Sunday, October 3, 2010

Endhiran

At a theatre in Paris, French nationals who’ve just finished watching some movie are walking out of the earlier show and stare incomprehensibly at the Indian (predominantly Tamil) crowds thronging impatiently to enter the cinema hall. They walk away with an amused smile or a bewildered look at the raucous scenes. If only they knew a little about the man behind all this mania, they wouldn’t be surprised. Rajni Rajni everywhere!

Endhiran was pre-declared a superhit even before the release, going by the trailer. So expectations naturally were high, and the crowd ever-so exuberant. The title credits rolled with Pudhiya Manidha in the background, and the movie took no time whatsoever in introducing “Chitti” - the robot, the soul of the movie. The brilliance of the animation effects used in the movie was evident from the very beginning. A humanoid robot that can walk, talk and do the shtyles like “The Superstar”. Absolute treat to the eyes. The dialogues in the first half were quite humorous and the robot’s timely line delivery in all the scenes was impeccable. Rajni’s control over comedy was enough to carry forward the film for quite some time. The story developed quite neatly throughout the first half and had you accept the fact that Shankar has thought through the details and conceived the ideas very well. Even the “villain” Danny Denzongpa didn’t appear too out of place. In fact some of his actions seemed justifiable and logical in the beginning. Of course there are some places in the movie where you have to accept this is a Superstar movie and considering it’s a Rajni robot, it doesn’t give a hoot to Asimov’s laws(which is clarified by Thalaivar also).

Aishwarya Rai, still looking quite a doll for her age has played whatever minimal role she has with perfection. Some of the dance steps will bowl you over. The crowd was whistling as vigorously for Ash as it was for Rajni, in some of the songs. That shows some performance, indeed. Or maybe guys never change.

I’d not give too much detail about the second half – consider it enough to say that a Rajni fan would delight in the indulgence in “Rajni”isms. Alex Pandiyanesque style in the 2nd half, combined with the laughter is just brilliant. One can find other references too to movies like Ejaman, Padayappa, maybe even Netrikan. Those detractors who said Rajni doesn’t act any more would be silenced.

Technology is the second biggest plus to this movie after Rajni. Animatronics on par with the Hollywood biggies is indeed an achievement to be proud about for Shankar and the Indian film industry itself. The stunts by Yuen Woo Ping(who's also worked on The Matrix, Crouching Tiger, etc) are amazing, especially the train scene. The visual effects at the end, made at Stan Winston Studios are so mindboggling you will be wowed continuously. Many of Rajni’s movies used to have a snake featured(was rumoured to be for luck). In this movie, the giant snake made up of Rajni robots is quite a spectacle to watch.

A.R.Rahman’s songs have already topped the charts, but visually “Irumbile oru” and “Arima Arima” are the best. The BGM was a tad disappointing though, especially the “2.0 2.0” thing. What were they thinking, seriously! Art direction by Sabu Cyril is splendid, needless to say, as always in Shankar movies. Cinematography by R.Ratnavelu is impressive, though not award-material.

Finally, to sum up, the movie is a very different Shankar movie and also a unique Rajni film as you will find out once you watch it. Credit should be given to both the director and Thalaivar for experimenting and pulling it off rather quite well. The message about the war between man and machine, though clich├ęd, is new to the Indian film industry and has been rendered effectively. Overall, a thorough entertainer, this one!! Just hope Rajni has more in store in the future. Can’t even imagine the void in cinema once he quits.

Monday, July 19, 2010

Inception - A flick with a kick!

So much hype for an English movie has never been generated ever before, what with an initial 100% Rotten Tomatoes rating, and near 9.6 IMDB rating. Christopher Nolan's Inception seemed to be a deja vu of The Dark Knight(which too had reached No.1 within days of its release). So much hype that when the movie released in Lucknow, and in English, I couldn't resist booking tickets and go to the first show I could go to, despite having an exam the next day. Who cares! Christopher Nolan, and I had to watch this movie before other opinions would come out. The movie was an experience that reminded me instantaneously of The Matrix, which I saw 11 years ago. Friends with blank expressions looking at each other during the movie. It was evident after the first 10 minutes that Nolan is going to take you through a big conundrum of a movie, and make sure you watch it again. This is Nolan's biggest box-office strategy(to confuse viewers to such an extent that they don't mind paying once more to watch the movie again).

