hprashantarora Reviews

Dexter: New Blood (2021–2022)

Here's the alternate ending

[7/10 · 8 November 2022]

Watching the last 18-20 minutes of Dexter: New Blood was like realizing your parachute had malfunctioned just one thousand feet from the ground. You get a lump in your throat because even if you somehow steer yourself into a hurricane and be resurrected ten years later, you now face another lousy ending. Great show, terrible ending!

Ladies and gentlemen, if you are a fan of Dexter and hated the new ending, I present you with an alternate ending. If I were the writer, I would have pitched this to the producers.

Dexter: New Blood Season 1, Episode 10 Climax

Dexter Morgan is in jail. Sergeant Logan leaves him with tuna sandwiches and goes to the nearby motel to share his meal with Dexter's son, Harrison.

While having dinner, Harrison has an argument with Logan since he is upset with him and police chief Bishop for putting his father in jail. But it's a ruse. As Logan gets worked up, Harrison removes a needle from under the table and attempts to plunge it into Logan's neck (like father, like son). But Logan is no slouch; he grabs Harrison's wrist, and they struggle. Not knowing what to do next, Harrison's survival instinct kicks in. He grabs his fork and stabs Logan's leg. Or was it his suppressed Dark Passenger urge that made him do it? As Logan reaches for the fork, Harrison sees an opportunity and thrusts the needle into his neck. Logan collapses, hits his head on the bed frame, and passes out.

Harrison grabs the keys from Logan's belt, rushes to the police station, jail brakes Dexter (he is visibly shocked), and they both get into the truck. While Angela Bishop discovers Kurt Caldwell's crimes and calls in the cavalry, Dexter and Harrison escape from Iron Lake in the early hours of the morning.

Fade to black

We see Harrison vending a bag of whatever from a vending machine at a rest area just outside Iron lake (You've got to pee-it's cold out there). Dexter comes out of the bathroom, turns left, and...hold it! Background music starts playing. Dexter's eyes are wide and fixed on something. Harrison looks at him and turns his head in the direction where Dexter is looking. We see Captain Angel Batista walking into the rest area Lobby in slow motion (While interviewing Dexter, chief Bishop tells him that Batista is on his way. So maybe he took a red eye, landed at the nearest airport, rented a car, and stopped at the rest area to take care of business).

Dexter gently grabs Harrison by his arm and starts walking towards the exit. After ten long years, Batista and Dexter's paths cross. Dexter keeps looking straight. As they pass each other, Batista stops. Did he see someone familiar among the small crowd? He thinks for a second and then turns around. Harrison looks back and locks eyes with Batista. Harrison gets the feeling that something is not right. At that moment, Harrison removes his cap and puts it on Dexter's head. They appear to be just another father-son duo on the road.

The music gains momentum.

As Dexter and Harrison appear in the parking lot, they see chief Bishop's cavalry - a cavalcade of police cars - rushing towards Iron Lake. Dexter looks at Harrison and eyes a vehicle parked next to their truck. The driver-side door is open, and an elderly couple is seen feeding their dogs. Harrison smiles.

We see the old couple standing next to Dexter's truck, not knowing what had just happened. Dexter and Harrison are nowhere to be seen. Next, we see a drone-eye, wide-angle shot of the parking lot, the freeway, and the old couple's car heading west.

Music continues

Credits roll

Now, wait for the next season. NOT!

Rambo: Last Blood (2019)

What were they thinking?!

[2/10 · 27 June 2020]

Rambo: Last Blood - a strange amalgam of "Taken" and "Home Alone," and a sorry excuse for an action movie.

Do yourself a favor and don't watch the movie; in fact, avoid reading this review if you are prone to retching or descending into fits of fury at having wasted your senses reading about the latest iteration from a movie series (that you once loved) being reduced to the smell of a horses' behind.

Rambo, now domesticated, lives a quiet life in the Arizona countryside caring for his horses and two women, who, in turn, provide the normalcy that he had always craved. Being on the farm is dusty, smelly, but at least Rambo has clothes on his back - clean ones. So far, so good. But, Rambo being Rambo, spends his free time digging dimly lit tunnels under his property. For what nefarious purpose? I don't have to tell you.

Whereas "Rambo: First Blood" had heart, originality; "Rambo II" thrived on jingoism, cheesy but great action; "Rambo III" saw him fighting the dirty Russians; "Rambo" (2008) had shock and awe of the highest degree, "Rambo: Last Blood" has...nothing! Rambo is just there, in pictures on the wall, cleaning horses and keeping a lid on his second nature, which if you haven't guessed by now - is to kill, and kill he will. Where? You already know that.

What was Mr. Stallone thinking? The latest sequel in the Rambo series is devoid of any soul, substance, surprise, or self-respect. There is gratuitous violence for the sake of gratuitous violence. Why does the world need a mentally scarred, aging white soldier (again) to save civilians from the Mexicans in the most gruesome manner? The answer is simple - to get the audience to pay to watch a botoxed Mr. Stallone (with a weird-looking hairline) play the character of their fantasy a fifth time. The sad part is - John Rambo, a fictional Green Beret and a Vietnam veteran character from David Morrell's novel, a reluctant hero, who can fight his way out of extraordinary circumstances, has been reduced to a John Smith-looking-for-trouble-from-anywhere-town (as pointed out by an equally disappointed David Morrell, the creator of Rambo).

From script to direction, cinematography, action, acting, dialogues, everything about this production is atrocious. The fact that Mr. Stallone, a capable screenwriter, and film director himself, chose to be part of this ill-conceived sequel should be reason enough for him to retire from Rambo's character.

Better Call Saul: Wexler v. Goodman (2020) Season 5, Episode 6

I had goosebumps

[10/10 · 1 April 2020]

Best performance by Rhea Seehorn. Bob Odenkirk - priceless, as ever! But it was Ms. Seehorn's moment to shine. Her searing performance gave me goosebumps. For a moment I thought Walter White was gonna pop out of her screaming "Fooled Ya!" She and the writers deserve an Emmy just for this episode alone.

