Change Your Image
warriorspirit
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Burning Train (1980)
It would be a great remake
I think this movie was ahead of its time, and would be a great film to remake with current technology and sensibility. It is a flawed film, and many of these flaws are due to its 80 Bollywood tropes, but it has a lot of plus points which are still impressive in 2016. I will mention them first before I discuss the flaws:
Great character drama. The train is full of all sorts of different kinds of characters, funny, quirky, sexy, angry, criminal, religious, young, old, family, couples, single, and the interactions between them make for very entertaining drama. Think of a road trip movie, except on a train with a myriad of characters.
Great screenplay. Except for the speedbreakers at the start, once the journey on the train begins the screenplay packs a lot of interesting situations and turns of events that keep the journey interesting; the initial character introductions and banter, the realization the breaks have failed, the train catching fire, the attempts by the passengers to save themselves, the frantic efforts by the railway officials to come up with ideas to save the train racing against time. There is never really a dull moment.
Great action. I would not have thought an 80's Bollywood movie would have had such technical finesse. The fast moving burning train actually looks real, the interiors look real, you actually feel like it was shot in an actual train(I am sure some portions were) The parts where some of the characters climb out of the moving train and then try to get to the next cabin by going across the windows or running on the top of the train looks like they really did it. The pyrotechnics are on par with 80's Hollywood. It is evident that this was a big budget movie for its time and it is executed with the same professionalism as similar disaster movies like Towering Inferno.
Great acting. Aside from the 80's acting style, another layer of realism is added by the reactions of the passengers to the impending doom, the desperation to survive and amidst all the mayhem to maintain their humanity. Vinod Khanna as the train's engineer particularly is notable and very handsome, you do wonder why the gene was not passed on to Akshay Khanna.
Now I will begin with the cons:
Takes time to start. The initial half hour is about introducing the leads and their love interests, and there are a couple of unnecessary songs. In fact the only song that really works in the movie is the lone song on the train between all the characters to entertain themselves on the journey. This actually can happen on Indian trains.
Female characters are weak. This is 80's patriarchal Bollywood when feminism had not really taken off yet, and it is evident here as the female characters have little personality and just react to their male counterparts.
At times OTT. Another 80's Bollywood staple is the "Disshom" fighting scenes which are cheesy and you have the OTT comic characters, the Johnny livers of their time, like Asrani with their slapstick routines. The villainous characters are one dimensionally bad.
If it was remade today for a contemporary audiences many of these 80's staples should and would be done away, leaving a great disaster movie. There are not many notable Bollywood disaster movies, so this would provide great material for a contemporary one.
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
A bit dated and a bit questionable
Looks like I am again going to be one of the minority voices on what is considered to be good and award winning movie. I am watching this on the heels of another road trip comedy "Were the Millers" In the latter I laughed my ass off, and in the former I barely opened my mouth to let out a laugh. I was underwhelmed with the entire movie, the situations and generally the character.
Perhaps this movie was one of the original road trip movies with a dysfunctional family, but is jaded now and there are far better , funnier and more entertaining ones in this genre. The comic situations in this movie are well not really all that funny, unless you think smuggling a dead body of their dirty grandpa whose killed himself from a cocaine overdose out of hospital window is funny; or a 8 year old doing a striptease at a beauty pageant for children is funny; or a gay man whose been fired from a prestigious academic job and tries to commit suicide is funny; or a self-help business man going bankrupt is funny; or self-imposed mute teenager finding out he is colour blind and cannot ever fulfil his dream of flying a plane.. is funny?
I did not find it funny but disturbing and a rather sad commentary on the American family. Every character in this movie is a loser; dirty grandpa who snorts cocaine, reads porn mags and speaks in vulgar sexual language in front of his grandchildren; most disturbing is he teaches his granddaughter(little miss sunshine) a striptease routine(this movie got awards) There is the gay brother in law whose tried to commit suicide because his man left him and he got fired from a top post, but rather than making him humble, it makes him arrogant and he repeatedly tells us "I am very qualified you know" There is the teenage son, who is a misanthrope and does not talk to people except through writing, and he throws a hissy fit when he learns he is colour blind and starts talking again; there is an arrogant control-freak father, who thinks there are only winners and losers in life and pushes his expectations on his children; there is an ignorant mother who is divorced and quarrelsome; and finally there is little miss sun shine herself, whose been deluded into thinking she is the most beautiful and talented girl in the world, and she's not.
