Government Okays Indian Summers

The script of director's Joe Wright's next period venture, Indian Summers based upon the book ndian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire (2007) by Alex von Tunzelmann has been green-lighted by our right honourable government. Holy shit! Now Joe Wright's gonna make it before I even reach film school. Oh how bad I really wanted to make a film on that book. Damn Joe Wright! If I ever lay my hands on that person who gave him this idea... he's a dead man.

Well seriously now, government has indeed cleared the project, though of course with some riders, such as the presence of a government official at all times during the shoot and absolute non-deviance from the script. The fact that the film is going to be directed by Joe Wright comes as a relief actually from seeing his earlier period dramas like Pride & Prejudice (2005) and Atonement (2007) which were quite impressive. But there's always a fear that he might it make more 'British' in feel rather than Indian, which would be a great injustice to India and her struggle for freedom.

And yet another thing that worries me is the choice of casting Cate Blanchett and Hugh Grant as the Mountbattens. Now of course Cate Blanchett is a fantastic actress but it still doesn't help the fact that she's extremely ugly. Falling in love with her might be a little difficult for our screen Nehru. And then comes Mr. Hugh Grant. Believe me guys when I say Hugh Grant is one of my all time favourite actors, but ask anybody who has seen his films and they will agree that he will be a miscast as Mountbatten. With his fluttering eye-lids and nuanced mannerisms he will be best at imitating a dead Mountbatten, unless of course he suddenly decides to show his long elusive versatility. 

For Mountbatten's role I got a suggestion. How about Mark Strong. If you have seen RocknRolla (2008), you know what I am talking about.

The Fall of David Dhawan

The 'No. 1' guy, as he can be famously called, must be an rather unsatisfied man these days. After delivering hits after hits (financially speaking) in the last decade such as Biwi No. 1 (1999), Hero No. 1 (1997), Judwaa (1997), Coolie No. 1 (1995) etc, the present decade has offered him only flops. Except maybe Mujhse Shaadi Karogi (2004), all his other ventures had one thing written in bold on them - 'Beware. David Dhawan Inside'. He has directed 15 films since 2000 and out of those only 1 film could be called a 'hit'.

Ever wondered why the man once so famous as India's best comedy director, today so effortlessly bites the dust? Why the sudden transformation? Well his new generation films are almost as stupid as they were 10 years back. So is then the Indian audience finally maturing? No, can't really be sure of that. Films like the recently released Wanted(2009) are a case in point.

So what is it then? A combination of factors most probably. His over-reliance on a specific bunch of actors (did I mention Govinda?), extremely unimaginative and stupid storylines, predictable endings and a superb failure to come up with something even remotely new. The Indian public is an idiot, but even idiots can get frustrated if you test them a little too much.

Gomorra: A Review

Good or bad, this film sure hits hard and hits it good. Directed by Matteo Garrone, it is based upon the novel by Roberto Saviano which deals with organized crime called Camorra (almost like the Mafia) in the Naples and Caserta region of Italy. A radical departure from the time tested conventions of gangster flicks, this movie tries to intertwine five separate stories of Italians whose lives are touched by organized crime (Camorra).

A little background information about the Camorra can come in handy in here since most people outside of Europe or of Italy for that matter, most probably haven't ever heard about it. Now according to the venerable Wikipedia, the Camorra is a mafia-like criminal organisation, originating in the region of Campania and the city of Naples in Italy. It finances itself through drug trafficking, extortion, protection and racketeering and its activities have led to high levels of murder in the areas in which it operates. It is the oldest criminal organisation in Italy. And according to the movie itself, Camorra accounts for the most number of deaths annually in the whole of Europe.

Talking about the movie itself, it sorts of blurs the distinguishing line between a studio-produced film and a documentary. It's gritty cinematography, shaky camera-work, non-glamorous approach and the lack of an structured narrative makes it extremely realistic but at the same time severely reduces its entertainment value. The bleak urban Italy painted in the film is a far cry from the regal beauty of the Italy shown in tourist brochures. The Italy in Gomorra is crumbling down upon its own stark, squalid and bloody foundations.

For the first 45 minutes the story is tough to get hold of, and it only starts to clear up after the 90 minutes mark. The film presents the viewers with such a huge number of characters and situations that it sometimes becomes quite tough to hang on to the storyline. There was very little interconnectedness, the characters just chopped in and out of the story without any apparent relevance and lacking any cohesion. It was the indeed only the common social fabric that binded all the characters together. Now this is both an achievement for the director as well as a tough nut for unsuspecting audience to crack.