Complex concept, brilliant imagination, an "open to your interpretation" climax - all hallmarks of a Nolan film. Inception is mindblowing on two levels(I don't mean the levels in the movie) - conceptualization and post-movie impact. Such movies are hard to come by, those that make you want to keep discussing about the movie and finding out new possibilities every time you discuss it. By not making it all clear to the viewer, Nolan lets your mind flow freely, trying to find answers to those unexplained questions or supposedly loose ends. If you are someone who dreams a lot and remembers stuff you dreamed about, this movie is definitely bound to be one of your favorites ever. After the movie, I really have got started on lucid dreaming and reading up on it. There's a lot of psychology and dream-lingo in the movie, but if you take some effort to understand all of it, you'll realise that he's done justice and portrayed the concepts quite well. Even the action sequences go in tandem with the screenplay, rather than being used just for the Wow factor. However, some sequences do get repetitive and feel unwarranted, which could have been improved upon. The screenplay is too pacy perhaps and more time could have been spent on a little character development, as you never ever feel attached to any character all along the movie. It might seem like nitpicking, but hey it's Nolan - we expect the best from him.

Hans Zimmer's score is also undoubtedly one of the high points of the movie, blending well with the screenplay and never seeming odd. A very high likelihood of winning the Oscar unless he comes up with
something better. Cinematography by Wally Pfister(a Nolan regular), and set direction also deserve special mention, as apparently very few computer effects were used for the hotel hallway fight scene, and the special effects were made using a complex set of revolving rings and electric motors and what not. Cast-wise, DiCaprio as Dom Cobb, needless to say is the star of the cast He's at the height of his career, having acted in some of the best movies of late.

Having said all this, Inception's themes are quite similar to those in The Matrix, Dreamscape, A nightmare on Elm Street, etc and the visual imagery(especially the Penrose stairway) used in the movie was inspired by M.C.Escher. Though heavily overlapping with such previous creations, the originality of Inception lies in the screenplay that Nolan has constructed around lucid dreaming. Yet, I can't help but compare it specifically to The Matrix, which dealt with a similarly complex concept about reality and had multiple interpretations made by Internet users even during the pre-IMDB and pre-Facebook era. Nolan himself has admitted being inspired by The Matrix school of thought, but it might be far-fetched to say that the inception of Inception may not have happened if not for The Matrix. However in my opinion, The Matrix as a movie experience was better than Inception. This is not to take away any of the brilliance of Inception, but I guess I'm more of a hardcore Matrix fan.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Toy Story 3

How in the world can you manage to make adults cry over toys? - Only Pixar can tell! Toy Story 3 - a sequel that so convincingly makes the original fade in comparison. How often do you see that in movies? IMDB no.7 within a week of release. Brilliant movie with 3D animation that looks so real, and a climax that is so heart-warming, even if you were not much of a toy-loving kid. The essence of innocence and childlike nature(that my Hindi teacher once said everybody should have even after growing up) is so beautifully conveyed in the film.

Plot-wise, you need not have watched the previous films in order to watch this film. The character development is good within this film itself, but if you have seen the earlier films, you'll certainly connect more with Woody, Buzz, Mr.Potatohead, Rex, Slinky and the likes. I personally saw Toy Story after Toy Story 3 and wished I could have seen it earlier. The fans of the series(who saw the first film as a kid, and are now in their twenties) would be the happiest of the lot. No one would have expected this movie would meet the expectations created by the hype. But it has exceeded the expectations by miles. The action element is like in most of the Pixar movies - abandonment, capture, rescue operations, etc. But the sequences are really creative this time around too  - Usually sequels lose out on this aspect, but not here. Some specific scenes that had me in splits - the one where Woody skids on a roll of toilet paper, the one where factory-mode Buzz calls Jessie a temptress.

