Reviews

Rather oddly, this movie has been rated very low by masses. While the storyline is a bit off the beaten path and needs some engineering crash course to be palatable, the concept and context are fairly respectable. The acting suite led by the inimitable Neena Gupta and always impressive Kumud Mishra does a fair job of executing upon the script which sometimes stalls for no convincing reason. Brilliant in her two bit role Rakul Preet Singh is unable to rub off on Arjun Kapoor who still punches above his weight. In their cameo John Abraham and Aditi Rao Hydari put in an impressive show.

Overall, the promising story is a bit shortchanged by the script. Yet, the movie is absolutely worth a watch. If nothing the comical plots and the punchy oke liners provide adequate entertainment for a rather lacklustre Bollywood season so far.

Amitabh Bachhan leads the caste of Badla in a cerebral thriller which marks a high-point in the increasing count of impressive remakes that Bollywood has been producing with remarkable consistency. Tapsi Pannu holds her own in a challenging role but is surprisingly unconvincing in a role where she has been aptly cast.

A rather conveniently unaltered version of Invisible Guest boasts of best in Bollywood production values. The well budgeted Red Chilies production from the house of Shahrukh Khan is lavishly impressive in picking the perfect locales and ensuring high caliber cinematography and edits.

The script is well etched and keeps audience glued to their seats till the end. The intricacies and subtleties of the plot sometimes tend to make the plot challenging and possibly necessitating a repeat view. Yet Badla is immensely watchable and needs an honorable mention in the pantheons of well produced, well crafted and well directed Bollywood thrillers.

Once in a generation, an Indian movie stuns you by its depth of class and breadth of world-class production values. Barfi! is truly a movie that competes with the best in the world in almost every aspect. From the novelty of screen-play to the visual appeal of the artwork, from the compelling performances of the actors to the consistent excellence in direction, from the lightness of the moments to the intensity of the overall experience, Barfi! is a movie as complete as it gets.

Anurag Basu's direction and Ranbir Kapoor's acting are the highlights of the movie. However, every aspect of Barfi! is so beautifully executed that you feel like going back and watching it again and again. This is a story that you don't chance upon every day. And when you do, you want to treasure every moment of it. Barfi! is simply superb. Indeed, with Barfi! Indian cinema has scaled global summits.

Based on and named after the bestseller book Smartest Guys in the Room, this documentary provides an insightful look into the scandalous fall of Enron Corp. There are no actors in this documentary and yet it is dramatic. Such were the factors leading to the 'amazing rise and scandalous fall' of Enron that even a documentary featuring events preceding that historic day in December 2001, when Enron filed for the largest bankruptcy in the corporate US history, seems like a tale of epic imagination.

This documentary is neither as detailed nor as insightful as the book, but it does a great job of providing an insightful and reasonably detailed account of the Enron saga. Overall, it is not of any incremental value for the people who have read the book. However, if you can't go through 464 pages, this does a great job of enlightening you on the drama that Enron was.

Jhumpa Lahiri's international bestseller's screen adaptation, Namesake though not in the same league as the book, is a compelling work of art in its own rights. Though not significantly altered from the novel, the movie's script provides a distinctly different treatment to the way characters are depicted. As a consequence, Namesake the movie, is in many ways is more of a depiction of the life and experiences of Ashima Ganguli than that of Gogol Ganguli (the person who is meant to be the Namesake). Nonetheless, the movie is an insightful portrayal of a lifecycle of an immigrant family - including some brilliant scenes and some tender moments of exquisite emotional glory.

The acting of Tabu (as Ashima Ganguli) and Irfan Khan (as Ashok Ganguli) is of a very high standard. Their comfort in the role of immigrant parents is numbingly realistic. Irfan Khan stands out for bringing a typical immigrant father's character almost live to the screen. He is aware of his children's needs for different perspectives and practices than his own, but at the same time he is uncomfortable at their departure from values he holds dearest to his heart. In her portrayal of an immigrant Indian wife and mother, Tabu has attained excellence in her typical style.

Along with these outstanding characters, coexists a characterization that is less appealing than you would expect from a Mira Nair movie's protagonist. Gogol Ganguli's dilemmas and struggle for an identity have been dealt with in rather brief scenes, and the themes have not emerged well. That is why his reasons for refusing a girl with whom he was happy, and instead loving and marrying a girl, who eventually hurt him, are obvious only if you have an immigrant perspective. That is why the concluding scenes of the movie do not seem consistent with his character - it seems that the pursuer of an American value system in him concedes to his racial roots, but the transition is rather sudden, even mildly abrupt. The enigma around his characterization is the biggest drawback of the movie. After all, the Namesake - Gogol Ganguli - is expected to rise above the rest and convey a bit more.

