Change Your Image
agniva_pro
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
A Death in the Gunj (2016)
Delivers what it promises
'A Death in the Gunj' is the story of a reclusive man thrown into depths of depression, misfortune and bullying. A bunch of elitist, upper class Bengalis vacationing in their country house in Mccluskieganj decides to pull an untoward prank against their cousin (Shutu, played by Vikrant Massey), who also happens to be the target of their incessant bullying and snide remarks. They set up a planchette, where they joke about a ghostly prophecy of Shutu's impending death. Life follows as usual, adding insult to Shutu's injuries, till he decides to kill himself in a very dramatic climax.
Konkona Sen Sharma's directorial debut oozes with the stylization, character development and overall ambiance of a Aparna Sen movie. It is hard not to notice that she channelized her mother's soul. Not sure if that was intentional or not. The movie is based on a real incident, described by her father, Mukul Sharma, in a short story of the same name. Chris Tripthorpe, Sharma's friend, killed himself after being similarly pranked, although under quite different circumstances. Drawing upon this macabre fiasco, the story of this movie takes some mature artistic liberty to explore and highlight different tones of social and cultural idiosyncrasies. It is a commendable effort, no doubt, to deal with such complex themes. However, patriarchy and the sinister power play of a deeply classist society stands out as the central element. This is supported, in parts, by depression, sexism, sexual oppression, feudalism and caste-ism, although the last two are rather transient.
That being said, the movie has its own flaws. Overuse of English as the language of communication seems painfully forced at times (one of the reason why I draw the Aparna Sen comparison, the use of English is oddly reminiscent of Mr. and Mrs. Iyer). An odd song and dance sequence has been squeezed in which, despite not being very far fetched, seems a bit synthetic about the interaction between the leading characters and the native dancers. One can't help but wonder how Shutu's misfortune seems to be endless. As if fate has been conspiring against him. Surprisingly, the depiction of the servants/domestic-help has been quite naive. It borders on poverty porn. It neither explains nor symbolizes the back story of their characters representing the poorer section of the society. And the final climax is quite over the top, straight out of a Bollywood masala movie.
Acting performances carve the foremost objet d'art of the movie. Vikrant Massey is a revelation. Having never seen any of his movies before, his extremely skilled acting looks quite enigmatic. He gets into the skin of Shutu and saves him from whatever little follies the script writer might have overlooked. Even in the parts where the plot is tacky, Massey rescues it. Gulshan Devaiah delivers a nuanced performance, much subtle than what he did in Hunterrr. Om Puri is beyond criticism. Everybody else blends in perfectly. Everybody, except Kalki Koechlin. For some reason, she seems oddly stiff and not herself in the entire movie.
All sides considered, 'A Death in the Gunj' is a reasonably well made movie. Not the best, but definitely one of the better movies of 2017. Definitely worth a watch.
Viceroy's House (2017)
A bit too formulaic
Gurinder Chadha tries to bite a portion too large with this ambitious movie. She fails to cash in on the grandiose of the setting and the gravity of the subject. What could have been an epic, ends up being too pedestrian.
The characters have been hastily scripted, their back stories have been left under-matured (and clichéd), the finale is too formulaic and predictable and the photography fails to convince (especially with the outdoor shots).
The acting is just about average. Given the stalwarts in the cast, this is quite surprising. Some controversial facts have been slipped in here and there without bothering to clarify (which could have been a good thing if handled with a bit more tact).
The down-to-earth characters are hard to identify with. The historic characters ooze grandiose but also looks and acts a bit phony at times. Sometimes, it is hard to understand what motivates or drives the supporting characters. Sometimes, it is too much of a Bollywood masala movie. It is this failure in character development which pulls the film down harder than all the other negative factors combined.
It is an over simplified representation of a terrible chapter in history, played out by under developed characters in a make-believe world of their own.