Finally, what is the message of the movie? Is the message that we should not push ourselves and accept ourselves as we are? Is it children should be children and not groomed for beauty contents? Is it that though we maybe all losers, we should keep together as a family? Or is about the joy in loss?
There are a few tender moments and genuine family bonding moments so I am going to be generous and give it a 6. It is not a bad movie, just dated and bit questionable.
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
Though dubious story, a great adventure movie
I love adventure movies and wish they would produce more. An avid adventure gamer(Curse of monkey island, Diskword, Brokensword, Mist, Atlantis, Dreamfall to name a few) I love the delight of solving puzzles, putting together clues, meeting interesting characters and unravelling a great mystery. Of course movies are not interactive in the same way a game is, so we have to believe in the adventure on the screen, the puzzles and clues have to be intelligent and this is all adds to the great mythology and sense of discovery in such movies. Movies that did it well: Indiana Jones and the lost crusades, the Goonies, National treasure are some of the better examples in this genre.
Da Vinci code is going to be joining my small list of great adventure films. The movie keeps you captivated from start to end with a gazillion plot twists and a perpetual sense of mystery. It is irrelevant that the setting is a biblical conspiracy theory, as one should not be looking for any reality in the saga -- it should be treated as an adventure. It also an excellent thriller, with murders, man-hunts and car cases.
Tom Hanks is excellent as Langden a symbolist scholar and you learn some actual real history about symbols, their meanings and significances which has a semblance of authenticity.
Technically a well made production, but I think they could have cut down on the washed out flashbacks. There are far too many flashbacks in the movie and a few are just needless fluff. Action and cinematography are good.
All the religious controversy aside, this is well made and highly entertaining adventure thriller.
Goosebumps (2015)
Strictly for kids and teens
If I was 10 years younger and perhaps 10 IQ points dumber I would loved loved this movie. This takes me back to those Nickoledian days, particularly their famous show "Are you afraid of the dark" where a group of kids would come together before midnight to tell scary stories to each other and stories of monsters coming out of books were among the most popular; so this entire movie could have fit like an extended episode in the series.
Intellectually and emotionally this is at the level of high school with the classic high school tropes: young kid moves to a new school, falls in love with a weird girl, geeky virgin wants to get laid so desperately tries to be his friend, oh and there is high school prom. Of course with the major difference that a universe of monsters from the Goosebumps series have been accidentally unleashed on the town, and are going to crash that prom night.
Technically, a well polished movie with good monster effects work, but which is becoming run of the mill stuff now in your typical Hollywoood teenie pic.
Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb (2014)
When things pop up into life at night
There has been a fascination in Hollywood over making movies about inanimate objects popping into life. We all remember some very good examples Pinnochio , Toy story and Jumanji in this sub-genre, but as time has gone on, it appears this genre is losing IQ points or is specifically targeted at children. Recent examples I have seen of this Night at the Musueum 1 and 2, Goosebumps are childish. I am going to stick with NATM for this review, with a bonus review for the second part at the end.
The action starts at the strike of midnight when our new Museum guard(Ben stiller) takes his first night shift. There is no backtory, no build up, just bham the action begins and within minutes our guard is already naturalized to a museum where the exhibits all come to life and having arguments with stuffed monkeys, negotiating war tactics with little toy people. In real life of course, if such a thing was suppose to happen, the first reaction would be sheer disbelief and dread, then questioning oneself if one is hallucinating, then perhaps passing out and running out of the door in panic. Later, when the prison guards gets his son and a Phd student on the action, they too react as if it was all natural - "Oh stuffed lion come alive, that happens everyday"
The problems with these movies to be zany, funny and weird they dumb down the movie; dumb down the characters; and dumb down the story. It is not necessary that this sub-genre has to be dumb, as Toystory etc show us these can be intelligent and supported by an internal logic and characters reactions can still be believable. Instead, the characters are clichés you have seen in hundreds of movies before; a divorced father who is trying to win custody of his child; a child that is disappointed his father is a nobody; and the other man whose made a move on his family in his absence -- all have been pieced together to make this shameless quick-buck movie franchise.
So as I was saying the movie starts the moment he starts his first night shift -- then there is mayhem; then he starts his second night shift on a warning from management, then there is mayhem. Some of the mayhem is entertaining, a lot of it is shrill and annoying and strictly for kids. The second part at Smithsonian institute is even more aimless, messy and Ben stellar(the actor) looks visibly bored.
