Change Your Image
acidrosesrijit
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Irishman (2019)
It is what it is
The Irishman (2019) - It is what it is - a masterpiece of cinema. It's Scorsese's brilliant direction, choice of subject, pure distilled camera angles, and the pure method-driven performance given by the three titans of cinema - DeNiro, Pesci and Pacino. I had a silly smile on my face all through the film as I watched the greats effortlessly talk to each other portraying dangerous (and larger than life) characters from a tumultuous part of American history, people who were sworn to their own personal causes, leading a power-driven life in a society undergoing massive changes.
History is present throughout the film, in news clippings, snapshots, snippets of television news and you hear about the Kennedys, Cuba, Las Vegas, but you realize that you are watching a secret history in the film itself - a undercurrent that was running parallel and controlled by shadowy "kingmakers" or "king killers" as they influenced society, the country, and by extension, the world.
It's interesting to note that this is a layered chronological film that is disruptive, but also smooth as silk in Scorsese's hands.
It is a "hidden" film - on the one hand, you have the history that we have all read about, then you turn a dark corner with the mysterious assassinations of the Kennedys, and the mysterious disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa - and all of this happening while the USA was engaged in a disastrous war in Vietnam. Then, you see an old Frank Sheeran recollecting and narrating a secret history of what "really" happened, which is curiously interesting as well, because the listener is never shown - who is Frank talking to?
As the audience, we are also hidden, secret viewers to a secret history. And as we delve deeper, we go into the recesses of Frank's memory as he saw it and experienced it, and within it, we see and hear rumblings of a further past in Sheeran's life in the war, how he followed orders to "hurry up", how the Kennedy killing was a secret mob hit, leading us to Hoffa's death later in the film.
Finally, it is Scorsese himself, who remains hidden, behind the camera, directing the history from the viewpoint of a book (I Heard You Paint Houses by Charles Brandt), which in itself is a view of a writer. There are multiple other instances of "secrets" in this film - both literal and metaphorical that I am not including here, but in all honesty, this film is like a dark Matryoshka doll, "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma", but essentially offering a possible key to some of the greatest mysteries and conspiracies in the world.
It is also interesting to see how Scorsese has mixed genres like a masterclass chef - The Irishman is a road movie, a mafia movie, a drama, an action film, a thriller, historical fiction, but most importantly, it is epic.
Finally, on the cast, no amount of praise will do justice to DeNiro, Pesci and Pacino. They are exemplars of the craft, living industry standards, and with Scorsese at the helm, this was a match made in heaven.
Thank you sirs for making this film.
Rangoon (2017)
Toofan ki Beti
Rangoon - quite a movie! It's an action film, make no mistake about it. And it has generous dollops of epic romance, fortitude and a plethora of human emotions that all the characters wear on their sleeves. This is not a film that relies on symbolism or on subtlety. Quite in-your-face, this is a film set during the tumultuous times of the Indian Independence and the Second World War on a grand scale. What I really liked about the film is Vishal Bhardwaj's evident love of film-making that came out in the period-piece sets during Kangana's shooting of the wild Toofan Ki Beti. The sets, shooting styles evoked a heady mix of nostalgic 40's films with raucous action and macho heroines. The heady aroma of pop-culture was replete throughout the scenes, especially in Miss Julia's super heroine costume where she jumps like a skilled acrobat onto a chandelier and escapes with a hapless damsel against various goons. Her escape is nothing short of spectacular – high-kicks in leather- clad boots, followed by punches, an escape on a motorcycle that culminates in a high-flying sortie on a warplane. This is solid action and I could not help but wonder of the film within the film that - what was the sensational story of Toofan Ki Beti? The character of Miss Julia is the fulcrum – the character around which the situations revolve, but soon the war engulfs all. Like a bildungsroman, Miss Julia, a super heroine in the reel world, grows into maturity in her love for Nawab, into a super heroine in her own right. The culmination is poetic, and some might say, even clichéd, when she dons her costume one last time to save the love of her life. That her love is doomed and that the war finally subsumes all is tragic, but we are made to see into her mental growth, where she fights out of her naiveté, into a woman who finally finds her own voice – as an individual in her own right. The film also makes excellent use of the minor characters, how each build and adds to the atmosphere, to give a sense that there is a darker and massive backdrop against which the characters interplay their lives. Vishal Bhardwaj makes this an important locus in the film – the voices of the minor characters help the audience visualize, like a synecdoche, in quick snippets, of the freedom struggle, the INA, Subhas Bose, Hitler, Churchill and the whole vicious panorama of war. The characters of Zulfi, Julia's troupe, the war nurse, the Indian rajah all command significant screen time to build the context. The other important aspect of the film was to showcase the little known area of Arunachal Pradesh with its wild beauty. All the three main actors, Kangana, Shahid and Saif provide matured and stellar performances. But the scene steal-er was the evil British Major General, like Major Hans Landa – a suitable and stock villain, refusing to die. A film that is full on entertainment and with the right amount of drama. Not to be missed.