M Cream (2014)
A flowing, meandering tale of the conflict between 'what is' and 'what should have been'
M Cream forms the crème de la crème of underrated movies in recent times. Watching the film in a sparsely packed multiplex in an otherwise charming weekend evening, the reactions I overheard from my fellow moviegoers ranged from idiopathic to outrageous. Film critics from leading dailies in India gawk vacuously at this wistful gem of a movie that neither adheres, nor cares about form or construction in any tangible way. Yet, this subtle lack of coherent narrative sets it apart from even the best of the parallel cinemas that came out of this country in the last few years (or more).
This is a story about four youngsters in search of a mythical hash that goes by the name of 'M Cream'. Based on your personal predilections, you may or may not find the story to be vague (I didn't), but you can't deny the fact that the movie does send across a message that is quite delectably hidden inside the script. It does not make this message obvious. You need to hunt for it. And the delight lies in the chase. It is about the conflict between the conformist and the rebel inside the characters. It is about the hypocrisy that each of these characters carry with them, and what happens when the shield of pretension goes kaput.
This is not the kind of movie that would suit your palate if you are looking for tangible plot elements like thrill, humor, suspense, romance or any such stuff (although, each of them are present, sprinkled here and there with wonderful restraint). It does not step into the realm of extreme abstraction. Some of the sequences does remind you strongly of Trainspotting (but that's just me, there is no obvious connection here, just a faint similarity in the aftertaste). The acting performances are natural and believable. The photography is brilliant. So is the editing. But, having said that, it's the director's vision that transcends everything else.
The Imitation Game (2014)
Loved it, but not as much as I would have loved to
There was a strong hype about this movie and it felt like it's going to be the platform which propels Cumberbatch into the league of Hollywood biggies.
Indeed the movie rolls along the footsteps of Beautiful Mind. It had all the ingredients in place to become a classic. The combination was potent. All the check-boxes for Oscar glory were ticked. Biopic of a genius, backdrop of second world war, incarceration for homosexuality... everything you need to hit the sweet spot with the Academy. The background score was classy, the acting was spot on and the story-line was methodically non-linear.
But it did feel a little forced. You cannot have your lead actor blurt out the movie's tagline every now and then, especially when accompanied by sentimental music. That feels forced. When you make a biopic, you have to understand that 90% of your audience knows where the story is heading right from the onset. When you finish such a movie with "...today we call them computers", that is not very "decorous".
I loved it. But, I really wish it had more surprises in store, specially when it came to the elements of narrative and the finer details. Definitely a good movie. But I won't like to call it a classic.
Triumph of the Spirit (1989)
Driven by performances, fueled by history.
Let us face it, holocaust surrounding second world war and the Nazi torture of Jews have become a thoroughly over-explored topic. Done to death, yes, but this movie came out in 1989! There was no Schindler's List, no Sorstalanság, no Boy in Striped Pyjama or Life is Beautiful... hell, even Europa Europa or the Last Butterfly released after this movie!
So, Triumph of the Spirit could easily have been a reference material for many a modern classic on holocaust. Even when seen as a standalone movie without the predecessors or successors, this is a good movie. The story is based on true incidents, hence it is quite interesting; historically - almost accurate and direction wise - at par with the best. Most of the characters had been explored richly and the cause- effect relationship behind every sub-plot is quite pronounced. The movie never borders on obscurity, yet ends it with a depth that is so often lacking in movies based on real life.
Performance wise Willem Dafoe and Robert Loggia stands out magnificently. Everyone else does their bit to perfection... no hiccups in acting. Sometimes, a bit of production value is missing that we are so used to these days. (Like in the air-raid scene towards the end, any typical Hollywood movie these days would have wonderful SFX showing allied aircrafts and what not... but here it was just the sound Foley and a bit of pyrotechnic... quite old school but very effective).
If you are a true movie buff and looking forward to relive the 80s style of movie production, go for it. You won't be disappointed.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
A great finish to a great series.