The Most Dangerous Animal of All (2020)

A twisted tale of self-discovery

[7/10 · 12 March 2020]

"The Most Dangerous Animal of All" is a well-made docuseries that grips you from the get-go. The dismal reviews on IMDB could be due to the disappointment some viewers might have felt upon realizing that this series is not what they thought it would be.

The series takes great pain in meticulously recreating the monumental research led by Mr. Stewart in unearthing who his father was - was he the infamous serial killer, Zodiac, or was he a mentally disturbed man who happened to have lived a rather peculiar parallel life with the real Zodiac? He carries deep mental scars related to abandonment by his father, broken personal relations, and, most importantly - shattered self-identity. I was moved by Gary Stewart's unrelenting pursuit to discover his origins. He worked hard in order to prove to himself that his present self is a manifestation of the actions of a deeply disturbed individual. I was disappointed when it is subsequently revealed that he might have made critical errors in coming to that judgment. There are some compelling pieces of evidence presented that almost had me convinced that his father was indeed the Zodiac. Then the director introduces you to facts that make you realize that Gary had and is still being sucked into a deep rabbit hole. It is heartbreaking to see his inability to walk away even when critical facts, as and when presented, contradicts the complex narrative that he has created over the past seventeen years. Events are presented based on the book, and once the thread of unbelievable coincidences is put under the microscope, the facade begins to crumble. Even the co-author of Gary's book is eventually left flabbergasted.

The technical aspects of the series are solid - the sense of foreboding, moody lighting, chilling sound design, surreal reenactments, scenes of forensic importance - are all done very well. They all seem appropriate for the dark subject matter of a series that dares to support and then tear down an unbelievable theory that left the experts scratching their heads.

I'll highly recommend this program if you are interested in discovering how far a broken spirit will go, even at the expense of coming across as self-serving, for a peaceful resolution that is still far from having been achieved. It seems Gary Stewart wants to catch lightning in a bottle; he wants to own a phantom and make it known to the world as his unfortunate destiny. Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that it is not the case.

Contagion (2011)

Scary!

[9/10 · 3 March 2020]

I knew this was an important movie when it came out. I had not seen anything like this before. Excellent writing, good direction, an invisible antagonist, and most importantly - a sense of realism.

Nine years later, as the Coronavirus disease is running rampant, my mind keeps going back to the horror depicted in this movie. I tried to hold back but my eyes welled up with tears. This should be a must-see movie for the younger generation since it captures the frightening reality of a pandemic and humankind's reaction to it like no movie has ever captured before.

At this moment, in 2020, I know many more will die from Coronavirus, and it is a scary thought. What makes it even more scary for me- my wife is a physician. She reminds me of Kate Winslet's character. She is out there fighting the infection and the fear that comes with it. Like her, she is tireless and compassionate. No movie or documentary can ever capture or portray fear that follows bravery like a dark shadow. Nevertheless, I applaud the audacity of the filmmakers for making such an important movie. As important as this movie is, I sincerely hope no one ever has to make a movie like this in future.

Pet Sematary (2019)

Godawful!

[2/10 · 30 October 2019]

There is no denying that Hollywood loves Stephen King's work. His stories are not only well written but also possess that elusive quality of being very cinematic. Most of his characters are well defined, and it is not hard for viewers to empathize or fear them. In the hands of competent filmmakers, they translate fluidly from book to screen.

However, the new iteration of Pet Sematary, directed by the twin talents of Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer, is pathetic at best. I was quite excited when I heard that they had freshened up the story a bit, and brought in a new twist to the ending. To my dismay, upon viewing, I found out that the result is anything but exciting. At just over 90 minutes, it is not a drag; things move very quickly, and first-time viewers might even find it to their liking since the story gets to the heart of its matter rather rapidly, and that, in my opinion, is the biggest drawback of this movie.

There is practically no build-up, no sustained tension in the story. The principal tenet of the original novel by Stephen King is "death." It pervades everything from the loss of a child to friendship, isolation, guilt, and broken relations. It spreads itself through one hell of a supernatural force that can twist reality and force kismet that is hard to fight back. Unlike, as suggested in the movie, it does not have a purpose. It exists because it is there, and when touched by human impulses, it leaves the tormented survivors inflicted with the torture of having to live with their loved ones stripped of their humanity. To make matters worse, they turn out to be worse than being dead.

In their quest to temper the story, the filmmakers, while focusing heavily on a sense of dread and atmosphere, have ended up watering down the core values of the source material. For instance, the death of Victor Pascow, a recurring motif in the novel, is merely used as a scary-looking prop. The Creed family dynamic is Disneyique at best with no real chemistry between the couple. Their child, Ellie, played by the talented child actor, Jeté Laurence, is limited in her transformation from a loving child to a sinister entity due to a derivative script. Even the power of Wendigo, as experienced and lived by a terrified Jud, seems to exist in this new installment only to produce scheming zombies who somehow climb down from the mountain with an expansionist agenda. Rachel Creed's survivor's guilt after her sister Zelda's death, though well portrayed by having it transmogrified into paralyzing fear, falls within the cracks, too, not to mention the blink-and-you-miss hint at her parents' dislike of Louis. All of the above misfires resulted in a severe lack of narrative depth. Had they been fully fleshed out, as presented in the novel, they could have collectively contributed to creating a more convincing portrayal of a rational man like Louis being pushed over the edge after the loss of his child.

But, the most significant loss of this movie is its failure in realizing the beautiful friendship that blossoms between Louis Creed and Jud Crandall (masterfully portrayed by John Lithgow). I think the 1989 version of this movie, though dated, did a better job at staying to the point and milking that part of the story to its full cinematic potential. Trust built upon their mutual friendship is the very thing that encourages Jud to share the secrets of the Pet Sematary with Louis and inadvertently ends up opening the door for evil to enter. It is a shame that the writers decided to portray Louis' take on it as merely having a neighborly affection towards the old man.

All in all, Pet Sematary is interesting insofar as it is viewed as a 30th-anniversary gimmick (from the year the original was released), and nothing more than that. And in the end I leave you with a movie reviewer's supplication to Hollywood producers:

Our producers who art in Hollywood, hallowed be thy movie. Thy sequel gets made. Thy profits will be done on paper as it is in the Swiss account. Give us this day our daily sequel, and forgive us for our bad reviews, as we forgive those who make bad movies, and lead us not into the franchise universe, but deliver us from narrative woes. For thine is the movie industry, and the power, and #metoo, forever and ever.

