Change Your Image
maitreyee_mishra
Reviews
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
MUCH BETTER THAN THE OTHER TWO
I was pretty much anticipating the release of 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban' especially to see how much Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint had grown since the first movie. As I watched the trailer, I had a feeling this would be better than the other two and I was right...it was better. This film had kept a more emotional feeling in the story which was pretty much lacking in the other two. The plot was densely packed with frightening sequences (I think the film should have been rated PG 13, not just PG). There were also some beautiful moments. I thought it breathtaking when Harry flew over the lake. This film managed to keep my interest put in it and an audience who hasn't read the books (like me) will understand it. I wish the previous movies had explained things a bit better to the audience.
The music was good and the special effects were realistic. I liked that bird- horse creature (I'm sorry I don't quite know or remember the name). The werewolf that was actually Professor Lupin was not all that realistic looking though. I do think however that they deserve to get Oscar nominations this time, at least for special effects. I really enjoyed the time- travel thing; the way Hermoine and Harry watched themselves doing things a few hours ago and how they saved the day- and yes, I also enjoyed that part when Harry saves himself and Sirius Black from the Dementors (where he previously thought it was his father). The suspense was well kept and the scenes were more emotional. It's amazing to see those kids grown up and they are very good actors. The film has a talented cast and I think that is a major advantage.
Overall, the movie was very good. I think I will watch it again when it comes out on DVD. And I would also recommend people to watch it
things seem to get darker and scarier
SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES
Troy (2004)
WORTH WATCHING?
I watched Troy today after a long-awaited anticipation to see it; not because I thought I would love it
but because I wanted to see how much I could hate it. As far as I can remember, the first thing that caught my attention was the music- something that was consistently good throughout the movie. The second thing was Sean Bean's familiar voice.
Overall, I thought this movie lacked consistency in story and in acting. Apart from Peter O'Toole, Eric Bana and Sean Bean, everybody else could have done with a few lessons on acting better. I was shocked to see Orlando, poor Orlando having to play such a pathetic part in the movie. It's sad to see though the guy may have acting talent, he never really gets a chance to show it. But I must admit that I was expecting better emotion from him when Hector was killed.
The movie sort of dragged in the beginning. Things were stupid. The cinematography, special effects, music, Sean, Eric and Peter O'Toole made me stay where I was. I really hated Achilles and sorry to state this
I thought a much better actor could have played that part. Brad Pitt didn't seem interested and committed to what he was doing in the movie. He had this carefree attitude which seemed less Achilles type and more of a genuine feel from himself.
The story lacked punch and interest. The only emotional parts started after Patroclus was killed. Obviously after that there was the death of Hector etc. I can say that part made me cry. The filmmakers were very ambitious for this project, but sorry to say, they didn't achieve what they could have. Petersen could definitely have omitted a few scenes.
Another thing was the inconsistent dialogue. At a few points you're faced with well constructed poetry and in other parts there was anachronistic dialogue! Some lines seemed to have been taken directly from the LOTR trilogy. Even some scenes reminded me of LOTR! For instance when Hector and Paris walk out of Troy for Paris to fight Menelaus, I was reminded of Aragorn and his troops coming out of Minas Tirith to go to the Black Gate. At some points, Troy looked like Minas Tirith (though it isn't white).
The first two hours of the movie was a sort of emotionless and disgusting, but it became better when Hector was killed. I cried. It was so heartbreaking when he was dragged after death and taken to the Greeks. Achilles seemed to have no heart. If King Priam hadn't come to him that night and begged for his son's body, maybe Achilles would have let Hector lie on the sand like that. I began to hate Achilles and therefore didn't cry when he died. But that was also because Brad Pitt didn't seem as though he was dying (more like he was thinking `When does this movie end?').
The music was a plus point throughout. I think we could have done without Briseis (if that's the right spelling) and many other parts. Peter O'Toole proves to us again what a fine actor he is, Sean Bean shows his talent again after Boromir, and Eric Bana was brilliant in this movie where I first saw him act.
Overall, I give this movie 5/10. It surely could have been a lot better (and it gets the high rating primarily because of the three acting talents I have mentioned above). P.S. How do people think that Brad Pitt looks cute as Achilles (yuck!)?
Devdas (1955)
ANOTHER BIMAL ROY MASTERPIECE!
