kida_fish Reviews

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

FUNNY, AND SERIOUSLY THOUGHT-PROVOKING

[8/10 · 11 November 2004]

*Possible Spoilers*

Forget Michael Moore's biased views, forget how he conveniently keeps at bay, the 'other' point of view, and forget how he wants us to believe only his side of the truth. As a filmmaker, he is a genius. He has a fantastic sense of humor, and knows better than anyone else, the nitty-gritties of how to use satire as a weapon. In fact, he has mastered the delicate art of sarcasm.

A film about violence, 'gun-violence' in particular, is not such a difficult thing to make these days, is it? It is not, but Moore's way of looking at violence and his somewhat cheeky way of presenting his views on it though, are anomalous, and Bowling For Columbine is one anomalous documentary.

Bowling For Columbine completely redefines the concept of the 'Candid Camera' form of entertainment. Catching others unguarded in their gawkiest moments, and laughing at their expense, has always been a rather seedy form of entertainment. But, Moore's way of making fools of the 'wiseacres', or simply, the 'ill-doers', by making a big fool of himself before them, has found a more thoughtful and productive use for the trash that is affectionately known as 'Candid Camera'.

In the movie, in addition to stating the facts from his sound research-work, Moore does plentiful of 'street-work', basically interviewing all kinds of people, from a school drop-out who felt insulted when his name was number-two on the 'threat-list' of his school, and not number one, right up to the Hollywood 'gun-possession advocating' legend, Charlton Heston, and getting all kinds of answers from them, some funny, some shocking, but all leading to the serious undertone of the movie.

Moore's crazy animation byte on the 'History Of America', and his disturbing presentation (amid the paradoxical background of Louis Armstrong's 'What A Wonderful world') of why he thinks the country has always been unreasonably violent, are hilarious as well as acerbically provocative.

Moore's facts may be 'doctored' or questionable. But, his presentation of the supposed facts does make those who support his views, as well as those who think he is a big fat fatuous pig, ponder, talk, and have opinions. If this is so, then his job is probably fulfilled. And, along with making us think, if he makes us laugh and cry, then he is indeed a genius, a well-deserving Oscar-winner.

Rating: 8/10

Miss Monday (1998)

SOME SERIOUSLY AMAZING PERFORMANCE

[8/10 · 11 July 2004]

What lies behind closed doors? Or what lurks in the deepest and darkest reaches of our souls? This is exactly what MISS MONDAY tries to explore; the guinea pig? A ‘high flying' executive named Gloria, played by the very able Andrea Hart.

After the initial preliminaries, the movie finally kicks off, as a screenwriter (James Hicks) finds himself fumbling for words and inspiration to depict a leading character (Marianne) of his script. Hence, on the advice of his mentor, Hicks decides to actually ‘observe' a real-life person resembling his script-character, whom he feels could inspire him into writing his ‘Marianne' with much less difficulty.

So, the screenwriter decides to become a scientist and sneaks his way into Miss. Gloria's abode to study his subject and learn her ways and mannerisms. Until this point the script looks goofy and awkward. But then we get to see one of the finest acting performances by Andrea Hart, as she unfolds the middle-aged, single, ambitious executive Miss. Gloria's inner sanctum, which is otiose, dismal and sorry; much in contradiction to her alter persona that the outside world is conversant with.

Hart's brilliant acting performance comes in during the time when the movie is almost dialogue-less. The way she limns the disturbed and insecure side of an otherwise uncompromising and demanding woman, is scary, especially because it is so lifelike. Forget the direction, forget the script, forget the supporting cast; MISS MONDAY is all about Hart's memorable performance, cap-a-pie.

MISS MONDAY is truly indie. Though the story seems unrealistic, the direction and the performance are natural. There is nothing flashy about MISS MONDAY. With everything else restricted to the bare minimum, the movie is left in the hands of the performance of the cast, especially that of Andrea Hart. Andrea delivers, and delivers generously. Watch the movie and be shocked and spellbound, alike.

RATING: 8/10

Familia (1996)

A PERFECT PARODY

[7/10 · 12 April 2004]

*SPOILERS*

FAMILIA is one of those movies that is deeply agitated, but tries to keep as stoic-a-face as possible. This nature makes the movie scary, as well as hilariously funny. The main character of the movie, Santigo hires a group of actors to play his family just for one day, that of his birthday. Well, if this alone sounds messed up, there is more to come.

In a way, Santigo's family (or the actors playing the part of Santigo's family) is disheveled. Particularly, there is incest amongst most of the members of Santigo's 'perfect' family. The steamy relationship between Santigo and his sister-in-law, or between Ventura (Santigo's brother) and Santigo's wife (who is actually Ventura's wife), and even between Santigo's supposed son and daughter, show that even as desired and planned by Santigo, his kin is not as perfect after all. All these shocking acts of spontaneous incestuous relationships are taken so frighteningly casually by Fernando León de Aranoa, that it seems as if such instances are a part of a 'normal' family.

