone you would expect to see - Charlie Price is the unsure, clumsy, but always passionate leader of the pack. Nichola is his uncaring, cheating girlfriend. Don is the bigoted strong-man with a heart of gold. The leading lady is the standard strong, yet supportive and loving woman, someone who had to be the exact opposite of Charlie's girlfriend.

The driving force of the film is, without doubt, Chiwetel Ejiofor, who plays both Simon and Lola. His incredible talents are put to good use as his character flips from overbearing to supportive, feisty to contemplative, showing a wide range of emotions as only a thoroughbred such as him can. His actions drip fluency as Lola and awkwardness as Simon, which would seem very characteristic of someone who feels out of place in his natural skin. He even belts out some saucy cabaret numbers in a transvestite club! How many actors have that on their resume? The film has all the trappings of a manipulative, feel-good movie that we are used to. Although it can get annoying when you realize the same old tricks are being used, the mind sometimes does enjoy being pandered to, seeing good happen to good people. It has been done before, several times over, but it takes skill to bring in a new setting, to surprise the audience with a twist or four, and to avoid the more boring pitfalls. Kinky Boots does most of these and so makes for a good watch.

I chanced upon this film when I was reading about Dinner with Andre. Like most of my mistakes, I jumped into this one without doing a background check. A wet sock of a story gets flung around for an hour and a half, long after our brains have switched off. To be honest, this film does seem like a whale of an influence to future filmmakers. However, it is definitely not something regular film-goers can enjoy. I will say that critics, film students, and completionists will enjoy this.

Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie is an absurdist, surrealist film, which is almost a film school experiment. It is a series of events that befalls a group of families as they try to have dinner together. I am not kidding - they sit to have dinner and something unexpected interrupts them. There are some really bizarre incidents that happen throughout, which will leave you confounded till you realize that none of them are meant to be taken seriously. Some of the mini-stories will make a wry smile cross your face, and frankly, some of the movie is actually enjoyable. It's only that such tricks have almost no repeat value. Fool me once shame on me, fool me seven times and you are really pushing your luck, buddy! The surrealist elements of the film don't crop up till quite some time. It is not immediately apparent that many of the situations are stand-ins, either satires or surrealist fantasies. The film begins as a weak attempt at mocking the shallow lives of socialites. Their posturing, assumed statures, and adherence to arbitrary customs are easy targets that the film tries to satire. Somewhere down the line it takes a turn into the bizarre with meandering story lines, inconsequential characters, and unexpected U-turns. Some of it did bowl me over as I really didn't expect anything like it. But after a time when no pattern or method was discernible, I could do no better than appreciate the creators for their ideas without enjoying any of it.

Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie is a highly experimental film that needs to be applauded for its audacity, especially considering the time when it was made. I am sure it has had massive impact on a lot of filmmakers. Influences for the pointless conversations of Pulp Fiction and the red herrings of David Lynch films can be clearly seen here. However, that doesn't make the 100 minutes of the movie sitting any less excruciating.

It is an interesting exercise to witness the early works of great artists. Sometimes, even without the 20/20 vision that hindsight offers you can see the cogs and wheels that make these people what they are. Following is one such look into the past of Christopher Nolan, one of the great time-warping story-teller of today.

Christopher Nolan's style of film-making puts a great deal of emphasis on the delivery of the story. Although people might complain it relies too much on the back-and-forth shifting of time, I still find it fascinating to see how he uses that one technique differently each time. Memento was probably the most convoluted piece of story-telling I have ever seen. Discount the hardened cynics who say it is an old piece of meat wrapped in fancy dressing. Memento shows how even the simplest of stories can be turned into a mind-bender. The Prestige, which was considerably stripped down in comparison, still showed creativity in how its three stories were interwoven. Even in a jaded enterprise like the Batman series did Christopher Nolan sprinkle some of his outstanding yarn-weaving tricks, breathing new life into the dark knight.

Following is an intense tale of intrigue and mystery, where we see a dilettante writer, who becomes a reluctant voyeur, who becomes an unknowing accomplice to a variety of petty crimes, and finally sees an end no one could have expected. Having never heard of Following before, I had no idea what I was to expect. At every point the film kept me guessing as to where it was leading me. Since the mystery angle was clear, I was constantly trying to figure out what was going to happen next. And that is where I think the film succeeds so well. The film has many elements that led me off on many wild goose chases.