Bimal Roy directs one of the best movies I have ever seen in my life in a very brilliant and poignant way. There are no elaborate sets as in Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Devdas but Roy's Devdas has in it the pain that would melt one's heart. The acting by the main characters
and not so main characters is brilliant and heavily analyzed. Dilip Kumar is not called the 'tragedy king' for no good reason. He underwent psychological assistance after playing Devdas. Suchitra Sen brings the perfect essence into Paro with her weighted words and Vyajantimala is perfectly cast as Chandramuki. Every actor/actress has the potential to bring you to tears.
I have watched Devdas 2002 and it compares in no way to this movie. I agree this movie is not in colour and is not elaborate but I think that it what makes it realistic. Roy makes you believe that what you are watching is a village and not a palace (as Bhansali depicted in his version). Calcutta is shown as it should be and Chandramukhi's kotha or clothes are not that elaborate either. (We must remember that she is no queen like Madhuri Dixit in Bhansali's version). I have also seen Oriya villages (that are very similar to Bengali ones) because I originally come from one and I can say that Roy makes the village perfect. No Zamindar in a village had sparkling houses (as in the new Devdas).
Apart from the realism in location, Roy's Devdas thrives in making the characters real. Sorry to say, Shahrukh was Shahrukh and not Devdas in the new movie whereas Dilip Kuman epitomises the real Devdas as he brings the character to life. There is no melodrama as in the new one and the actors succeed totally into delivering dialogues with deep meaning and weight. Everything is irreplaceable.
The music is brilliant. Every song seems to haunt you. The lyrics are deep and probing and perfectly suited to the story. Everything in this movie is perfect.
I can go on forever because there is so much I can say. Nothing can explain the depth in this movie; be it the dense story or the excellently portrayed and perfectly realistic emotions expressed by the actors. I get pulled into the movie whenever I see it and I always end up crying. This is one of the rarest and absolutely perfect movies I have seen. Bhansali's Devdas is in no way comparable to this movie except for the fact that it can boast stunning colour and lavish and glamorous sets. But personally, that does not appeal to me. That is not realism; it is a dream world which we should not aspire to achieve. Aesthetic elements do not make a movie great if the actors haven't acted well and the story loses realism. I would choose Roy's Devdas anytime and give it 10/10. Nothing can surpass the talent and understanding of the material by the director in Roy's Devdas. Allow me to quote what Elvis Mitchell of THE NEW YORK TIMES said for The Two Towers (obviously that film also deserved this praise)- 'Never has a film so strongly been a product of a director's respect for its source
Creating a rare perfect mating between filmmaker and material.'. This also applies perfectly for Roy's Devdas. We will never be fortunate to see a movie like it if Bollywood continues to be clichéd and not adventurous.
I RECOMMEND EVERY MOVIE LOVER TO WATCH THIS MOVIE!
My Fair Lady (1964)
GREAT MOVIE!
My Fair Lady is undoubtedly one of the greatest movies ever and is also one of the best musicals (I never like to put ONE movie at no.1 and say it is THE best). Adapted from G.B. Shaw's 'Pygmalion', the movie efficiently portrays the life of Eliza Doolittle through her change from a flower girl to 'a consort for the king' by the callous, and sometimes indifferent (but still admirable) Professor Higgins. This does happen overnight obviously and does put a lot of mental strain on Eliza, Higgins and Colonel Pickering (who accompanies Higgins as a linguist). In the end, Higgins transforms her like he says he would and makes her worthy to be a princess. However, no matter how changed Eliza looks, she realises that her real place is selling flowers and that now she isn't fit to do that either. She tell Higgins that he hasn't left her 'fit to do anything'. She feels hurt especially when her magnificence at a ball is actually tested and another linguist (who is also excellent at knowing people's origins through their accents) fails to notice that Eliza is actually a flower girl. He claims 'she's Hungarian, as the first Hungarian Rhapsody'!
For her success, Higgins is praised and Eliza is overlooked. She leaves his house and soon he starts realising that life is very difficult without her. He does stoop down to admit that to her but as egoistical as he is, he also says 'I can do without you. I can do without a soul in the world!' His last song shows a medley of emotions 'I'll throw the hellcat out!' and 'I've grown accustomed to her face'.
This movie has beautiful songs and obviously is the source of one of the most famous songs (Wouldn't it be loverly?). The actors are all brilliant. Rex Harrison articulates as though he is a real linguist in his Oscar winning performance (and very well deserved too!). Audrey Hepburn is magnificent and shows her versatility through the enormous change from flower girl to 'consort for a king'. All the other actors are just perfect.
