Reviews

This is Quentin Tarantino's first whodunit - complete with all the classic Tarantino touches - messing around with timescales, chapters and backstories - specifically what seems to be US post civil war.

I was not disappointed - kept me engaged for all 2hrs 40 mins of it. The set up is slow and deliberate but superbly done.

Watching Meryl Streep act is like watching a virtuoso performer. She just lights up the screen. Tom Hanks rarely gets second billing to anyone - but he does in this movie. She plays the role of Katharine Graham as a person with mix of vulnerability and fortitude (not sure whether the real Katharine was that sort of a person).

"The Post" couldn't have come at a better time - given the challenges the fourth estate is facing within itself and with political pressures. Time to remember and thank the courage of papers like Washington Post and the New York Times for standing up to President of the US to ensure freedom of speech and government accountability. Not sure if the same courage exists today.

The story is the protagonist. There isn't really an obvious pivotal point - in terms of an individual character - around which the movie revolves - perhaps Tommy - the young soldier whom we see - desperately trying to stay alive and find his way to Britain.

The story of the evacuation of Dunkirk is amazing in itself. Christopher Nolan's take on it - and the sheer desperation and fear that young soldiers feel - during a war - is simply amazing. I loved it.

This movie was released during the height of the cold war and it works because instead of inspiring panic or fear it uses satire and comedy to convey the sum of all fears.

There are some great one liners... including President Merkin Muffley saying "No fighting in the War Room"! It is Kubrick at his best with the genius of Peter Sellers and some great performances by George C. Scott and Sterling Hayden (Jack D. Ripper - what a name!). The chilling last lines of Dr Strangelove (including the Mein Fuhrer) are just writing genius.

Today with North Korea again beginning to threaten Nuclear WAr - the "Doomsday" scenario - is again worth contemplating (tragically) - a truly memorable movie - one that will never grow old...

I've been meaning to watch Blade Runner for 20 years. It didn't release in India when I was young but the movie had assumed cult status in the video library circuit in Mumbai even then. I just kept procrastinating - partly because it had been built into such an event that actually watching it would have to be a disappointment compared to what it had become in my mind. Really poor reason but that's what it is. I finally decided to watch it this summer because I know Blade Runner 2 is on it way (finally) and I couldn't not watch it. I've watched it thrice in the past 24 hours! Each time kicking myself for seeing it earlier... much earlier.

It is 25 years old and its still an absolute masterpiece. The visualisation and imagery that Ridley Scott brings just blows the mind - the dystopian reality (I thought the Japanese lady and the "Enjoy Coke" are so symbolic side by side!). Of course the view of the future - which had till then been shiny (Star Trek, Star Wars - to a lesser extent) - looks nothing but dreary. It's a crowded, multi-cultural view of the future Los Angeles - looking anything but how it looks now. Ridley Scott must have really spent a lot of money creating this vision. It is Los Angeles 2019 (now that we are nearly there - am I glad we didn't go as far down as Scott imagine ed!) - and oddly has a New York feel. Rainy, tall buildings, dense... the streets feel like basements...urban decay is at its worst

The characterisations are also special - but my favourite is the character of Rutger Hauer. The Replicant who teaches the human a bit of humanity. I felt there are a few gaps - perhaps because of the print I saw - in that I felt the move from Deckard as an aberrant disestablishmentarian to an obedient cop is too sudden. As also the love between Deckard and the replicant - Rachael from interrogative to something else.

My simple recommendation to those who have heard of this movie and not watched - wait no further. Just watch it. Of course try and answer the big question... is Deckard a Replicant?!

Very disappointing summarise my views after watching this movie. The first half is very poor - bad acting (a lot of hamming) and poor editing. The second half is a bit better as the action and special effects are pretty good. However I can't get over that this movie borrows heavily from Terminator 2 - a movie made almost 25 years ago (and still looked better and had better acting).

