Bombay Cinephile: 2.5 star

Showing posts with label 2.5 star. Show all posts

Showing posts with label 2.5 star. Show all posts

Golmaal 3

The look and feel of the Golmaal franchise has become so familiar now, that it almost feels like you are watching episodes of a sitcom. The wacky dudes – Ajay Devgan, Arshad Warsi, Tusshar Kapoor, Shreyas Talpade and Kareena act exactly the same. The new addition to the group is Kunal Khemu – who acts just as good or bad as the rest of the gang. Mithun & Ratna Pathak are the guest stars in this episode (sequel) – though I didn’t like their performance that much. The other minor characters – Vasooli etc are retained too, maintaining the Golmaal “feel”

Golmaal 3’s plot takes a feather out of the Hrishikesh Mukherjee classic Khatta Meetha where two old widowers marry and move into a single house with their grown up children. While the interactions of the original movie was fun, the Golmaal interpretation of events is a little more risqué. One of the best scenes in the movie is a wordless competition among the ‘children’ of thrusting stuff up each other’s ass – figuratively, ofcourse. It is awesome fun to watch the contortions on their faces as they imagine things being thrust into their backsides – and it summarizes the entire Golmaal franchise. Extremely low-brow comedy, but they will succeed in eliciting a few laughs out of you

The movie overall, however is a little disappointing in the second half when the director starts focusing too much on action and comedy takes a back seat. There are one too many slow motion car crashes and super slo-mo Ajay Devgan entries. Even the most ardent Golmaal fans will start yawning at all the action sequences.

And I never quite understood, why does Ajay Devgan get so much ‘bhaav’ in the Golmaal franchise ? He is not all that good in comedy – Arshad Warsi, Tusshar and Shreyas are much better at it than him. Neither does Golmaal work because of him – again the above three provide most of the fun. But he gets more screentime than any of his co-stars (not to mention, he gets the only female co-star in version 3)

Nevertheless, it is one of the those mindless movies which are proud of be nonsensical, and can be genuinely funny once in a while. And it is SO much better than this week’s big release

Piranha 3D

It is the year of 3D. So why not a monster movie in 3D ? Lots of people dying – lots of blood and gore. And lets make it Spring Break (an opportunity for US college students to go crazy in bikinis – think the MTV Grind) – so there is lot of boobs to see too. Awesome combo right ?

Piranha 3D is a proper b-movie, filled with clichéd sequences and lots of dumb college kids – but is a very entertaining 2 hours. If you have seen one monster movie, you know how all the scripts go. A monster is unleashed, who kills couple of people on the outlying areas before unleashing an attack on the bigger population. And there will always be a hero & his family who would get trapped – but they always get saved in the end.

So the story is inconsequential. What is new is the monster. In this case, a group of prehistoric piranhas who had been trapped in a subterranean cave for a couple of million years before an earthquake sets them free in an inland lake. Too bad college kids are holidaying on the lake at that very time.

There is copious amounts of blood and gore – as the ugly-teethed piranhas strip all flesh from the body within seconds. There is a particular “wow” moment, when the screaming movie producer is pulled out of the water, with his upper body completely intact but only bones left from his hip down. The producer in question is a porn movie producer who recruits our leading man for scouting locations on the lake. The bad part is that all the full nude scenes have been cut out by the censors – and going by the internet, there were a lot of them

So it might not be a bad idea to get the international version from the internet to enjoy the full cocktail of gore and nudity. But the large screen fun of vicious piranhas attacking make up for the few snipped scenes, so if you enjoy the monster movie genre or want some mindless fun in 3D, Piranha is a good bet.

We Are Family

When we hear about a Karan Johar production, we are conditioned to imagine immaculate households, perfect looks and very superficial emotions. A kind of goody-goody world which started off in Kuch Kuch Hota Hai - where no one is really evil, and everyone wishes the best for everyone else. For better or for worse, we automatically discount all his movies as being far removed from reality - we don’t really go looking for real-life cinema – we look elsewhere for that.

And I know that is a big assumption to make in the first place, but that’s how it is for me and Karan Johar / Yash Raj movies. And seen from this prism, We Are Family is not a bad movie at all. I mean ofcourse, the setting is completely unrealistic and everyone is too saccharine sweet and all that – but if you are in a similar mindframe as me, then it is hard to find anything wrong in the movie. Don’t get me wrong, ‘nothing wrong in a movie’ doesn’t mean it is a great movie – far from it. But unlike, say My Name is Khan, nothing is mindboggingly stupid.

The scriptwriters have remained faithful to most of the original story of Stepmom – some of the dialogues etc are carried over word-by-word - and exploited its tear jerking parts to the full. Anyone who has seen the original movie knows that this is hardly a fun movie – it was made to wrench out a tear or two from the hardiest of men. Those who have not seen the original, this movie is about a divorced mother, who is dying from cancer and decides to ‘handover’ her children to her ex-husband and his partner. The original had Susan Sarandon and Julia Roberts – we get Kajol and Kareena Kapoor.

On paper they are a formidable team – but with the script being so overbearing, with each frame designed to elicit tears, neither actress gets to display their acting prowess. Surprisingly, Arjun Rampal gets more opportunity to show his acting – his role calling for a restrained subtle performance – and Arjun puts his Rock On experience to good use. The kids are good too – especially the youngest one - she is adorable with a capital A.