I have watched this movie over and over and over again without getting tired of it. The movie is so enjoyable and the songs are as well. Nothing is boring. Loads and loads of fun. Sometimes you might get a bit emotional. Great movie. Great director. I would say- just watch it. It's loverly!
Singin' in the Rain (1952)
GREAT MUSICAL!!!
Singing in the Rain is another brilliant musical based on the 'Talkie madness' of the late 1920's. Two famous celebrities, Don Lockwood and Lena Lamont are a famous on- screen couple. However, their 'getting along together' is pathetic. Don meets Cathy Selden accidentally and is amazed that she is the first girl not to have fallen for him. She says 'You're nothing but a shadow on film, a shadow'...and these words haunt him. Another accidental meeting- and this time Cathy is being considered for a role in a movie. Don falls in love with her and vice- versa.
When the talkies are in a rage, the audience asks for more and Don and Lena are put to their first big test. One big problem is Lena's unattractive and squeaky voice which Monumental Pictures are a bit frightened to reveal. Other problems do arise and the premiere of their fist talkie becomes the laughing stock of the masses. With six weeks left for release, things look pretty hopeless until a solution comes; they decide to make the film into a musical with Cathy speaking for Lena. However, this is not known to Lena, but when 'The Dancing Cavalier' (the movie) becomes an overnight success, Lena plans to have Cathy speaking for her in every movie without any credit. Things are revealed to the audience in the end and Lena leaves, having made a real fool of herself in front of the world.
The movie is really hilarious and entertaining. You can't really get tired of it. Gene Kelly's dances are brilliant (man! what a dancer) and the others are great too. My favourite song is 'Singin' In the Rain' but all the others are pretty good as well, such as 'Make 'em laugh' and 'Good morning'.
Good direction, very good acting, entertaining and very animated. A must for all to see. Real fun to watch! A GREAT MOVIE!
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
ANOTHER GREAT MOVIE!!!
The Two Towers proceeds from where FOTR left us. It starts with a flashback of Gandalf's fall in Moria and exactly what happened. Then the movie goes on...three hours of absolute movie magic. The Two Towers, contrary to my fears (that it might not live up to my expectations after watching the trailer) turned out to be brilliant. PJ, again at his best! I went to watch this movie at a theatre twice and I wanted to watch it over and over again. Man, again LOTR on the top! I cried so many times (I cried less in FOTR and much more in ROTK). And what was the most inspiring was Sam's dialogue towards the end of the movie in Osgiliath.
The movie again is pure greatness...it was so brilliant. It was a long wait from FOTR to TTT though. But worth the wait. I loved every bit of the movie so much.
I was disappointed with the Oscars. I thought this time it was really unfair that the Two Towers did not get recognition for its brilliance. And Chicago (that crappy movie) won Best Picture! I was really shocked.
The Two Towers again makes us get lost in Middle Earth with hours of bliss.
A movie worth watching...again 10/10!!!
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
GREAT MOVIE...WORTH WATCHING MANY TIMES!
I missed a great opportunity of watching FOTR on a big screen, but when I did, I can say that I really was very enthralled. It was beautiful. After long had I felt that Hollywood had some hope left in making good movies. Previously made movies (1970's to 2000) had anachronistic elements that made their value less (like Titanic). This movie was fantasy and yet it portrayed a very realistic approach to the story. Though the story was fictional, the elements and relationships were very realistic. The objective of the movie was realism. I was totally blown away by the friendships in the story (especially Frodo and Sam). It threw the audience into the past. Peter Jackson accomplished the impossible in the new millennium.
Everything was brilliant, ranging from costumes, to set design, special effects, score, editing, acting, direction, everything...
I am writing this after writing a comment for the Return of the King but still, I thought I needed to comment on this as well. FOTR was brilliant and it deserved every award at the Oscars...but the Oscars were unfair. Even The Two Towers deserved more nominations and awards but didn't.
The complex story of the Lord of the Rings commences with The Fellowship of the Ring. The young hobbit Frodo has to venture out with a fellowship to destroy the One Ring which determines the fate of his world- Middle- Earth. PJ just makes this movie worth the watch. The actors are just excellent. I wish Elijah Wood would have got an Oscar but that's a pity.
What I think is so great about the story and the movie is their density. Everything that happens keeps your adrenaline rushing and keeps you interested for so long. Many people wouldn't mind if this movie or the other two ran for +4 hours!
