Change Your Image
coza_usa
Reviews
Devdas (2002)
Good cinema
I have not read the book "Devdas" so I would not know how true to the original work the movie is. In any case, I find the movie to be good on its own. Even though the movie and the book are named after the main male character, I was much more impressed by the two female characters (Paro & Chandramukhi). First of all, they are both extremely attractive and give off a very hot energy. The movie definitely has a feminist undertone to it. I did not sympathize with Devdas that much. He had everything and lost it all. He had no one to blame but himself.
Shah Rukh Khan is a good actor to a certain extent. However, in the scenes where he needs to show strong emotions, he falls apart miserably. Even his speech becomes indecipherable, when he cries.
The lines that were given to Paro and Chandramukhi were amazing. In a long time, I was able to hear pure Hindi in an Indian film. Also, for the first time while watching an Indian movie, I was not irritated by some of the background music. It was good classical music that complemented the story and setting well.
My personal favorite was Madhuri Dixit and her 'Chandramukhi'. With this role, she has shown that she is still the best actor (male or female) in Mumbai. The strength and dignity she brought to Chandramukhi, the courtesan, was notable. I hope she continues to make good interesting movies rather than the run-of-the-mill, "kiddy romance" CRAP that comes out of Bollywood.
I do have small criticisms about the movie and storyline. No doubt, the song and dance numbers were great; however, they could have been better and brought up to par with Madhuri Dixit standards. At points, it felt that the body movements were too simple for the great music. Ms. Dixit is a classically trained dancer and she could have incorporated a lot more complex movements.
Aishwarya Rai became too melodramatic at certain points. Nonetheless, in other scenes, she was perfect with the delivery of her lines.
SPOILER: At the end, why does Paro need to scream and run so conspicuously across the mansion to Devdas as opposed to secretly seeing him before he dies? She knows that she's not allowed outside of the house; yet she's drawing way too much attention to herself at such a critical point for no reason other than melodrama. If I dare criticize the original author, I think the ending could have been more creatively done.
Overall score: 8/10
G.I. Jane (1997)
a surprisingly good Demi Moore movie
Demi Moore gave a good performance to a role that suited her really well. I can understand where her character was coming from when she said that she did not want to become a poster figure for women's advancement in the military and society at large. However, being that she was the only woman in the NAVY Seal training camp, it was sort of inevitable for that to happen. Hence, her character's comments were unnecessary.
Viggo Mortensen was excellent as Master Chief. I found myself still liking his character after he beat the crap out of Demi Moore's in a training game gone wrong. That scene was brutal but very necessary. In this case, the social message was that equality in the military does not just mean that men and women get an equal share of the pie but also that they both get an equal share of the pain.
SPOILER: I would have liked to see Anne Bancroft's character on Moore's side towards the end but as politics goes, she only cared about getting re-elected. It was a good reality check for the viewer.
I recommend this movie.
Disclosure (1994)
no point to this movie
I seriously don't think I have seen a single feature film dealing purely with a woman being sexually harassed by a male superior. Apparently, it's so common that we take it for granted. But one privileged male (Michael Douglas's character) gets groped by a former lover who now happens to be his boss, and all of Hollywood and mainstream America is buzzing about this "very interesting" storyline.
As I've said before in another review, Michael Douglas plays the white male victim role really well. His characters manage to cavalierly fool around with various female maniacs, and he still comes out as being the good guy. Also, his female co-stars seem to stay the same age as he hideously ages.
In three films of his, "Fatal Attraction", "Basic Instinct", and this one, the sexuality of the main female characters is portrayed as sultry and evil, while the wives in "Fatal" and "Disclosure" are portrayed as plain, obedient and virginal. What are the male directors of these movies trying to say with this stark contrast?
Feel free to skip this movie if you wish to not hear a well-off middle aged man complain about how he has been wronged.
