Peepli Live (2010) - Pithy satire clad in slick script

Tweet

Anusha Rizvi has a story to tell and she does it all too un-preachily. No sermons. No grandstands. Her narrative, taking care of every nuance, puts the point right across, and manages to move you. She takes a light-hearted approach to a serious issue. The satire, directed at the media and the government, tends to go tad bit overboard, but is hard-hitting and convincing, for most part.

Laudable performances by theatre artists Omkar Das Manikpuri as Natha and Raghubir Yadav as Budhia, (Natha's elder brother). A first timer in the Hindi film industry, Omkar Das is sure to take you by surprise. You may not take to him instantly but his childlike vulnerability and subtle ways, win you over, as the story progresses. Be it his tripping in the gobar, or his confiding in Budhia that he doesn't want to suicide, or the tenderness with which he pats the goat, even as he lies cowering from his own set of woes. (Titbit - Apparently, Rizvi spotted Omkar Das at a play in Bhopal. Until then, Amir was suppose to play Natha)

Raghubir Yadav is born to act. He emotes flawlessly. One such scene is where he is arguing with Natha over who should suicide. Within a second, he solemnly vows to suicide, all teary-eyed, in the next, he takes a 'relieved' drag off his beedi, having managed to convince innocent Natha to sacrifice his life ;)

Raghuvir playing Budhia (right)

From the grouchy (yet entertaning) amma (Farookh Zafar), to Natha's nagging wife Dhaniya (Shalini Vatsa); from the B-grade Hindi news channel correspondent Deepak, to the stoic english news channel reporter Nandita (Malaika Shenoy), it's a perfect cast all the way.
The film gets drab and predictable in parts but manages to leave an impact, nevertheless!

Aisha (2010) - visual delight (... that's it!)

Tweet

I had been warned about the film before I hit the theatre! "Pathetic," "drag," "awful" was what I'd heard. I was still curious to see just how pathetic it could get ;) Despite all my fangirl-ism for Sonam K, louv for Abhay D and huge expectations from the film, it did turn out 'p.' A shallow storyline with cardboard characters (save a few), Aisha will only be remembered until your next movie on the theater. The film, all swank and ritzy, is high up on the visual quotient, but that is all there is to it! 

Airheaded Aisha (the character) is a sucker for everything chic. She wakes up to a life that's perfect. An ordinary day in her life means - shop, splurge (she flaunts Dior bags throughout); watch polo matches (and rub shoulders with the elite); go around advising people (she mistakes that 'muft ka gyan' for 'social work'); and smile pretty! La la la laa. Superficial, yes, but she's pulled it off 'pretty' decently.

Abhay Deol is royally wasted in the film. There isn't much of him, but whatever little, he's fab. He's at his best where he proposes Aisha. (He looks dapper in his Dior suits ;)

After cameos in Rang De Basanti (as a struggling RJ) and Dilli 6 (as a loser photographer), Cyrus Sahukar strikes again and as convincingly, though as a rich-Delhi-da-munda Randhir Gambhir. He's hilarious, he's annoying, he's adorable! Lakme face and supermodel Lisa Haydon (Angelina Jolie look alike?) who plays Abhay Deol's NY-returned friend, is to watch out for (all reasons besides acting ;)

All in all, if not anything, the movie will at least make you want to liven up your wardrobes ;) 

Sorry Bhai (2008): hearty entertainer

Tweet

It's too vague a title to convey much, which is why, I'm guessing, not many would have seen it. And those that have, haven't taken too well to it. Reason? Tad too unconventional for a Bollywood film! 

I happened to pick up the DVD only recently. But unlike my fuzzy scattered thoughts on it, the film came as a pleasant surprise. It's different, its fresh (save a few scenes, I didn't mind ignoring) with a subject that's been dealt with, unctuously.

The film revolves around chalk-and-cheese brothers - Siddharth (Sharman Joshi), who rejoices in the simple pleasures of life, Harsh (Sanjay Suri), a freakin' workaholic; and Harsh's fiancee Aaliya (Chittranghada Singh), a character that appears practical and level-headed initially but enigmatic, later (for most part of the film).

Harsh, who leaves home years back, to work abroad (in Mauritius) is now ready to tie the knot with Aaliya. He calls Dad (Boman Irani), Ma (Shabana Aazmi) and his bro Siddharth, to be part of this 'very special day of his life' to Mauritius. As Aaliya spends time with Harsh's family, she realizes this is not how she'd pictured her life to be. What ensues is to watch out for! The characters aren't white or black (somewhere, there's a mystifying aspect to each of them). Sharman and Boman (yes!) steal the show here.