Amen

The Movies (2019)

A missed opportunity

[4/10 · 10 July 2019]

CNN Films have been making excellent documentaries for many years now. The first episode in the series called "The Movies" focuses on the movies of the 80s - one of the greatest decades for film and music. Nevertheless, 12 minutes into it, and I found myself resorting to my basic instinct to fast-forward it. I did finish watching it though (I had DVR'd it). However, it was nothing like sitting with my eyes wide open and jaw on the floor for the entire duration of "Apollo 11."

The format of the documentary series is straightforward. A brief interview with an actor, director, or film critic is followed by the relevant movie clip, another interview, a movie clip, and then rare behind-the-scenes footage. More interviews follow, and the cycle repeats until the credits roll. Nothing wrong with the format here but the subjects discussed was random at best.

Even 30 minutes into the 80s episode, I still found it hard to discern the intent of the filmmakers. On the one hand, they appear to be aiming for the lofty goal of examining the confluence of movies and popular culture of a decade, and on the other hand, they seemed to be hell-bent on keeping the entertainment aspect their top priority. This documentary series could have been an excellent opportunity to educate the audience on how the culture of each decade influenced the film making of that era. Had they cared to investigate from the standpoint of Media Anthropology - as a means of understanding audiences and social aspects of mass media - instead of solely relying on the entertainment value of the films, they could have achieved the real purpose behind making a documentary, which, as I mentioned earlier, should be to educate the masses. For a documentary that professes to aim high, it did not feel like an intelligent and in-depth analysis of the impact cinema of any past decade had had on society or vice versa. It is doubtful whether the series as whole succeeds in convincing its viewers that movies are more than the satisfactory crunch of overpriced popcorn under your teeth.

This documentary series is about an art form that focuses on entertainment. However, they seem to have overlooked one crucial detail. They chose to make a documentary on the behind-the-scenes and cultural impact of the movies, but then being a documentary, and it is a fair argument to make, they should have at least focused on educating the masses on why the entertainment industry functions the way it does. Constant titillation with trivia and shallow discourse doesn't exactly do justice, case in point:

In the 80s episode, one moment the guests are gushing over ET and the cultural impact its success had, the next moment the director decides to blast - very briefly, mind you - through the apocalyptic background of Robocop and Mad Max. If you blink right here, you could miss the mention of at least two more films. A few minutes pass and then: A quick peek into how Rob Reiner embarrassed himself imitating an orgasm in front of his on-set mother, and then you get pushed into the sweaty and bloody face of Robert de Niro in Raging Bull. There are tidbits of movie trivia thrown in between these scenes and some more interviews. I must admit the part of John Huges, and his movies were really touching, and I really enjoyed it.

The filmmakers tried to cram a lot in two hours of each episode, including occasional orbits around some social issues before landing squarely on the safe platform of entertainment. This is what generally happens on every episode of the series. There is nothing in any of the two-hour events that you cannot find online, in print or in the Special Features section of a DVD. The entire exercise, though entertaining, seemed futile to me. Needless to say, I for one, am left none the wiser.

Justice League (2017)

CGI cr@pathon

[1/10 · 16 September 2018]

CGI, CGI, CGI, and then more CGI. This is not a review but a humble prayer to the producers of such a despicable sampling of stool.

Our producers who art in Hollywood, hallowed be thy movie. Thy sequel gets made. Thy profits will be done on paper as it is in the Swiss account. Give us this day our daily sequel, and forgive us for our bad reviews, as we forgive those who make bad movies, and lead us not into the franchise universe, but deliver us from superhero woes. For thine is the movie industry, and the power, and #metoo, forever and ever.

Amen

The Equalizer 2 (2018)

Fails to surpass or equal The Equalizer

[6/10 · 6 September 2018]

First things first, movie reviewer's supplication to Hollywood producers:

Our producers who art in Hollywood, hallowed be thy movie. Thy sequel gets made. Thy profits will be done on paper as it is in the Swiss account. Give us this day our daily sequel, and forgive us for our bad reviews, as we forgive those who make bad movies, and lead us not into the franchise universe, but deliver us from superhero woes. For thine is the movie industry, and the power, and #metoo, forever and ever.

Amen.

Since The "Equalizer 2" is a sequel to the brilliant "The Equalizer," it is hard to judge this one without standing on the shoulders of the first one. I must have seen the original Equalizer about 5 times, and it is Gold. This is a good sequel, and I understand why some reviewers see it that way, but it is definitely not better. The energy, the thrill of the unexpected, the rawness, ultra-evil villains, and authentic action set pieces from the original are clearly missing in this one.

It's clear that the writer and director wanted this outing to be personal for the character of Robert McCall and they do succeed in making us care for his cause. He dishes out justice to the evil doers while living his model citizen life as a mentor and good Samaritan in his trademark way, but it is this very predictability of the events, interspersed with not-so-inspiring action sequences, that stands in contrast with the originality of the original. Ultimately, what we do end up seeing is more of the same albeit to a lesser degree.

We do get to learn more about Denzel Washington's character, and despite the slow burn, thankfully, the director manages to keep the tension high. One scene, in particular, comes to mind that involves Denzel Washington giving a hard knocks life lesson to Ashton Sanders' character outside a gangster's hideout (which, I must point out, is the very reason why we go to see a Denzel Washington movie). Other than McCall's character, unfortunately, others do not get to shine. Bill Pullman's character looks like he walked onto a wrong set and keeps having wardrobe issues as if it's his defining character trait. Some sloppy writing or editing right there. But, the cardinal sin of this action movie is: the stakes are never high.

In the original, we saw Mr. McCall fight the international Russian mafia, corrupt cops, assassins, and his own troubled conscience that made him lament the amorality of criminals and cops alike and thus forced to unleash his lethal skills. In the sequel, however, besides exacting revenge for the wrongful death of his best friend, the movie burdens itself with sleuth-like skills of the protagonist (which nobody seems too concerned to question) and the unnecessary plot line of a Holocaust survivor.

