Change Your Image
learnnew
Reviews
The War Zone (1999)
THE best movie I've ever watched ...
This is THE best movie I've seen. There are no words to describe the movie, the performances and the work of the crew.
I am an incest survivor myself. If anything, I know this much about the movie: it realistically captures how life goes on in such a setting. I mean I know too well about how it went on for me. The discomfort, the seeming ignorance/blind eye, the curiosity, the guilt, feelings of manipulation, the pain, the urge to punish oneself, the love, the conflict - all are real and are brought out very realistically.
Contrary to what some have commented, the movie is not manipulative! The other day I was talking to my friend about this movie and somehow Philadelphia (Tom Hanks et al) came up. Now a movie like that is a manipulative movie (probably deliberately done so, just as this movie is deliberately left totally non-manipulative!). Also people have complained that there has been no investigation into the rationale behind the actions of the characters. Any attempt to rationalize these actions would trivialize them. There are no cookie-cutter solutions for problems like this. I am glad and thankful that Tim Roth has responsibly avoided baby-feeding us notions and whats worse, stereotypes, about incest, in the name of rationales. Even after twenty-some years of dealing with it (I'm still dealing with it even though the incestuous actions have stopped for a long time now.), I don't think I have any answers myself. If you expected answers in a 90-something-minutes movie, you probably aren't going to get it. Besides if anyone ever promises an answer in a 90-something-minutes movie (or even otherwise), I'd be wary of what they have to say!
I really wish I could see the movie when it was released in one of the film festivals or something. I really wish this movie gets watched by many people in the world! Movies such as these make all the difference in people's lives because they get people to think. They force people to be responsible and sensitive. In my case, I had to watch it from 2 am to 3:45 am at my home when everyone else was asleep. Goes to show how much we are even ready to face the issues, let alone try to understand and come up with some sort of answers!
10/10!!!
In & Out (1997)
Wow! What a fabulous comedy!!!
This has to be a cult classic! I am amazed to see people call this homophobic! Guys, take some comedy will ya? Oh, come on, there have been so many comedies that spoof str8 guys! Besides this movie not only takes potshots at gay stereotypes (as perceived by some gay guys and most str8 guys nonetheless) but also takes hilarious shots at hollywood, models, str8 guys and the whole nine yards! The comment about when is gay sex ok was hilarious, so was the mock oscar scene. At some point I realized the movie started playing like a Charlie Chaplin or a Laurel-Hardy movie. I almost expected the characters to throw the wedding cake and the food at each other and make a huge mess :) The ending was a bit too cheesy but then the movie had already gone so over-the-top on everything it was not too much of a letdown.
The acting was some of the best. Comedies like these work on timing. All the actors had the perfect timing. Kevin Kline is probably the only str8 actor (I guess he's str8) who has pulled off a gay role with such aplomb (other than Eric McCormack of course). The scene when he says to Tom Selleck (Peter Malloy) "But I'm NOT gay" with a flourish of his hand was so classic I was rolling on the floor laughing. Joan Cusack was just perfect in her role. She deserved the nomination. Having given Kevin Kline the mock Oscar at the end of the movie, there was no way he could have been nominated now, was there? But if I had a chance, I would have most definitely nominated him.
Recommended heartily! 8 out of 10!
Memento (2000)
One of the best movies I've ever watched ...
An amazing movie! Much has been said about the movie, the screenplay, direction and performances. I'm not going to add much here. I'm amazed that Joe Pantoliano didn't get nominated for an acting award for this movie! He gave by far the best performance in the movie. Stephen Tobolowsky and Guy Pearce were also amazing. And I'm also amazed that Nolan didn't get nominated for the best director in many major awards, including Academy awards and the Golden globes. What a direction! Hats off!
I give it a hearty 10/10!
Onto the movie ... There can be many interpretations of the "ending" and the entire movie itself.
SPOILER ALERT!!! VIRTUALLY ENTIRE PLOT GIVEN AWAY!!! BEWARE!!! BEWARE!!! STRONG RECOMMENDATION: DO NOT READ AHEAD IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED THE MOVIE!!! PLEASE WATCH THE MOVIE AT LEAST ONCE! (You've been warned enough!)
I found this interesting question on a few reviews, including Ebert's. (I personally think Ebert missed a number of points in this movie, very rare for him to do so.) The question is this: if the last thing the main character remembers is his wife dying, then how does he remember that he has short-term memory loss?