The emotions evoked through the last segment of the movie are the most important selling point for the movie, but the build-up to the climax is no less by any means. When the story and animation is this good, you don't need the garb of 3D to pull audiences to theatres, as conveyed in this interview. Stuff matters, and that is where Pixar rules the animation world! Keep rocking!

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Quick Gun Murugun - Go watchhit I say!!

A Channel V cult character, developed into a Hollywood-length Bollywood movie. Not many think it would become a box office hit. It may not, really. But it sure is to become a cult classic. The humour is not the typical Bollywood masala humor one is so bugged of these days. It is a genre totally new to Indian cinema, I say. An Indo-"western" spoof that has stood the test.

Though the USP of the movie is its Hinglish dialogues spoken in Tamil and Telugu, which were amazing throughout the movie, I was even more majorly impressed by the creativity in introducing humor into the scenes. Wild PJs(mokkai in Tamil), Hollywood movie spoofs, Monty Python style wacky writings in the background, the effective use of background tracks(esp the "Good Bad Ugly" ones and echoes), flying and reloading bullits. What not!

The plot is not all that bad too, for a superhero movie(spoof). Rajendra Prasad has certainly justified his selection for the role. Great expressions and style. Family sentiment is also used effectively(when QG shouts Anna, his body language was so MGR). It was already humorous, but those who know he is imitating MGR would laugh harder at that. And the locket bit(with Lola kutty) is also quite well made. Nasser as Rice Plate Reddy, Rambha as Mango Doll(perfect candidate for the love-lady of a superhero spoof) and Raju Sundaram as Rowdy MBA are the major supporting characters that rock the screen. The MBA soundtrack was awesome(gonna make it my ringtone).

Music and Lyrics (hyphen) wow, I say. Sagar Desai and Raghu Dixit(Murugan Superstar). Lyrics by Ankur Tiwari and Shellee. Surely Cult level. "Idli appam sambhar khaao... Quick Gun murugan ke gun gao, yeh hai rebel without a caaauu, Mind it Mind it!"... He he. Of course, the movie may not appeal to many others. So don't come bashing my review if you didn't. Our senses of humor don't match then, that's all. And I don't mind it, I say(Exclamation marke) :-D

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Firaaq

Ignoring political undertones of Firaaq having been released in India at this time, just ahead of the elections, one must bow to Nandita Das for making a directorial debut with this gem of a movie. Firaaq is a honest tale of the lives of Muslims in the aftermath of the Gujarat riots in 2004. It is a tale of brutal reality, conveyed more through emotions than through actions. Infact, there is just one act of violence that is shown in the movie. And that is enough to make the viewer ponder about how somebody could harbour such hatred(that too based on communal grounds) in oneself. There have been many movies that have dealt with the brutality of religious riots in India - Bombay, Black Friday, why even Slumdog Millionaire. But all these movies had to employ many scenes of action and violence to convey the effect. They just made us wonder why such things happen. How Firaaq differs is by delving into the psyche of the victims and capturing the element of fear in a very poignant manner such as not achieved in those movies, even by the legend himself, Mani Ratnam.

There are six stories narrated in the movie, and some of the tracks are interlinked. Every character in the movie is affected by the riots in a certain way, though not in the same way. An upper-class hindu-muslim couple, a Hindu fanatic who was part of the rioting group and his wife who feels guilty for being a helpless bystander, a revered Muslim musician who inspires fellowmen through his songs, another lower-class couple who lose their house in the riots, a group of Muslim friends who seek revenge, and a poor little kid who has witnessed a lot of gore in the riots and survived it. Through the different characters, Nandita has showcased what goes on in a victim's mind - anxiety, fear, helplessness, anger, the urge to rebel, the desire for retribution. The movie also succeeds in making you wonder what the hell goes on in the perpetrator's mind. The success of a good psychological movie is in posing difficult questions, not in answering them. Because there is no definite answer to some questions. That is where Firaaq shines. Even though all the tracks reach a kind of closure, the climax would seem kind of abrupt. One might feel disappointed, but after a little insight you would realise there couldn't have been a better climax.