Despite its shortcomings, The Equalizer 2 is a treat for the fans of Denzel Washington, and the actor is incapable of giving a bad performance. My take from the movie: despite a weak story line and poor villainy, it is Washington's interpretation of the protagonist's vicissitudes that never ceased to amaze me. I would love to see another sequel of The Equalizer, the one that gives us a more layered complexity of the protagonist's environment, fleshed out subplots, and high stakes that once again forces our hero to right the wrong for us while we chomp on our popcorn.

Open Grave (2013)

Wow!

[10/10 · 9 November 2014]

6.3 out of 10 for this movie? Are you kidding me? I have seen my share of horror flicks and Open Grave is certainly ranks among the best, at least in my opinion. It's a slow burn and that perhaps could be the reason why it received such a low rating. Yes, it does not have the frenetic energy of World War Z or the glossy sheen rendered by CGI overload in The Cabin in the Woods or the gross out factor of Hostel. Open Grave stands on it's own by the virtue of it's ability to deliver a suspenseful story which starts as a murder mystery and then evolves into a completely different beast while at the same time pitting the stripped personality of central characters against their primal instincts- all set against a very bleak and rather increasingly strange background and no one has a clue as to what will happen next.

The characters, just like the audience, make one gruesome discovery after the other, not just about their circumstances but about themselves as well since they are all amnesiac but one. Who is that one person and why is that one person so important? The suspense is edge of the seat and it leaves you guessing right up to the very last frame of the film. How many horror movies in your experience can claim that distinction? The story that Open Grave tells is certainly macabre or at least the treatment is, which I must say is handled rather very well.

If you are not too nit-picky about revealing accents, as some reviewers are, and like a good story with some very good acting, writing, cinematography, and a slow and steady buildup with a decent payoff then this movie is for you. And, don't worry- there will never be a mind numbing sequel/prequel to this one; unlike Saw (one of my favorites) this one forces the audience to use their brains rather than pulling a fast one.

Tezaab (1988)

The best rip-off ever made in Bollywood

[7/10 · 4 May 2014]

Tezaab- The best rip-off ever made in Bollywood

Tezaab completely blew me away when I saw it in the theater back in 1988. This movie presents a unique Hindi movie experience - mainly due to its breakneck pacing, tight editing, Anil Kapoor's raw performance as an ex-patriot and the phenomenon called Madhuri Dixit that got unleashed on the unsuspecting Indian audience. Chandra did a great job in brewing this violent love story with choicest set-pieces lifted straight from Hollywood and Hong Kong movies such as Streets of Fire (main story), The Untouchables (bank robbery scene) and Jackie Chan's Police Story (the destruction of the villain's lair using multiple cars as weapons of choice). Interestingly, in hindsight, it is hard to imagine Tezaab without any of them. Typical Bollywood elements are also in abundance here such as boy meets girl, the sleazy father beats girl, girl fights boy, boy ridicules girl, villain eyeballs girl, boy threatens the social order, and corrupt police whup boy's ass. In other words, the storyline is as old and only as engrossing as a dormant volcano, which, by the way, could explode in any century or minute. As one reviewer mentioned - It is the execution that separates Tezaab from the junk routinely made by Bollywood. Rest of the usual shenanigans are covered under measured doses of misunderstood love triangles, the inevitable hero's sidekick (an outstanding Chunkey Pandey here) and his minions, lilting music, songs, dances, and the ubiquitous ugly comedian - Johnny Lever. It is all there. So what is not to like? Well, there is one thing that sometimes troubles only the Coen Brothers - and that is originality. Not a single scene in this movie is original by any standard, but it worked in those days. And it still works in Bollywood because the majority of its audience are neither connoisseur of international cinema nor avid readers of psychology. Why psychology you ask? Well, in the movie Anil Kapoor's character attempts suicide to prove his love to the leading lady Madhuri Dixit. Now her character is a student of psychology and if the screenwriter had done some research on psychology, he would have found out that a psychology major would be extremely cautious around a person who professes his love by threatening suicide by jumping off a building. Nevertheless, Indian filmmakers routinely apply to their creation- Oops! Did I say creation? I mean inspired creation- the logic of Looney Tunes, and that is why no matter how loony the hero maybe, the heroine always tunes into his call. Notwithstanding the flaws, Tezaab also scores mainly due to its smart editing, as mentioned earlier. The movie jumps back and forth in timelines at various crucial moments in the movie and this, in my opinion, is the most original aspect of this movie. It is put to use very effectively to convince the viewers of Kapoor's character's transformation from a patriot to a criminal and to establish grounds for his volatile love affair with his girlfriend. Most of the characters have violent proclivities- notably Annu Kapoor as a chaiwallah with lofty aspirations and Suresh Oberoi as an incorruptible cop who acts as Anil Kapoor's conscience. The director spends just enough time with these characters to let them justify their brand of violence. They come in and out of the flashbacks at the most crucial moments and truly propel the story to the next set-piece. Despite some obvious drawbacks, Tezaab remains one of the most memorable action flicks from the '80s that even women liked. Watch it, and you just might smell the acid that the director so skillfully distilled for us to enjoy.

The Lego Movie (2014)

Everything NOT so awesome!

[17 February 2014]

Boy, what a letdown. I am a big fan of LEGO's; played with them throughout my childhood and my daughters have tons of them, so naturally I was very excited to see it with the family. A rating of 8.6 on IMDb (now 8.5) was encouraging but it turned out to be a big bore.

Don't get me wrong dear fans. The movie must have looked great on paper, in story boards and during CGI processing. Clearly, lot of effort went into the making of this movie and the artists should be thanked for that but…there's always a "but." And in this case there are lot's of buts.

First of all the running time is way too long. Two hours for an animated film that goes at a break neck speed? Give me a break. No, really I needed a break while viewing it. This film is chock full of imagery that is radiant with every possible color, hue, tint, and shape that morph into other shapes in the blink of an eye. So you never really know what's going on at any given time. And I am saying this from a kid's perspective. 30 minutes into the movie and my daughter wanted to go home.