I kept thinking about it quite a bit. When I recently watched the movie again, it clicked to me. Remember he is always looking at the back of his left palm (at a very prominently visible place) where he has tattooed "Remember Sammy Jankis"? It is to remind him of his condition. It makes sense because he always associates his condition with that of Sammy Jankis. This is my take on it.
There was also another comment in Ebert's review: Nolan's device of telling his story backward, or sort of backward, is simply that--a device.
I disagree, because, what I got out of the movie was this: It doesn't matter whether the cop-character Teddy (Joe Pantoliano) or Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss) are nice people or not. It doesn't even matter whether Leonard even found the murderer or not. What the movie is really about is the helplessness of Leonard. Granted, he writes copious notes, tatoos stuff on his body and painstakingly lives as much an ordered life as possible given his condition. But ultimately, he is human. In the "climax", when he says to himself that yes, he is going to play a game and make Teddy his target, it so amazingly brings out the helplessness of the character. It would be even more ironical if what Teddy said (as to Leonard being the real "murderer" of his wife, i.e., the story he attributes to Sammy Jankis,(did leonard succeed in making a long-term memory by training, after all?)) is true. The entire life of Lenoard is now being played in his mind as some "normal" life of revenge but he really has a psychological condition. And since we see the movie in Leonard's point of view, we are inclined to believe his thoughts and notes. Only in the "end" is his "condition" revealed to us. Therefore the movie had to be told backward. If we knew of his helplessness beforehand, I wonder what is left of the movie!
A personal message that I got from the movie: We always live under the illusion that we are in control of our lives, at least we want to live so. Is it possible? How do our helplessness and weaknesses and subjectivities manipulate us?
The War Zone (1999)
THE best movie I've ever watched ...
This is THE best movie I've seen. There are no words to describe the movie, the performances and the work of the crew.
I am an incest survivor myself. If anything, I know this much about the movie: it realistically captures how life goes on in such a setting. I mean I know too well about how it went on for me. The discomfort, the seeming ignorance/blind eye, the curiosity, the guilt, feelings of manipulation, the pain, the urge to punish oneself, the love, the conflict - all are real and are brought out very realistically.
Contrary to what some have commented, the movie is not manipulative! The other day I was talking to my friend about this movie and somehow Philadelphia (Tom Hanks et al) came up. Now a movie like that is a manipulative movie (probably deliberately done so, just as this movie is deliberately left totally non-manipulative!). Also people have complained that there has been no investigation into the rationale behind the actions of the characters. Any attempt to rationalize these actions would trivialize them. There are no cookie-cutter solutions for problems like this. I am glad and thankful that Tim Roth has responsibly avoided baby-feeding us notions and whats worse, stereotypes, about incest, in the name of rationales. Even after twenty-some years of dealing with it (I'm still dealing with it even though the incestuous actions have stopped for a long time now.), I don't think I have any answers myself. If you expected answers in a 90-something-minutes movie, you probably aren't going to get it. Besides if anyone ever promises an answer in a 90-something-minutes movie (or even otherwise), I'd be wary of what they have to say!
I really wish I could see the movie when it was released in one of the film festivals or something. I really wish this movie gets watched by many people in the world! Movies such as these make all the difference in people's lives because they get people to think. They force people to be responsible and sensitive. In my case, I had to watch it from 2 am to 3:45 am at my home when everyone else was asleep. Goes to show how much we are even ready to face the issues, let alone try to understand and come up with some sort of answers!
10/10!!!
Paarthale Paravasam (2001)
One of the most cliched horrible movies!
Balachander has totally lost touch! His movies were always contrived but atleast there was an intelligence behind it. But they have crossed all limits of believability and have become stupid and silly these days! Avoid like a plague!
P.S: Simran and Madhavan turn in wonderful performances that are totally lost in the idiotic script! What a predicament it must have been for them - to act in such a stupid movie by such a well-known and once-great director! Good luck guys!
Veerapandiya Kattabomman (1959)
WOW!
There are movies that can be reviewed. And there are movies one has to watch in wonder and salute it! We're incapable in our limited intellect and capacities to even comment about them. We just reverently watch them and salute them! This movie is of the second kind. Rather I should say the performance of Shivaji Ganesan in this movie is of the second kind!