The real lesson that NATM teaches us is how easy it is to for Hollywood to start a franchise. The plot line for this movie could have been written on a handkerchief.
Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)
Unsympathetic and unrealistic portrayal
First and foremost, if you are going to make a biblical or religious epic, then you should be faithful and sympathetic to the scripture and not try to retrospectively rationalize it. In the biblical worlds miracles, God speaking to man, sorcery, magic are integral parts and to remove them for a more secular interpretation is to do violence to the text. It is somebody making LOTR without wizards and elves. This is the biggest "sin" Ridley Scott commits he tries to present the mythological drama like a real life historical drama and the supernatural elements are reinterpreted; God spake to moses becomes a hallucinatory vision of a scary young boy; Moses's plagues become a series of chance incidents and Moses parting the red sea becomes a freak meteorite strike, leaving it open for secular interpretation And there is no Moses turning staff into a snake(how would you interpret that secularly?) Mr Scott should have first decided whether wants to make a mythological epic or a historical epic. The latter is already a fail with the historical community as there is scarce if any historical evidence for Moses. So Mr Scott should have made a mythological epic and pulled all stops.
The other problem I had with this film was the casting and the language which I felt were anachronistic .You can tell this is a modern re-telling of the story, it almost like Alexander set in biblical times. Moses is portrayed more like a war commander than a prophet and his supporters are portrayed as rebels rather than people with love for the Messiah. I also don't understand this bizarre convention in Hollywood that to make a character evil, make it speak Queens English. The evil characters in this movie speak English. I understand that the movie should be presented in English to get a wider audience, but at least try to adding some ancient historical character to the speech, rather than making them sound like James Bond.
Technically, I felt the movie used a lot of dark depressing tones and looked barren and dull. Some the VFX work was blurry.
Overall: forgettable
We're the Millers (2013)
Total laugh riot, up there with Hangover
I watched this movie on DVD at home and I was recently recovering from Pneumonia which caused me pain every time I laughed, changed breathing, burped and hiccuped -- and this was totally the WRONG movie to watch. I laughed so hard and uncontrollably I was literally in pain. Every situation is drop-dead hilarious that this movie should come with a health warning.
What makes this so hilarious is the genuinely funny plot and the situations; a drug dealer, a stripper, a virgin and run-away hobo girl pose as a happy American happy family(father, wife, brother, sister) and hire out a mobile home/family van to smuggle drugs across US-Mexico border. A million things can go wrong course, and they do, but they are not what you expect! The real comedy is in the situations our lead characters get themselves into and you think "Now, are they are going to get themselves out of that"
This is also a road trip movie and so it has a lot of character bondings over the trip, and as a nod to it more tender moments, the ragtag family actually comes together as a real family at times and it is believable because the cast bounce of each other so well.
The comedy is strictly adult and relies heavily on explicit verbal sexual humour and bad language, and to some this might be offensive, but I felt in this this case toning down the sex and bad language quotient would have worked against the characterization; our characters are straight of the street and uncouth. It makes one for one comic situation when they are getting on a plane(as a family) and relax their pretence. This also in turn plays a into a group character arc, as we see what the family was like at the beginning and what is towards the end.
Last time I laughed this much was in Hangover.
The Martian (2015)
This is what Gravity should have been
Ridely Scott is back in his masterful elements in this movie, recalling what what made Alien and Blade runner so great, but was not great in Prometheus , and that is captivating and exciting story. How exciting do you think it would be to watch 2 hour 40 mins of a man stranded on Mars? Not very exciting. In gravity we had to watch Sandra bullock bounce around for 1 hours 20 min, which is exactly half of the Martian running time, and it is Martian which felt faster and shorter.
The key is the brilliant screenplay of this movie that always keeps the story interesting. When our man(Mat Damon) gets mistaken for dead and left stranded on the red planet by his team. He must use scientific knowledge, training and acumen to survive. This is actually far closer to real science, not your Star Trek "warp-core- manifold" variety. He has to use whatever is at his disposal to grow his own food, produce water and to find ingenious way of calling home. To watch him come up with one ingenious idea after the other is a treat to watch and never too unrealistic, as we repeatedly learn he is good at what he does.
Technically, this is a flawless production cinematography, VFX, sound, production design all work. The VFX are seamless and do not draw attention to themselves, making it look as if they really shot the movie on location -- on Mars!