Suicide Squad (2016)
Flop Squad
Let it be known that I am more a DC comics fan and have loved the Suicide Squad comics that were so excellently written by John Ostrander. Characters like Peacemaker, Bronze Tiger, Nightshade, Black Thorn were missed. Evil characters like Kobra and/or The Crimson Jihad could have easily provided an impetus for an excellent story line.
An incomplete incoherent chaotic mess of a movie, the story line suppurated like Lovecraftian flotsam and jetsam slime without a beginning, middle, or end. The loud flashes of photosensitive epilepsy (reminiscent of Cyber Soldier Porygon) failed to charm the dullest of viewers. There was no great reason to assemble hardened criminals together except for Waller's "...making people work against their wishes" rant. I get the Dirty Dozen slant to the whole Suicide Squad thing – but where is the story, people??? In a setting such as this, where you get a bunch of villains and anti-heroes into a swirl, you need to have a catch with all of them. First off, Deadshot's inaccurate portrayal of a supportive daughter can, however, still be passed off as a reason to let Lawton serve in the Squad and pine for freedom. Why Croc? Why Harley? Why Boomerbutt? Why Diablo? This is a team that is not meant for keeps – this is a team that arises as the effect of a cause.
In the 2nd World War, there were teams of criminals both from the Allied and Axis who were thrust to the forefront and forgotten. They were men who were sadistic and callous and without a hope in hell. But then, they were the effect of a cause. During the ravaged days of the war, with dwindling soldiers and dipping morale, the two sides needed every able finger on the trigger.
The mistake, with Suicide Squad is that, there is no reason to assemble Task Force X, except to stop Superman. The reason – aka, the cause, was lame and not convincing enough in the context of the 120 minute film. A team of heroes is assembled only when there is a cause, and a team of super villains is assembled only when there is no hope left. Enchantress/Incubus could have been that cause, although I was half expecting them to pull out the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man from their kitty. Who you gonna call? Not Task Force X. Can I get my money back please?
Detective Byomkesh Bakshy! (2015)
Defective Byomkesh Bakshi!
Dear Dibakar, I saw Detective Byomkesh Bakshy! Don't know about the name change and the dubious exclamation mark - were you trying to go Tarantino on us (Inglourious Basterds)?, but the movie rang a lot of bells in my head - mostly out of tune. It was a great effort, but was lacking in a very basic department - story. Or rather, the execution of it. First and foremost, although the memory of Rajit Kapoor lingered, I went in to the cinema hall - expecting something like LSD, Shanghai, Oye Lucky - not in terms of similarity of story, but in execution and overall storytelling. The influences of the recent Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes with a tougher Watson/Ajit was right in my face and too obvious to be missed. Most important of all, I think Byomkesh's plot overreached itself. The involvement of the Chinese, Japanese, Burmese, opium, drug trade was more in tune with Nihar Ranjan Gupta's Kiriti Ray, rather than Byomkesh. It was quite evident that it was more Kiriti Ray than Byomkesh who was the detective in the film. I know we all have our influences, but such an obvious one? Maybe not to the rest of the world, but it was definitely obvious to some Bengalis like me. Next, Sushant Singh Rajput was miscast in the role - he may be handsome, and girls may be crazy about him, but he lacked the screen presence that I so desired in Byomkesh. More importantly, his dialog delivery was hopeless. I couldn't understand a single word he uttered. Now, if I talk about Niraj Kabi - his articulation and diction was superb. I became a fan of his performance after Ship of Theseus, which was par excellence. Also, Meiyang Chang - his Hindi was flawless. Anyway, as the film trundled on, I found that Anukul Babu is more interesting, rather than Byomkesh himself. I found myself wondering if that was your intention. Byomkesh, whenever he appears, is in half-light, but when