The epic conclusion to Nolan's Batman saga was heavy and nimble at the same time. With a runtime of 164 minutes, when the end credits roll, all you're left with is wonder. Is it as good as 'The Dark Knight'? Perhaps not, in terms of performance and wit. But yes, in terms of scale, impact and depth.
'The Dark Knight' was more focused on external entities that challenge Batman. But 'The Dark Knight Rises' is all about Batman himself. The story, as we all know, is about a masked villain (Bane) who threatens to annihilate Gotham with a timed nuclear device. Batman, who was nursing his emotional and physical wounds in quite seclusion following the demise of Rachel Dawes, is forced out of his hiding to tackle Bane. Selina Kyle, who is occasionally mentioned as 'Cat Burglar' (and not Cat Woman), comes to his aide, although in the very end. So does Commissioner Gordon, John Blake (the new guy, a clean and honest cop played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Lucius Fox. Suffice to say, the outline of the story itself is filled with numerous twists and surprises... so much so that it is almost impossible to provide a plot summary without dishing out life threatening spoilers. But... it was a hell of a ride!
I must say that on a few occasion, the character of Selina Kyle serves as a pleasant reminder of our favorite villain-in-a-makeup from TDK. Anne Hathaway, take a bow. However, her character develops very differently towards the end. Nolan hits it out of the stands with the surprise twist he pulls on Marion Cotillard's character. Tom Hardy has a very difficult job portraying a villain from within that mask. I understand it is very difficult to emote/act with just your eyes and forehead exposed, but he manages fine. As some critics had pointed out, Bane did seem a little one dimensional. But we feel that because we take 'Joker' as the precedence... a very unfair comparison! Michael Caine, as Alfred, gets to bring his histrionics out of the bag in this movie. I doubt if the drama was really that necessary! Gary Oldman has some pretty intense moments in this movie. I was rather worried that his acting skills were quite underutilized in the previous Batman movies. But TDKR gets him to perform like the fine actor he is. Joseph Gordon- Levitt and Morgan Freeman are very appropriate with their acting. Marion Cotillard fails to leave a lasting impact in the final few minutes where she could have really made a difference! But I guess that's because Nolan didn't want her to. It has always been his style to downplay the obvious.
The action sequences were good. But when was a Nolan movie all about explosions and martial arts? The real show stopper has always been the screenplay, weaved together by crisp editing and the very involving music of Hans Zimmer. The prevailing metaphor of economic crisis is occasionally stark, particularly so when Oldman delivers the 'help- coming-from-inside-Gotham' speech to Matthew Modine. As expected from Nolan, the story works on different levels to create a host of captivating impressions on the viewers mind.
On a different note, Bruce Wayne's efforts to escape from the prison could have been made a little shorter. That episode seemed to drag a little longer than required (just a personal opinion). But Christian Bale's depiction of Bruce Wayne is the strongest in TDKR. His chemistry with Cotillard was quite fascinating, but that again is subject to the plot twist I will not disclose here. Performance wise, my personal favorite from the entire movie is Anne Hathaway hands down. Unlike 'Inception', Nolan does not end this movie with a question mark. He removes all doubts with the final scene, as if to declare his exeunt from the Batman arena. All said and done, the trilogy does leave scope for extension but I don't think Nolan will be interested.
Now that the series comes to an end, we are left to wonder at the scale of this trilogy. A comic hero movie that gets as acclaimed as 'Godfather', 'Shawshank Redemption' or 'Schindler's List', an action movie series that has moved both critics and younger viewers alike... what a terrific achievement for a director and a screenplay writer! This should win some Oscars, but if it doesn't, no one cares. The Dark Knight did rise in this movie, perhaps above and beyond the altitude of all other super heroes in the history of Hollywood.
(P.S - Unless you talk about the nagging void left by one particular character in the series... miss you Mr. Ledger!)