Clearly, this movie was not made for kids but for adults like me who grew up playing with LEGO but I hated it. Every single scene has a dozen characters in it and they are all loud. You don't need that to happen in nearly every scene. The jokes are average too. It seems as if the film makers just couldn't decide which joke to throw out and decided to keep everything just in case. They should have consulted guys from Pixar on the proper use of restraint and effective deliverance of a message.

I know this film will do well with the ADHD crowd (no offense to the real patients) that thrives on YouTube videos. I came out of the theater with a mild headache and in my misery asked my kids what they leaned from the movie. First they gave me a blank stare and then all of a sudden started shouting the title song while flailing their arms," Everything is awessssssome." Yeah, right!

Standoff (2006–2007)

Good they canceled it.

[3/10 · 20 April 2012]

"There's no crisis situation they can't handle... unless it involves a network that cancels it." Thank you Fox! What in the world were they thinking when they green lighted this show? Okay, the idea must have looked good on paper- two good looking male and female FBI negotiators, a romantic involvement, an obligatory and ever complaining African-American female boss, a sniper with itchy fingers and so on…seriously??? I happened to see the pilot episode and by the end of it I knew that this show wouldn't survive but I didn't know that they actually made 18 episodes of it. Trust me, I like Ron Livingston and he was the reason I sat down to watch the show but what a letdown. I think the show was ruined mainly because of formulaic writing. It seems as if the producers specifically hired writers who couldn't hack in to Hollywood and allowed them to run their juices high while on a dose of Hollywood inspired clichés. I don't watch police procedural shows but I know this much that this was probably the worst produced show because one it was an exercise in style over substance and second everything about it was so predictable, case in point(s) – predictable romantic involvement and constant bantering, which involved several one liners, between the lead FBI negotiators; unnecessary stylish camera angles, pans and zooms; a boss that would pop up just at the right moment to remind her prodigies to focus more on work than on each other's rump. The list goes on: in the pilot episode, the senator and his wife are cardboard cutouts of a stereotypical image of what a senator and his wife should look like- well bred, educated white couple with well combed hair and dressed in crisp suits with a clearly visible 1 mm thick layer of makeup. Michael Cudlitz, who for some reason loves to play law enforcement officers in just about every movie and show, repeats the same routine that he did in the movie The Negotiator with a little more character development that, once again, borders on stereotype- a trigger happy member of the law enforcement. What a hoot! There is absolutely no sense of any kind of realism in the show. It stands out as something that was made for the sake of making a show for TV that would generate revenue and nothing more. The show could have been great only if they had some creative people behind it who, in all modesty, could have learned few things from the makers of CSI.

I give it 3 stars- one for the idea, one for casting Ron Livingston and one for canceling it.

Rocky (1976)

A perfect script - a near perfect movie

[7 September 2011]

If the producers of Rocky were to charge a penny each time somebody mentions it, they would have been gazillionaires by now. The story of Rocky and the parallel it drew with its creator Sylvester Stallone's career is still climbing the steps of popularity, and it wouldn't be out of place to mention that it probably is museum-worthy now.

What Rocky means to all the generations that have come to revere and idolize it can be judged from the fact that it has inspired millions and continue to do so. The story of an underdog prizefighter who gets the chance of a lifetime to fight the world heavyweight champion Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) is savage and gritty in appearance but at its core is an emotional tale desperate for its comeuppance. It is heartbreaking one moment, and sweet the next and both the flavors are delivered by Stallone, perhaps for the first and last time, in a very Brandoesque manner. The film brilliantly showcases Rocky's macho moments when he fights and allows him to be adorable, especially in the pet shop scenes involving the reluctant and painfully shy Adrian Pennino (Talia Shire), even when he is working as an arm twister for a local loan shark. Rocky's brawn and Adrian's shyness at first seems to be at odds with each other, but we know they are made for each other when they confess to their weaknesses on their first date.

If Rocky were to put this in words it would be something like this- "Adrian is the sandpaper that smooths my rough edges, you know." She, in a much-understated manner, provides the footing to this emotional and heartfelt story with gray undertones mainly added to the mix by an equally brilliant Burt Young as Paulie, Adrian's resentful but a loyal alcoholic brother who shares a special bond with Rocky.

Instead of just providing the obligatory obstacles at every possible turn for its protagonist, Stallone very creatively infuses it with the juices of personality conflicts, blue-collar angst, patronizing elite, and defeated lives yearning to break free- all against the backdrop of boxing. He trains under Mickey Goodmill (Burges Meredith), a forceful but a tragic character who pities Rocky and holds him responsible for his misguided career. His interaction with Rocky is fascinating to watch because it is in his eyes before Adrian takes over we see Rocky from a has-been to a would-be contender. He trains Rocky as if he is exorcising him, which is indeed what he needs. For an average low budget boxing flick to achieve all this in 119 minutes with a completely unknown lead could have been a monumental task, but this film owes its success mainly to the assured direction of John G. Avildsen and a very very well written script penned in not very unlike conditions that Rocky often finds himself in. It has a heart. Rocky is not the perfect example of the Avant-garde cinema of the 70's, but director Avildsen did manage to imbue it with enough charm to make it noticeable in theaters and at the 1977 Academy Awards.

The underdog going the distance to get what is priceless has and would be done in all sorts of manner, but it would be difficult to match the emotional tug that Rocky has mainly because of its title character which sucks the entire energy of the story in a bumbling but affable manner. Alas, the sequels to this movie lost such tenderness when Rocky finally became a brand - another parallel to Sylvester Stallone's career, which is not entirely coincidental.

Cast Away (2000)

Never commit the sin of turning your back to this one...

[11 February 2010]

We often find ourselves at crossroads, wondering where to go and what to do next. The ambiguous expression on our faces probably would not be any different than Tom Hanks' when he stares right at us before the screen fades away, thus leaving things to our own interpretation. It is also up to us to conjure what could have been inside that FedEx box that supposedly saved Tom's character Chuck Noland's life, which he leaves at the door of a house in rural Texas. Could it have been a satellite phone?-what an irony it would have been had it been revealed.