Sharman's mama's-boy-evolves-into-a-man-who-dares-to-defy act is on the ball! He play a scientist (out of all the professions!) who's out there to prove a classic (read: nonsensical) theory. When he's not breaking his head over this theory, he indulges in his saxophone. His other interests include Jazz. Sharman, as an actor, is brilliant. His subtle expressions convey more than his dialogues. He is one underrated actor in the industry. 

Boman, with a cheerful disposition, is a sweetheart! He lightens up the screen each time he appears, with his mischievously hilarious repartees, directed mostly at his dear wife. He and Shabana share a great onscreen presence (I enjoyed watching them in Honeymoon Travels!) At 54 and 59 (Shabana is six years older), they heart-warmingly :) justify the word 'chemistry.'

The film is not without its flaws, but it's certainly a one-time watch. Don't be misled by the wishy-washy title. It's a sweet lil film!

Inception (2010)

Tweet

A separate post for a new addition to The Greatest Films Of All Time list.


Every decade or so there comes a film or two that redefines storytelling, filmmaking, and the way the people think or perceive reality - all the while being a commercial success and impressing critics worldwide - that redefines everything again for decades to come. These films aren’t ‘ahead of their time’ (read: boring, too complicated, unrealistic, etc), but eternal. It would be best if these films aren’t remade, and even sequels should be viewed with caution.
The 1950’s saw the birth of animated films (The Lady and the Tramp, Peter Pan, Cindrella) and epic films (The Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur, The Greatest Show on Earth).
The 1960’s had Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, a mind-soul-thought bender, a film that proudly and single-handedly represents the Sci-Fi genre.
The 1970’s had Star Wars, the biggest franchise in film history, and also The Godfather, a film that could be used to teach everything about films from direction to costume design.
The 1980’s had E.T., the film Spielberg wants to be remembered for in history, and Back To The Future, which was just too much fun.




The 1990’s was probably the biggest decade for diversified films. The top 3 films that owned this decade were Titanic, the film that could be used as a synonym for ‘epic’, Fight Club, already talked about this one in an earlier post, and The Matrix, which wins this decade for possessing all 3 of the qualities listed in the first sentence above.
The 2000’s had a couple additions to this list : Avatar, and The Dark Knight. Finally, the decade that starts with our current current year, has already seen the film that will mark film-making's greatest achievement for the 2010’s. That film is Inception.


Christopher Nolan has made a lot of money for WB (Warner Brothers), his studio of choice, or just the studio he is under contract with. After the huge success of the Dark Knight (grossing over a billion dollars worldwide), WB, to keep Nolan, gave him about $160 million to make anything he wants. The result was Inception, a mind-boggling sci-fi action thriller heist film set in a world where dreams are not only penetrable, but more important than reality to the human mind. This film has already made about $480 million worldwide in its first 4 weeks, so I’d say it was a good investment on WB’s part.
The story is actually quite simple. The plot too. In fact, once the viewer understands the underlying concepts that allow the Inception universe to make sense to his/her mind, the film is surprisingly easy to understand. Since it was a pretty unique, never-before-seen kind of film, it was hard to judge the film while watching it, since there was no frame of reference to compare the film with other works.

It’s hard to talk about a film such as Inception without spoilers. Luckily, me mentioning the fact that at the end of the film ‘the totem keeps spinning’ won’t really mean anything to some one who hasn’t seen Inception yet. As for the open ending, I’ve read a few opinions about what it means and I found a couple that I found really interesting, and all were well-thought interpretations. One obvious answer is that it was all a dream, but I don’t think that was the point of the film, as it makes the film look unnecessary to me.
My first thought once I got out of the theater: Before Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio, who delivered another flawless performance, and is my most favorite actor of all time) can see if the totem stops spinning he sees the faces of his children. Now, we never really see what Cobb does after he meets older version of Saito in limbo, after which he just wakes up in the plane with everyone else. My theory at that time was that during that gap, Cobb implanted an idea in his subconscious that any reality, or any dream for that matter, where he is reunited with his kids, will become his reality. So once he sees his kids’ faces, he no longer cares about whether the totem stops spinning or not. He chooses his reality, but like his late wife did when she killed herself to get to hers. Choosing what you believe is real is much more powerful as an idea than being told what is real.