So what is the final call ? The movie is your typical Karan Johar – picture perfect frames, nary a crease on the clothes or curtains. The story is a tear-jerker, every other sequence orchestrated to make you reach for tissues. You already know what happens in the end – the only curiosity is what route the director takes to get there. There is nothing really wrong in the movie – but nothing exciting either. So this is nothing that you cant miss, especially if you don’t have a wife/girlfriend forcing you to watch it.

I Hate Luv Storys

Whether you like I Hate Luv Storys or not will depend a lot on your like/dislike of romantic comedies. The ones which Hollywood churns out so regularly. If you like them, then you wouldn’t mind I Hate Luv Storys – because some parts of the movie definitely are as clever as its Hollywood counterparts. But if you cant stand romantic comedies, you are so going to ‘hate’ this movie. Because looked at from a dispassionate logical angle, the movie is just dumb.

Really really dumb !

But as I said before, if you like your romantic comedies, then Imran Khan and Sonam Kapoor will win you over – atleast in the first half of the movie. Playing the cynical cassanova and the cute-girl-in-pink respectively, both Sonam and Imran bring a really frothy youthful charm to the movie. They are effortless in their roles – and you cant help but like them - he is like a lovable rascal and she is this really beautiful girl that everyone cant help but love.

They are ably supported by the guy’s nerdy best friend from the Sprite ad – who comes up with an amazing graph to analyze girls with – made me wonder why no one in my engineering college came up with that one :) Gabbar Singh also steals a couple of scenes – though not in a way you’d think.

However, even the zesty performance of the two leads cant make up for the really weak second half – even by rom com standards. The movie begins to drag and you start to realize how terrible the soundtrack by Vishal Shekhar is (among other things). You know how things are going to end eventually – but debutant director Punit Malhotra takes a really slow torturous road towards it.

And if you were to take off the rose-tinted glasses earlier, you’d see how silly the script is. Why would a acclaimed romantic movie director employ someone so cynical like Jay as his assistant in the first place ? And which ibanker has so much time in the world ? Seriously !

Actually, this outburst is all because of the terrible second half of the movie. I love watching romantic movies – and I enjoyed the first half a lot. Overall, I had a good time watching the movie. For others, I am sure it would be a decent time pass. Just don’t take the movie too seriously ..

Shrek Forever After

After a somewhat lacklustre Shrek 2 & 3, the makers finally figured out what worked for Shrek. It was the story of Part 1 – where the ogre grudgingly tolerates an idiotic non-stop-blabbering donkey and falls in love with Fiona without meaning to. They decide to give us the same story – with a slight twist. In an animated take on mid-life crisis, a now-married and father-of-three Shrek makes a deal with wicked Rumpelstiltskin to get a single day of his carefree bachelor days back – when ogres are still scary and people run pell-mell when they see one.

However the villain, as in countless fairy tales, tricks Shrek and he has only one day to break the spell. And so begins his journey where he comes across Donkey as well as Puss-in-boots – Donkey talkative as ever and Puss-in-boots slightly different – in a hilarious way

The jokes however, dont fly so thick and fast. There are some heavy senti scenes in it – but then Donkey or Puss come up with a howler and all is well in the world.

Shrek Forever After adds the attraction of 3D to the movie and I think it made the movie a little better. Maybe it was the 3D glasses at PVR which made the difference – they are bigger and sturdier – like they were powered by a battery of some kind. Whatever they were, they sure made the characters ‘pop’ out – and made the 3D impact appreciable. But on the downside, they were quite heavy – and I suspect, caused a slight headache by the end of the day.
(I am sure these glasses would have made How to Train Your Dragon more enjoyable)

So Shrek 4 is like a remix of the original Shrek – if you are a fan of the franchise, you will probably watch it. For others, I am not sure it’s a must watch. It’s a teeny bit more senti than your average animated movie, but Donkey and Puss’ jokes are funnier too. But then, there is nothing new in the movie – every character (except Rumpelstiltskin), you have seen before. So it also gets a middling rating.

Badmaash Company

I rather liked Badmaash Company – it’s a good timepass movie - and it sure makes Anushka Sharma look good. True, it has been panned by most of the regular reviewers. But I didn’t find anything really amiss in the movie – except for the lack of a surprising twist/turn. The entire story seems like a smooth, whipped-up-in-a-mixer version of several movies in the past. The movie is polished to look at, but all the elements of the story you have seen somewhere else before. But you continue to watch it because the performance of its four lead characters has a distinct appeal due to their rawness. Vir Das and Meiyang Chang, in their first movie appearances, do ok while Shahid Kapoor looks 10 years younger.
(PS – Actually Vir Das has done a blink-and-miss appearances in couple of movies before. But this is first full length role)

The plot is your typical four friends who take up crime as a way of life to get rich. These guys don’t join the underworld, but smuggle things into the country using their brains and audacity (the movie is set in the 1990s when import duties on everything was atleast 100%). Then with success, come some predictable twists and turns – before it ends on a big happy note.

Debutant director Parmeet Sethi has played things safe by going with known formulas. There is Anushka to spice things up on the screen with her bikini act, but there is not much else to surprise. The songs of the movie are definitely below-par – something not normally seen on Yash Raj movies. And there is just one serious laugh-out-loud moment in the beginning of the movie. To be fair, this wasn’t supposed to be a laugh riot – it was made like a teenybopper con movie about 4 friends, and that’s what it is.