Anyway, I think this was a great movie and a brilliant start to a wonderful, indulging, meaningful trilogy.
One of my favourite movies (along with TTT and ROTK and a few others). A 10/10 movie!
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
FUNNY MOVIE...good for laughs
I was interested to watch The Pirates of the Caribbean after knowing that it had Orlando Bloom in it (I'm not a big Orlando fan but I wanted to see how he acted outside 'LOTR'). I can tell you one thing- man I laughed my head off...especially when Bloom and Depp take over the ship. 'Gentlemen, do not panic. We're taking over this ship!'. Depp was really good and had a cool costume on. Orlando was also very good...looked different from Legolas but had only a few lines. However, one thing I did like was that the Director did try to keep things looking old without anachronistic additions and everyone did speak in British accents...and not to forget...Pirate accents as well...'Aaargh'. 'You've got to start believing in nightmares...you're in one!' . It wasn't scary as I would have imagined; the skeleton scenes and all were funny and honestly they didn't deserve an oscar nomination for special effects (Matrix Reloaded did). However, the film is great to watch when you're in a mood to watch some funny acting by Depp. Great acting by Geoffrey Rush and Johnny Depp and yes...also Orlando Bloom. I will watch it again if I have the time. Dunno if I will be able to watch it many times though. Good movie if you want to laugh quite a bit.
Chicago (2002)
Oscar deserving???....OH PLEASE (gimme a break!)
I wanted to watch 'Chicago' to know what made it win the Oscar for Best Picture instead of the Two Towers in 2002. I didn't find any reason. The movie was hours of boring stuff, heartless portrayals of people. There was no real story and there were too many dances and songs (I know it is a musical but still...it wasn't entertaining). Kept on dragging for a long time and really got me bored. I think the only thing worth noticing was how real life was compared to life in Broadway. The rest was pretty boring and not worth the time. I don't know how this movie had 13 Oscar nominations and was the Best Picture winner. NOT FAIR AT ALL!!! I don't know how the Academy was enthralled by this...stuff. Not worth watching at all unless you want to criticise it. LOADS OF JUNK!
My rating- 2.8/10...(A different story and good use of comparison.)
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
BETTER THAN THE OTHER TWO
The Matrix Revolutions was the best in the trilogy I think. There was a sense of urgency which the other two movies lacked. You could see Agent Smith's clones multiplying fast, but there were still some problems and the movie did drag a bit. It was sort of scary but also indulging. However, though I do love the fighting sequences, i thought all the movies made them go on too long in which one loses the attention span. For instance, the last fight between Neo and Agent Smith really dragged. It was initially interested but then I decided I would take a break from it. I thought when Trinity died, the only person who acted well was Keanu Reeves. Carrie- Anne Moss just seemed to be delivering some dialogues without real emotion. I liked the parts with the Oracle and 'Everything that has a beginning has an end'. I am no Matrix Trilogy fan...a LOTR one...YES! However, I did feel sorry that 'Revolutions' wasn't given even one Oscar Nomination (for special effects at least).
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
WORST OF THE THREE
I think I was unfortunate to have wasted my money to watch 'Matrix Reloaded' in a theatre when it had been released recently then. The story dragged endlessly and if I had known how crap the movie was, I would never have gone. I know, I hadn't watched the Matrix but it isn't that I didn't understand the story. There were miles and miles of special effects and they were very good, without doubt. However, that does not make it a good movie.
The story doesn't really progress until the last 5 minutes or so. I have to say, one think that spooked me were those two scary twin brothers. Great effects in the movie and I think that is what the movie was made of, instead of characters and a proper story. Heavily flawed, unfortunately.
I would give the movie 1.3/10
The Matrix (1999)
GOOD SPECIAL EFFECTS; AN OKAY MOVIE
Funnily enough, I watched this movie after watching 'Reloaded' and 'Revolutions'. I thought the movie had great special effects and was a very good idea. However, the directors failed in making the story comprehensible to all. I did understand a few things in the trilogy but all were a bit doubtful. In a way, I found the movie sort of disgusting but a nice scene was when Neo was dodging the bullets shot by Agent Smith (was it? or was it someone else?). It's an okay movie with some really great special effects. Maybe I can watch it one time more...but not too many times. I would advise you to watch it if you're not in a mood for laughing but also not in a mood to think strenously. You will be indulged in the special effects though.
My rating 4.8/10
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
ONE OF THE GREATEST MOVIES EVER MADE!