This is a Matt Damon vehicle all the way, supported by an competent supporting class, but their characters barely get the screen time to grow. But that is OK, because Matt Damon is so brilliant and deserves an Oscar for making his lonely stay on Mars so entertaining for the viewer.
Bajirao Mastani (2015)
Will not be remembered as another Heer-Ranjha or Romeo-Juliet
There is a dialogue in the movie, "From now on people will remember Bajirao Mastani in history" There are constant self-professed claims throughout the movie of how their love is going to be immortalized. Having watched the movie and then reading a quick blurb of the history of these star-crossed lovers it turns out that they were real people and Bajirao really did love Mastani and built a palace for her(like Shahjahan for Mumtaaz) and he really did come at loggerheads with the people of his own faith. The problem is on celluloid, the manner in which their love story has been presented is so stylized, artificial and choreographed, that I did not believe it was real. I was actually convinced by the end of the movie that it was all fictional and could not possibly have been real.
So what went wrong? The problem is Bhansali's own self-indulgences overpower the real life story of Baijaro Mastani. Bhansali is notorious for his indulgences in Devdas, Saawariya, Black and Guzzarish, but I have always forgiven him for those indulgences and recognized the works of art he created. But since Ram Leela he has really fallen in his art and his indulgences are becoming gratingly apparent. In this movie he pays homage to his own movies in the lavish musical numbers, 'Kahe Ched Mohe' and 'Dola re Dola" from Devdas, and this in itself is not problematic, what is problematic he lifted the same choreography styles, the same camera angles and movements, and in the case of 'Pinga' the same situation that leads to the song, of the two leading ladies meeting in a dramatic confrontation and then agreeing to celebrate a religious festival together dancing for the man they both love. But the difference here is, while in Devdas Paro forgives Chandramukhi, here Kashi and Mastani's resentment for each other remains. Furthermore, in Dola re Dola, the impropriety of a courtesan and an aristocrat coming together in dance caused a controversy and uproar, and here nobody bats an eye lid. And in this situation the backstory, the tension and the controversy of Kashi and Mastani dancing together was was much more intense, so it surprises me why Bhansali just glossed it all over. I can sympathize why the Peshwa descendants and historians are protesting. It was not necessary Mr Bhansali, not only did you mutilate history, but it was totally out of character.
The other indulgences Bhansali makes that ruins the story is in he how paces, directs and scripts the the meetings of Bajirao and Mastani. He is trying to make every meeting, every glance, every word shared sound like Shakespearean poetry and to enhance the profundity, many of their shots are in slow motion and the actors emote with the precision of a puppet. From the moment Bajirao and Mastani meet to the dramatic climax, I did not at once find their love story believable. They were supposedly in love from first sight, a classic trope of stories of star crossed lovers. I think one of the reasons why it did not feel it was real, was because of Bhansali the filmmaker wanting to make his presence felt in every beat.
I consider Bhansali to be one of the best directors in Bollywood, because he has his own unique signature aesthetic that is felt in his movies, every shot is immaculately designed, choreographed, lit and scored. Every sequence shows his craftsmanship. He even matches them to the mood, dialogue, sets and costumes. This is a hallmark of a great filmmaker, but when overdone, it is like seeing the mirrors during a magicians disappearing act. In this movie as a craftsman he exceeds himself -- oh what beautiful sumptuous imagery, gorgeous lighting, epic camera work, brilliant use of CGI. I had no idea Bhansali had such a deft handle on CGI. I found it even better than Rajamouli's 'Baahubali' the few war sequences looked much more realistic and polished. If you compare the volley of arrows sequences side by side from both movies, Bhansali's will come up trumps. Technically, this movie is the best Indian production to date. Bahubali part 2 is going to have a high standard to beat.
Ranvir Singh, Deepika and Priyanka give it their all, and while proportionately Deepika and Ranvir get the most screen time, it is Priyanka that emerges the most competent actor, because her acting is more natural. I felt her character the most, in particular when she confronts Bajirao and says "I gave you my all, but you took away my pride" Priyanka nails every beat. Ranvir and Deepika, poor things were overshadowed by Bhansali's own indulgences. Still, Ranvir is able to overcome this in the war sequences. Ranvir seems to be a natural in any boisterous scene, whether it is a war dance or an angry battle.
Overall: Mr Bhansali the craftsman exceeds Mr Bhansali the storyteller.