The film is entirely in black and white and told in multiple timelines, both of which are considered gimmicky these days. Following does all of this in the least formulaic or contrived way possible. There doesn't seem to be a reason why the story is told in the way it is, but you don't feel like you are being taken for a ride. The lack of pretension or self-aware arrogance is what makes this style of story-telling work. Highly recommended!

Start saying your prayers, friends, because the end of the world is here. In less than a hundred years, humanity will see its demise. Thanks to an unknown affliction humans are no longer able to reproduce, and all we can do is wait for the end. This is the bleak and dismal view of the future as presented by Children of Men. The film is loosely based on the science-fiction novel by P.D. James, and it paints the post-apocalyptic landscape of the world in the darkest shades of despair and helplessness.

Children of Men is the journey of Theo Faron (Clive Owen) as he takes the miraculously pregnant Kee to the safe haven provided by The Human Project. More plot details are unnecessary because the film isn't so much about the story. The film doesn't really have a deep message or agenda. Apart from the few scenes with the refugees and their Auschwitz-like camps, most of the film does not contain fodder for lengthy debates. So what remains are just the narrative and the visuals, and the film excels in both the departments.

The narration in the film is above par as events unfold with masterful fluidity. The story progress with a rare forcefulness. Characters, both big and small, are ended with almost no consideration for their weight because that is what the story demands. This is done without a hint of pretension or self-consciousness that one might see in lesser works. Taking the motif of realism forward are the dialogues. The conversations are so natural that they give considerably more significance to even simple lines. The film just has oodles of unHollywoodness all over it. The characters aren't testosterone-pumping hulks or know-it-all world-beaters. They are simple people caught in circumstances they don't know how to deal with, but know the significance of their actions. Even as a visual medium this film does almost just as well as its story-telling. The washed-out colours complement the hopelessness of the world it shows. The gut-wrenching refugee camp scenes show an unflattering side of humanity, a side that might not be so far behind us.

The perfectly-captured dystopian world, the unflinching narrative, and the strikingly real characters make for a very special film. Highly recommended.

American Psycho is a dark, blood-soaked chunk of satire about a hideous beast that isn't as uncommon as we think. As what we wear and where we eat start taking priority over what we do and how we do it, this monster could very well be any of us. Based on the 1991 novel by the same name, this is neither a horror nor a slasher film. The caricatures and allegories give an entirely other-worldly feel to what otherwise seems like regular, recognizable settings.

This is the story of Patrick Bateman (the buff and often butt-naked Christian Bale), who is the epitome of a yuppie. He knows which exfoliating creams his face needs and which water-proof bath gel works best for him. He does a thousand crunches a day and gets himself artificial tanning and regular manicures. With this level of self-love, comes an overpowering sense of narcissism and the insatiable desire to get attention. Obsessively name-dropping, sporting the most desirable brands, and being seen at some of the most exclusive places is most of what Bateman and his ilk do. As the life of conspicuous consumption carries on, we see his conversations becoming trite, relationships losing any meaning, and quick ways of getting high taking precedence. Most of Patrick Bateman's social interaction are shown as awkward and understandably so, as a person as self-involved as him will not be able to carry on a normal conversation with anyone.

Things slowly start getting out of hand as his craving for attention turns into uber-competitiveness that turns lethal for those involved. The hunger for highs, the callousness from having all luxuries one can ask for, and a lack of purpose push Bateman into a darker world where he prowls the night soliciting prostitutes and potential slashing victims. Things slowly take a turn for the fantastic as ATMs start demanding feline offerings and random people getting shot by the dozen. After a certain point, it doesn't even matter whether these things happened. And it is at this level where the film works its magic.

There is a distinct quality of surrealism throughout the film. In this topsy-turvy world, people talk in a strange tongue and give importance to the oddest things. The symbolic and satirical tone of the film works perfectly, and it seems like there wasn't another way that would have worked. The extremes shown in the film do efficiently what a more direct way couldn't have. This is certainly not one of the easiest films to watch or appreciate. But to say that it serves only to shock you would be doing disservice to it. It doesn't preach and instead shows us the despicable psychopath that lives in a small corner within all of us.