Hugo (2011)
Scorsese's Tribute to Film-Makers
Martin Charles Scorsese, now at 70, definitely felt the urge to delve deep into the history of cinema and bring out a story (which also happens to be partly true) that so wonderfully conveys both the power of imagination and the joy of film making. Marie-Georges-Jean Méliès is not a very popular name these days, but his contribution to cinema in the early days of its inception is worth a movie. And Brian Selznick penned a novel, The Invention of Hugo Cabret, which elevates this tribute to an altogether higher orbit of fantasy and adventure.
The story revolves around an orphaned boy, Hugo, who lives in the ducts and vents of a train station in 1930s Paris and employs himself by fixing and maintaining the station clocks. As an heirloom of his deceased father, Hugo tries to mend a broken automaton that is supposed to write a message on a paper. A chance encounter with a toy store owner, Georges Méliès, and his eccentric daughter unravels a way to make the automaton work. And this takes him on a journey down the past life of Méliès and he re-discovers the genius of the man who had suffered a long and silent agony of neglect and deprivation. Glory gets restored to Méliès in the most strangest of ways.
In spite of the stellar star cast, this is not an actor oriented movie. Chloë Grace Moretz and Asa Butterfield deserves applaud since they manage to convey the nuances of their characters with a maturity which is beyond their age. Ben Kingsley is great, but who expects anything less than that from him! Sacha Baron Cohen's portrayal of the station inspector was noteworthy. Wonderfully restrained! But, I must say again, Hugo will not be remembered for these acting performances. It will be remembered for what transcends the actors.
The cinematography, special effects, editing, art direction etc. are all clearly visible entities that must appeal to all viewers. The Oscars were well deserved, mostly. (Ok
I agree, the 'Transformers bots' were wicked cool and Harry Potter's final installation was not bad either, but come on! These movies were not 'oscar material'). Hugo is a winner when it comes to 'look & feel'. Scorsese rules. He proves his mettle, once again, by bridging the special effects with the screenplay, the actors with their costumes, the light with the clock work and what not.
When analyzing works of Scorsese, Hugo might not reign over classics like Taxi Driver or Raging Bull but I believe this film is going to age nicely. It has all the ingredients of a classic and in the right proportion. (The only downside is a slight overdose of sentimentality in the last 30 minutes of the movie.) If you haven't seen it already, go dream with Hugo.
Beginners (2010)
Beautifully Complicated
Beginners is not a regular movie. It is irregular, to say the least, in its story line, execution and design. The story is about a man who has just lost his father to cancer and is left with an adorable dog. He has to deal with the weight of his past, his inability to get into commitment and his father's young lover, and all this within a few months of his father's demise. The story line is beautifully complex. But, contrary to the popular notion, the story primarily revolves around Oliver Fields (Ewan McGregor). Hal Fields (Cristopher Plummer) is a very strong and ominous backdrop that dominates a good portion of the movie, but we see him only through his son and never as an independent individual.
This movie has its pros and cons. The story line is very unique and refreshing. Do not expect regular, linear story telling. It is way more deep and complicated. A lot of themes have been merged here (which, at times, make the movie a little messy). Gay rights movement is a very strong motif with liberal references to Harvey Milk and the plethora of American gay activism of the 70s & 80s. Mary Page plays a doting mother with a very wacky, liberal, bohemian view of life and her relationship with Oliver is quite intriguing. But the real focus had always been the relationship between Anna (Mélanie Laurent) and Oliver.Wonderful performance by McGregor and Laurent. They bring out the hidden fear, confusion, insecurity and delicacy of their character with absolute charm. Cristopher Plummer is great as Hal Fields, but I guess his performance has become a little over-hyped. Director Mike Mills tries to do a Jean-Pierre Jeunet whenever he gets a chance to get out his slides. There are some sectors where the movie falls short of expectation. It has used a lot of clichés, to begin with. The back story of Anna remains only partially explained. There is a certain sense of disconnection which keeps nagging you at times. But, the intricate story line does justify a little bit of uneasiness.
This is a great movie only if you're willing to focus on it. Not a date movie. Definitely not for the casual movie goers. But true connoisseurs shall love it.
