Quick Reviews - 99

Bollywood gets it right.AGAIN. 99 is set to just the right tempo, pace and contains adequate amount of zany, tongue-in-cheek humor to keep it entertaining for over 2+ hours.
Coupled with breezy dialogues and chutzpah performances by Boman Irani, Cyrus Broacha and Mahesh Manjrekar, the story keeps you perpetually amused. And surprisingly a lot of attention has been given to the little details in this period movie (set 1999-2000) with clever references surrounding that time period.

Kunal Khemu and Soha Ali Khan have their moments. Vinod Khanna makes a pleasant comeback to the big screen.

The plot is threadbare at best, so I wont go into any great details, but suffice to say there are no major logical goof-ups and the director duo keep it chugging along, avoiding lengthy song and dance routines. Best to watch the movie with limited expectations and without reading too many reviews and plot discussions.

99 - Good effort.

Nav

Quick Reviews - Summer Hours

After having seen my fair share of European movies, I have to comment that french movies are probably the most subjective of the lot. Which is a good reason why they draw such diverse (extreme even) reactions. Unlike Hollywood where the focus is on the bottom line, driven by the Dollars, Profitability, Marketability & Merchandising most French directors, like true artistes, are concerned only with the story and the characters who inhabit its frames. They set aside cost-revenue models outside the production house and leave the judging to the audiences.

Which is why for some Summer hours (L'Heure d'ete) will be seen as nothing more than a clinical detailing of death and its aftermath. But for me it shall remain a top class movie. Like those several other movies which seem infinitely better only cos I was fortunate to see it at the right time, at the right place where it would create the most impact. Movies such as Jerry Macguire, Signs, Meet Joe Black.

Why do we mourn when somebody dies? Why do we hold sacred their possessions? Why do we hold on to the memories of those who were dear to us? Are we afraid that by letting go of the possessions, we would lose all memory of their existence? How would I feel if I had to sell the house I grew up in? Its like a large part of my life will disappear.

The story for Summer Hours is quite simple. The matriarch of a family consisting of three adult children Frederic (Charles Berling), Jeremie (Jeremie Renier) and Adrienne (Juliette Binoche) dies shortly after her 75th birthday, leaving her considerable estate comprising a large house in the village, and several considerable assets - art collection, furniture and the valuable personal effects belonging to a great uncle who was a fairly well regarded French artist. The mother had spend most of her lifetime safeguarding the house and its assets given her closeness to her uncle.

The eldest, Frederic, shares his mom's devotion to the estate and wishes it remain within the family. I suppose, he hopes his children and grandchildren could also enjoy/experience the same idyllic childhood, all those summer hours, spent in the vast gardens of the house. But Jeremie and Adrienne don't share such idealistic notions. They have their own lives and plans, blossoming careers living abroad in China and NY respectively and they cant quite see the value in keeping the house. Despite the sense of loss they only wish to move on, trying to dispose off the house and its belongings as quickly as possible and use the cash to fortify their dreams.

Director Olivier Assayas unfolds the drama with minimal fuss and he never over-reaches or attempts to manipulate the audience into false sentimentality. And his approach is spot on. He presents the practical difficulties of idealism in a world of constant change. He presents the truth as it stands without embellishments. Where does idealism stand in the world of logical decisions?

I was able to relate most closely with Frederic's character. He holds on to the hope that by preserving the house, the paintings, the garden, he could not only hold on to the memories of his childhood but also preserve its integrity and pass it on to his kids. But there is a big generational gap as Assayas portrays in the final 15 minutes. The kids of today have their own definition of fun.
The movie is never heavy-handed or overly preachy. But uses wonderful subtlety to underscore many of the sad truths of life. Like how we have do not have the time for the elderly. No matter our good intentions and attempts to stay in touch and be there for them, we're too often caught up in our daily lives, our dreams and plans, that we forget.
Like how we attach precious memories with certain objects. And how those objects therefore hold more value to us than to others.
There is a scene in the movie which highlights this where Frederic and his wife see his mother's desk in a museum and it somehow doesn't feel right.
"It looks caged" he remarks
I wont go about describing my emotions in this scene. But it was very touching.