The Pursuit of Happiness is this year's Academy Awards entry for "Cloying, Sappy, Feel-Good Film of the Year". Ostensibly, it tries to show us the trials and tribulations one might have to face to pursue a simple thing such as happiness. The point is achieved, QED and all, by its tenth minute as the film heaps plague upon plague on the hapless protagonist. Remember The Passion of the Christ with its spiked whips, betraying best friends, and sadistic guards? A more modern setting for it might have been the "cruel" world in which our hero struggles to make ends meet. By the end of its two-hour running time, even the most naive and maudlin members of the audience will have long lost any signs of compassion and empathy.

The film follows Christopher Gardner (based on the real-life millionaire entrepreneur) as he struggles with homelessness, fatherhood, and poverty, while trying to get his foot in the door of a brokerage firm. We see him longingly look at fancy cars, lush green lawns, and big houses, wondering when he can be in that position. The film is a two-hour chronicle of fate dealing scourges and whiplashes to this unfortunate man who only wants happiness through untold riches. One has to be a cold, heartless pessimist not to want him to win, right? Um, not so. Really, are we supposed to root for a guy whose idea of happiness is Merc convertibles and box-seats at a football game? Is someone like that really going to be happy after he gets that?

That the film is based on real-life events is hardly an excuse for the loads of clichés thrown in. The film almost begs to have its poetic license canceled as it tries every hackneyed trick in the book. The film takes predictable turns at each step of the way. At every step, Chris Gardner finds himself on the wrong side of Murphy's Law, being afflicted with almost every bad thing that could happen. Nauseatingly affected attempts to tug at our heart-strings fail miserably after about the hundredth time they are shown.

The film comes with all the trappings of a big-money production. Crisp camera-work (including the handycam-effect that seems to be all the rage these days), excellent lighting, and suitable music (although much of it is of the uninspired, feel-good kind), grace the film as well as any other output from those well-oiled machines. But none of that is enough to save this lumbering morass that begs for our pity and concern, when it almost has the opposite effect.

No kidding, folks. There is nothing in the film beyond what's in the seven words of the summary. I don't imagine it being too much fun for most to sit through a film to know that some guy, somewhere had a terrible time getting rich.

The Queen, directed by Stephen Frears, tells us the story of events unfolding in little over a week after Lady Diana's death. While a sufficient summary of the plot, it is secondary to this expansive landscape that elegantly captures the current state of Britain and its monarchy. Much of the story revolves around the reaction of the British monarchy, specifically Queen Elizabeth II, to Lady Diana's sudden demise. But the hundred or so minutes of the film cover a much broader set of topics.

The death of Lady Diana, shows the film, puts many things into motion - the galvanization of the anti-monarchy feeling, the massive rise in popularity of the then newly-elected Prime Minister Tony Blair, the rethinking of the monarchy's public behavior by the Queen, and of course the unbelievable media circus that took place. The film at many times, both directly and indirectly, gripes about the nature of the public reaction during that period. A few scenes, and the outburst of Tony Blair clearly comes to mind here, show the seemingly inhuman reaction of the monarchy in a more sane light.

All of the above is shown in a style that is delightfully British. Say what you will, there is nothing more biting than the cut of the British jib. In mere words can the Prime Minister of Britain be reduced to the stature of a peon. Add to that the carefully trained manners of the Queen that can express what words would do clumsily, and you have some choice rib-tickling moments as only British humor can provide.

The many characters covered in the film are portrayed par excellence. It just might be that the people themselves are darn fine specimens, each one showing varying degrees of self-involvement, prejudice, loathing, and so much more. Their interactions are positively fun to watch as well. The Duke of Edinburgh and Queen Elizabeth (the mother) represent the Queen's traditional views, regularly backing up her stoic responses and pooh-poohing the public commotion. Cherie Blair, on the other hand, represents Tony Blair's modernist views, admonishing the deafening silence of the royal family and its general high-handedness. The Queen and Tony Blair themselves represent two sides of the spectrum that goes from traditional to modernist. By the end of the film they both see value in the other person's stance and are open enough to work together to learn more about the other.