Anukul Babu comes in, he is always clearly seen. I am sorry, but this worked like a sleeping pill for me and I dozed off. There were too many sub-plots that were hanging around and I found the final execution like a metaphysical conceit, only that it failed to make me see the lantern lit at the end of 2.5 hours. I don't know if the film-land powerhouses forced your hand in some of the scenes, but I felt telling myself, during the film, "Why did Dibakar do this? He could have done it like this." and my thoughts trailed on. As a movie- goer, this should not have happened. Although the effort put into the production design, the authenticity of wartime Kolkata during the final days of the Raj was superb - but I think somewhere, the big picture was lost. In the presence of the city, the story suffered. The plot twists were confusing and sadly, Sneha Khanwalkar's rock music did not gel well. The music was full of promise in the trailers, hinting towards a hard-hitting experience with some mind- boggling twists, but although I simply loved Sneha's music in Gangs of Wasseypur, her music stands in isolation in the film. There was no great WTF moment for me. There was no big tell for me. I know who the villain is; it seemed redundant for me to know about the Young Guns, Yang Guang, Green Gang link post intermission. And what was Anukul Babu doing at the end - transforming into a ninja warrior? With such a vicious man on his tail, Byomkesh should have been attacked quite early in the film. Now, to the trigger of the whole story, Ajit's omni-present absent chameleon-like father – Bhuvan Banerjee; I mean give the dude a break. At one point he is drug doctor, next a womanizer, next a blackmailer, next a good guy who was dented and painted; I mean what was happening? The initial murders seemed redundant. Maybe Dibakar should have taken some ideas from Alan Moore's From Hell? The first scene where Byomkesh is introduced, he is decked by the mild- mannered Ajit. Huh? Who died and made him El Superbeasto? Byomkesh is swooning at the sight of death/dead bodies, puking away, and here is Ajit, flailing his arms and fists and feet in his four-eyed darkness on persons unknown in a dark alley. And here is the poster with a larger than life dhoti clad gentleman jumping across the Howrah Bridge like Sukhen Das on steroids (on an aside, do watch Rastaar Chhele). I found myself asking the question, why in God's name would Byomkesh help out an unknown person in the way he did? The cause was not sufficient enough nor was the Ajit/Byomkesh dynamic explored well enough. Even if he took up the case on a lark – we need to be told, perhaps a little 4th Wall would have helped here – that he is a seeker of truth? Next, Swastika – well yeah, she was a Mata Hari figure, a moll, a stereotypical femme, but that was all to it. Had she been the one who killed Anukul Babu at the end; her character would have been given a depth and importance. Now, that I think of it, it is the word "depth" that was missing from all the period-drama poseurs in this flotsam-jetsam of a film. A final word on the accents used in the film. And this is where Basu Chatterjee succeeded. I don't need Hindi speakers speaking in a Bengali tone, nor do I need to hear Bengalis talk in jilted Hindi. The Doordarshan serials with Rajit Kapoor, KK Raina, Sadhu Meher, Utpal Dutt, etc. all spoke proper Hindi, without sounding like affected monkey-capped stereotyped Bengalis. Would you watch it? No. Maybe. I don't know. I can say a lot of other things, but I can't say a yes. Sorry Dibakar, maybe I will wait for your next feature.
Roy (2015)
Why
Roy - I have become existential after watching this film. Why, oh why, did I watch this film?! The name of the film should have been "Why" and not "Roy". The film makes no attempt to explain why the name of the character is "Roy". According to the internet, and more importantly, Wikipedia, "Roy" means "Norseman". Who in the film was remotely of a Viking origin, I am yet to comprehend. The film attempts in a lame@$$ way to build a meta-fictional concept of a film within a film, with the creator, who dons a "creative" hat quite literally every time he sits down to bang his rundown typewriter. I mean, who uses one, nowadays??