The movie also provides a side commentary on the decline of France with many of its citizens leaving the nation looking for opportunities elsewhere, thereby leading to an erosion of French tradition and culture.

And what about the house maid Eloise? She has spend a good portion of her life taking care of the house and its members? What ever will she do now.

And of course there is the curious case of Frederic's daughter who was caught doing weed and who exhibits rebellious behavior against her parents. Is she disappointed that the adults took the decision of selling the house without consulting the kids? I mean after all her grandmother had once told her lovingly that she would one day walk with her kids down the same garden she once played.

"But the house is now sold" the daughter tells her boyfriend matter-of-factly in the final scene of the movie.

Another hidden layer of truth. Beautiful. For those who can relate this is a deeply contemplative movie.

Nav

Quick Reviews - Terminator Salvation

* Spoilers follow. Proceed with caution

For all its talk about the power of the human heart Terminator Salvation showed very little when of it when it came to the stuff that really made Terminator 1 and Terminator 2 such great movies.

I feared as much when I saw McG's name came up as director in the opening credits. He is at best a POPCORN director, in the mould of a Tony Scott or a Michael Bay who have the god given ability to craft and bring to life fantastical action sequences and integrate the power of sound, visuals and effects with explosive results but at the same time suck the emotional resonance of a movie with equal aplomb. His earlier works such as Charlies Angels (and sequel) prove as much.

Though to be fair some of the blame should be attributed to the writers, but somehow I feel a lot of the good stuff from the script must have been either left out by the director or got cut in the editing room, especially in terms of character building and exposition.
For instance I'm confident there was a good reason the movie was titled Terminator Salvation? Surely for all the emphasis on John Conner and the resistance, the only character who qualifies for any form of Salvation is Marcus, the half-human, half-machine, confused wanderer, a man who in a prior life had committed some grave sin worthy of a death sentence but to which we're given no details or back-story.
How does this individual go from a death row convict to a hero sacrificing his heart to save the life of John Conner is never fully explained. Marcus's character is only half developed and all the we're led to feel is his overwhelming 'need to be human'. Probably McG may address in a future installment. Sam Worthington does what little he can with his half-baked character but comes across as a force to reckon with.

John Conner exists as a fully grown person showing no signs or reference to the kid who once was. And Christian Bale carries his role with such amazing conviction and charisma, you can't but help admire his character. But when Conner comes face-to-face with Marcus (the human but who for all scientific purposes is fully robotic) he instantly distrusts him.

"You're a robot" he says "You killed my father, you tried to kill my mother, but you'll never kill me".

But surely he was old enough to recall in Terminator II (or for that matter Part III) how Arnold Schwarzenegger (robot with human tissue) sacrificed his own existence so John and his mom could go back to live a normal life. But this movie never dwells on such matters. Conner later goes on to confess he can no longer tell who the real enemy is; as if this is the first time he (or anybody) encountered such a conundrum. This was already explored wonderfully in Terminator II, when Sarah Connor had to accept the evil Cyborg who killed her lover and almost killed her in Terminator 1, had now returned to save her life.

In fact true to his nature McG spends a good 15 minutes soon after depicting Conners actions to track down and recapture an escaping Marcus.

The ending leaves much to be desired. It all unravels too easily like a ball of yarn and, save for a well-done gimmick, single-handedly pulls the movie down. The fact of the matter is there seems an abundance of good ideas flying all over the place, but the director just cannot seem to give equal attention to all (given the time frame) and as a result the end product seems a little haphazard.

But what really stands out are the action sequences. Gripping narration and cinematography is suitably engrossing, allowing the audience to feel they're right in the middle of the action. Almost like a first person video game, something Alfonso Cuaron achieved with similar success in Children of Men. MCG scores well here and the first 30 minutes or so is superbly paced.

But for godssake why is this a PG-13 movie? Where is the gruesome violence from Terminator 1 and 2? I'm absolutely convinced certain scenes were excised to allow for a PG-13 certificate. There were at least 2 separate instances where there was jarring disjoint between two immediate scenes. And the climatic portions also seemed a little too mellow. Will have to keep an eye out for the directors cut DVD.