An open mind and a sense of adventure is what Robert Zemeckis and Tom Hanks expects the audience to bring along to this movie. In a way it is a thinking man's movie because it is a little slow for a generation fed on YouTube clips, has no dialogs or music for several minutes, and the ending is not the dessert that an average moviegoer would like after such a lengthy feast. My qualms, however, are with the part when Chuck rejoins civilization after living on a deserted island for four years. His interaction with people, especially Kelly (Helen Hunt) is, for the lack of a better word, average and mirrors the humdrum of life, which is the last thing you would expect from a character that has put the taste of such a sweet performance in your mouth. The writing here is not at par with the golden second half. The soliloquy that Tom's character deliver, however, is a gem and it captures his state of mind after suffering in isolation for years and the pain that he felt after losing the love of his life all over again.

Interestingly, for the time bound Chuck Noland (No-Land – get it?), a systems engineer for Fed Ex, no thought of a life altering event or the fear of losing his girlfriend had probably ever occurred except the fear of running out of time. And in a bid to beat time, he ignores his health and even proposes to Kelly in the car en route to board a last minute flight to Malaysia, which unexpectedly crashes (a very scary and a believable plane crash) and he finds himself marooned on a deserted tropical island with nothing but a broken watch and all the time in the world to ponder on his future. The scenes featuring an overweight workaholic's struggle to survive on an uninhabited island are by far the most intriguing ones ever recorded on film. And Tom Hanks fails not once, not even by chance. Very soon his struggle becomes our struggle as he learns how to use day-to-day objects as tools of survival, how to crack coconuts, how to fish, how to build a shelter, how to light a fire, and most importantly how to survive the odds without any human contact. A volleyball named Wilson fills this gap for him and becomes as real to him as Kelly was in his past. His faith in his love and a strong desire to see Kelly helps him survive on that island.

Cast Away benefits mainly from another amazing performance by Tom Hanks. He, right from the beginning, has us believing that his character, a typical worker bee, will probably continue to live like this forever and never suspects a life altering event to strike him ever. But once this event strikes and takes it toll, it leaves him at a crossroads; his conscience, once a mere cog in a massive clock, becomes ambivalent because it now holds the wisdom of what time can do to you and constantly reminds him of how uncertain his life has been and that his future or rather his notion of future will never be the same. And this wisdom, disguised as an ambiguous expression, is the reflection of our own dilemma of never knowing what he would do next

Sholay (1975)

A legend that lives on

[9/10 · 9 February 2010]

Rated by BBC as the Film of the Millennium in1999, Sholay, the greatest Indian movie ever made has nothing in common with Francis Ford Coppola's Godfather, the greatest American movie ever made. Despite their obvious differences, both the movies have withstood the test of time and have not only won the hearts of film lovers all over the world but have been instrumental in shaping pop culture. Compared to Godfather, Sholay might come across as campy. However, the naysayers may not realize that what Godfather did to the gangster genre, Sholay did to the entire film industry of India.

With Sholay, Ramesh Sippy was determined to break most of the rules of Hindi film making and set higher standards. It wasn't just the way the script was structured and filmed but he made the entire production run on a timetable and strict discipline was the order of the day; not even the actors were spared. This was unheard of in the world of mainstream film-making in India in those days, including the idea of showing realism on screen. The film clearly draws its inspiration from Sergio Leone's Spaghetti Westerns and Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai and just like this one has its heart in its place.

A retired, but not out of element, police officer Thakur (Sanjeev Kumar) hiring two goons Veeru (Dharmendra) and Jai (Amitabh Bachchan) to get rid of bandits from his native village is the central theme of the story. The two protagonists pack enough bravura, bravery and shooting skills, but are basically flawed and are serving their own interests in helping the hapless villagers. In this context the Thakur's choice of the goons over the police to defend the village seems illogical but having fought the bandits together when law failed to deliver then and later, he merely goes with the lesser evil. And once the goods are delivered after much loss of life, the victorious leaves the village, never to return again. The rich tapestry of memorable characters which inhabit this story of good vs. evil have over the years become so iconic that even the minor characters have attained mythological status namely on the strength of their spoken dialog.

The film's action, the kind of which never witnessed on Indian screens before, keeps viewers transfixed; gun battle scenes, especially the train robbery scene which sets the tone of the film in the beginning, are raw and violent; and above all it gave the world a new avatar of evil- Gabbar Singh (Amjad Khan) as the lead villain. Amitabh Bachchan, Dharmendra and Sanjeev Kumar give strong performances overall. Jaya Bhaduri, who plays Thakur's widowed daughter-in-law, delivers the most tragic performance of all. Music by R.D. Burman is energetic but collectively only serviceable and is mostly remembered for the song Mehbooba Mehbooba.

Sholay was the most violent movie of its time and it is said that in 1975 the first crop of audiences that came out after watching it was left so numb that the word of mouth publicity did nothing for it to succeed. Sholay was their most visceral experience to date and slowly as its popularity grew it lasted for more than five years in theaters. Much like Godfather, Sholay is an experience and if you have not seen either of them your film journey is incomplete.

Gol Maal (1979)

Gut busting comedy

[8/10 · 9 February 2010]

A comedy of errors in which a lie and a mistaken identity sets into motion a domino effect of such proportions that every time a character faces an obstacle your heart leaps into your mouth, only to fall back with a thud because you continuously feel the urge to laugh uncontrollably.

Like any Hrishikesh Mukherjee movie, Gol Maal tells the story of next door people in the most heart-warming manner with a good dose of clean and genuine humor that takes a clean bite at the culture and traditions of middle-class India. Ramprasad Sharma (Amol Palekar), a chartered accountant by profession, is a colorful personality who is a sports junkie in the afternoons and an amateur singer in the evenings. With the help of his uncle he lands up a job at a trading firm and embarks on a mission to please his boss Bhavani Shankar (Uttpal Dutt in a hilarious turn) because his whole identity is fake considering his boss disapproves fashion, vehemently opposes the obsession of sports among the youth (although he is a secret sports fan himself), dislikes people who abbreviate their names and use recommendation to get a job, encourages purity of language, and sees mustache as a symbol of pride and a window to the soul. Ramprasad has none of the "good" qualities sans the mustache, his only saving grace, which he ends up losing in an attempt to save his skin after being spotted at a Hockey match by his boss. Remembering the plot of a movie an actor friend of his is doing, he manages to convince Bhavani Shankar that it was not him whom he had seen at the stadium but his jobless, good-for-nothing, clean shaven identical twin Laxmanprasad Sharma aka Lucky. So, during the day Ramprasad works as a straight-as-a-reed worker bee quoting quasi intellectual teachings of his imaginary father and in the evening takes on the role of his mustacheless notorious twin brother who teaches music to the boss's daughter and also romances her on the sly.