Ranbir "expressionless" Kapoor (he quite rivals Arjun Kapoor here) is Arjun Rampal's meta-fictional alter-ego, a bona fide dumb@$$, who, in the great "hallowed" tradition of Dhoom films, is a thief! Whoopee! And what does he steal? Wait for it, wait for it...he steals paintings!! Paintings, which even a layman, will puke at!
Arjun Rampal, sadly, looks frail and slow in the whole film - nay, let me be bold - he looks like a walking cadaver! He stares and mumbles his way throughout like a choleric melancholic, who apparently has a "writer's block" and is looking for some inspiration to hit him on the way out. Here enters Jacqueline Fernandez, a porcelain Barbie doll, who just happens to be another filmmaker and just happens to meet him. She has no purpose in the film except to be an expressionless eye-candy and maybe she does her job? The whole film is an example of writer's block or director's block...and such directors should go back to the drawing board before suffering us with another dilettantish "highbrow" quadrupedal excrement. I think I became expressionless after watching this film.
The (w)hole film is 2 hour long constipated advertisement for Malaysia - a country trying to shove the envelope of the "Truly Asia" tag down our throats after three airline disasters. You can really see that Malaysia is desperately trying to do some PR when one would think twice before boarding a flight over there. And then, you have the in-your-face adverts screaming at you throughout the film - AskMe and Godrej maintain a presence as effectively as Ranbir Kapoor's character. Word to the wise, I think Ranbir Kapoor should go hibernate before doing a film again. A confused crap load of a film, you can avoid it like the plague.
The Babadook (2014)
Childhood Fears
Children can have the creepiest things in their minds and are sometimes the cruelest beings on this planet. Perhaps, because they are still linked to some primal fear memory. The Babadook is a child's fear manifested in our adult world. An aspect of fear that we try to control and overcome. But this also makes us question that how far exactly are we from it? The world with its material attractions dull our senses, desensitize us to these things. But, that's exactly what we would like to believe in the waking world. Because, when we go to sleep and darkness lays its heavy hands on our eyelids, we return to a primordial soup of memories that we both like to remember and forget at the same time. This tension, I believe, is the stuff of nightmares and childhood fears, that we try all the time to keep at bay.
How this fear is manifested and given shape by a mother's guilt forms the second layer of the story. Guilt, despair, and hopelessness give rise to strange manifestations in our fragile minds, especially when we don't have a support system. People start breaking up. This is exemplified by the mother, who loses her husband in a car crash, when he was driving her to the hospital to have her baby. The child is born, and is seen by the mother as the cause for her unhappiness. This externalization of the loss and the cause for blame is, of course, at a subconscious level. But her veneer of strength slowly crumbles as the days pass and she becomes less of a mother and something else altogether. After bearing this unhappiness for seven long years, she slowly teeters off the edge of her sanity. The onset of loneliness, depression, and ultimately insanity form the major themes in this film. The lack of sleep, imaginary noises, and the strain of consoling a constantly scared child creates havoc on the mother's nerves and is manifested in the looming and ever-growing shadow of The Babadook.
The name, "Babadook" is nonsensical, and I feel, it's a name that actually is a forced word, manufactured to rhyme with the children's poem – "If it's in a word, or if it's in a book/ You can't get rid of the Babadook." Maybe, it's something to do with Baba Yaga? Who knows? We do that sometimes; manufacture stuff, in our own minds to fit stuff into place. But, in this case, it goes horribly wrong.
Themes of motherhood, single parenting and a child's imagination are extant throughout the film. We can, at least identify with one or more themes in the film. As children, we have always imagined our toys to life, given monstrous shapes in the dark to clothes bunched up in the corner of a room
and so on.
Stylistically, this film creates a feel of claustrophobia and suffocation, more so, by the use of minimal color. The blue seems grey, the grey seems greyer, the whites are never really white, and the blacks just get darker still.
This film, I think, is comparable in many ways to The Shining, Jacob's Ladder, Angel Heart, The Sixth Sense, The Machinist and books such as The Believers (Robert Arthur) and The Haunting of Hill House (Shirley Jackson). For people with an appetite for old school terror and scares, this film is definitely recommended.