Did You Hear About The Morgans

It is really hard to convince people that a romance between a 50 year-old Hugh Grant and a 70-year-old Sarah Jessica Parker is worth watching. Especially since romantic comedies usually star really cute females who can make you smile. (Okay she is 35, but she looks atleast 60 and absolutely anything but cute). However even if you completely discount her, Hugh Grant can still sneak up the odd joke now and then, with his trademark British accent and make you chuckle – and this is the only reason why you should consider watching this movie.

But then again, if you do not like Hugh Grant’s style of humour, then this movie is definitely not for you. Hugh Grant, as one of my friends put it, is the Shahrukh Khan of Hollywood. In all his movies, he essentially acts exactly the same – his straight faced jokes, slight stutter and the likeable-soft characters he always plays. Which is not a bad thing apparently, because he seems to be doing pretty decently. And has a fair share of fans – I too confess to enjoying his brand of humour.

Sarah Jessica Parker, however is a completely different story. I just don’t see what makes her worthy of 2 mintues of anybody’s attention, let alone any adulation! Millions of her fans worldwide believe otherwise surely – however from what I have seen, most of her fans tend to be women – I really haven’t met a guy who likes her. In the movie too, she is a strung-up character, who doesn’t really give you much reason to like her.

Did You Hear About The Morgans doesnt have much of a story. Paul and Meryl Morgan are a professionally successful couple on the verge of a divorce, living in New York. They unfortunately, happen to witness a murder, and the murderer happens to get a even better look at them. Fearing for their lives, the state puts them on a witness-protection program in rural Wyoming. Where Paul and Meryl rediscover each other.

All this happens amidst the usual comic episodes – in this movie its grizzly bears, horseriding and the city-versus-rural incidents. Their two respective secretaries are a delight as well. On the flip side, everything is really predictable – and done in many movies before. So it all actually comes down to how much you like Hugh Grant (or Sarah Jessica Parker, if you are a female reader). I fairly enjoyed the movie, but then I am a sucker for romantic comedies. You take your own call.

Paa

I watched the movie on Friday and I have had a couple of days to think over it while I was out of town. And I just don’t see what the hullabaloo about Paa is !!

Paa (like Taare Zameen Par) has been almost universally acclaimed by critics and all actors, especially Amitabh Bachhan, have been praised to the skies. There is talk of even making it India’s official entry to Oscars !! Yet, if you read those reviews, none of the reviews rate the movie at more than 3.5 stars. Whereas Taare Zameen Par was rated by most people at 4 or above. (Please note that Paa is nowhere similar to Taare Zameen Par, but it was the only movie I could think of which got such universal accolades.)

I think people have gotten a little too hyper at Amitabh Bachhan’s portrayal of a 12 year old. Make no mistake, it’s a great effort and not once through the movie do you get the feeling that there is Amitabh inside Auro. The voice is nasal-cartoony (the closest is drunk Anthony Gonzalves of Amar Akbar Anthony) and make up is top-notch ! But I think this was more an exercise in adulation – because I didn’t quite get convinced that Auro was an actual kid. There were far too many inconsistencies in the portrayal – both physically as well as in dialogues – to believe that it was a genuine 12-year-old.

The story is not much of a secret, but if you don’t know yet – Auro is a 12-year-old boy suffering from an extremely rare genetic defect called Progeria, which causes accelerated ageing of the body. So he resembles an old man in his seventies while he is still a child inside. Such children usually do not live too long. He is happy in school where his classmates are very supportive – and lives with his gynaecologist mum Vidya Balan and granny, who he calls Bum !

His sheltered life goes topsy turvy when he wins a creativity award and is noticed by upcoming idealist politician Amol Apte. Soon they become friends but they are unaware of their actual relation – that of Paa and son. The secret is revealed in a flashback, but how Auro and Amol come to know about it and what happens next is the movie.

The side-plots of slum redevelopment politics and the political fighting between Amol and his rival are actually interesting – they provide a break from the emotional drama and are also relevant to our times. The news bashing ofcourse, was a little overdone, but then again, our news channels haven’t been exactly blemish free. Abhishek Bachhan suits the intense young politician role totally – and seems to have modelled his appearance on Milind Deora, the south Mumbai MP.

The movie starts off with everyday scenes of Auro's life, his limitations of food and physical activity and bowel failures. Vidya Balan is very good as Auro’s mother – and she has more meaningful scenes with Auro than Abhishek - and Arundhati Naag is superb as the grandma used to the antics of her naughty grandson. Amitabh, as I have explained – puts in a great effort, but in vain. He didn’t convince me that there is a child inside Auro – even with his monkey dance and other antics. And without that, there is no movie.

It would have been a better movie if an actual kid had played Auro rather than Amitabh. Because the rest of the casting is pitch perfect. The climax is a little tacky and needs to be improved though, but to be fair to the director, he doesn’t go for needless tear-jerker scenes otherwise.

Although I didn’t get impressed by the movie, its not an opinion shared widely. So I would recommend you watch the movie and decide if it works for you.

Ajab Prem Ki Ghazab Kahani

If you guys watched All The Best, you remember how Sanjay Mishra steals the show in it with his “Just Chiiiiiilll” dialogue ? Or Amit Mistry in the movie 99 ?