What a movie! This is an all-time classic! Shivaji Ganesan's career role! He got the best actor award in the Afro-Asian film festival at Cairo for this movie. One of the best performances ever by any actor in any movie. The supporting cast is uniformly good. When someone is inspired, he or she gives up all his individuality and in that surrender something everlasting is produced. This is the case in the movie. Shivaji is clearly inspired. Whew! After watching the movie, your step, your look, your demeanor will have a confidence and a swagger for days! DON'T MISS IT IF YOU GET A CHANCE!
Sindhu Bhairavi (1985)
One of the best Tamil movies!
At the outset, let me confess that I am a bit partial to this movie. It has all the over-the-top melodrama of Balachander. You see, he has this tremendous need in him to stamp his seal all over his movies. That is his trademark and it has become accepted in Tamil film industry, even though it may appear ridiculous to many. This movie is no exception in that regard. But the story behind it, the performances and the direction are absolutely heart rending.
Sivakumar plays the role of a famous classical singer who is in an unhappy marriage to a woman named Bhairavi who has no skill in music whatsoever, and who doesn't have children (played sweetly by Sulakshana). He encounters a music lover, orphan and fan named Sindhu (played by Suhasini, she got the national award for best actress for the movie) in a contrived way typical of Balachander. She has strong feelings that South Indian classical music is not sung primarily in the South Indian language Tamil (mother tongue of all the main characters in movie and the language spoken in the state where all the main characters reside). This has made it inaccessible to the general Tamil public in the state. (As an aside, this is a truth and such an elitism has pervaded south indian classical music for the better part of last century.) Their views clash and an intellectual friendship begins which ends in an affair and Sindhu becoming pregnant. Unwilling to destroy the singer's family, Sindhu disappears from the scene. From here on, the singer degenerates and becomes an alcoholic. This is a HUGE no-no in indian classical music circles, known for its supposed piety and supposed cultural savvy. Everything goes downhill and only Sindhu can fix it. But no one knows where she is. Sindhu also has a story of her own regarding her origins. Balachander has wonderfully exposed the hypocrisy in the elitist societies in South India. (The period is grossly misplaced though. Such hypocrisy was common when Balachander himself was in his young age, not during the time he has set the movie in!) The climax resolves all the issues through another contrived, politically-correct ending that is vintage Balachander. The only problem I have with the movie is the song sequence when Sivakumar is drunk. It was totally unnecessary!
Unfortunately Sivakumar, who gave as good a performance as Suhasini did not win the best actor award. (He was later denied yet again for one of the best acting performances I have ever witnessed in Marupakkam. We won't get into the award politics in India.) The reason I'm biased towards this movie is because I am a classical singer myself. The music in the movie is absolutely superb. Ilayaraja is a genius and he proves himself yet again. He got a national award along with Chitra the playback singer for Suhasini. Just as Sivakumar didn't win an award, his playback singer Yesudas was also robbed of a thoroughly well deserved award for best playback singing.
Oru Veedu Iru Vaasal (1990)
Here's a manipulative but touching movie!
This is vintage Balachander. Contrived and manipulating, yet tugging at your heart. All performances are top-notch, as is usual in his movies. This is actually two movies put together. Their connection is contrived and hence the climax is a let-down. But individually, they are wonderful pieces. Violin virtuoso-brothers Ganesh and Kumaresh have been used brilliantly and have delivered excellent performances for their debut. Be forewarned! You'll feel depressed after watching the movie. But it is worth it!
Manathil Uruthi Vendum (1987)
Excellent performances!
The movie is a bit preachy but amazing. Suhasini and the famous playback singer S.P. Balasubramaniam (in his debut, I believe) have given tremendously powerful performances. SPB's role will linger in your mind long after the movie is over. The movie has the trademark irony of Balachander stamped all over it. A vintage Balachander movie to watch!
Apoorva Raagangal (1975)
Unique!
The premise is challenging. I don't know of any other movie employing it. I firmly believe that only a person as contrived as Balachander can imagine such a premise. It is another issue that he handles the premise in his own contrived way that is at-once cliched, repulsive, yet interesting and extracting the very best from all his artistes. You have to have a certain taste to enjoy such movies. Since they are often extremely subjective visualizations of the director's contrived mind, not everyone likes them.