Helen Mirren delivers a performance well-deserving of the high accolades it is receiving. Dignified and poised, yet human and, at times, even introspective and, dare I say, vulnerable, she shows the myriad sides of a Queen we know only through her rare public appearances. Through her portrayal, we see the Queen as a caring but private person, the vestige of an age of uprightness that seems anachronistic today. As the events unfold, and the sorrow of the people turns into a vulgar display of public demonstrations, she slowly realizes that the people of her country want something different from her. They need more drama and theatrics than quiet dignity, and that she might not be the right one to give them that. The film leaves us with the sense of optimism that the reins of Britain are in sane hands, but with a warning that the zeitgeist might change the institutions that we have always seen as unchanging.

Wow, am I late to the party or what? It took me this long to watch the sequel to X-Men thanks to the fairly average opener in the X-Men film series. X2, however, corrects the shortcomings of its predecessor, and shows that comic books *can* work with movies.

X2 revisits the main X-Men motif of mutants versus humans and, as is usually the case, has the fate of everyone involved hanging in the balance. But this is would hardly suffice as a good summary of the story, as it goes many miles deep and many acres wide. Many elements of human behavior are explored in this film - love (Jean and Wolverine/Cyclops, Rogue and Iceman), retribution (Wolverine and Stryker), malice (Stryker), conformity (mutants), personal victory (Jean), prejudice (humans in general), anger through ignorance (Iceman's brother), and anger for its own sake (Pyro) are just some of them.

The direction is crisp and the flow of the story taut and natural. With so many characters and so many ideas, it is easy to bombard the viewers with a blurry roller-coaster of a ride, but this movie avoids those pitfalls with aplomb. Visually appealing, the movie packs a few breath-taking scenes without really trying too hard. The heavy smattering of action scenes, necessary for a genre film, are well-done as well. The film is a shade darker than other comic book adaptations. Non-gratuitous violence is meted out as appropriate. For its own good, uneasy comic relief scenes (especially those between Wolverine and Cyclops) are avoided.

That I love X-Men as a comic book series makes it easier to like the movie. The characters are way cool, even the ones that appear only for a short while (Colossus, Lady DeathStrike). Newly-added crew member NightCrawler dazzles with mad teleportation skills. His scenes strongly remind me of the ghost Twins in The Matrix Reloaded. Mystique is awesome, as always. Wolverine, spending uneasy nights and restless days trying to find out about his past, is the dominant character. Magneto, Professor Xavier, Rogue, Jean-Grey, Storm, Iceman, and Pyro are some of the other major characters.

Overall, a smart, thoughtfully made movie packaged into a wholesome sleek summer blockbuster package. A winning formula indeed!

Oldboy tells the story of a man imprisoned for fifteen years for crimes unknown to him. Oh Dae-su has five days to find out who incarcerated him and why. Starting from the helplessness of a clueless man stuck in a cheap hotel room, Oldboy shows Oh Dae-su's growing schizophrenia over the duration of his jail-time culminating in ruthless vengeance in finding and eliminating his enemy. Gory and explicit at most times, Oldboy spares no effort in telling the story as naturally as possible.

Fans of the Chekhov's Gun school of thought (season three of Lost, woo hoo!) should find Oldboy squarely in their alley. Numerous clues are dropped throughout the movie, providing an interesting exercise for genre fans to sleuth around. The protagonist is just as blank about his predicament as the audience, and both of us start on his journey of revenge and retribution with a clean slate. The movie keeps you on the toes at all times with its carefully crafted suspense. The tension mounts slowly, but surely, as the different pieces of the puzzle gradually fall in place. Admittedly, I didn't consider Dae-su's crimes to be a big shocker. But at the end of the day, the film is more an exploration into social mores and adventurous film-making than just a stomach-churning twist ending.

So with all these kind words, why does the movie not get a perfect score? The violence in the movie, which is talked about much, does not seem as hard-hitting as it should have. Even the most gory scenes are easily digested. More effective violence rather than plain gore would have better suited the film. The editing could have done with some more work. At close to two hours, the movie does seem to stretch a little. And finally, it would have been really good had the kicker been more potent.

Oldboy is a well-told tale of schizophrenia, vengeance, and morality. A fairly simple tale of revenge is wound into a more complex tale of trickery, paranoia, and a bunch of twists. Recommended!