Something similar happens to Ajab Prem Ki Ghazab Kahani – after the movie you remember Prem’s dad Darshan Jariwala in the movie more than anyone else (unlike the famous dialogue of the movie itself).

The movie, is not much ‘Ajab’ as the title suggests – it’s a story of a good boy who loves a girl, but cant bring himself to tell her. And when he is about to confess to her, turns out she loves someone else. So the good boy decides to help them get together, while remaining silent about his own feelings. Ofcourse, the good boy has a bunch of loser friends who adore him and do little else. And, the movie ends in a punchup climax with a with comic villains just like Andaz Apna Apna.

The Good
Clearly, this movie is not to be watched for its intriguing storyline. However it can be watched for its two leads – Ranbir and Katrina. Ranbir has the ‘goofy-yet-adorably-cute’ expression down to the pat – there is no one who can come close to him on this count. And Katrina owns the angelic-yet-cheerful-happy face. Together they really look good – their attire and camaraderie, especially in the songs is really cool in all senses of that word.

Then there is Darshan Jariwala. While he is usually irritating as the ‘khadoos’ dad in movies (like Life Partner), he is the same here – but with a very refreshing comic touch. His scenes are the best written in the movie – esp his singing scene.

And Upen Patel does pretty well in the comic role – which was unintentional on his part I am sure 

The Bad
The publicity designer of the movie is to be lauded in packaging this movie as a slick cartoony romantic comedy. It certainly piqued my interest – which is why I chose the movie over others in the weekend. But they are just the attractive packaging – there is nothing in the movie that would connect to a shred of reality. The setting is a fictional town that resembles Ooty and the hero is a do-gooder without ‘any complaints or demands’. Not to mention, with no goal in life.

I guess I am being exceedingly critical in demanding reality from a movie which is clearly inspired on ‘Andaz Apna Apna’ – so lets look at the movie through those lenses. Ajab Prem Ki Ghazab Kahani definitely does have it laugh-out loud moments, including some zany sequences when Prem goes to work. But overall, it fails to keep up the whacky comedy levels and gets needlessly senti in more places than required

And the songs are atrocious – they break in the story flow and don’t fit the overall light movie theme at all.

Overall, its a timepass movie, that has its moments, but it sits in an uncomfortable place between whacky comedy and a serious love story.

Julie & Julia

Watching Julie & Julia was a great culinary experience – it makes you really hungry by the time you finish the movie – and you are inspired to give cooking a shot if you haven’t done it already !! However, more than just a collection of gourmet shots, Julie & Julia works very well in cataloguing the life of its two protagonists – blogger Julie Powell and celebrated cook Julia Child.

Connected by only their love for food – and nothing else (they never meet), the movie tells you how a bored clerk in Manhattan decides to take up the challenge to cook all 524 recipes of the famous 1961 cookbook Mastering The Art of French Cooking - in 365 days and blog about it. It was the first ever book on French cooking in English and revered as the one which opened up the world of French cuisine to Americans. The story of celebrated food blogger Julie Powell

However the main ingredient of the movie is the story of how a bored wife of an American diplomat in Paris in the 1950s, takes her own passion for food to the next level by graduating from the Cordon Bleu, no less – after becoming enamored with French cuisine. And how she spends eight years of her life co-writing a French cookbook ‘for servantless Americans’. The story of the famous chef Julia Child

Based on Julia’s memoirs “My Life in Paris” and Julie’s book “Julie & Julia” – the movie is an easy watch, especially with the delicious food on display, but also a look at two love stories. Julia and her husband Paul Child and the slightly lesser Julie & her husband Eric. Paul and Julia’s chemistry is a treat to watch – Julia with her effervescence and joy of life and Paul as the quieter and slightly bemused husband. Theirs is a story that deserves a movie by itself maybe

Eric is also the supportive husband when Julie starts her blog – infact he is the one who suggests it. But unlike Julia Child, who is a gem of a person, Julie Powell isnt that likeable. Though the makers have tried to brush up her image trying to make her look adorable and cutesy, she was completely self-absorbed, narcissist - and ‘a bitch’, as her best friend says. It is unfortunately, the ethos of a blogger, who is driven to channel all his thoughts and energies into writing on a blog, leaving out little for anyone else around them. And then hoping to get that all important recognition in the way of comments.

It is also questionable whether she was just using Julia Child’s name to get famous – but that suggestion is never touched upon in the movie.

One of the complaints I have about the movie was its squeaky cleanliness. Apart from one fight between Eric and Julie, it was a little too fairy-talish about the effect of such an all-consuming-passion on their marriage. Similarly, although Paul Child was a really loving man, not once is he shown to be at odds with his wife’s activities – especially since this was before the time of women’s liberation. But then again, his wife did cook some fabulous food ...

The other irritant was Julia Child’s high octave voice and her joie-de-vivre. It seems amusing at the beginning of the movie, but by the end, it’s a little grating. I know it is exactly how the real life Julia Child was – and the makers of the movie are just being faithful to her persona, but it feels a bit overdone.

By the way, Julia Child was all of 6ft 2 in and it’s a marvel how they made a 5 Ft 6 in Meryl Streep appear so tall !!