Perhaps Mr Khan, in his attempt to make a box-office hit, forgot that most successful films have good story lines (something this movie lacks). The characters are not developed (with the exception of the young lad) though there was potential for the audience to care and connect with each one. He probably needed a stronger director to put his foot down and say "NO" a few times.

The one positive is the quality of the action and special effects (which is good). Young children who like gaming will enjoy it. For the rest it is a a bit of a drag.

A very unlikely movie with a very unlikely set of characters playing these roles. Holmes being as muscular as he is, Watson not being a dweeb and a story in which intellect is used a lot less than sheer physicality. A good movie but not a Holmes movie.

They try a bit to show the deductive powers of Holmes but it is really overshadowed by all the sprinting and punching. ALso Downney as Holmes? Downey as someone muscular? Wrong on both counts. This Holmes is actually shorter than Watson.

Overall an interesting movie - but I still think some historical characters are not meant to be messed with. Why not make Superman a womanizing, cargo-pant wearing reporter from Daily Planet? Doesn't fit.

The style of storytelling (documentary like) is very effective and hits hard. The best part about this film was that while it was not overtly judgmental about the ills of war (like many other movies) the reality of war and its impact on the people, soldiers etc is enough to send out a very strong anti-war message. Superbly done.

The characters of the three protagonists played by Renner, Geraghty and Mackie are well etched. While sympathy is not sought for these characters, one cannot but feel it. That is this movie's great strength - it succeeds where many have failed. It doesn't try to make a statement - it just leaves you with all the key questions.

3 Idiots is India's biggest grosser of all time. I am sure that is an impossible tag to live up to. So let me relieve the stress by stating that this is not the greatest Hindi movie ever - it however is a very good movie. Raju Hirani shows again that some pretty serious issues can be delivered in the most rib-ticklingly funny way.

This movie has raised all kinds of fundamental questions - but at it heart it talks about all of us living our lives doing something we love rather than what is expected by society alone. It also talks about a failed education system where our best institutes do not churn out innovation. That is real and true. We as a country put too much emphasis on academics - rather than on learning.

Back to the movie - it has some of the best written characters I have seen in a while - Rancho, Virus, Silencer and Farhan... It also has some of the funniest scenes - the wedding gate crashers, the valedictory speech and of course the ragging scene at the start. All the raucous humour takes away from some the spectacular screenplay - as the friends undertake a roadtrip to find rancho.

Few inconsistencies - that these two chaps would wake up 5 odd years later to find out about their friend (as also his lady love)...but overall it is a memorable film. Will it remain a cult film like Dil Chahta Hai or Lagaan (or even Lage Raho Munnabhai) - one that stands the test of time - not sure.

The effect of watching Avatar in 3D is absolutely mesmerising...the world that Cameron creates is quite extraordinary...the special effects quite revolutionary. You can't help but be blown away by it.

For all its technological superiority, the story is quite uninspiring and commonplace (I like the fact that humans are the bad guys rather than the aliens). When one saw Star Wars, what one is left with is not only the special effects and movie-making skill of Lucas but the dramatic elements of the movie. That's why its stays and will remain a classic for time to come. Many movies have broken technological boundaries but they will always be bested by something else more memorable. So Avatar will become another such movie which people will be amazed about for a while until the next bigger and newer movie comes around...

I though "Jab We met" was both enjoyable and entertaining. Movie characters can be over the top (as they were in Jab we met) but the success of a story is their connection to some reality. That's where Love Aaj kal fails...

The characters of the key protagonists are just not reflective of what we see in most people...the idea that folks today are too preoccupied with their work and complicate their personal lives is fair and interesting theme to work on...the idea that a couple would break up, do a break up party and smilingly split up is absurd...that's the same issue with the saif (rishi kapoor) character...I am not too sure the 60s were full of people who would spend weeks and months just standing and staring at the woman of his dreams... this juxtaposition of two generations doesn't work

The story is equally absurd...the angle of deepika's character getting married and then realising she's is in love...imtiaz - better luck next time...