Interstellar (2014)
Space. Time. Travel. Spacetimetravel.
Time, as a concept, has always been relative and it has been measured by us in the changing of seasons, the passage of the sun and the moon in the sky, manifested more profoundly in the inevitable circle of life and death.
I had come across "time" as a relative concept much later, when I read the works of Henri Bergson, prior to which I existed only from Mondays to Fridays, broken only by the time capsules of the weekends, when my imagination used to take flight. And I always used to wonder, and I still do, if I could extend that time. Time, as I said, is always relative.
Mankind, in its attempt to make meaning of its existence on this plane of reality, has broken down the seasons into months, days and further on into infinitesimal quantities to arrive at some meaning of its presence here. And we have looked towards the stars and wondered about gods and the immanent will of the universe while we feebly grasp those abstractions in our own Dreamtimes, believing (relatively) that we are giving some semblance of meaning to the things around us.
Interstellar is a film that presents very complex concepts that is both heart-breaking and frightening, yet riveting. The fact that time is relative and space/time take on whole new meanings out in the infiniteness of space, again emphasizes how small we are within a grand multi-dimensional omniverse. Yet, this film presents us with hope and love, and tells us, that in some n- dimensional space/time, human abstractions and emotions are the anchors that can be measured and therefore should be valued as much as our lives themselves. It is a place where twilight abstractions cease to be such and weave themselves into dimensions of reality that are as palpable as the crashing of waves or the cry of a new born child.
This film, like a philosophical palimpsest, is also in many ways, comparable to Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, the recent Gravity, the highly underrated Event Horizon, Andrei Tarkovsky's incomparable rendition of Stanislaw Lem's Solaris, the anime Serial Experiments Lain, and last, but not the least, the visionary novel, The Time Machine, by H.G.Wells. If you want to get rattled in the head by the meaning of "time" - this is the movie for you.
Man of Steel (2013)
Man of Foolishness
First, a disclaimer: I have grown up reading Superman and Batman. I am more of a DC person than a Marvel one. That being said, here is what I think of Man of Steel.
Man of Steel is a slow, relatively inert film with wooden characters and lame special effects. Russell Crowe, Amy Adams, Ayelet Zurer, Laurence Fishburne and Antje Traue were under-utilized. Let's not forget Kevin Costner and Diane Lane too.
While Henry Cavill looks like Supes, the biggest disappointment was Mike Shannon as Gen. Zod. He sounded like Rob Schneider from The Hot Chick. The villain should be a scary dude - like Darth Vader. There should have been a theme music for him, like Magneto had in X-Men: First Class. With a lame-@$$ voice like that, no doubt he got it shoved big time where the sun don't shine. Krypton was a complete disappointment. I expected a gleaming city of shining spires and ascetics (remember Kenneth Branagh's Thor?). Instead, we get a filth-ridden scene with garishly dressed weirdos who looked like they had just been fired from a Dune remake. I mean, what was it with the color saturation? Even Earth looked the same. They should have shown the atmospheric contrast - here's an idea Zack. Not every movie needs to look like Sucker Punch. You could have easily contrasted the shining quality of Krypton/sexless austerity of the populace with the grime/earthy quality of this mudball. But no, you had to turn that over its head.
And, what's with all the property damage??? Every comic today, from Avengers to Justice League, are ALL conscious of the effort it takes to build something. And you expect me to believe that all the buildings that were getting smashed by Supes and Zod were already evacuated??? What dumb@$$ logic is that? It looked like Doomsday had hit town. Metropolis has gotta be the least safe place to live. Heck, I am sure Darkseid would be laughing his nuts off if he saw this film. He would want Supes as his successor.
And why the heck would you name the film Man of Steel - it sounds like a porn flick for cryin' out loud!
Speaking of porn, let's cut to the chase and talk about the most important part - where was Superman's red jocks? This is non-canonical! There was a reason why Seigel and Shuster had included it. The era in which Superman was created, he was a symbol of masculinity, of male power - something that was symbolized gladiators of Rome and by the circus strongmen of a carnival. If it were such a problem, then Curt Swan or Carmine Infantino or Neal Adams would have redesigned the costume. Heck, how many times did the S change over the years? Google it and see for yourself. But, the overall costume remained the same - in Red Son, Earth 2 and all that multiverse stuff. I mean, DC had a good chance to redesign his costume after Supes came back to life after the Doomsday epic. But they didn't. And, don't even get me started on this New 52 stuff.