Inspired by but with a story and ending distinct from Tom Wolfe's novel by the same title – The Bonfire of the Vanities - fails to attain the heights scaled by the book. This shortfall in quality is by no means a reflection on the quality of acting or script but a glaring manifestation of the fact that it is next to impossible to communicate in cinematic form the details that a book can capture. The audience that has not read the book is likely to find the movie more engrossing but the overwhelming reaction is of less than fulfilled expectations.

Tom Hanks and Bruce Willis play their parts with candor but their characterization does not attain glory because of the limitations implicit in the attempt to convert a masterpiece into a movie. The protagonist of The Bonfire of the Vanities is a hero and a mere mortal and a villain in curious measures, a character so contrived that even an actor of Tom Hank's caliber fails to portray the complexity in an effective manner. Bruce Willis though has an easier task of enacting a drunkard, sometimes incompetent but finally lucky journalist and he plays his part with usual flair but no distinction.

The script has been modified from the novel to provide an ending more becoming of a Hollywood production, with the hero not ending in the predicament where he found himself in the book. However while the novel had the readers dulled into realization of the death of the vanities, the movie lets the audience feel flattered by a Hollywood finish. The book's ending is too hard hitting, the movie's merely filmy. The eternal challenge of conforming reality to art while conforming art to reality again gets the better of both the artists - the director as well as the writer.

Drugs kill and the death is not necessarily physical. They kill focus, they kill the wish to live, they kill the humanity of attitude but most damningly they kill hopes and dreams. Ironically enough, the lead characters of Requiem for a Dream are drawn to drugs seeking a short cut to a life which is beyond them but which they yearn for. Eventually this very short cut paves the way for their downfall.

An old lady's dream to be on TV, a young man's urge to be rich and happy, his friend and girl friend's need to tag along while aspiring to live a rich life - all these dreams die an untimely death. However, the audience is not subjected to any drama. The narrative is evenly paced, and realistic with some exceptional cinematography making the viewing experience a delight. The end is tragic, realistic, and painful but every bit true. Conforming reality to art is as much a challenge as conforming art to reality and on both counts this movie comes out on top.

A must watch movie for the young aspiring generation regardless of which air they breathe in.

Some stories portray life in many shades and make all the shades look equally remarkable, even though some are bright and some are truly gloomy. The Painted Veil is an outstanding example of such a story. The movie brilliantly narrates the lives of a couple who unite to pursue conflicting goals and end up uniting in every way. Ed Norton and Naomi Watts deliver one of the best performances of their lives and leave the audience spell bound in a movie that boasts of nothing dramatic and yet is a drama in the purest form. Set in England and China of 1920's, this movie depicts the love, the lack of it, and again the love between a couple whose pursuits were different but led them to one goal. To sum it, The Painted Veil is a sedate, sober and yet stunningly beautiful movie that will engage and enthrall you.

Based on the darkness and soundlessness of Helen Keller's world, Sanjay Leela Bhansali's monumental work Black, is an attempt to take us through the experience of witnessing a human being overcome what is practically insurmountable. Black is an opportunity to witness and appreciate an aspect of human existence that many of us are probably not even aware of. To think of an existence wherein one cannot hear and cannot see calls for some ability to imagine. In the rush of life, we find it so very easy to ignore and block out the pains of lesser privileged that most of us perchance can never even imagine.

Black is a movie as 'real' as is gets – it is even based on a true story. In terms of cinematic excellence it belongs to the highest league. Bhansali seems to have brought that caliber and class to Bollywood that many directors failed in, even when they tried. In many ways, you are reminded of Sadma. But Bhansali's characters are a little more complex. Rani's deep felt pain has been portrayed at various levels – from the basic inability to communicate to a less obvious trauma of knowing that she would never be treated as a 'woman'. So has been Amitabh's sense of commitment as a teacher. It would be an understatement to brand Amitabh's role in Rani's life as that of a teacher. He is more of a father than Rani's own, more of a mother than Rani's own is and in what is a great moment of catharsis his character also rises to dare what the audience thought it would not – be Rani's one kiss lover. That one kiss symbolizes many a feelings – including a commitment to make Rani's life as complete as possible.

Black is full of brilliant performances - Ayesha Kapoor as the eight year old Rani, being probably the most impressive one. Rani herself has attained unprecedented heights of acting brilliance. Amitabh has acted brilliantly, so brilliantly that it seems almost effortless. Minus any songs and any Bollywood style twists and turns, Black probably marks the beginning of a new era in Indian cinema. In the final analysis, Bhansali's best direction until date – Black - is a great testimony to a great director who is not defined by his environment but defines it by his creations.