The film is unique in more aspect as well, in the fact that it completely shakes itself free of any empathy for the characters which makes it extremely emotionally uninvolving. But the viewer is allowed to soak in the decadent atmosphere and for two hours co-exist in the world of Comorra. Lastly it must be said that the film manages to generate the same feeling of annoyance and intimidation that it tries to expose in the story. The film is more rather a portrayal of society at its edge.

PS: I have to agree though that for persons who relate more to the subject matter than ordinary people sitting in a different country in a different continent, it is bound to generate more respect and admiration.

Plus factors: Cinematography, plot, and characterisation.

Minus factors: Story, duration of the movie, choppy narrative and dialogues.

My Score: 5.5/10

Pokiri: A Review

I am confused. Are totally mindless masala movies like these even supposed to be reviewed? So today let me hit this movie in a totally different way.

20 Things you learn from Pokiri:

1. Heroes have exceptional superhuman strength.

2. Heroes love to fight in sheds because it is a nice place.

3. You should never lose the keys of the shed after locking it.

4. The hero always dances and sings after a successful fight.

5. The hero loves to dance with girls in blue sarees.

6. You should wear 3 shirts on top of one another even in summers to look smart.

7. Guns used by the police have crooked barrels.

8. Girls like it when you stop them in railway stations and stare at their breasts.

9. Hero learns to use a pistol by seeing movies.

10. Police Sub-Inspectors are sex-starved and corrupt.

11. Villains love BDSM.

12. Hero's gun never needs to be reloaded.

13.  The bad guys need to reload after every 2 shots.

14. Girls wear skimpy clothes and sing in hoarse voices to impress the hero.

15. The hero is better than even the desperado Antonio Banderas as he kills all the guys who come to kill him in his house. Even Banderas had to flee.

16. He loves to dance and sing with item girls in between a meeting with the head villain.

17. Good looking girls have bastard boyfriends.

18. All rogues are actually undercover police officers, or brothers of police officers.

19. Police SIs are dull minded.

20. Police Commissioner sends only 1 police officer to take down an entire gang of 20-30 hardened criminals. And that officer doesn't even care to take a gun!

P.S. I Love You: A Review

"This is a movie that will leave you stunned and stupefied from beginning to end, if you don't head for the exits first. The only good things in it are Lisa Kudrow and Swank's wardrobe. The plot is unbelievable, although a competent script could have fixed that. The direction is flabby and uninspired, the casting is wrongheaded, and the performances run the gamut from uninteresting to insufferable ... the film wants terribly to be Ghost without a potter's wheel, but it just succeeds at being terrible."

This is what Mr. David Wiegand of the San Francisco Chronicle had to say. Well as for me, I won't be so harsh on the poor film, but would like to elaborate on a few points.

Firstly I would have liked it immensely if the story had been set in Ireland, as it was originally in the novel. It would had certainly increased the cinematographic options at the very least. Forgetting the rather ambitious plot and storyline, overall it looks quite clean and organized. But it has to be said that both direction and acting were at severe fault, as I felt no connection to any of the characters. Swank just didn't get her act right. Something was missing always. As for the rest of the actors and actresses, they were just about average. You should blame bad casting too. 

Then comes the total duration of the movie which was simply too long. It was really hard to stop myself from quiting at 45 minutes. For a film over 2 hours long, it simply lacked the depth and the approach you would have expected. Even the soundtrack wasn't good enough.

But there were a few bright spots also. One of them being the rather nice chemistry between Hillary Swank and Gerard Butler (girls will love him!). And the other being Lisa Kudrow. And yes, I rather liked the ending. Didn't expect that.

Plus Factors : Story, chemistry between Swank and Butler, and Lisa Kudrow.

Minus Factors : Direction, casting, duration of the movie, script and the soundtrack.

My Score : 5/10

Presenting the Memory Cleansing Drug

Wow! Is this real man? Science really doesn't know any bounds, does it? I don't know how many of you have seen Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but it very well seems that the science-fiction drama may become a stark reality in the days to come.

In the most brilliant movie mentioned above starring the beautiful Kate Winslet and the equally wonderful Jim Carrey, both of them portray a couple who undergo a medical procedure to erase each other from their memories when their relationship turns sour. The scientists at Friedrich Miescher Institute in Switzerland have done something remarkably similar. They have developed (at least theoretically) a memory-cleansing drug that has the ability to remove any recollection of unhappy or embarrassing incidents, like childhood teasing or upsetting memories of a failed love affair. Pretty exciting, huh?