My favorite theory though, which I believe is true, is that the entire film is Nolan’s conscious attempt to plant an idea into the conscious minds of his audience. Here’s my outlandish reasoning for it:
In both Batman films, Nolan doesn’t show the name of the film till the end. I’ve always liked that for some reason. But it also made sense with his scripts. In Batman Begins, the name of the film at the end is more like a statement - “Batman Begins”. Same for The Dark Knight, the name appears as as we hear Gary Oldman’s character call Christian Bale “The Dark Knight”. In both cases the name of the film is about the journey of the characters, as well as about the end of story arc. Basically, in most cases the film has a name, and then there is a story; but in Nolan’s scripts, there is a story, and then the name of the film is epilogue. Sort of. So when Inception, where again we don’t see the title of the film till the end, it’s as if the director is stating, cleverly right after the totem spinning scene, “Inception”. An inception of an idea, a concept, of ambiguity between reality and dreams, conscious and subconscious, but without the technology of his fictional universe. Now that (and the fact this post, online discussions, forums, etc are talking about Inception) is the power of storytelling, and the power of film.

Rocket Singh: Salesman of the Year ***1/2

Tweet

Harpreet S Bedi (Ranbir Kapoor) is sure to charm you with his effortless acting, likeable persona and forthright ways. The central character of the film, Harpreet, is straight out of college looking for work. The 39-percent-er BCom graduate strikes in his first interview, landing himself a job, thanks to his determination and belief in himself. 

The guy is an idealist of sorts. He knows only good. The 'p' of politics escapes him. His close-to-perfect vision of life comes to knot, few months into his job and soon enough his guilelessness lands him out of it. In the last few days, left of his training period, he's (expectedly!) belittled by his boss and talked down to by his colleagues.

He keeps up his hard work, knowing well he won't be rewarded or recognized for it. Harpreet is hurt but not without faith. It's then that he takes a decision. The dimwit (at least that's what everyone makes of him!) outsmarts all. He proves a true blue salesman (but honest, mind you!).

Yes, there are a few loopholes, but the film does not wander from the point it sets out to make. It is a different subject, tautly scripted and screen played, with believable characters. 

Be it Harpreet's shrewd team leader Nitin (Naveen Kaushik); his foxy boss Sunil Puri (Manish Chodhary); the brash receptionist Koena (Gauhar Khan); the perennial lech Santosh (Girish Reddy); cup-plate Mishra Ji; or our very own Prem Naam Hai Mera, Prem Chopra, who plays a loving grandfather to Harpreet (PS: main vaari vaari gai on his flawwwless Punjabi twang).

It's a film with a soul and hence highly recommended! 

Greatest Hollywood Films Of All Time: Part II: The Tarantino Magic

Tweet

Part I: Greatest Hollywood Films of All Time
For a long time, whenever an upcoming director would be noticed for his work he would get the label of “the next Scorsese” or “the next Spielberg”. But for more than a decade directors are finding themselves fighting to be called “the next Tarantino”. Quentin Tarantino is one of the most admired screenwriters in Hollywood, and also the most copied. It’s lucky for us viewers that most of these Tarantino-wanna-be-screenplays don’t end up getting produced, and the lack of success of the ones that do get made is obvious - there is only room for one Tarantino, and thankfully he hasn’t disappointed us yet.
He has written 9 original full-length feature screenplays (6 of which he directed himself) and 1 novel adaptation - all of which are great - and 4 of them are on my greatest films of all time list:

Reservoir Dogs (1992)


Tarantino’s directorial debut, the favorite of all film festivals in 1992 that raised the bar for all to follow, the cult classic, the first ever Tarantino Mexican-standoff, and still the best heist film that didn’t actually show the heist itself. More on this film’s awesomeness below.
Greatness Elements: characters, dialogue.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

The oscar-winning screenplay. The non-linear story-line has seldom been executed well, and this film holds the top spot in that category. It also restarted John Travolta’s career, and was also the first time the masses saw the character Samuel L. Jackson will always be known for. It was also probably the least violent Tarantino film, proving that he doesn’t need guns and shootouts to create a masterpiece.
Greatness Elements: screenplay, direction, Bruce Willis.


Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2 (2003, 2004)

The most unusual, truly unique and original film in Tarantino’s portfolio. If Pulp Fiction is his greatest accomplishment in terms of quality, this is his greatest accomplishment in terms of creativity. The story was quite simple - a woman, left for dead by her “colleagues” on her wedding day, embarks on a journey to kill her fiance's murderers. A pretty simple revenge story - told visually like a graphic novel, with plenty japanese manga moments. Add in the Tarantino dialogues and characters, and you’ve got a true genre classic. Initially planned as one film, it was split into two due to studio and producer requests. Can’t wait for Vol. 3, set to come out in 2014.
Greatness Elements: fight sequences, The Bride, the hit list, direction.


Inglourious Basterds (2009)


My favorite Tarantino film - I was sold at the first chapter in France. The title may have been borrowed - and artfully modified with a genius stroke - but the content is pure gold and has the Tarantino trademark written all over it. His most ambitious and mature work till date. The screenplay deserved an Oscar.
Greatness Elements: the cast, characters, screenplay, music, direction, attention to detail, dialogues, the first chapter, the basement sequence.



In a film class earlier this year I argued that in Tarantino’s scripts the first 99% is the time between when a gun is drawn till when it is shot. It may be a fraction of a second but may also seem likea lifetime - and that the end of the film, i.e., the last 1%, is unimportant; that is, the conclusion to a shoot-out doesn’t interest Tarantino. In other words, Tarantino’s films carry the tension and energy of the last seconds before a mexican stand-off - with the shooting itself just being a necessary task to finish the plot. He is not interested in the life story of his characters, only their last (or near-death) moments. He may rush through their lives, through flashbacks and quick intros or backgrounds, but he never rushes their final moments.


The is evident in his directorial debut, Reservoir Dogs, where Mr. Orange’s (played by Tim Roth) final moments, from the moment after he gets shot till he dies, act as the beginning and end of the film. Here the entire film is on a timer, lasting as long as Mr. Orange does. It seems as though this is a tool used by Tarantino to contain his stories or thought processes, and by placing guns in the hands of his characters he feels more comfortable when preparing and sending them off to their death. Once a character is certain to die, he is no longer interested in them, hence the quick shootouts, seen in almost all of his work, that kill almost everyone in the room (an example would be the basement sequence in Basterds).

It is apparent that Tarantino’s imagination knows no bounds, and the certainty of violence, along with a Mexican stand-off if possible, seem to assure his audience of his ability to tell a story.


Part 3: Greatest Hollywood Films of All Time - Pixar
Part 4: Greatest Hollywood Films of All Time

Once upon a time in Mumbaai - movie review

Tweet

A tale of two gangsters in the city of Mumbai....err.. Bombay!

Once upon a Time...., set in 70s, shows Sultan Mirza's (Ajay Devgan) rise to power and his ultimate demise after his opponent Shoaib (Emraan Hashmi), defies to oust him. 

The film transports you to the Mumbai then. The 70s (cliched) film dialogues, the bling and peppy numbers of that era, the look, the costumes (flared bell-bottoms) and, most importantly, the simplicity of the narrative.
Sultan, a smuggler, gangster, I felt, was a less-sauve Subhash Nagre (Amitabh Bachchan in Sarkar) of sorts, a benevolent godfather-like figure to the oppressed. He may not have the Bachchan-like persona but manages to impress all the way. Be it as a mobster or a lover. His 60-second scene where he woos Rehanna (Kangana Ranawat) is to watch out for, besides many others.

Kangana, in her '70s-film actress' role, is petite and pretty. Her dialogue delivery is clunky at times (which I have noticed in other films too).

Imran, as a chindi-chor in his childhood (the kid was impactful with his dialogues), is as convincing as the wannabe-Sultan Mirza in his youth. You'll see traces of his serial kisser-image, but he manages (mostly!) to go beyond and make you forget that with his convincing young-blooded rebel act. But then, again.. We have seen him in similar roles before. A small-town chap wanting to make it big, by unlawful means! Jannat? Anyone?  

The 22 year-old Prachi Desai (opposite Imran) pulled off her role (whatever little) pretty smoothly for a one-film old actress.

Randeep Hooda is striking as ACP Agnel Wilson. The name R Hooda sounded familiar but my failure to recall got me googling it. Sushmita Sen's ex boy-friend! Randeep's other films include Monsoon Wedding (2001) and Ram Gopal Verma's 'D' (2005). Haven't seen both of those, but in OUATIM, he's definitely good. 

All in all, the film has its set of cliches, in terms of dialogues for its 70s setting, but is certainly a one-time watch!