Qissa: The Tale of a Lonely Ghost (2013)
A lonely movie, but hauntingly effective
Qissa is an Indo-European co-production in the language of Punjabi and it seems to be a movie made for film festivals. It is reminiscent of Matrobhoomi: a nation without women, partly because it is based on a similar theme of female foeticide, except here it is presented like a folk fantasy story where the female-child is not killed, but is just undesirable. In this movie the lead protagonist played by Irfan Khan is a Punjabi man who lost everything during the partition civil war, and becomes obsessed with having a male-child to continue his generation. But his wife has already given birth to three female children, so when she gives birth to the fourth one, he wants it to be a boy; want is perhaps a weak word, he NEEDS it, and will not accept a girl-child.
The viewer is left rather puzzled because when his fourth child is born, the midwife says "Congrats" and the father is elated announcing "It's a boy, a boy has been born in my house" but the mother herself says in protest "Why don't you kill me already" On what should be a jubilant occasion, the mood is very sombre. The puzzlement continues to haunt the viewer as the boy grows up, that something is a bit amiss about this boy. This boy is looks like a girl a little, he is weak and his sexuality seems to be confused. Then when the boy is now an adolescent and is getting female attention, he does not seem to reciprocate, and at the same time he seems to be struggling to try to be a typical boy who does show interest. It is only when he is married to a girl and his father makes advances on the girl because he wants a boy, does it dawn on the viewer: the fourth child was a girl too.
The movie is depressingly slow from start to finish, the best way to describe it would be by the movies tag line --lonely. It maintains its depressing, melancholic mood throughout, supported by a camera that is always moving, but always moving slowly. Also everybody seems to be so serious and the actors all emote very slowly, dragging out scene after scene. The tedium grows, but as the reality dawns on the viewer why it is so, it suddenly becomes hauntingly effective.
Unfortunately, when the movie goes into magic realism mode towards the end with the father who is now a wandering lonely ghost, it loses its effectiveness, because the supernatural aspect was not required in this story at all. This movie could have been a brilliant meditation on the sexuality and the identity crisis of a girl who is made to live like a boy, but they shortchange this for a rather bewildering supernatural climax.
This is a rather modest production, technical values are just adequate to tell its simple tale, most of it is shot on location and camera- work is pedestrian. The best part is the acting, Irfan Khan is in his elements here and is able to bring out the obsessive quality of the father. The background score is also effective and haunting.
The movie is rather lonely to sit through, but it is worth it the end. I was bored for the first hour, but by the time I had realized, though I had a nagging suspicion that the boy is a girl, I was gripped in shock and could appreciate the vision of the director Anup Singh.
Snowpiercer (2013)
Calculated for greatness
I only just saw Snowpiercer, and I want to share a few thoughts which is part a review of this movie a part a commentary on the questions this movie raised for me.
If you didn't know that this movie was produced and directed by South Korean film industry, you would never have known this was a South Korean movie. Why? The movie is in English, the lead actors are all Caucasian, others are a mix. The story of the movie is based on a European, French novel. There are two supporting South Korean characters, so I guess that is a bit of a clue that it is a South Korean product - but otherwise you would not know unless you were told. This does spring up an interesting debate, does a film industry have to produce ethnically indigenous movies or can they produce movies in other languages with foreign actors? Second question is to what extent are foreign movie industries under the imperial influence of Hollywood/Western culture that they forgo their own culture and make movies to appeal to Western culture?
The question above I will leave to ferment in the readers mind. In my my own mind I think it is a bit artificial. I would much rather see great South Korean movies based on their own culture and their own actors 3-Iron, Oldboy, Memoirs of Murder, than what I perceive to be a movie that is calculated to tap the Western market. At $40 million budget this is the most expensive South Korean movie made so far, but it does not entirely look it. What they did get right was the dystopic atmospheric lighting inside the train, which reminds you of Terry Gilliam(Brazil, Twelve Monkeys) and the production design of the interior train set is just right, with some really bizarre and wacky sets but brilliant lit, such as the indoor aquarium and the engine room. The problem area is the VFX, and of course we are going to compare it to Hollywood when it is consciously trying to imitate Hollywood, and in comparison the VFX work comes across as a cheaper imitation of Polar Express. The CG shots of the train, especially the aerial shots, make the train look like a toy train. However, by Asian standards the effects work is notable, and there at least some impressive vista shots of the frozen city outside of the train which are occasionally inter-cut into the slow moving drama. The vast majority of the movie is shot indoors in the train in movie sets. While, we know they are moving on a fast moving train, we never really feel the feeling of speed. This is because most of the movie is just wasted in loads of dialogue.