The plot may or may not be the most original - but the depiction and characterisation certainly is. It is violent but not gratuitously shown...it is funny (without being broad)...it is definitely a very stylishly put together movie...nothing is slammed in your face...its for you pick the nuances and enjoy it...

Above all the writing of the individual characters is the best - charlie, guddu, sweety, dhope (my favourite of the lot), mikhail (great name for a bengali gangster!) and tashi... This movie is a directors movie - the acting is good but is really one in which vishal bharadwaj shows the sureness of his touch... this is the movie of a very good director - but also a director who has tasted success and does not feel the need to ensure success by adding moments for all - in short it is the movie of a very confident director... may his tribe increase

For me, watching Wake up Sid was in a sense a director's love letter to Bombay - and the possibilities of life here. It is of course very upbeat and does not focus on the underbelly of the city or life in general. However it is very pleasant viewing. The city of Bombay is probably the most important character other than the two protagonists...

I guess one can say it is a coming of age movie but that would be stating the obvious. It is a good film that does make a break from the standard Hindi film diet of song, dance and excessive drama...that's the most refreshing part of it...

The acting is really good - very convincing. Thought Konkona Sen Sharma was simply outstanding. She is really able to show multiple shades of someone who is trying to find their feet in the bustle of Bombay...Ranbir Kapoor is a very credible "Sid"...Very watchable

This is a really interesting movie. For those who feel the persistent "urban angst" of achieving the trappings of success, but yet not feeling fulfilled, this is a great movie. It is made with passion - and more importantly - delivered with heart and soul.

The protagonist - Aditya Shroff - leads such a numbing existence. He has also learned to numb himself from all around him, including his wife. The humdrum of this existence is superbly brought through by Farhan - but also some amazing sets - the chrome and steel home, room with a view office - the investment banking lifestyle(poor guys, when people want to represent the ultimate sell out profession, they seem to gravitate to bankers).

The path to redemption goes through the past - and this movie does a great job of reprising the past interspersed with the present. Unfortunately here is the first incongruity - the reasons for Magik breaking up - seem specious and irrelevant. Such squabbles happen often amongst friends (one of my issues with Dil Chahta Hai as well - the reason for the break too flimsy). The speed with which they make up - equally sudden and contrived.

However there is some real inspiration about this movie; the characters and lives of the two wives - well portrayed by Prachi Desai and Shahana Goswami (who is the real find of this movie), the powerhouse performance by Farhan (somehow we believe that as a director he would naturally act well - he is really very good)and the storyline with some fabulous touches (aditya shutting off the music system when he enters the car, "jai shri krishna sethji", "i will survive rendered by kd", the dandia show, the Hindi song at the party...I can go on and on.

There are a few moments that remind us that this is a Hindi movie after all but all in all, I was left spellbound. With the concept, the music (really rocking stuff) and the acting - but not with the lyrics and Arjun Ramphal's acting. While this sort of a performance is par for the course as far as Ramphal is concerned, what happened to Javed Akhtar?

Keep the faith Farhan and keep rocking. This is a new dimension of cinema for India yet again

I have always thought Batman was the best superhero. He is a man. Not an alien who flies and is indestructible, a chap bitten by a spider or some fellow whose arms and legs extend all over the place. This is more than just a Batman movie.

There is something fundamentally disturbing about this movie that it keeps one riveted through it. Good v Evil is too hackneyed a reason. There have been different kinds of evil and dementia captured well on screen - "Silence of the Lambs", "The Shining", "Apocalypse Now", "Touch of Evil" to name a few of my favourites. This one pushes the line between sane and insane, good and evil by actually blurring them. One is often left rooting for the Joker in a sort of perverse way - just to see what reaction would be drawn from Batman.