Its different from your regular cinema – and you don’t have to be a foodie to appreciate it – but its not quite a masterpiece. What works for the movie is Julia & Paul in Paris – they are quite magical together. But the movie slows down a bit towards the end and at feels longer than its 123 min runtime – but it also works up a great appetite for you. So when we got out of the movie – the first thing we did was to make a beeline for a great continental dinner – even though it was only 7.30 pm !!

9

Sometimes you have no clue what to make about a movie - you like it, don’t like it ! And 9 is one such head-scratcher !

The movie is an animation movie first. But then its also a thriller – and a sci-fi movie. And a Matrix like man-vs-machine plot (sans the acrobatics). And a couple of other plots that I cant remember. The characters are also type-cast – the weak leader, the strong & adventurous woman, the friendly side-kick, the dumb muscleman etc. Basically, I was continuously nagged with a déjà-vu feeling that I couldn’t shake off. But because of the unique visuals, I couldn’t place exactly what I was reminded of.

The imagination of the maker is vivid and you cant help admiring his doomsday vision. A brilliant scientist makes an AI (artificial intelligent) robot under the direction of a dictator (the German inspiration is quite obvious). The machines goes berserk and kills off all the humans. The doomed scientist’s last action is to create this tiny creature – out of jute gunny bag (it actually looks a lot like the gingerbread man) – before he dies. And paints the number 9 on its back – hence the name.

9 comes to this world with no memory and no clue who/where he is – and the movie is his story of figuring out the world and his place in it. He discovers that he is not alone - there are others like him. Others who help him realize what he is meant to do. The background setting is unique, but the rest of the movie seems unconsciously inspired from the movies the director has watched before.

The feel of the movie is the early part of the century – the machines are all steam driven and there is no mention of any electronics. The clank and hiss of steam make the machines more fun to watch – in a cartoony way. The city itself is completely ruined and overall very dark and desolate.

The storyline is however not the strongest and the climax was a little too arty. The first part of the movie has a few exciting moments, when something is lurking in the shadows – but as the story unravels, the ending is guessable. The runtime is perfect at 79 minutes – any more and it would have become boring!

The movie is based on director Shane Acker’s 10 minute graduation movie – which the producers liked and decided to make into a feature film. And yes, this is his first proper movie. The movie obviously has high production values and it shows in the visuals – but the story needed some strengthening to make it into a full length movie. So a middle-of-the-road rating for 9.

Final Destination

During a particularly scary moment while driving - when you lose control for a moment or you come really close to crashing - does your mind momentarily conjure up a picture of you all smashed up, limbs bent our of shape etc ? It happens to me for sure and after watching this movie, I am just going to imagine even more vividly :) !!

Coz the fourth iteration of the Final Destination franchise takes pleasure in detailing exactly how you die when, say, a 14 tonne truck smashes into you. Or you get sucked into a malfunctioning escalator, for example. Does your spine break first, or your neck or your limbs … the director very helpfully explains all those things in a x-ray type video. And you get to watch it in 3D, so that you can experience the finer nuances.

Ok, I am being too critical – but this was just to warn off the more squeamish ones – this movie is not for you.

But if you enjoy this sort of thing, then you wouldn’t mind finding out just how many creative ways can you kill a person ! And most of the deaths are innovative but for an overuse of petrol/inflammable substances – a little more variety would have been cooler. In that respect, Final Destination 1 had the coolest sequences and I don’t remember it involving gasoline in a big way.

The director David R. Ellis doesn’t bother putting any energy into modifying the script – a group of people survive a catastrophe because one of them has a premonition about it. Then death goes around visiting each of the survivors, finishing the job in as creative a way as possible. That’s it, story done. The characters themselves are caricaturish – the boorish stud-boy, the freaky girl, the black security guard, the soccer mom, the racist red-neck – and suit their parts just fine.

Overall, a good timepass movie – which will wow you with some of the sequences, and maybe surprise a little at the end. My own view about the movie was definitely altered because of the climax. Just make sure you watch it in 3D – just makes the whole experience really awesome. (Its playing in 3D at Fun Cinemas in Andheri)

Quick Gun Murugun

Quick Gun Murugun is a little more than what you expect – and yet falls short of your expectations. It is the wacky tale of a ‘vegetarian-cowboy’ who takes on Rice Plate Reddy and his gang of villains. It is also a spoof of too many things to count – South-Indian-movies, standard bollywood masala movies, cowboy movies and even McDonalds !! Filled with smart jokes – they will have you howling with laughter at the one liners. But believe it or not, the movie is somewhat of a drag ….

Telegu star Dr. Rajendra Prasad plays gunslinger Quick Gun Murugan with élan – bright orange pants and all. He is an avowed protector of cows and vegetarianism – and soon runs into Rice Plate Reddy, who is on a quest to convert every Udipi restaurant into non-veg. Reddy gets the better of him in the first encounter and our hero is thirsty for revenge.

This time, he gets a little help from Mango Dolly (Rambha) – Reddy’s blonde moll – who falls for our Murugun’s simple charms. On Rice Plate Reddy’s side there is Dr Django and Rowdy MBA – who are implementing his plan of taking over the world with his dosas. And ofcourse, there is our very own Lola Kutty with Murugun as well.