The weakest point of the movie is the screenplay. The main plot of the movie is the underclass at the back of the train rising in revolution against the elite class at the front of the train, and as they make their way down from train to train they learn new things and encounter harder and harder challenges. Yet, we never really feel the struggle, because they barely have to struggle against any of the challenges, they just bulldoze their way through. They pass the first stage by simply overpowering the seemingly armed soldiers, by realising that they don't have any bullets because bullets went extinct --- the next stage they encounter soldiers armed with axes and night vision goggles, and despite the fact that they are out- armed and surprised, many of them still survive, when really they should all be massacred. The next stage they face an even greater challenge, soldiers armed with machine guns, so now not only do they have bullets, they have enough bullets for several machine guns. But like before our heroic crusaders erstwhile unarmed bulldoze through them, but with the numbers dwindling down at every stage.
There are some really bizarre characters in the movie as well, that make no sense. There is a ninja, who does not utter a word, but somersaults into a scene at the right moment to defeat a baddie. There is a terminator baddie who despite getting stabbed and shot several times, and is able to come back to life and continue his murderous killing spree; there is a clairvoyant 16 years South Korean girl who knows what's behind each gate. Chris Evans as the hero is not believable as the revolutionary leader and his long monologues bore rather than inspire.
As the film reaches its climax with the unexpected twist you wonder what the struggle was all about in the end, as our lead hero ends up crashing the train and killing everybody on board, including himself. Yet, despite the train having been thrown of its track into the mountains below, the weird 16 year old clairvoyant girl and a 5 year black boy survive unscathed and the final scene is them walking out into the snow in fur coats, and apparently it was cold enough outside to turn one man's arm into ice at the beginning of the movie. But at this point you don't really care about this gaping plot hole, after having walked through so many, as the ending credits start to roll.
In conclusion this movie is trying to imitate Gilliam and to a large extent it succeeds in imitating his visual style, but it does not even come near imitating his greatness. Snowpiercer is too calculated to work with somebody like me, I can see right through it.
Bajrangi Bhaijaan (2015)
Beautiful, moving and heart felt Bollywood fantasy
It has been a long time since I have enjoyed a movie so much, and this too a Salman Khan movie. I am not really a Salman Khan fan. I did not enjoy the Dabang movies, I thought Kick was a time-pass and generally I find his acting to be a bit OTT.So Bajrangi Bhaijan was not at the top of my list of movies to watch. However, as my family wanted to see it, I was dragged along. I had no idea I would fall in love with the characters of this movie, and that I would actually cry. I am a fully grown man and I almost never cry in a movie, and I was crying several times during this movie! That is almost like magic.
Kabir Khan showed me he was a director to look out for in Kabul Express, which is quite an underrated movie. I could see his skill in pacing scenes, the comic timing and the interesting chemistry he could create between actors through snappy dialogue, humour and well edited scenes. This was not as well achieved in New York and in Ek Tha Tiger, but still I could see that he knows the pulse of a scene and how to create emotions. In Bhajrangi Bhaijan, which is definitely his best work so far, he gets the emotions, the timing and pulse of the scene just right. You laugh when you are suppose to laugh, you cry when you are suppose to cry, and you get angry when you are suppose to get angry. So few directors in Indian cinema have properly been able to manage the juggling act of Indian aesthetic of managing several emotional tones. Bhajrangi Bhaijan succeeds to a large extent creating a truly poignant and moving experience. And I would say the credit goes to Kabr Khan for making it work so well.
The very first thing you notice about Bhagrangi Bhaijan is the scale of production as the credits open, with stunning helicopter shots of snow snapped mountains. The cinematography and editing are top grade . As Salman Khan's first production this is a class debut production. All technical credentials are top notch .
The screenplay is the second thing that this movie gets very right. While the story is simple of taking a child back home to her mother, but what makes it interesting is the humorous situations and interesting characters. The characters are all lovable and humane people, Salman Khan as the innocent, kind-hearted and simple Bhajrangi Bhaijan is the most interesting character Salman Khan as played. You fall in love with the character. The situations and the dialogues are all funny and snappy, there are quite a few laugh out loud moments in the movie. The comedy is never forced or contrived, but works because of some genuinely hilarious situations and witty dialogue, supported by a director who knows the beats of his scenes.