Good Night, and Good Luck, based on real-life events, is a docu-drama exploring the 5-6 year period of the CBS show See it Now. The hard-hitting semi-news show is headed by the passionate and driven host Edward Murrow. During the 50's, when the cold war paranoia was still gripping USA, Senator Joseph McCarthy fueled the public fear, uncertainty, doubt by going after many supposed communist sympathizers. In a time when opposition was equated with conspiracy, Joseph McCarthy easily handed out conspirator titles to anyone opposing him. Good Night and Good Luck shows the fight of Edward Murrow as he, through See it Now, went after Senator McCarthy and his hysterical witch-burning trials.

George Clooney, the man behind Good Night, and Good Luck, perfectly captures the zeitgeist of the 50's. The movie has a distinct charm, due not entirely to the settings. The mood, the music, the dialogs, the reactions, all seem very 50s. The precision with which everything in this film is crafted cannot be highlighted enough. The insults and accusations are trenchant, yet dignified. The carefully weighed words and the impact of each sentence shows how different those times were. I dread to imagine what would happen if CBS had aired The Daily Show even for a single day!

A special mention must go to the aptness of the film in this day and age. This film isn't just a dedication to the astounding challenges overcome by Edward Murrow and friends. It is very relevant to what is happening today in the USA. With terms such as War on Terror, Homeland Security, Threat Levels, and so on doing rounds, politicians seem to be feeding and milking the public frenzy. The film producers see the breakdown of the media and news networks much like Edward Murrow did in 1958. They are reminding us all that those days of paranoia and mass confusion are not behind us, that the media isn't always as "fair and balanced" as they proclaim. This is a call-out to all of us, to recognize the motivations behind the words, to know that there needn't always a compromise between national security and individual freedom, to remember that the constitution gives us the right of freedom even if it isn't the most popular thing at the moment. The movie shows the difficult waters trodden by the makers of See it Now and are reminding the current crop of political commentators to not forget that reporting the truth is their first duty.

A brilliant film by a brilliant mind, this gripping drama is a must-watch, not only for its timeless message, but for its sheer film-making greatness.

What begins with some of the most innovative and intriguing opening sequences of film-making, plummets deep into one of the most tedious and pointless movies that I have ever had the misfortune of seeing. There might have been some brilliant observations being made on the human psyche or the silly things we humans do, but they were buried so deep within experimental, self-indulgent film-making that the viewer is confounded most of the times, ultimately unsatisfied and bored.

Magnolia sets records in poor film-making that will be difficult to better. From the time the credits start to roll, the tedium begins. Oh, and I must speak about the credit sequence. There is a song that begins when the name of the film and few of the characters are introduced. You would naturally expect the song to stop after the characters start talking, wouldn't you? But P T Anderson apparently thinks otherwise. Well into a few minutes of characters starting their dialogues, the song bellows on. I was forced to watch an English movie with English sub-titles! This is ridiculous! This happens even towards the end of the movie - the characters talk for well over a few minutes, while yet another jarring song plays at twice the volume of their speech.

The dialogues too, are nothing short of precedent-setting. Expletives flow freely, nauseating you with the incomprehensibly misplaced effect they try to have. I find it so hard to believe that such juvenile dialogues got past the editing shears. The dialogues seem to have been ad-libbed or written out in a very short while, as they have absolutely no impact whatsoever. The writer has a teenager's fascination to cuss words, which are used ten times to the dozen.

Throughout the film, the one single emotion that was evoked in me was of helplessness. I was helpless as I saw people fighting, screaming at each other, hurting each other. I was helpless as I saw the simple things that the characters could have done to make their lives easier, but never realised them. Every single leaf in this Magnolia tree seem rotten from within, when there's no reason for it to be so. The director has rendered each one of them so irritating that it is hard to bear with them. The decisions they take are implausible and their regret is laughable. P T Anderson was extremely successful in rendering every single emotion of every single character artificial and stressed. Their pain, their anger, their sorrow is all so plastic that our only reaction is glassy-eyed disinterest.

The story is broken into too many parts to be described. The individual pieces were neither interesting nor entertaining. Characters are half-baked and attempts at exploring them without providing us with the context adds up to much chagrin. The story of the movie has been highly touted for the numerous intersections that the individual characters have. The intersections are achieved merely by not telling us the complete story. If the director begins by telling the story from the middle, it is but obvious that we would have missed the introductions of the cast and their relationship with each other! Magnolia is a tiring, pointless movie, which is best avoided if you don't want to ruin a good part of your day (it seems to run for about 15 hours!).