Lastly, lets talk about Superman himself. Kal, son of Jor-El was to become "a God" on earth. Truer words have never been spoken. The implications are huge in that - maybe Zack did't even realize it. Superman is someone who can lift islands out of the ocean, fly in space without having to breathe, soak up the solar prominences from a distance that would kill a planet. That god-like feature was missing. Mind you, I am not saying that he should have been less human, but what makes him different were his eyes. You should read Superman: Birthright by Leinil Francis Yu. The whole book focuses on his eyes - and Martha Kent says that his eyes are an unearthly blue. Where was that in the film?? There should have been a simple scene of Amy transfixed by Supes's eyes. It would have been a romantic scene, no doubt. But, it would have been an incredibly powerful scene if shot correctly. This is why I miss Mr. Christopher Reeves. I wish he were here.
Madras Cafe (2013)
Killing is the name...
An intense film. Very well directed and edited. It brings back memories of the terror and fear that was...Mr. John Abraham, you have excelled in your role. Your character came out as humane and everyday, an agent trying his best to do his job without any overtly patriotic fervor (read Prakash Jha's total lop-sided, misdirected, and failed Satyagraha - I hope everyone has bought India Gate basmati rice!!). The patriotism came out in the professionalism shown by the character in times of duress. Sometimes, I was almost reminded of Alec Leamas from Le-Carre's The Spy Who Came in From the Cold. John's character displays similar fortitude and perhaps an amount of duty-bound resignation after his wife is killed. He continues on the only path he knows, i.e. to finish the work at hand. Kudos to Shoojit Sircar for his excellent documentary-style film-making and superb editing. The locales and shots were perfect for the film and generated the right mood. Most importantly, the film effectively recreated the tension and horror of the civil wars and showed us Indians how precarious our position is in SE Asia with the vultures constantly circling in for the kill. Yet, in spite of it all, there are those among us who will do their duty and protect our nation. This film, I think, like Rang De Basanti and Sarfarosh has set a new landmark in movie-making and giving a message.
The Lunchbox (2013)
Food by Chance
A good film. A very very good film. Heart-warming and sad, this is a film that touches the soul. Both the characters, of Mr. Fernandes and Ila are so very real and palpable. The city of Mumbai, like always, is the central character in the film - the backdrop against which millions of such small human events occur.
The acting of Irfan Khan, Nimrat Kaur and Nawazuddin Siddiqui is beyond words. It is nothing short of excellent. The subdued, government like stance of Sajan Fernandes, with the hopefulness of Ila and the irritating bugging of Shaikh (who can't be Shaikh-en off - sorry couldn't resist the PJ) is brilliantly portrayed by the three actors. In a somewhat 1984-ish setting with an overbearing and overcrowded city, Irfan is just another cog in the wheel until he is brought to self- awareness or rather awoken from his somnolence by the catalytic food of Fate.
The very ephemeral nature of the whole event, brought about by sheer chance and coincidence, is touching and it just exemplifies how lonely we all are in the great rat race of life. Mr. Fernandes is a husk of a man, driven rigid and gnarled by running the self-same rails of his colorless monotonous life. Similarly, Ila, the housewife, is a woman whose heart longs for human contact and affection, but does not get it. And what brings them closer is food. Food and eating is always associated with physical nourishment, but at a communal level, also with mental harmony. I mean, we all feel happy after a good meal. That is what good cuisine is all about - remember Anton Ego's reaction when he tasted the ratatouille in Ratatouille? It touches the soul and maybe, in some cases, awaken some long lost happy memory.