I have watched Lawrence of Arabia only twice (and I own a home video of it) and all I can say if it is one of the best movies you can ever hope to seen in your life. Perhaps this is one of those timeless, flawless movies that will have an enduring effect on you as a moviegoer. David Lean is one of my favourite directors...I have watched many of his movies and have loved them all. However, I think the two David Lean movies that have had the greatest effect on me are 'Lawrence of Arabia' and 'The Bridge on the River Kwai'.
Based on the true story of T.E. Lawrence, the movie takes us to the depths in epic storytelling. From the beautiful Arabian deserts...and the horror of wars...to the trauma faced by the human heart and mind. The breathless cinematography is brilliant...it carries you away to Arabia with Lawrence. The story is so involving...the strategies needed to be devised, the problems needed to be faced, the fight to unite one race to battle against foreign invasion, and the greatness of a legendary man.
I think the beautiful scenic locations are not the only things that make this a great movie. What matters is the human struggle in this movie. T.E. Lawrence faces the most traumatic elements that he cannot forget; his torture in a Turkish prison, the deaths of the two young Arabian boys who admired him (and whom he had adored so much), the moment when Lawrence had to kill Gasim to keep others satisfied, and the ultimate war itself and the killings of so many people. This in now way had been easy for him and these brilliant expressions are brought to life by Peter O'Toole in a performance that deserved an Oscar but never got him one.
The actors are all magnificent. O'Toole is brilliant and plays Lawrence to perfection, Sharif is so expressive and admirable as Sharif Ali and who could forget the wonderful Alec Guinness as Prince Faisal. I watched this the first time thinking that Guinness was a real Arabian! A wonderful ensemble of actors...out of whom I found none to be less deserving of praise.
David Lean's talent unleashes in this grand epic tale which has all the beauty a film should have...ranging from brilliant locations to emotions and elements going far beyond that. I call this a masterpiece and I am sure many would agree. Brilliant movie. A must for all to watch! Just be careful though...some elements are a bit disturbing.
My rating- 10/10!!!!
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
One of the finest masterpieces ever!
The Bridge on the River Kwai is probably the only movie I have watched once and haven't had the time to watch again (it sits quietly on along with my other home video collection) that has had such an endearing effect on me. My goodness what a movie! David Lean succeeds again...though this was before Lawrence of Arabia. Again, Lean goes deep into the mind of a Colonel played by Alec Guinness in an Oscar winning performance.
The landscapes are again very real and therefore engaging. I think Lean knew that sets don't work too well. The story circles around human struggle and emotions where the characters are facing the horrors and aftermaths of war. Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness) and his men are taken prisoner by the Japanese and are forced to build a bridge on the River Kwai. When everything seems to be going fine, a destructive climax scene ruins all.
I don't want to say more about the story but it did make me cry. Great movie. Great cast! A must for all to see. One of the best epic movies ever made.
Rating 10/10
Devdas (2002)
Devdas is full of glamour- THAT DOES NOT PROVE A MOVIE'S GREATNESS!
This new version of Devdas is the most degrading, horrible piece of junk I have seen in my entire life. And I say this because I have watched Bimal Roy's version and it is one of my favourite Hindi movies of all time. I agree that this Devdas had brilliant colour, cinematography and this aesthetic glamour- but does this make a movie great? NO!!! This new version showed nothing but glamorous sets, costumes and props and that is why it is the most expensive Indian movie ever made. BIG DEAL! I think the money used here could have been used to make a story about kings and palaces, where its feature would have been more realistic.
There was nothing that caught my attention in this movie. I found loads of flaws...right from the beginning and I can ensure that Bhansali did NOT do his research on the Bengal of that time. I believe he is confused with the time...very confused. If one thinks of it, Zamindars in Bengali villages did not have enough money in those days to send their sons to universities in Britain (the real Devdas went to Calcutta). If you see the sets, the houses, furniture, all the props are English- style, not Indian. In fact, his house looks like a Roman mansion and not to forget that elaborate- looking binocular was also very western. We must admit that those days, Zamindar families did not have soo much money to waste to get every single prop from western exporters. So that is probably the biggest flaw: these anachronistic additions.
Another thing is, did anyone notice Paro's house? I don't know what her mother was saying about them having a small, humble house. Both mansions look like palaces. I even doubt that Zamindars in Calcutta had such elaborate houses in those days...and Zamindars in villages???? PLEASE...I even wonder whether Kings had palaces like that. Chandramukhi's 'Kotha' was also like a palace, and Chandramukhi herself was dressed like a queen. There was no space in Calcutta for such large kothas!