Heath Ledger delivers a sensational interpretation of the Joker - I am sure his soul will rest more in peace knowing that this role would be remembered for a long time. The look, the demonic laugh and above all the serpentine flick of his tongue complete what is one of the most effective villains of our time on screen. If Nicholson was funny and almost ridiculous, Ledger was just pure evil - meaningless malignity.

The rest of the movie - the special effects, batman's fall from virtue so that he can get the better of the joker etc - all seems to pass in a blur while the indelible image of the Joker remains in our minds. Too bad Ledger wont be there when Batman gets back - however the Joker will in all probability remain

I've read "kite runner" and "a thousand splendid suns" and was spellbound by the storytelling. A key aspect of Hosseini's writing is the very humane and emotional way in which he tackles the story. Always poignant but not prescriptive or "preachy". "Kite Runner" captures all the pathos and angst that a family torn apart by the horrors of atrocities committed by various countries who have used Afghanistan as a battleground. The characters are allowed to develop superbly in this very emotive screenplay. The courage and cowardice of the father, the angst and conflict of Amir and the goodness of Hassan. This is a masterfully told story. It is tragic as well as celebrates the beauty of life. The performances are good - but the story overrides all. Well done.

Inspired by Love Actually and that genre of storytelling, "Life in a Metro" is a sometimes insightful and sometimes predictable movie that is well worth a watch for its performances. The narrative featuring Kay Kay and Shilpa Shetty is genuine with many insightful comments -Shilpa Shetty's about the "deafening silences in marriages", the interesting question of which between physical or emotional infidelity is worse. Kay Kay's character of being a loving father who is adored by his daughter was a further dose of realism. Nothing is black and white. Special mention to both Kay Kay and Shilpa Shetty (didn't realise she had it in her) for really pulling it off. Shiny Ahuja is adequate without being special.

The other narratives were more predictable. Sharman Joshi and Kangana Raut - which is sort of a take off from "The Apartment" with Jack Lemmon and "For Love or Money" with Michael J Fox. So were Dharmendra and Nafisa Ali as the loving elder couple.

The track with Konkona Sen and Irfan is very entertaining. Irfan Khan is outstanding - an adjective one has started to use very often with him. Konkona adequate. However the circumstances make for some genuinely funny moments. Konkona as the 30 year old virgin dying to be with her idea man and Irfan - as about the most unlikely of men she could ever see herself with.

While I would not go so far as to herald this movie as either a path-breaking or life-altering Hindi movie (as some of the more dramatic leanings have suggested), I would say it is well worth a watch. It has a good music track - but could have done without the really hairy guy singing, as we changed from one narrative to the other.

This movie beautifully (if simplistically) captures the various conflicts Muslims have to deal with in this world. It is riveting and very courageous. I would recommend this movie to anyone - it is a first of its kind to emerge from Pakistan.

The acting (excepting Iman - who is simply superb and Nasseruddin Shah in his brief role) is slightly amateurish. So are some of the scenes and the rather unbelievable ending. But let that not take away from the core theme and the way it has been handled. It is the movie made for all those million Muslims who shun violence but are labeled along with the few extremists. It is a movie made for all those who live around the world who view the Muslim world with fear. It is a movie made from the heart - so what if a few cerebral issues have not been sorted out

Ten years ago, after the death of Diana, the monarchy was faced with a situation where for the first time they felt the power of the common people fly in the face of protocol. This movie - superbly written, crafted and performed - is another step towards humanising the monarchy.

The movie - which intersperses actual footage with some brilliant performances by Helen Mirren as the Queen - has captured the complexity that it is to be royalty in the UK. There is a growing body of opinion amongst the people that the royalty really is an anachronism (the life of opulence and luxury in the day and age when everyone pays their own way). The concept of entitlement does not go down well.

However this movie reflects the other side as well. That royalty feel they have to take on sacrifice in the line of "serving" the people. In short, god's duty.

I will not raise the issue - however I will say that this movie is a must-watch. It is very well edited to keep a taut and tense feel about it -very cleverly using real footage to move the story along.