Which it does in Mr. Fernandes. By connecting with Ila, over food, he is able to remember himself and what he was. In one of the most important lines in the film, he tells her, through his note, that one tends to forget things if one does have anyone to share it with. This is how, the communal harmony, of food being the lodestone of any culture is beautifully put forward. The remembrance of things past, of rediscovery through Ila's cooking is excellently brought forward by Mr. Fernandes. Like Mr. Fernandes, Ila, too is an anchor-less soul wondering how she can re-connect with her husband or with her life. The motif of food vs. memory is once again brought about when Ila's father dies. Her mother says, in a very very touching scene, that she is hungry. All those years of taking care of a severely ill man made her forget what she was and what she needed. With his death, the memory (with hunger pangs) awakens in the present.
For me, the film made me recall Sofia Coppola's excellent Lost in Translation. Which, in a way, has a similar premise, although different. Like Lost in Translation, this film too is about human emotions and human contact. The ending is, indubitably, sad, but it is something that we always knew. Some things, however sweet, will not happen, because, in some way, the society will hinder it. In a way, the "communal harmony" will be disrupted. Thus, what we are left with, is something unique, something special, something that lingers in your memory for a long time. It did. For me. Did it for you?
Gravity (2013)
Naked Fear
Air. Breath. Oxygen. How much of it do we take for granted? Cold. Dark. Alone. How many of us have really experienced it? Space. Void. Black. Fear. How many of us can really comprehend it? To be in space is at once beautiful, thrilling and terrifying. Like a sailor adrift in an ocean on a dark night, Earth shines like a beacon - near and yet so far. Always just out of reach. Out there, everything is put into perspective and you realize your insignificance in front of it all. Alfonso Cuaron gives you an experience that few can match. It gives you an astronaut's view and shows you the enormity of nothingness. Sounds antithetical, doesn't it? But, that's exactly how it is. From here, from the security of land, of Earth, we gaze up at the stars and wonder about aliens and exotic planets. And sometimes, the black nothingness that lies in between encroaches our vision and thoughts.
This film does not preach, and like Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey and Tarkovsky's Solaris, this film shows, in a very unique way, the meaning of life and of survival. Out there, there is everything and there is nothing. There is just you. Facing it is the ultimate test.
Watching this film made me realize how much of our planet we take for granted. We seldom think that gravity is the anchor that keeps us home. The subtle meaning and choice of words are integral themes in the film - that of a mother who has lost her daughter, who has lost her hope, her anchoring, or to put it bluntly, her gravity. She is drifting, literally and mentally. But she finds that courage to cling on and return.
In this film, you come face to face with the sheer horror of space, of the impenetrable, intangible, all-encompassing, never-ending darkness. How you intend to face it alone is up to you.
Mardaani (2014)
Confused.
OK. So here's the thing. I went with hopes of watching a gritty police procedural film, something like Sarfarosh, Ardh Satya, or Droh Kaal. But what we get is a confused and incompetently directed film that can't decide whether it will lean towards clichéd melodrama or realism. The film has a good premise and a base for delivering an impactful social message. But it falls face flat like Talaash. In the film, a street urchin is apparently mother-henned by Rani Mukherjee's cop character - Shivani Shivaji Roy. But the urchin, an adolescent girl, apparently gets by through selling flowers at intersections and gets kidnapped promptly. If this girl was so special to Rani, then why the F would she be selling flowers at roads to eke out a living? Next, Rani doesn't fit the role of a Mumbai Crime Branch cop because she doesn't think like one. There are hundreds of examples, but here are some of the glaring errors. First, as a cop, would you like to have locks of hair hanging across your face? Isn't there a reason why cops have a cropped cut or have their hair clipped tightly? The reason is, because in a fight, it can be a serious detriment. Second, when you are out to bust someone or hellbent on vengeance, would you remember to apply eyeliners and lipstick or would you be more focused on getting your target? Third, somewhere in the middle of the film, the villain sends a package to the cop's house in a pink ribboned Archies-style box. The cop, in her infinite wisdom, picks up the effing box and shakes it vigorously. Wow, now only if there was a sweet mercury primer in the box with a lump of C4 or a few sticks of dynamite. Apparently, this character hadn't heard of letter bombs. Anyway, the movie gods watch over drunkards and fool cops and it turns out to be a little finger. (Pardon, Lord Baelish). But I am digressing. Fourth, in the final climactic moment, the cop has a gun to the villain's head. BUT, and its a BIG but, she does not have her finger on the trigger! She literally does not have her index finger on the trigger of a gun that she has on the villain's head. Really? Why in F's name would a veteran cop hold a glock to someone's head in a totally lame@$$ way? But this is not the icing on the cake. That comes right at the end. In her method to prove her "macho" mardaani, she, in a loser homage to all the silly 80's action flicks, chucks her gun away and starts pelting fists and kicks in a most silly fashion to beat the stuffing out of the villain. Is this common sense? There are more, and I could go on forever. Its sad, because some clever editing and some well placed shots would have improved the quality. Sorry Rani, I love you as an actress and maybe the concept has its heart in the right place, but as a film it is bogus.