Costumes were Indian, but altogether too elaborate and not Bengali...and props were soooo western. How the hell do those two things complement each other? Okay, now let me move on to the acting. I though Shahrukh was his usual. His crying style was the same (with his typical stammering) and I thought all the other good actors were very melodramatic in their approach to the story. Nobody acted well...and Jackie Shroff just made my blood boil when he constantly said "Bondhu". There were some Bengali additions in the dialogues and they looked so fake.
And the dialogues were excessively corny. In Bimal Roy's Devdas, Dilip Kumar says this wonderful dialogue when he lies in Chandramukhi's kotha, soaking in alcohol; 'Kaun kambakth peeta hai bardash karne ke liye, mein to peeta hoon ke bas saans le sakoon' (Which fool drinks to endure pain? I drink just so that I may breathe) and in Bhansali's Devdas, this dialogue has been transformed into a corny, humorous issue; 'Kaun kambakth peeta hai bardaash karne ke liye, mein to peeta hoon ki yahan beith sakoon'(which fool drinks to endure pain? I drink just so that I may sit here). Whatever emotional weight dialogues possibly could have contained despite of the pathetic acting, Devdas (2002) lacks this entirely.
Perhaps some of you are asking how I can state that Bengal was not like what when and that everything is anachronistic but I am Oriya and I come from a village. We Oriyas and Bengalis have the same dresses and houses and villages are alike. Oriyas and Bengalis are very similar and watching Roy's Devdas, I could see the similarities. Everything was portrayed so realistically and I didn't have to question how reliable everything was. However, this new Devdas is shrouded with glamour and glitz and doesn't even consider it important to understand the humility of things in rural Bengal.
Paro's marriage was shocking in the new movie. She marries in a Maharashtran style with 'paan patte'! And she seems so shrewd and backbiting after she gets married. Did anyone also consider that how shameful it was for a respectable woman to visit a 'kotha'? And the new Paro walks into Chandramukhi's sparkling kotha and Chandramuki touches her feet...OH PLEASE! The worst is when they dance together. Paro and Chandramukhi had never met in their lives in the original tale. It is impossible that at that time, women in their in- law's houses were allowed to do dances in front of a large crowd, let alone in front of their family. Even to speak of such things was out of the question.
There was nothing at all that was nice about the new version of Devdas. I think it humiliating that India even considered sending this for Oscar consideration and I salute the Academy for shunning such a crappy movie. At least there are some award givers who know quality movies when they see them.
Let's face the hard reality. Around 40 years ago, India had the best directors ever; Raj Kapoor, Bimal Roy, Guru Dutt, Satyajit Ray etc etc and they also made brilliant movies such as Devdas (1955), Saraswati Chandra, Jis Desh Mein Ganga Behti Hai, Jaagte Raho, Mother India, Baiju Bawra etc. Now we are losing that respect we once had. All the current Bollywood movies are crap and so I don't waste my time watching them. Even Hollywood had fallen into a time in which Bollywood is now, but Hollywood is catching up nowadays and has got some real good movies (such as the LOTR Trilogy). Bollywood has the same cliched stories about love at first sight and the obstacles in getting a happy ending (such as parent problems or other stuff). There are no social issues addressed or dealt with. Everything shown on the screen is this glamour which has really destroyed people's minds. A friendly chat with an unknown stranger proves how influenced young people are by Bollywood movies nowadays. The first question they will ask you is how old you are or if you have a boyfriend/girlfriend. And this is only a small indication of how destructive Indian cinema has been for the past few years.
The new Devdas has no tacit feelings between Paro and Devdas or Chandramukhi and Devdas. Their love is physical- that's obvious. And the people complaining that there was no chemistry between them should re-think. Devdas and Paro, or Chandramukhi and Devdas had a lot of emotions and feeling unexpressed in the original story. The love the three possessed was spiritual and not physical. That is why Paro loved Devdas for so many years without having seen him. Roy's Devdas was so excellent in portraying these tacit moments. There was not a moment when Devdas even held Paro's hand, let alone kiss her forehead as shown in the new Devdas, no matter how much he loved her. There was always that spiritual respect between the characters. And Chandramukhi was no less. She gave up her life in the kotha because she had been influenced by Devdas's love. I see no change in the Chandramukhi in Bhansali's Devdas. Paro, in the original gave all her jewellry to her step daughter and lived modestly, wearing only what she needed. Her husband even asked her why she roamed around like a 'sadhu' (saint). However, in the new Devdas, Paro is dressed with as many jewels as her body can hold; as though the camera would have hated her without them. She shows no signs of a modest living, let alone being helpful to the poor.