The scary part of the movie is that every scene is predetermined by Santigo, including who should speak what, when, where and how. Even the death of his mother just before his birthday ends, happens as desired by him. And, at the end of his day, when Santigo applauds for the fantastic performance of his family and tells them that it is better to be a part of a dysfunctional family than live alone, it sends a chill through the spine. It is director Fernando León de Aranoa's way of tickling the fact of how our modern unbalanced lives try to hide our truths behind all the glitz of its seemingly 'perfect' exterior.

Though scary, it funny, how shamelessly León de Aranoa limns Santigo's half-crazed family. For instance, Santigo gets furious when he sees that his son is fatter than he wanted him to be, and brings the whole house down, screaming that he did not want a fat son with glasses. Also, during times when Santigo is not around, Ventura goes on about correcting his actors, on where they had gone wrong, or gone out of 'script'.



Probably Santigo's messed up 'enacted' family can be considered as a metaphor for the 'ideal' society of today, which, much like the his 'scripted' family, tries to be superciliously perfect, trying to hide its nether, lesser underbelly. FAMILIA is director Fernando León de Aranoa's clever way of teasing the modern materialistic hollow life: A perfect smirch on today's degenerating man.

RATING: 7/10

Amélie (2001)

SMART ENTERTAINER

[9/10 · 7 April 2004]

*SLIGHT SPOILERS*

This is a modern-day fairy-tale of a simple city-girl, in a seemingly idyllic backdrop, which actually is ruffled is a lot of ways, due to its rather 'disturbed' characters, whose lives, while this beady-eyed waitress tries to solve, finds herself in a similar situation, where she herself ends up needing some help.

AMELIE can be considered a story of stories, tied together by just a single link, in the form of a girl called Amelie. Living in her own shell, this girl discovers the Samaritan in her, when she successfully tracks down and gives the previous occupant of her apartment, a box containing objects of his childhood playthings that she accidentally finds in her house, and brings out the tears of joy in his eyes, as he reminisces his days of childhood, watching and feeling the contents of the box. This experience overwhelms her, and she decides that she would now on, do whatever she could, to straighten other people's lives, and herein lies the stories, which make the story of the movie.

The movie is made up of bits and pieces, showing the rather weird nature of the various people, that Amelie tries to help. The magic of the movie lies in this aspect of how beautifully each character is depicted, with some handicap or the other disturbing their lives, which this lonely but good-willed girl tries to fix. Be it the 'obsessed' neighbor, who is more than happy to read out letters from her deal husband, or the painter, who is so touchy about how names are pronounced, or the bullying vegetable-vendor, always belittling his hapless assistant, or the loveless boyfriend and the loveless hotel-waitresses, or the young man, who sifts for torn photographs of people, and reassembles and sticks them in the album that he maintains of reassembled photos of people he doesn't even know, or even Amelie's own father, who is obsessed with his ceramic gnome, each one of them is so carefully and delicately defined, that it overshadows the ambiguity in the story, which is what it intends to do, in the first place.

Though the story has a naïve fairy-tale-like feel to it, it actually turns out otherwise, by its messed up characters. Hence, the movie, far from being a sappy and drab tale of feel-good, is actually quite an interesting take on the most unusual and uncanny facets of the human nature. Moreover, the slick cinematography and the music-video like feel of the movie, coupled with the swanky voice-over comments make it not only a visually splendid movie, but also an exciting joyride, with a lot of areas worth pondering on.

AMELIE has a mischievous undertone, with a visually pleasing and amiable exterior. When one sees beyond the pleasing epidermis of the movie, it provides for interesting food for thought, when it comes to analyzing the bizarre characters in it. For its glossy appearance, or for its underlying unapparent starkness, or for its feel-good aura, or just for its wacky imagination, AMELIE is an entertainer with brains and brawns.

Rating: 9/10

Three Kings (1999)

A SATIRE WITH INNOVATIVE CINEMATOGRAPHY

[9/10 · 19 September 2003]

At the first instance, what are striking about this movie, is its cinematography, its camera-work, and the computer graphics used, to create certain scenes. Considering these elements, the movie almost certainly ‘appears' superficially like a Chemical Brothers video. From the beginning to the end, the movie is chaotic. Now, the movie is most certainly a two-hour Chemical Brothers video. As a matter of fact the movie is full of contemporary music-artists: Ice Cube, Marky Mark, and a prominent music-video director, Spike Jonze. Moreover, Spike has infact directed a couple of Chemical Brothers videos. So, there is a definite connection between Chemical Brothers and Three Kings.