The Artist (2011)
A classic homage to classics.
The Artist is a true and lasting homage to the movies from the yesteryear. From the opening shot till the end credits, everything is a tribute to the endless series of classics produced during the silent era. That, however, is quite obvious!
What isn't obvious is this: if you forget the fact that you're watching a B&W silent movie in 1.33:1 aspect ratio with intertitles to represent conversations... irrespective of that, the movie is a real marvel! The technique that Michel Hazanavicius chose to craft this film is only half the story. The beauty lies in the screenplay... one of the best this year or maybe in the last 5 - 6 years. And... obviously, the actors.
George Valentin is a famous movie star from the silent era who brings an unknown woman named Peppy Miller into lime light by sharing a light moment with her during a movie premier. Within years, Peppy Miller turns into a big star herself while the advent of talkies throws Valentin out of business since he so adamantly holds on to the notion that he is an 'artist' and refuses to talk. The impoverished Valentin runs into many personal troubles while Peppy Miller secretly plays the 'Guardian Angel' and watches over him to the best of her capabilities. And there comes the inevitable conflict between love, pride and an artist's love for his own craft.
The screenplay flows like magic... it surprises you, sometimes it is delightfully predictable, sometimes it builds up to an edgy showdown interspersed only by witty humor. The comedy oscillates between slap stick, goofy fun to thoughtful and ironic satires! Almost all intertitles used are a metaphor. You're reminded of Charlie Chaplin, Sunset Boulevard, Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Roman Holiday, and many other great movies and film personalities in one go. And the climax is a show stopper, quite unpredictable and very moving.
Jean Dujardin lives his character, breathes life into every move of George Valentin like a true prodigy. Same goes for Bérénice Bejo. Both weaved magic in the movie. The brilliant script of The Artist couldn't have seen the light of the day without these 'artists' in the cast. The acting styles used in this movie borrow heavily from pantomime and theatrical histrionics. But occasionally you get to see glimpses of very modern 21st century acting with muted emotions and stoic expression reminding you that this is not just homage, it is a cult classic in its own right and the director is ready to break all rules whenever the story calls for it. This carves out a new genre out of film noir. The lead pair truly deserve every award and accolade that comes their way. (And they both are a damn good dancer as well) James Cromwell plays a very brief but admirable part in this movie. John Goodman is appropriate.
There's just one thing which seemed a little out of place. The footage of George Valentin's successful movies shows some scene which contained certain special effects which were not usually possible in the 20s. I got the same feeling while watching the Nazi propaganda film in Inglorious Basterds. There are certain elements which couldn't have been that photo realistic back in the B&W era... at least, it usually didn't.
That apart, The Artist is a gem that deserves the Oscar buzz. Director - Michel Hazanavicius, take a bow. Cheers!
Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)
One step ahead. Po-style !
Kung Fu Panda - 2 is definitely a worthy sequel... worth a watch(maybe more), worth the money, worth the expectation. It never falls into any of the commonly know pitfalls of sequels. Quite refreshing a story... wonderful performances... nice animation... good action sequences... most importantly, punchlines are not wasted.
The story in a nut shell: Po is back with his kung-fu legion and is busy fighting and protecting his village. Eventually, it falls upon him to protect kung fu from a deadly foe, a peacock who promises to end kung fu with the help of a deadly machine while fighting with haunting memories and devastating revelations.
The story line is a bit predictable. Prophecies, fragmented flash-backs and avenging the death of murdered parents are a bit old-school now (Some may want to scream "Harry Potter")! However, the screenplay ensures that you do not get bored with the predictability. The comedy of errors keep flowing in at a steady pace. Timing is the keyword here. Both in terms of the script and acting. Special effects is good. It's just about appropriate, with a nice little 3D touch. However, I felt a slight bit of refrain in the weightiness of the visual graphics.... a very masterful touch that stops you from getting overwhelmed by the CGI and lets you concentrate on the story instead. What truly overwhelms you are the performances of the actors. The impossible physics of the action sequences never bothers you, just like it was in the first installment.