Hrishikesh Mukherjee, once again succeeds in creating a complex story around some simple and some quirky characters like Mrs. Kamala Srivastav (Dina Pathak) – a reluctant mother for hire and Bade Babu (Yunus Parvez), a not so bright colleague of Ramprasad whose favorite pastime is pulling hair out of his nostrils. He went so far as to mount this broad satire on the platform of Bollywood itself wherein an actor friend of Ramprasad Deven (Deven Varma as himself) mouthpieces the idea that life indeed is stranger than fiction as depicted in the movies and does the humble job of furnishing the fake mustache to the protagonist, the complex results of which sets the whole hanky-panky business into motion.

The rest of the cast is mediocre except for Shobha Khote and David in minor roles. Bindiya Goswami as the love interest only shines in her introduction scene and has nothing better to do except look lovelorn. Needless to say, it is the comic timing between Uttpal Dutt and Amol Palekar that is the star of the movie and the two went on to do three more films together with mixed results.

Chashme Buddoor (1981)

Good clean comedy

[10/10 · 9 February 2010]

Anyone who has ever lived with roommates and romanced an unassuming girl or, for that matter, a bespectacled bookworm would instantly claim this movie as his or her favorite. Not that the rest of the population can't enjoy it - from gangsters to musicians, to old grannies, to salesmen, to poets, to shopkeepers - everybody has something to take home from this movie.

Siddharth (Farooq Sheikh), Omi (Rakesh Bedi and Jomu (Ravi Baswani) are three Delhi University students who share an apartment and a permanent fixture on their countenance - their beloved cigarettes. Their personalities are reflected over their bed on their respective walls - Omi and Jomu wear their heart on their sleeves and have colorful cuttings of beautiful women. In contrast, Siddharth, an M. A. in economics, has photos of Gandhi and Vivekananda and doesn't take any interest in women. Their lives one day take a turn for the unexpected when Omi spots a beautiful girl in the neighborhood. Subsequently, both Omi and Jomu take their turn impressing the girl and her family, failing which they come back and paint a rosy picture to their roommates of all their good times. Ironically, the same girl Neha (Deepti Naval), turns up at their apartment as a saleswoman to sell her detergent powder. Omi and Jomu scramble to hide their faces, and it is up to Siddharth now to face his fear of talking to a woman. While he is only as right and bright as the clean towel that he hands over for her detergent demonstration, needless to say, both are smitten by each other, and their chemistry crackles on the screen.

Chashme Buddoor is not just funny because it has numerous gags, running jokes, and movie parodies - it works mainly because it takes the archetype, polishes it, and infuses it with likable and realistic characters of that of Omi and Jomu as sweet and likable loafers who address their girl chasing habit as "girl hunt," and Siddharth as a handsome but humorless geek - a quality that draws Neha to him and a fact totally lost on the other two friends, who in their envy and ignorance try to stop the spinning wheel of love. The look and feel of the movie, some may argue, looks dated. Still, compared to the natural performances, especially that of Saeed Jaffrey as Lalan Mian, it is like fussing over the old jewel box when what really matters is the box's content. Never before has a subplot in a movie been so enjoyable than that of Lalan Mian's continuous harassment of Omi and Jomu for not clearing their escalating tab of cigarettes. Their humorous banter, Lalan's indulgence in their girl hunt, and Omi's poetical deflections are a treat to watch.

Though a light romantic comedy at heart, Chashme Buddoor works on so many cinematic levels that its simplicity belies the heights it wants to achieve. On the one hand, it takes likable characters and spins a beautiful yarn around them and, on the other, makes little riffs on the film trends of the time, such as the clichéd boat ride against the background of the setting sun; singing in the park (that too in New Delhi - a city full of concupiscent people) with music coming out of nowhere, and onlookers basically making fun of the whole absurdity. On the same note, the ending is equally predictable but in spirits with any good Bollywood flick that never fails to titillate and tickle.

Pushpaka Vimana (1987)

The Silence Speaks For Itself...

[10/10 · 29 January 2010]

Words are not enough to describe the strengths of this movie of which there are so many that no doubt Pushpak deserves the status of a cult-movie. A silent movie and an intelligent one at that should have shaken up the world of cinema. Alas, it was not meant to be. Nevertheless, it is a landmark film. Had it been made in Hollywood, it could have been the "Avatar" of 3D viewing experience.

It tells the story of an unemployed youth Kamal Hassan who kidnaps and steals the identity of an alcoholic businessman, locks him in his one room apartment, and starts living the life of his dreams in the hostage's suite in a luxury hotel. What follows next is a mix of Alice-in-Wonderland like excitement; boy meets girl charm; hit man-on-the-loose pandemonium; guilt and redemption - all served with a puff of magic.

Despite having no dialogs, the makers of this movie have managed to create such endearing characters that unless you are like me who has watched this movie more than 20 times, you watch with wide eyed wonder at the innovativeness with which each character's story and the situations they find themselves in is revealed. For example, in the musical chairs being played out between Kamal Hassan and random characters in front of the public bathroom, each one of them is desperate to out maneuver the other to get the best "seat" and it is a sight to behold. You can't help but marvel at the subtlety with which Kamal Hasssan plays this scene. Even more intriguing is the sequence of events that propel the action from a daily routine like having a surrogate breakfast, romancing the magician's daughter (an irresistible Amla) at a funeral, dodging the hit-man's innovative weapon, to pouring alcohol down the hostage's throat after cleaning his bottom. It's a remarkable mix and you wonder how much of it was improvised.