During the successful animal trials, the animals were given a drug that dissolves a barrier around amygdala - the almond-shaped organ in the brain where mammals store their memories of fear. It was found that after receiving the drug, the animals stopped being scared of sounds linked to electric shocks, indicating the memories had been erased. Homo sapiens share the same organ which can another way of saying that the drug can work on humans too.

Another big achievement of medical science, but aren't mistakes and unhappy memories the single biggest reason why we learn? With all our memories of our mistakes, our hard earned wisdom might go too, and our ability to learn and store.

Glory: A Review

While watching Glory (1989) one of my friends came calling and it was a couple of hours until he finally left. All this time I just couldn't wait to get back to the movie. This is the beauty of a good movie. Well now let's get to the job.

Glory is a American civil war saga about the Union's first all-black volunteer company with the main protagonist being the commanding officer of the regiment Colonel Robert Gould Shaw. The movie begins at the Battle of Antietam and follows through the formation of the black unit and its training, and ultimately ending at the storming of the Confederate held Fort Wagner. Directed by Edward Zwick (of Blood Diamond fame) the film is simply marvellous. Though there were quite a few historical inaccuracies, those were made good by the excellent direction. This is not just another mindless chauvinistic war movie, but rather a war drama as it tries to analyse the sentiments of the men charged with the responsibility of protecting the American Union. Matthew Broderick as the baby faced Col. Robert Gould Shaw does a great job, though sometimes he leaves something to be desired. But still after Ferris Bueller's Day Off (his movie which I saw last) he still manages to surprise me. Cary Elwes (one of my favourite actors) is also quite good, but his rather small role doesn't really justice to his capabilities. Denzel Washington as the hot headed Trip is one of the greatest characters in cinematic history and singlehandedly becomes the uncontested spokesperson of black anger. Morgan Freeman is his great self as usual, and Jihmi Kennedy plays a rather interesting cameo with a nice accent. One stand-out of this film is the near about absence of any female characters. And lastly a mention about the music by James Horner - simply fabulous. It almost doubles the impact of what we see on the screen.

Plus factors - Great direction, great script, great acting, great characterisation, good utilization of characters and great music.

Minus factors - Average cinematography and quite a few historical inaccuracies.

My Rating - 8/10.

The Day I saw 2 Movies

Didn't have pretty much to do the whole day. Most of the time I fiddled around with FL Studio on some songs I had been working upon with Priyankar. And the rest of the time was spent watching two mindless films (pure timepass). One was Accepted (2006) and the other was She's the Man (2006), for the both of which I provide a little short review down below.

Accepted is a story about a guy, who after being rejected to every college he had applied to, sets up his own college to satisfy his parents. 
Plus Factors - Good timepass, feel good movie
Minus Factors - Bad characterisation, stupid direction, highly flawed screenplay and average acting.
My Rating - 5.5/10.


She's the Man was the second movie, and I finished the 150 minute movie in about 20-25 minutes. Because I absolutely hated this movie. I hated it, hated it, and hated  it. I hated every second of it that I watched. So I won't bother much with the review itself.
Plus Factors - A talented storyline
Minus Factors - Bad direction, bad dialogues, absolutely terrible acting, stupid screenplay, obnoxious casting and highly irritating.
My Rating - 2.5/10

Lilja 4-ever: A Review

Now what is this? It's a Swedish film (though mostly in Russian and not very famous). And how I came to know about it is a little story in itself.
I am a fan of the Bourne film series, and just out of curiousity (I simply love to read about my favourite films) I was researching about the whole series. While going about it I came across Oksana Akinshina who had a small role in the second Bourne film, The Bourne Supremacy. Reading further about her, I found that she was in a highly acclaimed film 'Lilja 4-ever' by a Swedish director, Lukas Moodysson a few years earlier (in 2002). From the inrefutable Sir Wikipedia I came to know that this film was about poverty and human trafficking in Europe. Hmmm... for a person like me sitting in India, it is sometimes a little tough to visualize such evils (usually associated with third world countries) amongst the picturesque slopes of Europe. The user comments in IMDb further tempted me, and at last I decided, "Yes! It must be viewed." And indeed it was.