While hilarious, the story is actually very simple and sometimes it feels like the movie is too long for such a story. And the jokes are not spaced out enough to catch the slack in screenplay. But all the same, it is impossible to control the laughter that erupts when, for example, you hear -
"The universe is my native place"
But be ready to be surprised with the violence as well – the violence is NOT picturised like a Tom and Jerry cartoon …

All in all, a lot of very clever jokes interspersed with some not so interesting parts. Even though its overall rating is average, I would recommend a watch – because you are going to recall the jokes for days after the movie and chuckle thinking about it.

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past

Usually guys are not the first ones to like any romantic comedy – definitely not more than girls atleast. Yet after watching Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, we two guys thought the movie was quite decent entertainment while the missus blew off the movie completely !! Turns out that the disappointment was mainly because of how jaded Matthew McConaughey looks :)

Which is true ofcourse – Matthew McConaughey hardly looks anything like the most sexiest man of 2005. Maybe because he never gets an opportunity to take his shirt off ! Nevertheless, the tongue-twistingly-titled movie turns to be a good timepass even with an less-than-original idea. It manages to combine the good old playboy-having-a-change-of-heart with Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. Those who don’t remember it, it’s a famous Christmas story when a miser is visited by three ghosts on Christmas to show him the mistakes that he has made in his life.

Connor Mead (Matthew McConaughey) is a brash fashion photographer and womanizer par excellence – with no qualms about dumping girls the minute they want a little cuddling/commitment. He arrives at his kid brother’s wedding and runs into the bridesmaid Jenny (Jennifer Garner) - his high school sweetheart. However old habits die hard and soon Connor is the wrecker-in-chief of the wedding. Till he gets a visit from his deceased uncle Wayne (Michael Douglas) – his idol and master womanizer himself.

And then the ghosts take him on a journey to his past – to see how he became what he became. Interwoven with these flashbacks are hilarious incidents of the wedding itself – and on the whole the script has enough intelligent bits to keep you engaged. The movie makes for some decent watching till the sentimental stuff starts - after which its not horrible bad, but it moves on predictable lines and doesn’t surprise you anymore.

Matthew McConaughey is on easy territory here – a supercool dude who has girls hanging from his coat tails. But there doesn’t appear to be any effort from his side to do something a little differently – except looking quite old I suppose. And joining him is Jennifer Garner, who also looks kinda aged. Michael Douglas however looks as cool as usual. The girl who plays Sandra does the hassled bride rather well too.

All in all, another decent romantic comedy to put you in a cheery mood if the likes of Sikandar or Kaminey are too dark for you.

Life Partner

It felt like it had been a really long time since I had watched a movie – and the missus also felt the same. Yeah we had watched Kaminey, but I guess after a full day of boozing on the beach, it isn’t the same thing :) ! And the promos of Life Partner showed some promise, so off we went last night.

And surprisingly, Life Partner is actually quite a fun movie, especially in the first half ! The dialogues of the movie were pleasantly witty and with absolutely no slapstick !! Govinda is back in his old touch and one thoroughly enjoys the first half. However Life Partner is not without its flaws as the second half gets a little more sentimental and comedy takes a backseat.

The movie is about two NRI couples in Cape Town - Karan-Sanjana (Fardeen-Genelia) and Bhavesh-Prachi (Tusshar-Prachi) and their lawyer friend Jeet (Govinda). Karan is the suave metrosexual and his girlfriend is Sanjana, the spoilt-brat daughter of Anupam Kher. Bhavesh is the gawky Gujrati bought up with ‘strict Indian values’ – who is waiting to gift his virginity to his wife. Prachi is well ... just Prachi Desai – saccharine sweet smile and not much else.

The first half of the movie introduces us to Karan-Sanjana and Bhavesh and their families etc and ofcourse, Jeet ! He is a divorce lawyer who is perennially looking for opportunities to break up marriages. And he himself has just once policy - No marriage !! Govinda is definitely the strongest point of the movie and his tete-a-tetes with Genelia are fun to watch. Though at his age, Govinda just cant carry off two firang babes on his arms (and though he looks really thin on the posters, those are just photoshop effects – he looks just as fat in the movie)

Sample Govinda's dialogue from the movie
Love marriage mein aadmi apni marzi mein kuen mein koodta hai
Arranged marriage mein aadmi ki poori family usse kuen mein dhakka deti hai
Lekin dono case mein, aadmi jaata kuen mein hi hai …

Trouble arrives in the form of marriage – Bhavesh goes all the way to Gujarat to find himself a wife and gets hitched to Prachi, a rich heiress. In a moment of marriage madness, Sanjana and Karan also tie the knot there. And when they come back, the decibels start increasing. Sanjana doesn’t like the Karan who has become a little responsible and Prachi is at loggerheads with her ultra conservative Bapuji (father-in-law Darshan Jariwala). Genelia is especially screechy, though overall she plays the wife-from-hell part pretty well. And the song Koke Koke is so atrocious its not even funny !!

In the second half, we see very little of Govinda and probably a few more scenes with him could have made this movie a complete blast – like the “tum chup raho” scene. However director Rumi Jaffrey decides to give a gentle preaching on marriage. Consequently, things slow down and the Prachi Desai scenes sometimes resemble an Ekta Kapoor show. But there is one more gem in the movie – veteran comedian Jagdeep. His scene with Fardeen & Genelia will have you falling out of your seat laughing !!