What happens when two heartbroken women swap their lives (or most of it) for a holiday season? It would predictably be almost like flowing with the course of other's life and to revel in the little or large pleasures the life of another person would bring. To that extent 'Holiday' is full of rather predictable outcomes with Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslet both eventually finding some love and some solace for their broken hearts. That the final outcome of their foreign ventures has been left to the audience's imagination helps the viewer focus on the 'Holiday' aspect of the experience and not look beyond.

'Holiday' succeeds is in making the audience feel good with a Christmas time story of finding love away from home - and in the process may be finding another home. The script's unwillingness to explore possibilities that would have been - if the writer and director were willing to explore outcomes less predictable - means that the movie ends up being a typical Hollywood feel good comedy. But then trying outcomes less predictable would be depriving 'Holiday' of its essence of being a light love comedy. In all, it is a good movie for a weekend relaxation but not the one that would excite a critic's mind.

Countries, people and ideologies world over have forever debated upon the justifiability of capital punishment. Many arguments and counterarguments later an average person still forms his impression based upon some or the other personal experience. Someone who has no strong religious belief or who has not suffered -directly or indirectly- from any criminal act would arguably find herself in a dilemma to take sides.

Dead Man Walking gives the audience an unbiased insight into the social issue of capital punishment. A subtly crafted script, brilliant performances by Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon and a delicate portrayal of events that lead to the execution of Sean Penn - for a brutal double crime of raping and killing - and most compellingly, the act of execution itself - gives the audience a first-hand exposure to the trauma experienced by all involved.

It is indeed a very fine line. To kill or not to kill - that is the question. Why and who kills - is not the echoing thought you are left with. Instead you are haunted by the question - is it right to end a life regardless of who, when, why, how? Sean Penn's last words suggest otherwise. He has lived in a state of denial - not confessing and probably in his self-delusion convincing himself that he too was a victim of a bigger act of serendipity. When he breaks down in an uneventful moment and accepts his crime before Susan Sarandon, -the nun who has done everything she could to give him a fair chance - and subsequently apologizes to the parents of the victims just before his execution, the scenes of the brutal and shameless crime are brilliantly juxtaposed to the sophisticated act of execution. In those breathtaking final moments of catharsis, the audience is left with the big question - is taking a life right? Regardless of who does it.

A must watch movie that leaves us with an issue to ponder over.

Watching 'Leaving Las Vegas' can be an experience that takes a gloomy sadness to the interiors of your existence and keeps you immersed in it. As human beings, we consistently put the highest premium on our being alive. Experiencing the intensity of a despondent Nicolas Cage committed to taking his life by drinking himself to death, can trigger off a question as to what can prepare someone for such an act of self-destruction. Intriguingly enough we get no clear answers though there is a clear hint as to it might have been a profound sense of loss or failure.

Singular focus on the moribund obsessions of Cage would be gross injustice to the incredibly touching love and empathy that he shares with the lead female protagonist - Elisabeth Shue - who plays a hooker's role with levels of dexterity rarely attained. There is a very deep understanding and mutual acceptance between the two lead characters that is in many ways the true highlight of this movie. Interestingly, we see no reasons for this to exist but such is the articulacy of characterization that not even for a second does one find this profound relationship unrealistic.

'Leaving Las Vegas' is an iconoclastic love story whose control over the audience is fascinating. Such is the brilliance of the performances that you feel a lump in your heart by the end of the movie - and this lump transcends into the depths of your being - to stay there and to remind you that unconditional love exists and so does the capability to invite your own death to walk up to you - gradually and consistently. 'Leaving Las Vegas' is a movie that would haunt you for its portrayal of love intertwined with morbid realities of life.

When you see a war veteran campaigning against the very war in which he was willing to die once, you begin to have second thoughts about the intent behind the war. Many Americans went deep into this deliberation when veterans like Ron Kovic went on record questioning the wisdom behind US's offensive against Vietnam. Regardless of historical outcome of the war, the question will haunt USA forever -was the Vietnam War a noble and just cause. Your answer could be anything depending upon your political and ideological preferences, but the reality of thousands who lost their lives and limbs continues to hurt.

Oliver Stone's Born on Fourth of July - based on the true story of Ron Kovic - takes the audience through the triumph and trauma of a crusader who went from one side of the war debate to the other. Ron wanted to fight for his country and stop the evil force of communism dead in its tracks. He went to Vietnam to defend his nation but came back soon, injured and doomed to suffer further. In the inadequately equipped hospital, his dreamer instincts crashed against the harsh realities of political ambivalence, not for the first time though.