Trading Spaces (2000)
a good addiction
I have recently become addicted to this show. It is a good escape from the crap that permeates on network television. It is entertaining and educational for people who are interested in learning about carpentry and interior design. I don't like the renovations of all the designers but that's OK. My only criticism is that the participants are not offered enough input into the new design of a room. They pretty much become slaves to the designers especially in the case of Douglas Wilson and Hilda Santo-Tomas.
Hilda may overall be a nice person, but one time she made a very obnoxious comment to the good-natured and talented carpenter Amy Wynn. As a joke, Hilda condescendingly offered money from her budget to pay for Amy Wynn to take an electrician course since she did not know how to move electical outlets. I THINK YOU DO GREAT WORK, AMY
Enough of the gossip, anyway. If you are lucky enough to have cable, watch this show on TLC.
Elizabeth (1998)
where is Ms. Blanchett's academy award?
Cate Blanchett truly deserved to be on that stage accepting the Academy Award as opposed to Gwyneth Paltrow. The way Blanchett and crew were able to chronicle Queen Elizabeth's journey from naive heir to the throne to a wise and cunning ruler was remarkable. (My favourite scene is where the new queen is painstakingly rehearsing a speech she is going to give to a group of ministers) The viewer never forgets the fact that Queen Elizabeth was a real woman with real human emotions. All too often, powerful characters are portrayed in a robotic, unidimensional fashion. Here, one sees that even the most powerful people have great moments of self-doubt and re-awakening.
Geoffrey Rush's portrayal of Walsingham, the queens most trusted advisor, was equally good. Even the minor characters were well crafted and brought in at pivotal points in the film. Much kudos to Shekhar Kapur for creating this work.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Galadriel steals the show
Cate Blanchett's portrayal of Galadriel, the Lady of the Lothlorien Wood, is superb and virtually immaculate. This woman can truly act. She has a very small role as Galadriel and as the narrator in the beginning. However, that turns into great subtlety. The deep yet beautiful voice she used is just perfect for the part. It has the right amount of authority and femininity to it. If anything, see this good epic because of her portrayal of this unique female character.
Point of No Return (1993)
Give me a break
Hollywood should just stop making remakes of good foreign films because it simply sucks at it. Who in their right mind thinks that Anne Parillaud can be replaced by Bridget Fonda. The range of emotions that Anne Parillaud was able to express in the original French "Nikita" is something that Ms. Fonda does not have the ability to do. Ms. Parillaud showed that being an assassin is not all that glamorous. There is a real human being behind the trigger.
The American version takes place in Los Angeles. If anything, a more appropriate city should have been chosen. LA is obviously associated with the glitzy film industry so it did not have the dark edgy feel that the movie requires. Vancouver, Seattle, or even New York would have been better.
In summation, see the original French version and be content that you saw good quality cinema.
Indecent Proposal (1993)
Can I say overrated?
The main characters are really not believable.
Robert Redford plays the cliche calm and suave tycoon who gets what he wants including women. The only difference here is that somehow his character has genuine feelings about love. Whatever!!!
Woody Harrelson's portrayal of a loving husband who is willing to give his wife to some rich jackass (Robert Redford) for one night only to moments later utterly regret that decision is a joke.
SPOILER I can say Demi Moore's character is the worst. How the hell does she manage to fall for the guy (Redford) who turned her into a prostitute? Is this where the male director and male writer play out their fantasy?
Basic Instinct (1992)
Greatly overrated
Michael Douglas has the "victimized white male" role down cold with Fatal Attraction, Basic Instinct, and Disclosure. This movie was so absurd. I don't care how attractive the woman is. If there is the slightest hint that she is a psychopathic murderer, call me crazy but I would choose not to sleep with her. Apparently, Michael Douglas's character thought entirely with his penis, which does not give credence to the fact that he is supposed to be a smart detective.
I don't know why so many consider the sex scenes cutting edge. There were foreign films before this one that had more controversial but also more opportune sex scenes i.e. Tie me Up! Tie me down! & The Law of Desire (both movies by the Almodovar)
People should see this movie not because of its quality but so more people realize how overrated it is and we can bring down Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone from "good actor" pedestals on which they were too hastily placed.