Interestingly, the entire concoction is held together by symbolism and metaphors. The idea of boosting one's ego by drawing inspiration from the story of the clever crow that drops pebbles into a jar to raise the level of water in order to quench its thirst plays out beautifully when the protagonist does the same with a cup of tea. Only this time, he drops knick-knacks into the cup. In another scene, once the protagonist has successfully kidnapped the alcoholic businessman and taken over his identity, for a brief moment, stands in front of the hotel logo that has wings on its sides thus forging the idea that he himself has grown wings and is now ready to explore the world that has been out of his reach so far. The movie also boasts creative situational music, some of which sounds like as if it belongs in a lullaby but seems to gel beautifully with the well-choreographed sequences.

Pushpak has a very strong message, especially for the youth, and you don't need spoken words to understand that honesty is still the best policy both in life and in love no matter how bitter-sweet the outcome. If you loved "Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro" and "Chashme Buddoor", make it a point to see Pushpak. If not for anything, watch it for Kamal Hassan and witness how he inhabits his quirky character and missteps not even once.

Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro (1983)

Hum Honge Kamyaab...

[10/10 · 29 January 2010]

Hum Honge Kamyaab....and they did with Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro! JBDY is one of those rare Indian comedies where you don't have to wait for a funny situation to crop up from under the weight of suspense, action, romance, and tragedy. The most recognizable genres of the film world, practically all of them, have been realized, exploited and stretched to such an extent in this film that they almost border on the edge of not just satire but surrealism and you are left wondering – How in the world did they ever find humor in this one? Who could ever come up with the idea of a male corpse dressed as a woman, on roller skates, "standing" as a prop in a stage production of Mahabharata? It's bizarre but it works because of the stellar performances of the lead cast and some bitingly clever writing by Kundan Shah.

The film takes its central idea from Antonioni's Blow Up and explores the investigation of two struggling photographers Vinod (Naseeruddin Shah) and Sudhir (Vinod Baswani) who in their desperation accept the offer of a local self-serving tabloid editor Shobha Sen (Bhakti Barve) to photograph a clandestine meeting between the corrupt Municipal Commissioner D'Mello (Satish Shah) and the real estate developers who intend on bribing him to get the best deal in town. As the rivalry between the builders, the smooth and vile Tarneja (Pankaj Kapur) and the alcoholic Ahuja (Om Puri) escalates, the threat of murder looms large. The two knuckle-headed photographers, caught in a web of deceit and double crosses, to their horror, inadvertently capture murder on camera that further leads them into the dark recesses of corruption that plagues news media, business, politicians, bureaucracy, and police. We along with our heroes later learn about the extent to which the guilty parties will go to preserve their survival.

It is this very struggle for survival of each character fueled by greed that not just exudes cynicism while adding weight to the story but also acts as a source of non-stop side-splitting fun. Case in point: the scene in which the entire entourage of Tarneja and Ahuja, including the city commissioner, unabashedly usurp the play of Mahabharata because Vinod and Sudhir have hidden the dead body that could serve as the proof of the builder's wrongdoing and our heroes' innocence somewhere in that production. This has to be the most original idea ever to come out of Bollywood. The film clearly hints at the deterioration of the social structure of a society where the entire machinery is immoral and corrupt; breaking allegiances is commonplace, and all we have left to fight for us are two dunderheads who drew inspiration from a monkey and the only weapon that they have is a dead body. And this is where the blackness in this comedy works so wonderfully.

Despite a more somber theme, Kundan Shah and team have done a great job in keeping the tone of the movie light. Even the most intense scenes are so multi-layered and laced with such farce and symbolism that it would be unfair and impossible to reveal all of them here. This movie is an experience and if you want to know why the lines "Thoda Khao, Thoda Phenko" (Eat a little, throw a little) and "Tum commissioner ka bawarchi hai?" (Are you the chef of the commissioner?) still induce a belly laugh among the loyalists, you have to OWN this movie and watch it again and again till your belly hurts.

City of Joy (1992)

Read the source

[20 January 2010]

To truly appreciate the characters of City of Joy, you have to read the book by the same name by Dominique Lapierre. Compared to its source material, the movie is a fairy tale. The hardships that the leading characters go through in the novel are gut wrenching and on more than one occasion almost made me cry. It was nice to see Patrick Swayze take his role head on and I think he did a marvelous job. Om Puri is one of the finest actors of Indian Cinema. If you like his work, I highly recommend "ArthSatya" (Half Truth) and "Paar" - the movies that established him as an intense actor. Also "Freedom At Midnight" by Dominique Lapierre is a great read, especially if you are interested in history. Again - it is not for anyone with a weak stomach.

The Mothman Prophecies (2002)

Creepy

[9/10 · 14 January 2010]

Mothman Prophecies has to be one of the creepiest movie I have ever seen. Although I am not a big fan of Richard Gere, this movie kept me glued to the seat. The premise, the music, cinematography, editing and acting are all spot on and serve well in ratcheting the mood of the film.

The music, hands down, is one of the creepiest of this decade and is very well done. It borders on minimalism but it works on every level. Kudos to Tomandandy. Performances are first rate and Richard Gere does justice to his role and in the end you do feel his pain. Laura Linny, as always, perfect and Will Patton's entry in the movie will surely knock the wind out of the new-bees. It scared me, although I consider myself a veteran of horror genre.

All in all, a great Friday night movie. Enjoy it with your girlfriend and see how she gets spooked next time she picks up the phone .

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Scary in a Non-Hollywood way!

[9/10 · 29 December 2009]

I must admit that I have been watching horror movies (gory or not) even before I was allowed to watch any of them, and Paranormal Activity is definitely the scariest movie I have seen after The Exorcist and The Grudge. As one of the reviewer pointed it out - you have to watch this one with the right frame of mind. I enjoyed this movie solely based on the fact that it has some element of originality which, in the era of pointless remakes (who in his right mind would want to make a remake of Psycho?), is highly sought after.

This film is a testament to the fact that you don't need a multi-million dollar budget with gallons of fake blood to make an effective horror movie. Little known actors, a tight script, and some imagination is all that is needed to stimulate the senses. So, watch this movie with your closest friend, spouse, girlfriend or alone - in the dark.

Not convinced? Get a load of this- I saw this movie in theater with my mother-in-law who speaks broken English and does not watch English movies without subtitles. She too was badly shaken by this and admonished me for making her see something that will give her nightmares. Enjoy!