The climax where all the issues are sorted out was a letdown and so was Amrita Rao in the movie. Songs are also a completely waste - though only Koke Koke is abominable, the rest are just boring. The visuals are pretty slick though – and that honeymoon suite balcony view is really fantabulous. Definitely wish to visit it someday. Overall, the movie is an entertaining watch, and an extra 0.5 for Jagdeep.

Love Aaj Kal

Boy meets girl. Boy and girl go out for sometime - before they separate (could be for any reason). Then love guru comes in and encourages boy to realise his love. Sometime later, boy suddenly realises he loves girl and rushes back to girl who has been pining away for him all this while. Happy ending !!

If you deconstruct any love story, it looks as daft as this. But most of the memorable romantic movies work because of their fresh approach to the same old story or some really good performances from the leads – you just have to look at director Imtiaz Ali’s first work Socha Na Tha to see how it works so wonderfully well. In Love Aaj Kal, there is a yet new approach – of two parallel love stories 40 years apart – where Saif Ali Khan plays both the male leads (after all, its his own movie – he can act in triplicate if he so pleases !!). However all the good of the script is lost because of some poor casting and trying-too-hard-to-be-cool dialogues !!

Both Saif and Deepika especially, are misfits for the roles they have been cast in. Saif looks too old in most of the scenes of modern-day Jai and Deepika just cant act much. In most of the crucial scenes in the movie – the first breakup, the second breakup and then the scene after the wedding, Deepika hardly says anything !! All that her face conveys is a bemused expression !! While Saif atleast does the Veer Singh role admirably, Deepika has hardly anything going for her except her dazzling smile and extremely long legs !

However there is some fine acting on display too - from Rishi Kapoor, Veer Singh senior and aforementioned love guru as well as Giselle Monteiro, the very pretty Harleen Kaur (you have to admire the twists of fate – a Brazilian model playing the demure Punjabi kudi from Old Delhi !!). Infact, it’s the 40 year old love story of Veer Singh and Harleen which actually rescues the movie. A delightfully old fashioned and cute love story, conducted entirely in glances and silence – wins everybody’s hearts.

Apart from the bad casting, the modern track between Jai and Meera just doesn’t have any chemistry between them. They meet, become friends, then start going out – but never appear convincing as a couple. I mean commitment phobia doesn’t need to be passionless ! Add to it the ‘cool’ dialogues – Saif tries off the Hum Tum-esque cool casual approach but his dialogues felt like he was trying too hard - he doesn’t deliver one single dialogue linearly !! And both Jai and especially Meera do not succeed in making us understand what they are truly feeling – so a lot of scenes in the second half of the movie sort of feel like a bolt from the blue.

However, even with the imperfect casting, its not as if the lead actors are without any virtues. Even if they do not come across as the perfect couple, Jai and Meera’s initial scenes have a nice joie de vivre. There is one particularly engaging scene immediately after the breakup where they tell each other what they didn’t particularly like in each other. And the interactions between Saif and Rishi Kapoor are also very likeable.

The songs, while likeable, are not placed perfectly and the Twist song particularly feels out of place.

So even with a perfect team (directors/actors), Love Aaj Kal falls well short but not disastrously so. And the older love story will surely have you smiling, especially at their last scene together (where we see the older Harleen). Watch it only if you have to claim I-watched-it-too

The Proposal

If you ask me, what was the one scene that stood out a couple of days after watching ‘The Proposal’, I honestly cant pick up anything. Ok, maybe the beautiful Alaskan landscape, but that’s it. Its not a bad movie at all – it is a feel-good happy movie shot in beautiful locales – but you come out of the theatre thinking “Hey, haven’t we seen all this before?”

Plot-wise, it’s a combination of Devil Wears Prada and fake-marriage-couple-falling-in-love. Sandra Bullock stars as Margaret Tate, the terrorizing boss who has employees trembling at the sound of her footsteps and Andrew Paxton (Ryan Reynolds) is her meek secretary/servant. Trouble erupts when she is informed that her visa application wasn’t processed in time and she is going to be deported back to Canada. She has the immediate solution – marry Andrew to get fiancé visa. And to make the marriage appear legit, she travels with him to his Gradma’s 90th birthday celebrations in Alaska. Where all the fun begins.

While the broader storyline is predictable, there are enough little surprises in the script so that you don’t get bored. The chemistry between Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds is terrific and I was especially impressed with Ryan Reynolds’ performance – he has got a great comic touch. And I have to mention the adorable little white dog as well – he is … well ... adorable !!

So that’s it – a happy romantic comedy to watch if you are in the mood for one ..

17 Again

We had planned on going to Bride Wars this weekend, but changed plans last minute to 17 Again – after reading some less-than-stellar reviews on IMDB. I figured a high school movie would be a better chance at having some fun. And thank god we did, because Bride Wars got some really horrible reviews everywhere - almost the same level as Kal Kissne Dekha :) and that’s saying something …

17 Again turned out to be a good choice – although it panders to all the high school cliché’s, it still has enough originality too keep you interested. I had chosen the movie primarily because it had Matthew Perry in it (Chandler Bing if you don’t recognize the name) and I always thought he was genuinely funny. I had no clue the lead was actually Zac Effron – the High School Musical star. But as it turns out, Matthew Perry has almost next-to-no role, while Zac really shines as the younger Mike O’Donnell. The movie is about the high school basketball star Mike O’Donnell who is dating the prettiest girl in his school and is about to get a college sports-scholarship as well. Until, his girlfriend informs him, right before the championship game, that she is pregnant – and he throws it all away and marries her instead.