Acting is terrific, no doubt as most of the actors are/were originally great theatre artists. Mohammed Samad as the kid and Deepti Naval as the housewife of the fanatic shine out particularly. Naseeruddin Shah plays his role to perfection. It was great to see Paresh Rawal in a serious character, for a change. He has funny lines too in the movie. Shahana Goswami is a refreshingly talented actress. A wonderful ensemble cast, overall.

Ravi K Chandran is the cinematographer and he has infused a lovely visual look in the movie. In certain scenes, the streets of Gujarat seem to convey the grim nature of the period even though there is no action on the streets. Credit also has to go to the art director Gautam Sen. Music is by not-at-all-popular people Rajat Dholakia and Piyush Kanojia, but the background score is certainly effective. But one wishes A.R.Rahman was a part of this project.

Overall, a must-watch for all Indians who need to get a grip on reality instead of condemning a whole community as crime-perpetrators and terrorists. I'm glad an Indian actress has come up with an original movie as good as this. The standard of Bollywood seems to be improving, with a lot of offbeat directors creating successful movies. Let's hope the trend continues.

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Jai Bala-nath

"Naan Kadavul" - words that director Bala has himself uttered through the movie. He can very well be considered the God of tamil cinema, one of the Gods atleast, speaking from a polytheistic point of view. The movie is most certainly a masterpiece, a masterpiece restrained by the Censor board. Rarely do you see an audacious movie in Tamil cinema these days, with the hero appearing on screen for less than 30 minutes and creating such an impact. Arya has been patient during the making of the movie for 3 years and rightly so. A very powerful character, needless to say.


This is not a movie for the "god-fearing", the ones who take offense in blasphemy. Because this movie is blasphemy at its very best. Movies like Anbe Sivam and Periyaar were subtle when it came to cursing God, but Bala makes no bones about it. He is so supremely confident of the movie and its theme that a line from one of the characters explicitly cursing the creator received an applause from the audience. That was heart-warming, to say the least, for a non-believer. I was for a moment dumbstruck, just as everyone in the hall must have been. If there was one thing the censor board did right, it was not blanking out those words, purely for the impact it creates.

The movie is about two elements - the mind of an Agori, and the pitiful world of disabled beggars, who are thrust into the world. The mind of an Agori is the mysterious part of the movie. The real life of an Agori is gruesome and is not for the faint-hearted. So it is justifiable that the real Agori is not shown(eating corpses), but it's questionable why even the concept is not mentioned. Is cannibalism so taboo a topic in Indian cinema? Arya had the potential to be an even more powerful character, akin to Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the lambs(where he too had a very short screen time). This is one reason why you feel the impact at the end of the movie is not all that hard-hitting as it was expected before the release. All we are shown are Arya's hysterics and his chanting of mantras. One is baffled by how such a character could exist. The answers are not provided, and even if they were provided, they would go over the head for an average viewer like me, who has neither read the Vedas nor ever had dope.

Coming to the other element of the movie, the world of poor disabled people, who are thrust into begging by a cruel underworld lord(the villain character - he's cruelly brilliant). Bala deserves to be thoroughly commended for assembling such a cast for this section. The amount of research that should have gone into the lives of these people is unfathomable. Some of the visuals are disturbing, however just like a typical Bala movie, comedy is one of the key aspects that make this movie an entertainer. Even with such pitiable characters, the only reason you would shed tears in the movie is because you're laughing so hard at the jokes they crack. One particular boy, especially steals the show. Guess he was Bala's favourite. Terrific dialogue and sense of timing throughout the movie. Pooja as the blind girl has played her part well and has even acted, but for some reason she doesn't create a lasting impact - for one, her Tamil is terrible and she just doesn't fit the image.

The music by Maestro Illayaraja jells so well with the movie. The old songs that appear in the movie(Kannai Nambadhey, Kadavul yaen kallaanan?) are also well-picked. Camerawork by Arthur Wilson is stunning. The way he has captured the scenes in Kasi and picturised the stunts adds tremendous value to the visual appeal of the movie. Talking of stunts, Super Subbarayan proves he's the genius. It is said that some of the actors were really hurt badly during the filming. No wonder Arya's attacks looked so natural.