The chemistry between the three main characters is what makes this movie so lovable. Salman Khan is unusually restrained, and is able to convey the simplicity and innocence of Bhajrangi Bhaijan. Hashali is super cute as the mute girl, and her lack of expressions actually works in her favour. The real star of the show in acting is Nawazudin Siddiqui as the Pakistani reporter who is proving that he was one of the best actors in India today, his witty dialogue delivery can make the most banal of charters a riot. Kareena Kapoor as Bharang Bhaijan's girlfriend is competent in a minor role.
Where Bajrangi Bhaijan loses a point is its lack of realism, which is a common problem in all of Kabir Khan's movies where he treats politically charged issues, particularly terrorism and India- Pakistan tensions in a light hearted comic manner. Bhajrangi Bhaijan takes place in a Bollywood fantasy world, where Border Security Forces and police officers are humane and friendly, where Imams in Mosques are religiously pluralistic, where Pakistani public are democratic and can overturn their governments decision, where Muslims do not hesitate to say "Jai Shri Ram" and prostate to the Hindu Monkey god Hanuman. Sweet, idealistic, and totally off the mark in reality. But when it is presented in such a heartfelt manner, with a sincere message of religious harmony and lovely humane characters, snappy dialogues and humour that you can't help but suspend disbelief. So I did.
The other area where the movie loses a point is in the regularity of the songs, in the first half of the movie I felt there were too many songs, and a few could have easily been avoided because it felt like a musical, especially the Chicken Song. Fortunately, in the second half there are lesser songs. Otherwise the songs are melodious, hummable and well integrated, but none were memorable.
I am definitely looking forward to Kabir Khan's next Phantom, and the initial teaser seems to show us we may have another winner on our hands, and this time I won't have to be dragged into the cinema.
Bãhubali: The Beginning (2015)
Falls short of true epic genre
I have been looking forward to Bahubali ever since I heard about it. I have seen Rajamouli's Magadheera and Eega, and I was impressed and I thought to myself, "Give Rajamouli 200 crores, and lets see what he can do" I also want to see Indian filmmakers reach Hollywood standards, as any proud Indian would want as well. Now the reviews are raving that Bahubali reaches parity with those standards. I will be as unbiased as I can in my review. It doesn't on the whole, and it is not budget that lets it down, but poor scripting, lack of vision and some bad aesthetic choices.
First, I will begin with what is good, before I start deconstructing it. The cinematography and colour grading is stunning, I love the location shots, the waterfall and the sweeping epic vistas. The use of CG mattes mixed with live footage is the best I have seen in an Indian film, they are somewhat LOTR-esque. The hugely talked about battle scene in the end are amazing. The nods to 300 and LOTR are clear, but it does not copy them, and comes up with some creative shots, especially a sequence where huge stone boulder carry a massive silk cloth that falls over the enemies and then it is set on fire. I think here Bahubali has set the standard not just for India, but Asia in general. It compares favourably to Hollywood.
Now what I did not like. The entire first half of the movie is a total waste, badly scripted and hurried. The VFX sequences here are all completely unnecessary and a waste of time, energy and money: this includes a vertical limitesque avalanche sequence, which could have looked good, with better shot design, but the director allows for some really bad and fake shots which stick out. Another sequence has a king fight a CG bison, which adds nothing to the story(what a waste of resources). Another sequence has a CG snake which wraps around an arrow of heroine(warrior princess) while our hero draws on her(an absurd love scene) - again a waste. The waterfall scenes are luscious, but totally wasted. They are nothing more than exotic backgrounds for our hero to jump around like a Tarzan in a dream sequence.
In general the entire first half is a waste. This is not the fault of budget, but of a bad screenplay and a lack of vision. The second half is told as a flashback, recounting the politics of the ancient kingdom and the conspiracy to overthrow the kingdom, and this is where the battle scene takes place with a savage Ork like army planning to siege the kingdom. But despite being the most visually impressive portion in the movie, it is let down by poor scripting, as there is no build up to the battle scene. It is abrupt. Unlike in LOTR, where the whole movie builds up to the final climatic battle.
Bahubali ultimately come across to me as an excuse for the director Rajamoili to try his hand at VFX and LOTR esque battle sequence. Very little attention has been given to scripting, acting, music or plot development. That's the biggest shame, because none of these things are the fault of budget. He could have done a lot more with his 200 crores.