I think the movie was an all together crappy piece of rubbish. There was no emotion, no tacit feelings and no story (Bhansali moved so far from the original) and the director just let the glamour dominate the film. Unfortunately, most of the youth of nowadays find that appealing and therefore whatever movie is new and has lots of glamour seems to be the best movie for them. However, if you analyse this movie, there is nothing to find except for miles and miles of junk. Shahrukh in no respect even came an inch close to Dilip Kumar's acting. No wonder Dilip Kumar is called the 'Tragedy King'. The 1955 Devdas had an excellent cast, an irreplaceable ensemble of brilliant actors. If I had been the casting manager for the new Devdas and had all the actors who acted as the possible final choices, I would have considered the project 'dead'. And it is dead. Bhansali had no chance of making a better movie than the 1955 one, so he shouldn't have attempted to waste so much money to make another crappy movie. 11 Filmfare awards is unbelievably high for this piece of junk but I know why it was given so many; just because Bollywood has no good movies anymore so they have no other nominees anyway.
Indian cinema needs to change and revive itself. It will die otherwise. Glamour is not what films should project on the screen. There should be a story that can be related to, that can be called real and believable. We don't have that anymore. To the people who love this movie- I think you should watch Bimal Roy's Devdas. I know it is old and is in Black and White but movies should never be judged by those standards otherwise films such as 'Citizen Kane' and 'Casablanca (though it is not a great favourite of mine)' would never be called irreplaceable classics. The new Devdas has nothing more to offer than glamour that is not possible to achieve in the real world. It is a put on image that spoils minds and makes one dream of everything that is full of money. I know this quote is cliched but it may be the perfect time to put it in use; 'All that is gold does not glitter'. Unfortunately, people's minds have been ignorant to this quote. The truth has become 'Everything that is gold or more beautiful always glitters, whether it is attainable in real life or not'. But if there are proper movie critics left in this world, they will surely know what makes a good movie- and Devdas (2002) is not even close to one.
My overall rating for this movie...1/10. (I have to give it credit for the cinematography and a small credit for the music and songs).
Titanic (1997)
Good in many ways, but not brilliant.
I agree that the first time I watched Titanic, I cried a lot and I still cry when I watch it. I watched that movie when I was pretty small, around 14, and I had no idea of the rating. Whenever I watch this movie, I do realise that the idea I had that it was one of the best movies ever made is not exactly true. Due to my age, I failed to notice faults, but now I can state where they are and how they spoil the movie. Firstly, I do not think Titanic deserved all those Oscars- and 14 nominations were just too much. So far, only three movies have had 11 Oscars and I think only one out of the three deserved more- ROTK. I think other movies such as Gone With the Wind, Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, My Fair Lady, FOTR, The Two Towers and a few other movies deserve to get so many Oscars.
It is a pity that James Cameron had the chance to make this a brilliant movie. If he had omitted a few things and cut out some insignificant scenes (such as the spitting scenes, Jack being imprisoned in that small place when the ship is sinking, Rose's heroic role in rescuing him, all the other nameless scenes and a few other things), perhaps he would have been able to make a brilliant movie. However, he failed here and falls short of all those praises. Did anyone notice that Rose is supposed to be British and how her accent seems so put on American? Those were other flaws. I think the actors who made this movie a good one are the crew members. They made me cry. Bernard Hill, as the captain doesn't say much but he shows that sorrow so well. The others were also great but the main characters didn't act that well- sorry to say. I must state that this movie had brilliant cinematography, special effects, original score and costumes and set design, but it does fall short in being called 'one of the best movies ever made'. Lastly, I reveal my great pity that James Cameron had this one chance to make this movie brilliant and he failed to bring it to that total brilliance. Nobody will make a film like this anymore. We know that. Now, we are left with this good but heavily flawed movie. I would suggest you watch it. It will make you cry but only because of the suffering of the insignificant characters. I felt sorry that Rose kept her secret for so many years...but (sigh), I wish James Cameron had worked harder to make this movie a brilliant one.