Any movie-buff would certainly be satisfied by the cinematic and thematic elements of the movie. The movie's reach would be across all classes, and except for the comedy track, the movie can be universally understood. Comparisons with Slumdog Millionaire are natural, but unwarranted. Though this movie also talks about the life of beggars, the underlying reason for showing it in this movie is about the pointlessness of the existence of a God. "Naan Kadavul" will stand in Tamil movie history as the most daringly blasphemous movie ever made, and I have no reason to doubt our chief minister would ensure this movie bags all the awards it deserves.

Jai Bala-nath!!!

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Slumdog Millionaire

Slumdog Millionaire, as the name implies is a rags-to-riches story of a boy named Jamaal who goes from being a slumdog to becoming a millionaire through a TV show. The storyline may seem ingenuous, but the way the story is told is ingenious. We've seen many rags-to-riches stories, but this one is special in terms of its simplicity, credibility and the effect it has on the viewer. Adapted from a book, Q & A by Vikas Swarup, the movie is a joint venture by Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandon.

Most of the movie weaves between the hero sitting on the "Who wants to be a millionaire" show and flashback scenes that show his journey to the seat. It is this interweaving that makes the story engrossing in the first half. The events portrayed in the childhood of Jamaal leave a lasting impression. The life in the slums and in Mumbai in general are shown very convincingly. The child actors(The three musketeers) have done a thoroughly commendable job.



The transition from childhood to adoloscence is brilliant, with a touch of Bollywood, in the scene where the hero and his brother are pushed off a train and after rolling on the ground for a few seconds, they get up as teenagers. The teenage Jamaal is played by the kid who played Ishaan's friend Rajan in Taare Zameen Par. He does a good job in the Taj Mahal scene where he becomes a guide, yarning bizarre stories about how the Taj Mahal was built. In this phase of the film, the focus is more on how the kids evolve and what they evolve into. You see Jamaal's brother Salim becoming a gangster and Jamaal himself becoming a chaiwala in a call-centre. The screenplay lags a bit in this part and you somehow feel the pace of the movie is lost. The movie tries to convey that young Jamaal would go to any extent to get what he wants(if he could do THAT for getting the autograph of Big B, he would do anything to get the love of his life). But due to the poor chemistry between the lead couple, it's hard to really sense that feeling of love. Just that Latika(played by Freida Pinto) is the most beautiful woman in the eyes of Jamaal is not reason enough to believe in the effect of love. With better actors perhaps, better chemistry could have been created. Dev Patel fails miserably in this regard.


The "Who wants to be a millionaire" scenes are really well-made, the set being that of Kaun Banega Crorepati, and Anil Kapoor playing Big B. He does a good job pretty much in the mould of Big B. The build-up to the show and its huge following are certainly justified as one can't forget that the show did create a similar wave in India. The music is simply out of the world, which is no wonder when it is by A.R.Rahman. The background pieces add great value to the scenes, be it Latika's theme or "Paper planes" by M.I.A or even the "Ringa Ringa" in the brothel scene. A definite contender for the OST award in the Oscars. Dialogue in the movie is more Indianized naturally, but as it is a Hollywood movie and as it has to reach a global audience, most of the dialogue is in English. It is pretty irritating to see local Indians(constables and young kids) speaking in English in Mumbai and leaves you wishing all the dialogue was in Hindi(which would have been more realistic and which would have meant the movie was directed by an Indian).

That is the thought I am left with after watching the movie. The resignation that Indian movie-makers haven't reached this level of sophistication yet. Never has a simple rags-to-riches story based in India been told so effectively by an Indian director. The spirit of Mumbai conveyed so beautifully by a Hollywood movie. Though there is the contribution of an Indian co-director, the major credits go to Danny Boyle. We can certainly expect this movie to bag a few Oscars and Golden Globes.