Shot in a partly documentary manner and set in some former USSR republic, it is an extremely bleak drama about a girl named Lilja (pronounced Lilya). It's the story of her downward spiral as her life goes from bad to absolute hell. The starting scene with the Rammstein song 'My Heart Burns' sets the harsh tone of the film as it tries to highlight the dual issues of human trafficking and sexual slavery. The sex montages are successful in juxtaposing the ugliness of the world and of the men who take advantage of another's distress and the innocence of Lilja. Volodja's character is also quite touching, especially the rooftop scene with Lilja. The story and the charcterisation both score well, and speak volumes about the talent of Lukas Moodysson. The movies is sad, but it's sad for a reason.

Plus factors: Realistic direction, strong story, good characterisation, good acting.
Minus factors: Poor editing, poor sound mixing.
Overall: It's good, but could have been really better.
My IMDb score: 7/10

The Best Movie Library you can get for free

It's been a long search for the right movie collection software, but thankfully I can call that worthy. A movie buff like me can do very well with a movie collection organizing software which can also store the film crews, ratings, genres, posters, and a outline of the plot. There are a lot of softwares to this effect in the market, but unfortunately most of them come with a price tag. Now this spurned on a search for a free one which could do the job reasonably well.
With Google as my acting partner, I managed find some of these. Included were Movienizer, Griffith and Movie Manager. The next step was trying all of them out.
Lets start with Griffith. Griffith is still in a developmental state (may be that's why its free). It was quite unstable when I used it as evident from the frequent error messages. It also provides only the most basic functionalities.
The Movie Manager download consisted of an .rar package which lacked an exe file (or anything even remotely similar), thus hindering all my efforts to install it (pardon me if I was doing something very stupid). Couldn't really find a way.
Movienizer was easily the best of the lot. With great search scripts (you can write your own even) and a convenient choice of data fields, it was extremely user-friendly. Maybe its only drawbacks were -- uncustomizable report exports, and the inability to update the database automatically by itself. But one thing was certain, that this was the best you are going to get for free. So guys allow me to recommend this piece of free heaven.
You can get it here.

What's wrong with Karan Johar?

Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you of this one favour. The unsophisticated answer to the question above. The simple minded may hereupon think me to be not quite sane, or at best take me to be yet another arrogant smartypants. But before you form your own independent opinions of me (of which you are very much entitled to) consider the following.

Mr. Karan Johar has till date directed (or in the process of directing) 4 films. Out of those 4 films, 3 films are set abroad (US or UK).

He has produced (or in the process of producing) 8 films out of which 4 films are set abroad.

He is also the writer of the story or screenplay of 6 films, out of which an unprecedented 4 films are set abroad.

Why such obvious biasness to frame films in foreign lands, I earnestly ask  of you, when the stories are as good (or as bad) of being set up in Indian locales as well. The usual motivation behind the the setting of stories in foreign lands should at least theoritically have something to do with the land itself, and/or its people. Johar's film's alas, fail to achieve either objective. His films and scripts have absolutely nothing do with the ordinary people, their struggles or their opinions. And he most certainly cares neither for the history or culture of those foreign lands. He simply chooses the foreign locations just for the girls in bikinis, high-end and glamorous lifestyle, the 'cool' look and for their exotic beauty. Pretty disgusting for any person who appreciates fine cinema.

For example why was Kal Ho Naa Ho shot in the US? And what difference did that make other than in the categories mentioned above? Nothing. He got even the 'firangees' to dance and sing (really pity them!). The story could just have been set in India too.

That's the real difference between classy directors like Meera Nair and irritating filmmakers like Karan Johar. Films like Monsoon Wedding and The Namesake made full utilization of the lands they were set in. Monsoon Wedding smelled so incredibly full of that Punjabi-Delhi marriage spirit, while The Namesake could convey the meaning of the busy Kolkatan landscapes as well as the loneliness amidst the snowy vastness of the American-scape. But films like Kal Ho Naa Ho, Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham and Dostana make a mockery of the audience. And I certainly cannot ever appreciate that.

Some people say he is supposedly catering to the NRI markets abroad, and that he is finding new markets for Bollywood films. But I say he is doing nothing other than branding out C grade films in Hollywood packaging to infantile foreign audiences, to the detriment of the art called Cinema of India (and that's NOT Bollywood!).

By the way I am confused about what Johar is trying to show in his films. He most certainly isn't showing India (or REAL Indians for that matter), and he most certainly isn't showing US. Any suggestions?