Pratidwandi (1970)
The boiling point
Pratidwandi - a film that aptly captures the ennui and angst of the educated middle class Bengali youth during the tumultuous Naxal-ridden period of 60's Calcutta. Fraught with a desire to DO something, Siddharto is however jobless and dreams about actually doing something of significance. But his middle-class upbringing stops him at every step. Caught in a web of his own upbringing, his need to get a day job to pay the bills, and his own morality, he is unwilling to step out of his comfort zone and take a risk. This leads his friend to taunt him that he is a "thinker" and not a "doer" - when he refuses to indulge in drinking or casual sex. But, Siddharto, in his actions and thoughts, will perhaps strike you as almost dilettante-ish, perhaps even cavalier in his thoughts about a "revolution" and in his dreams about a "better world" without ever leaving Calcutta. How this attitude slowly reaches a boiling point and tips over, when he lashes out at the so-called "babu" class, is striking in the climactic final moments of the film. A masterpiece by Satyajit Ray, this film is a parable of sorts and can be related to even today.
Lucy (2014)
Lucy in the sky without meaning
ScarJo is prettier and huskier than ever. I could keep ogling her forever. Now, as to the film, it had a promising start, but somehow meandered off and the hype fizzled out. The film had great potential - something that the trailer promised big time. I would have liked it to be darker, meaner, and surreal with a sense of danger. The trouble is, the effects of a drug enhancing the brain and its consequence on the body has already been dealt with in Bradley Cooper's Limitless. At best, the Luc Besson's film is uneven, with a lost potential for great Matrix style hand-to-hand combat. I would have loved to see ScarJo whup some @$$ a' la Black Widow style. But, on the whole, its a fun film. And with ScarJo in the lead, its a great watch. But, somehow, you still get that feeling that you watched some two and a half hours of mayhem to just see ScarJo give a pen drive to Morgan Freeman?! One has to really suspend their disbelief by the gullet to accept this.
Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
Over the ledge
I thought I'll never say this about a Tom Cruise movie, but I liked what I saw. Although the concept is not new (watch Groundhog Day) and is steeped in Buddhism/Karma, this film version of the manga All You Need Is Kill is an intelligently paced and fast action movie. The high concept drama and the labyrinthine sci-fi plot was excellently presented without making me lose my interest. The characters, reminiscent of Starship Troopers (the original) are life-like, everyday grunts fighting a war that is, in many ways, reminiscent of the Second World War, especially, D-Day.
I got hoodwinked thrice in the film. First, in the beginning, Tom Cruise comes across as a weaselly military officer who talked more like a civvy than a man of war. And I was getting irritated, but then, that's exactly what he is. He has never seen action, being as it were, a military PR agent.
Second, Emily Blunt. I love her as an actress, and she comes across as a hero more than just eye candy. It is Emily Blunt, who as the tough-as- nails no-nonsense soldier, Rita Vrataski, is the driving force behind Cruise' Cage. Known as the Angel of Verdun because of her killing of hundreds of alien invaders at Verdun, she is, in no way a damsel in distress, or just a second fiddle love interest being present to boost the male ego. She is a soldier - focused and strong and that is what is important. They should have more characters like her in films.
In a sci-fi movie like this, its tough to represent the actors' expressions without a strange reason to have the characters remove their helmets. You wonder that a well-placed headshot would finish these two off - and again, that's exactly what it is. (hoodwink three) All the others wear helmets, but these two don't because they don't care. It's all about Live/Die/Repeat. Interesting film.