Nav

Quick reviews - Star Trek and Angel & Demons

* Spoilers follow. Proceed with caution
Star Trek

I've never been a trekkie. But I do recall glimpses of a few grainy episodes on the telly from years past, watching William Shatner as James T Kirk doing battle with a hideous monster in an unknown grey planet. Thinking back now, all I can reflect upon is the cheesy production values, Kirk's Yellow and Black tight space suit, Spock's weird eyebrows, space travel and the big-ass chair upon which Kirk often reclined whilst barking commands to avoid a missile directed at the star ship enterprise.

Flash forward to 2009 and J.J. Abrams new Star Trek retains most of the above elements but the visual effects and production values are far far better.

But this movie only serves as a first step towards Hollywood's need to re-build on a lost and broken franchise. I'm confident Abrams and his team have already begun working towards putting together the story-board for the second installment of the new Star Trek.

Abrams' story allows, for those relatively un-familiar with Star Trek, to find comfort with the motley crew of characters and universe within which it exists. It provides the back stories of Kirk and Spock and sets up a story which primarily serves to have all the recurring characters of Star Trek franchise meet and continue towards the many adventures which lay ahead.
Besides this basic goal of setting up the premise, the story offers no special plot. It plays around with the concept of time travel, time wraps, black hole, space beam etc most of which only make sense when taken with a grain of salt. In fact there was the one sequence of time travel (or whatever it was called) where the Spock of the future goes through a black hole ( atleast I think it was a black hole) and is some how mysteriously is captured by the villain Nero. That whole sequence left me quite confused, but I let it pass since it really does not in anyway interrupt the story arc. Through out the movie I was bothered by how the story sort of rubbished many scientific principles. For instance, for my own knowledge - Can there be an explosion in space? I mean with the lack of Oxygen and all. Maybe I'm just ignorant. Too many holes in this space opera. But its alright as long as it serves up the entertainment.

Eric Bana plays the villain Nero and plays it relatively straight thankfully, without too much scenery chewing. Bana is one of my favorite actors and he hasn't done much lately. Although I heard he helmed a documentary which was showed in the recently concluded Tribecca Film Festival - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1284028/

Angels & Demons

I'd given my 2 cents about this movie in an another blog, so I shan't go into great detail again. Its difficult to adapt a Dan Brown novel. His novels usually have multiple story lines and he masterly narrates these parallel story arcs, providing gripping action and lots of factual/semi-fictional details. True Page-turners. But Ron Howard somehow translates page-turners as the need to move things quickly! And so the necessary impact (tension) is lost.

The crux of the book, the conflict between Illuminati and the Vatican Church, plays a pivotal role, since the readers are led to believe, that the Illuminati has challenged the Church and Langdon (indirectly) to solve the clues to get to the ticking Anti-Matter time bomb and hopefully save the church in time. So when the twist arrives the readers are given quite a pleasant surprise. Somehow the movie misses this point and only gives a passing reference to the Illuminati and as a result we just don't get why Langdon chases down these clues with such vigour. I mean after all any reasonable chief of security would question the tenous involvement of the illuminati.


Anyhow most of the action is hurried. A sort of forced urgency on proceedings. Langdon must have a very sharp eye, cos he does not miss a single clue or fact or key information, without which he might as well been running in circles. The lead actress really has not purpose in the movie except running along with Langdon and providing as an outlet for Langdon to bombard her with meaningless historical lessons. Pray why does she have the secret journals of the murdered scientist flown to the Vatican? It serves no real purpose. And how could Stellan Skarsgard not know the Pope was poisoned? Didn't he mention he had installed secret cameras to watch the Pope? And you would think a high powered laboratory which produces a potentially extremely dangerous Anti-Matter would have some type of additional security? The audience aren't left to ponder on these points since Ron Howard ties loose ends quickly and dashes to the unsatisfying climax.

Another sub-par effort by Ron Howard and Tom Hanks. They haven't learned from the mistakes of Da Vinci Code.

Nav

5 Minute Morning Routine

Now normally I wouldn't go about posting video links under the guise of an actual blog entry, but thought I'd share this Youtube video which I found pretty funny.
Folks who have their own painful and time consuming morning routines before heading to work or school will be able to relate.
The whole tie-knot bit was just genius. Although you must've noticed the dude didn't shower. Hmm, would hate to be his cube-mate.

Enjoy

Nav