Anyway, I will end this review merely stating the premise: A son with a single parent (father) and a daughter with a single parent (mother). (They are unrelated families.) Each has a certain misunderstanding with his/her parent and leave the house. What happens then is interesting. The father meets the daughter and falls in love; the son meets the mother and falls in love. What is to happen if they marry? Pretty daring for 1975, I would say! Go figure.
Muthal Mariyathai (1985)
Watch Shivaji Ganesan at his finest!
How can one even begin to describe this gem of a movie? For those who don't know Chevalier Shivaji Ganesan, he is the greatest Tamil actor and one of the greatest actors ever born. He, of course, didn't belong to the school of method acting and comes from a stage background and hence often his performances have been termed over the top (in many cases it is true as well). However, he is an actor who is possibly one of the very best to learn from. I have heard that his films are used in teaching acting in schools.
By the time this movie was made, Shivaji was past 50 at least and had grown considerably in the lateral dimension ;) So it was a challenge to write roles for him that would do justice to his talents. After a long time, Muthal Mariyathai offered him a meaty role and boy did he deliver! He turned in such a restrained performance that this in itself deserves a lifetime achievement Oscar! To everyone's surprise, Radha, a young actress then, and Vadivukkarasi matched him frame to frame in their roles. The movie is about the life of a middle-age leader of a village where farming is life. Shivaji, unhappily married to Vadivukkarasi, rediscovers his life when he meets Radha. What follows is one of the most poignant, beautiful and restrained love story that is bound to move any viewer. There are a few subplots that are not always needed. But the movie is a testimony to some of the best performances of some of the best performers in Tamil film industry, including the best of all, Shivaji. Check it out if you can! It is a TOTAL MUST-SEE! 10 out of 10!
The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)
One of the best character studies ever made!
This movie is a brilliant portrayal of a troubled mind. The movie never dwells on how and why Tom Ripley became the impersonator that he was. But it is unnecessary in this movie. Sadly because he could not share his secrets to anyone, he lived a lonely life. But Tom Ripley was a man with love and insecurities. His insecurities made him utterly selfish to the point of being inhumane, recluse and shy, but he had rather strong feelings. So many times he came close to confessing to Peter and even Marge. He even considered confessing to Inspector Roverini and Meredith. But he couldn't. There were so many times he thought he was totally cornered and that he had no way out. But he was not weak enough to commit suicide. His instincts of self-preservation (however crude they may have been) pushed him into committing murders so that he could move on. He was a doomed character unless he confessed to someone and let them take over his life and restore him. But he never could do it till the time shown in the end of the movie. That is why he had to push away all the people that he loved and that loved him (or hated him). And the only way he knew to push them away was by murdering them. And the only way he survived all this (or a person like him can survive all this) was through his intelligence and his three talents.
Now onto the review of the movie. Matt Damon acted his very best. It is not easy for the viewer to understand and appreciate the character that Minghella wanted Damon to portray. I thought Damon did a superb job. Often times, he had to show Ripley's mind simply through his mannerisms. I thought he portrayed the conflict in the character very well. The disarming innocence and simplicity to the point of humility, the unassuming confidence about his talents, the discomfort of not fitting in, the charming or nerdy smile (as appropriate) and a seeming ignorance of his attractive traits were all superbly portrayed by him. I believe he should have definitely garnered much more recognition for the superlative performance. Jude Law and Jack Davenport were amazing in their roles as well. The character of Dickie Greenleaf is as complicated as that of Tom Ripley, except that they have been brought up in the opposite ends of the spectrum and their lifestyles show ample proofs for that. They both seek not too dissimilar ends, though they seek it through totally different means. The difference in their positions in the society is also shown by the denial-mode that Greenleaf is in, as opposed to a certain degree of understanding and acceptance of his personality by Ripley. This does not mean Greenleaf is dumb, as is evidenced in his last scenes before being murdered by Ripley. I definitely think Jude Law gave another superlative performance in the movie. Cate Blanchett was suitably artificial, while Gwyneth Paltrow was brilliant in flashes. My jury is still out on Paltrow's abilities. Philip Seymour Hoffmann was brilliant as well. He and Damon clearly depicted the uncomfortable understanding and anger that was always there between their characters in the undercurrent. Stefania Rocca was good in the very few scenes she was in.
Much has been said about the cinematography of the movie and I completely agree with the praise. The script, editing and direction were first rate. That is ultimately why the film succeeded totally in its objectives. Minghella should have garnered a directorial nomination as well.