Gone with the Wind (1939)
One of the best movies ever!!!
Gone With the Wind is a beautiful classic- a film that can never be made again. This extremely intricate story circles around Scarlett O'Hara; brilliantly portrayed by Vivien Leigh. This movie is undoubtedly one of the best movies ever and considering the year it was made, who can say to what extent this movie pulls you in the awesome story it unfolds. All the characters are so complexly created and so believably shaped. What this movie has is everything from brilliant actors and actresses, a magnificent original score, astounding cinematography, a deeply woven screenplay, vibrant costumes and sets and beautiful scenery combined with an amazing vision of the director. Oh what a movie! It can be watched over and over again and you will always find something deeper the next time you watch it. I must have counted a million times of crying. It is so touching. The characters have such brilliance among them and the actors are just so wonderful! A wonderful, perfect ensemble of actors. What more to say about this movie- I could go on. However, I will just say that this movie is one of the greatest movies of all time and is one of my favourite movies of all time!
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
The greatest film of our time!
The Return of the King is a masterpiece, one whose magic and emotion we will not see in a film again. The Return of the King continues from where The Two Towers left us; Rohan's victory against the armies of Saruman at Helm's Deep and where Frodo and Sam follow the deceitful Gollum into Mordor. The film starts with a flashback where Smeagol and Deagol are fishing...a perfect shift to the past and then the story is back in the present, where darkness prevails and then...the magnificent story unfolds as it takes the audience to every corner of Middle Earth, through the eyes of the characters. I think what is the most admirable thing in these books and films is that the real physically strong characters with kind hearts are not the true heroes. The true heroes are physically weak but are the most determined and the most mentally and emotionally driven. Peter Jackson, the deserving director who got The Director's Guild Award and three Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay brings to life one of the most difficult books of all time. This is perhaps the first fantasy trilogy which is in its essence, very human. There is greed, betrayal and evil but on the other hand, what dominates the brilliant story are themes of friendship, love, determination, trust, hope and the power of good. The beloved book is brought to life by the brilliant cast and crew who gave marvellous performances. It is so easy to laugh with the characters, so easy to love and to hate them, and especially, so easy to cry with them. The entire cast perhaps contributed on one of the best ensemble you can see in a movie (that is why they got the SAG Award for Ensemble acting).
Frodo is played to perfection by the brilliant Elijah Wood. If you see the pain in Frodo's eyes, it is only because Elijah Wood understood it and put it as his own. There definitely couldn't be another Frodo. His loyal companion and faithful friend, Samwise Gamgee is played by Sean Astin. I would say this is Sean's breakthrough. The third movie shows us what he is really made of. His flawless portrayal of Sam brings you to tears. Then there is Gollum, excellently played by an incredibly talented actor, Andy Serkis who didn't only give voice to Gollum but also drove the CGI creation through action. Magnificence is also brought into the movie by the irreplacable actors Viggo Mortensen and Sir Ian McKellen, who played Aragorn (the one who contributes to the name 'The Return of the King') and the latter played the wise wizard Gandalf. I haven't named the other actors, not because their perfomances were not worth noticing but because the list would be endless. I thought all actors were so brilliant, that they cannot be replaced. I think the movie was one of those rare movies which are flawless. Why I recommend this movie to you? Well in the words of Samwise 'There is some good in this world and it's worth fighting for'. And not only that; if you want to think and appreciate the person in you, I believe it would be good to feel with the characters and understand them. Judge yourself and believe that 'even the smallest person can change the course of the future'. The trilogy ends here, a great pity for me and millions of others. I loved all movies and anticipated their release. Now it is over. There couldn't be a better end though than having the Return of the King win 4 Golden Globe Awards, 5 BAFTAs, an SAG Award, DGA for Jackson and the best of all, 11 Academy Awards plus many other awards! I think back to what Frodo said 'How do you pick up the pieces of an old life? How do you go on?...There are some things that cannot mend.' I think this is so true. All lovers of this movie probably feel like this now. To those who haven't watched this...go soon! This is the greatest trilogy (and a few of the greatest movies) of our time. You can't afford to miss the end of the trilogy! To those who don't like the movies, I can't imagine how you failed to see all the elements that make these movies timeless masterpieces of all time. The complexity of these themes and the reality in the story are unparalleled to any other. To those who have not watched a single movie from LOTR, I recommend that you watch all and love them because I can assure you that they are undoubtedly the greatest achievements in cinematic history in our lifetime.