Jack Black is awesome. Yes you may die due to overexposure to awesomeness. Everybody else is excellent. Not a single character goes wasted. All points considered... it's a nice entertainer, not deep, but rib-tickling, energizing flick that brings out the inner child in you. Well done Jennifer Yuh Nelson.
Rabbit Hole (2010)
Simple & Touching.
Rabbit Hole is a sad, endearing tale of a couple struggling with the loss of their child. For most people sitting in a movie theater, this is certainly not a premise they'd identify with. And this certainly is no date movie. But, if you just like movie for movie's sake, you're gonna love this.
Rabbit Hole heavily relies on it's actors to convey it's key message. The movie starts without explaining it's background and lets the audience infer the story, slowly. I must say that some of the questions do remain unanswered. But yet, you feel for the characters very deeply. You understand their actions as if they were your own. And most importantly, this movie deals with character development very gracefully. The movie starts off on a slightly dull note. Pessimism is high through out the movie and sometimes it borders on cynicism. But, it beautifully lands you into optimism by the time it ends.
The name of the movie is somehow derived from a concept of parallel universe, and this little bit makes it very interesting. Some may find it very odd, but I found it to be an acceptable stretching of popular science. I somehow thought that such intricate abstraction of science fictional plot elements were best done by Korean movies. But Rabbit Hole breaks free of that norm.
Aaron Eckhart and Nicole Kidman does the trick for this movie. Brilliant pieces of acting from both of them. The anger, frustration, despair, sadness... everything is perfectly set ! This movie somehow reminds me of Revolutionary Road.
All factors considered, I'd say this is a very good movie that gets you a bit sentimental at times, but keeps up a steady pace and coveys a heart touching message in the end. Don't expect to be overwhelmed by Rabbit Hole, you'll be disappointed. But, if you get your expectations right, you'll be pleased with this.
The King's Speech (2010)
Quite enchanting !
Rarely do you get to see a movie that promises a lot and then, lives up to it's promise. The King's Speech is a rare piece, indeed.
The movie starts off with a stammering speech and signs off with a staggering one, with hardly any glitches in between. The basic premise of the movie is fairly simple. A king with a stutter is helped by a maverick speech therapist to overcome his problem and become an inspiring orator. That sounds like a very known territory to most movie goers. But few minutes into the movie, and you realize that this one simply pushes the bar a notch higher.
It is a very pleasing movie, doesn't lead the audience into a lot of uncomfortable questions. However, the artistry lies in the overall balance of the movie. You slowly start getting gripped by David Seidler's screenplay. The actors are superb, takes it slow and steady with superb grip on each of their characters. While Colin Firth puts in a spectacular performance (one you can't miss), Geoffrey Rush goes a bit more old school and pulls off a subtle and deep portrayal. One that fills up your heart but also keeps your brain active. Humor comes in here and there, with a very easy flow and steady pace. Not for a single moment do you perceive the movie as dull. Helena Bonham Carter is good. Guy Pearce is appropriate, though he does look a bit too casual at times (maybe that was an intentional character flaw).
Most of the movie had been filmed indoors, albeit with eloquent art direction. But the occasional sequences shot outside had been filmed very beautifully, portraying a very dreamy picture of the then England. Sometimes, the camera goes in too close to the characters, and stays there for a while, just long enough to give us a sense of suffocation, quite an artistic equivalent of a speech disorder ! But then again, negative shades had been whitewashed with joyous ones and you never perceive it as a dark movie. Direction wise, Tom Hooper is bang on ! This is the kind of a movie where you want to give a lot of credit to the director. The set-up is such that the dramatic elements are high but needs to be tamed, so that it doesn't goes over board. And Mr.Hooper hits the bulls eye ! Perfect balance.
All points considered, it's a brilliant movie and a must watch. And a very strong competitor at the Oscars this year !