However things don’t quite go as planned – 20 years later, his job is going nowhere, Scarlett wants a divorce and his kids think he is a loser. The only good thing in his life is his geek friend Ned, who is a millionaire. Mainly, Mike always yearns for that life that he threw away … what all he could achieve if he hadn’t done what he did. And somehow, he gets a chance – he becomes 17 again !! Not back into the past – but becomes a 17 year-old in 2009 !!

So he joins up in the same high-school, acting as Ned’s son – thinking he got a second chance at life. But soon, he realizes that he is getting a second chance all right, but not in the way that he thought it would be.

Ofcourse there are plotholes - like nobody apart from his wife Scarlett recognizing Mike – but then don’t let that bother you too much. And thankfully, the makers of the movie have refrained to putting in that ultimate American high school ritual - prom night – in the movie. I am very thankful to them for that !! Apart from that, 17 Again is very much a highschool movie. The geeky Ned provides a lot of laughs – and Mike and Ned have a great goofy chemistry together. There are some senti moments as well but overall the movie is quite light-hearted and warm – a pretty decent watch.

Acting-wise, Zac Efron was a revelation !! He is not just a cute face – he can do serious scenes just as well. Its safe to label him an upcoming superstar ! All the others do a great job as well – though it would have been nice to see some more of Matthew Perry !!

Confessions of a Shopalcoholic

Lack of new movies for the last two weeks meant that we are forced to watch movies which we would normally have passed by. Confessions of a Shopalcoholic was released two weeks back, but I watched it only yesterday. Not that it’s a particularly horrible movie – it is a typical chick flick – a romantic comedy. Just similar to the two hundred or so movies before it - but a nice feel-good movie all the same.

So the baseline for this movie is – if you have other things to do in this weekend, you can give Confessions of a Shopalcoholic a miss – you wont lose anything. However if you don’t have anything else to do (and dont mind watching a romantic comedy), then go for it. It will put you in a pleasant mood as happy-ending movies generally do.

The story - it is just a outer frame for the love story to develop. Rebecca Bloomwood (Isla Fisher) is a fashion-label-obsessed, compulsive shopper. Soon she has run up mindboggling credit card bills. She changes jobs and finds herself in a journalist role in a financial magazine. And somehow, her articles dealing with personal finance from a shopping angle strike a chord with the audience. The love angle comes in the form of her editor Luke Brandon (Hugh Dancy). What happens next doesn’t need much brainwork.

Performances are good all round – Isla Fisher has the right balance of cuteness and spunk to carry this role. The rest of the cast do not make a big impression, but do not appear out of place either. The script doesn’t lag much and there are no unnecessary songs. In short, there isn’t much wrong with the movie – but nothing remarkable either. So there you have it …

The Reader

Even though it won the Oscar for the best actress and was nominated for best motion picture, I'd recommend you do not watch The Reader in a theater. Not that its particularly bad, no. Just that the censors have cut out scenes so horribly in the first 45 min that its a maddening exercise watching that part. There arent any more cuts thereafter, but the overall experience still has a bitter aftertaste.

And on the question of censorship, why is showing a naked butt ok but not the bosom ??

Coming back to the movie, it begins in the summer of 1956, when Hannah (Kate Winslet), a tram conductor, randomly helps a 15-year-old Michael Berg who isnt feeling too well. Soon that meeting blossoms into a full blown affair between Michael and a much older Hannah. The uniqueness being that Hannah demands to be read to before sex - everyday ! And she isnt particular about her literature - anything that Michael can lay his hands on - from Homer's Odyssey to Chekov to Tintin even. Most of the reading happens in various states of undress and needless to say, all the censorship happens in this part.

As can be expected in such a relationship, the older woman calls the shots - and the young Michael is eager to please her. But he cant quite understand her completely. Till one day, Hannah just walks out of the apartment and out of Michael's life - without so much as a goodbye or a note.

Years later, as a law student while covering a trial, Michael comes across Hannah again, who is the accused in the trial. And his feelings of tenderness for her conflicts with his revulsion at the crime she is accused of. And for years to come, he tries hard but cannot bridge that divide.

The premise of the movie could have made a very good emotional drama - but it loses out on one aspect. While going for the classy effect of subtle show of emotions, the director probably expects a bit too much from his audience. There are subtle cues alright, but some of them are just impossible to decipher. Atleast it was for me - at many points in the movie, the faces of Hannah and Michael were inscrutable. I just couldnt be sure of what they were thinking/feeling. The contrast with Revolutionary Road is too stark - where every emotion of almost every character was transmitted powerfully onto the screen - leaving the audience in no doubt.

And this is a major downer for a movie which aims to draw out emotions from the audience for Hannah and Michael.

Which is a pity because the movie has some very powerful scenes - like the meeting between Michael and the American at the end of the movie. But even there, I am not sure exactly what Michael indicates was the nature of his relationship with Hannah.
So sloppy editing/censoring and hard to decipher emotions make me give this Oscar winning movie very middling grades. If it were me, I would have given the best actress award for Revolutionary Road instead - but then I guess this isnt the first time that the best performance didnt win.