Over next eight years that are depicted in this masterpiece, the character of Ron Kovic (played by Tom Cruise with unprecedented brilliance) goes through the trauma of knowing that no one will "love him now", that even his own sibling is not on the same side of ideology, that the government had more pressing issues than taking good care of war veterans, that his countrymen did not necessarily endorse of his view point. The reality that he killed a soldier from his own army, the reality that he was the unfortunate one to butcher children and women in Vietnam, the reality that he would not be able to father a child, the reality of his realization that his government had made a wrong case for the war - it all kept gnawing at his conscience. It kept gnawing him until he opened up to speak about what was wrong about this war. Thus 'ended' the patriotic fervor of a driven person, but he continued his passion as an antiwar activist.

Born on Fourth of July may have been the story of one Ron Kovic, but there are many others whose sentiments would echo with this veteran's. At the end, there is no easy way out of this debate. War always comes with its baggage of pain, trauma and hurt. Whether Vietnam was a mistake or not - the arguments would go on forever. So would the history of people who aspired to be motivated by JFK's historical urge - Ask not what your country can do for you, See what you can do for your country - only to realize that in every war there is only one casualty - the human spirit. And this reality hurts.

Regardless of its flaws and faults, KANK is a bold and realistic attempt to portray the dilemma of Indian NRI's who live American lives but marry as per Indian norms. Where the director falls short is not in the right idea but in the realistic characterization, and following a script that rarely portrays the pains of two loveless marriages. A serious topic needs a serious portrayal. Karan Johar's otherwise popular attempts at comical relief have gone awry in KANK because the treatment never gets serious enough to call for a break. Pains of relationships bound by social pressures and traditions, are not an Indian wedding (KHNH) or a teenage romance (KKHH). Mixing fun and humor with such a serious issue can distract the audience and KANK suffers on this account.

The flaws of script and lack of right directorial focus can, sometimes, be made up by individual acting brilliance. Unfortunately, the movie is not helped by the typical 'Sharukh Khan show'. Neither does a reasonably happy looking Preity Zinta make the audiences sympathize with her husband's perpetual lack of involvement. Abhishek and Rani share another loveless marriage but that does not come across as a serious issue apart from during a few outbursts. Amitabh is brilliant but his impact is to distract the audience if at all and KANK's last hope is lost with his demise before the critical climax. His brilliance if properly utilized might have helped a rescue act. Even music, an otherwise strong aspect of a Karan Johar movie, rarely attains the heights Shankar Ahsan Loy have scaled in the past.

Overall, KANK - a bold effort at saying goodbye to conventions - has less than succeeded because of factors that are obvious in hindsight. Sadly, even the genius that he is, Karan Johar, did not see it while directing KANK. Nonetheless, Indian cinema will be better off with KANK in its archives than without it - not so much for what the movie achieves but for what it fails to attain.

Kisna would make the director Subhash Ghai proud. In this movie Ghai has created some remarkable characters. Vivek Oberoi as the lead man and both Isha Shravani and Anotonio Bernart as lead women have performed very well. Kisna is a movie in which morals have been combined with art to convey a message about the essence of the Indian trinity of karma (duty), dharma (religion) and prema (love).

One place Kisna fails is that it gets repetitive in parts. The fight sequences drag and so does the endless number of times Kisna saves Catherine. That apart Kisna portrays art in many forms - in Isha Shravani's dances, in Anotonio Bernart's flawless performance, in A R Rahman's music, in Shiamak Davar's choreography. Each of these by itself is remarkable but Kisna is a movie in which the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Overall, a good movie.

While it is difficult to argue that the new Don comes close to the original act of Amitabh Bachhan, it would be fair to say that Shahrukh Khan does an impressive job of taking on a challenge that many actors would rather not - step into the shoes that are almost impossible to match up to. The original Don was a cult movie, the new Don is a modern day action flick with great emphasis on form and presentation. Though brilliant in patches - such as in the climax and good in most parts Don does not live up to the expectations that people would have from a Farhan Akhtar movie.

The script of Don succeeds in retrospect. At the end of the movie there is an urge to go back and see it with the insight gained in the climax. However, while watching the movie the viewers, particularly the ones who have seen the one from the 70's, feel that the movie is not up to the mark. At the end of the day, Don is acceptable partly because of Shahrukh Khan's impressive performance and partly because of the script that keeps the audience engaged if not enthralled.

In the final analysis, the viewing experience would be different for the two sets of audiences - the ones who have watched the original Don and the ones that have not. The people who have seen the original Don would be broadly disappointed and sometimes intrigued. The viewers with fresh perspective would be somewhat thrilled by slick action, vaguely impressed by the script and nearly entertained by the actors' performances. Regardless of which group you come from, you nonetheless are likely to feel that this movie underachieves compared to what it sets out to do.