I like Daniel Craig as Bond. He is ruthless, tough (if slightly too keen) and certainly looks the part. However this movie which could have been titled "The Making of James Bond", as one big omission. Bond, the Mi5, M etc all are on the heels of basically a robber. Plain and simple. After the great villains - Dr No, Scaramanga, Goldfinger, Jaws - all of whom had clearly decided on inflicting collateral damage to the Earth of historic proportions - this Bond seems excessively interested in basically a simple (and not too intelligent mind you) thief who bleeds from the eyes and the shady guys who invest money in him.

Beyond that the women look great and the action is brilliant (the torture scene perhaps a little over the top - reminiscent of Rambo rather than Bond). However, Craig looks the part. However he does not look remotely convincing as the romantic. The storyline of Eva Longoria is very thin...

I look forward to the next film with Craig. Missed the gadgets.

Every once in a while a movie comes along that has the effect of making one feel a little disoriented. I went into this movie without the slightest idea of what it was about. Other than the fact that this movie had Aamir Khan and was directed by the same guy who did Aks, I really did not have a clue. I felt the effects of Rang De Basanti (RDB) for the next couple of days – I was disturbed. Recently, the movie that did it to me was "Crash" – that brilliant movie directed by Paul Haggis with an ensemble cast that took on characters with different racial backgrounds and explored the type of impact society stereotypes have created. Of course that's where the similarity ends. "Crash" is Robert Altman meets Spike Lee. RDB is like nothing else – an original piece of work.

Ashutosh Gowariker, has really made this movie straight from the heart. It has none of the ridiculous clichés one is typically used to seeing when one sees a story about an India returning home. He has captured something which perhaps no other Indian movie has - that love for ones country can be strong without making an excessively big deal about it.

It is a long movie. But I think the rather leisurely pace of the movie is required because it gives enough time for the protagonist, Mohan Bhargava, to come to India (with his mineral water and caravan) and start to fall in love with its beauty as well as understand its incongruities which frustrate us all as well. I thought there were three moments in the movie that captured it all

1. The feeling he gets when he starts to land in India. All of us feel it. I do even today. It's called coming home. 2. The mineral water - that is a classic. In fact it is a character of its own throughout the movie and plays its own part! 2. The boy serving water at 25paise to the train passengers and Mohan Bhargava's reaction

I am saddened that Indians both in India and around the world have not liked this movie. It will be remembered as an epic. 2.

Having seen the first version, I was looking forward to a good laugh. However this movie really failed to live up to it. Actually perhaps the movie cannot be blamed for it since the storyline itself is quite ridiculous, There was no reason for the Darcy- Bridget split in the first place. Nor the absurd antics with Hugh Grant (the prostitute was in pretty poor taste). The mid-life crisis which is so refreshing in the first movie sounds boring and repetitive.

Renee Zelwegger, looks haggard and unattractive. Also she seems to be overly neurotic - a trait that begins to grate on the nerves. Darcy is passable. Only Hugh Grant shines - he plays the role of the scoundrel with aplomb.

The only high point of the movie is the reprise of the Firth-Grant fisticuff. It is as ludicrous as the first - perhaps even better.

Just when one had thought no one can best outstanding movies like the Godfather along comes a movie like Shawshank, which simply blows the mind. It is a masterpiece of movie making and one which I never hesitate to watch - again and again.

As long as movies like this come along every once in a few years, I will always have faith in the movies

This is the real part I of the movie - and in every way exceeds the original. Stunningly filmed and portrayed - the slower pace of this movie lets one really sink into it.

Pacino has probably never put in a better performance. Some of the truly stand out - the one when Michael Corleone finds out that Freddy betrayed him - and the "you broke my heart" scene.

A classic which I would urge anyone who hasn't seen it to never call themselves movie lovers, and those who haven't for some time, to see it again. It gets better each time.