Kannathil Muthamittal (2002)
Sensitive, top-notch film from a great director ...
The film has Maniratnam written all over it. It is subtle in its content, yet manages to be in-your-face with some trademark-Maniratnam blunt dialogs and blunt visuals too. I've only seen Spielberg and Benigni who have managed to balance subtlety and directness wonderfully. Maniratnam is not their class but very close on their heels. At times he is better than them!
The performances are superb, the production values are excellent, particularly the camera and art direction. Yet I have to mention two let downs in the movie. One is sort of major - Rahman's background score. It had a widely fluctuating quality - at times (in the final scenes and in the scenes following Amudha's birthday) bordering on superb and at times (in most of the war scenes, in the scene when Amudha sees the young LTTE girls) downright intrusive. The second one is a minor let down - editing. The movie could have used a good 10 minute trimming in the middle stages.
The first half hour is a series of disjointed events thrown at you at a rapidfire pace, which may not be easy for even Tamilians to follow, not to say how difficult it is for the Western audience. Yet, being a Tamilian, while I relished the first half hour of the movie so much, I can't help but wonder how much of that brilliance remained after translating the dialogs. Personally I had a very hard time translating all the comedy in the movie when I attempted it for North Indians and Americans!
That said, I have watched the movie 5 times already. I don't think I'll stop watching it anytime soon. One of the best to come out of India, heck, one of the finest movies ever made. Kudos to Maniratnam and the entire team!
A hearty 8.5 out of 10.0!
Moondram Pirai (1982)
One of the most sensitive movies ever made ...
Moondram Pirai is a poetic beauty. It has everything going for it - a touching story, excellent screenplay, top-notch acting (particularly from Kamal and Sridevi), great music, gorgeous photography and simply superb direction. It is one of the all-time classic Tamil movies ever made. Must see! 10 out of 10!
Philadelphia (1993)
Wonderful movie, a must see
SPOILER ALERT!!!
I saw this movie for the first time today, and this is the first time I'm writing a review for a movie here. It is a must-see movie. Simply superb!!!
There're different ways in which one can interpret the so-called misgivings of many of the readers here. Guys have complained a lot that Andy and Miguel never kissed in the movie. But did you notice it, even till the last scene when Andy dies, they never said "I love you". Yet there can be no two opinion that their love was so sincerely portrayed by the two actors. I would rather take it to be a deliberate omission that conveys a message. To me, it showed the restriction they felt in expressing their love for each other in public. It hurt me. Another thing I noticed was that they never showed Miguel after Andy died. Even though he is Andy's lover and even though Andy's family accept him wholeheartedly, in public's eye, Miguel has no locus standi whatsoever. Like the scene when Miguel is introduced, i.e., the dialogues in the hospital. The doctor is about to throw him out. These are issues which even now gays and lesbians face. They've been subtly but beautifully brought out.
On a personal level, the movie has been a sort of an eye-opener for me. I've never watched a movie based on a gay theme. All the words about enduring discrimination in real life is fine, but this atill definitely was an eye-opener for me.
The movie did create a sympathy for Andy and Miguel and portrayed them as sort of victims. But then they were! They were victims of discrimination. And, note this, neither Andy nor Miguel ever asked for any sympathy in the movie. Nor did anyone shower sympathy on them. In many instances where sympathy could have explicitly played a factor, the makers had deliberately resisted including it. The two best examples I can think of have to do with Joe Miller, Andy's counselor: Joe doesn't take up the case because he feels pity for Andy. Also, when one of Joe's colleagues ask him if he is turning "pansy", his reasoning of why he took up the case is very clear. Again no pity involved. But if watching the movie creates sympathy in the viewer's mind and that sympathy leads to a better appreciation of the discrimination gays and AIDS victims go through, then it is every bit worth it.
I agree with the fact that not all parents are as open minded as Andy's and Miguel's. But dealing with all those issues will take away the focus of the movie. There are so many gay-related issues that need to be addressed, may be through movies too. But one can't expect all of them to be addressed in one movie. Thats just preposterous.
By the way, not all gays want to watch porno and want to get it on or whatever. I am gay and I am so happy for this movie for what it stands for.
About the movie itself, the acting was excellent, except in a couple scenes that Denzel Washington felt flat and sort of subdued. May be he tried to underplay but overdid it. Editing could have been a bit smoother. But otherwise the movie was wonderful.
My rating: 9.0/10.0