Actually, the slick and sleek look of the movie makes it very interesting to watch and to be studied. But, there is a lot more to this flick, than merely its skin-deep look. There is much beyond to this flick than its masterfully created outward façade. Three kings is a brilliant satire. Mainly during its first half, the movie shows American soldiers act like Hollywood heroes, frivolously doing things as they please, at the expense of the hapless people, who they actually are supposed to protect. In point of fact, this very first half is funny as well as grossly heartless. One can either laugh one's heart out during the first half, or at the same time one can feel really sick in the gut, for some of the really gruesome scenes, treated humorously and with aberrant detachment. But, herein lies the sarcasm of the flick.

The second half of the movie is more hearted and thought-provoking than its first half. If ‘satire' is the word for the first half, then ‘irony' is the word for the second half. In the second half, the four protagonists set out to selfishly search for gold, actually end up doing just the opposite of what they intended to do, leading to the very warm-hearted end.

This movie is definitely not the quintessential war movie. It stresses on frivolity of the human nature, with war just as a backdrop. A humorous, satirical, thought-provoking movie like Three Kings, shot brilliantly using fresh, new cinematographic techniques is very much a movie worth watching, more than once.

RATING: 9/10

Raging Bull (1980)

BLACK AND BLUE IN BLACK AND WHITE

[8/10 · 14 September 2003]

It takes an actor, only the rank of Robert De Niro, to perfectly play the role of a violent, mercurial guy, who has no clue whatsoever of what he has to do with his life. Moreover, only an actor like De Niro can play the part of a well toned, energetic boxer, and also fatten himself up at the same time, to play the role of the same well toned energetic pugilist when all he cares about is glutting himself up and being slothful to the point of being indifferent. All the more, it takes a director, the caliber of Scorsese to make De Niro do all of these things.

Scorsese is a master of disturbing movies. His movies are subtle, yet disturbing. In `Raging Bull', he has perfectly captured the deranged character of Jack La Motta, and has chosen the perfect person to enact this character. The movie is uncomplicated, but the fights are not. Each moment of La Motta's various fights seems to be crafted diligently and with perfection. The fights are violent, but not gory. But, the blood-spills of the fights, even in black-and-white seem quite distressing. Of course, De Niro acts fantastically, even, and especially during his boxing scenes.

The black-and-white look of the movie, enhancing the subfusc nature of it, actually helps one, focus fully on the intensity of the characters, especially since everything else around them seem so livid and wan. As a matter of fact, colors are used symbolically by the artful Scorsese. The majority of the movie is pretty depressing. Hence, the movie is colorless, for the major part of it. However, the movie has a five-odd minute patch, which is shot in color. In fact, the ‘colored' part, is the only positive part of the movie, which actually is a phantasmagoria of shots, showing positive things happening to lives of the Motta brothers.

`Raging Bull' is quite a depressing movie; there is no doubt about that. But, it is one of those movies, which is ought to be ‘studied' for its brilliant direction (especially the non-usage of color producing greater effect) and the acting, especially of Robert De Niro, who did seem to actually put a on lot of weight for the movie.

8/10

12 Monkeys (1995)

ONE CRAZY DREAM

[9/10 · 12 September 2003]

The movie is like one big crazy dream: its characters, its storyline, its settings, its props. It is this very quality of the movie, which makes it too overbearingly sickening, and at the same time, a really good one, and worth pondering on.

The whole movie revolves around time-travel. This itself sounds a bit insane. If this is not enough, the muddled characters, and the disturbingly unimaginable path the movie goes through, only to reach a seemingly absurd end, could prove to be too much on the senses; and if one is looking for even a teensy weensy bit of reality, then this movie has all the essential elements to render it as one of the worst sci-fi ever.

On the flipside, the movie also has all the sine qua non of a very well-made science-fiction flick, only if taken in the right sense. The movie is actually meant to be a crazy dream. Considering the concept of the movie, it is best made, like a crazy dream. The acting is extraordinary. With ‘insanity' being the cool word binding the movie, both the lead actors, Brad Pitt and Bruce Willis, do justice to the nutty parts, assigned to them. Complementing the acting, are the symbolic backdrops: the subterranean world immersed in red metallic shades (hell), and the sublunary world, bitten with the bitterest icy cold (living hell.)

This flick is best enjoyed, if one empathizes with the underlying messages behind the whole inanity of the movie and its characters: what will result the apocalypse? Is it man who will be solely responsible for apocalypse? Or, what on earth, are we humans doing with this planet? Is science too dangerous to handle? With a little pondering, forced or naturally invoked, one can actually identify with all the craziness of this movie. This flick represents our mad world, in which the end is really not that far away.

9/10

Jackie Brown (1997)

QUINTESSENTIAL TARANTINO

[8/10 · 23 August 2003]

Honestly, this movie doesn't match the brilliance of its predecessor, PULP FICTION. However, this movie is still a Quentin Tarantino flick. Great directors have their own style: their movies may fall into particular rubrics, but they have a unique identity of their own, creating a different blend of movies, confirming rigidly to their specific style. Quentin Tarantino has his own way of directing and conceptualizing his movies, and JACKIE BROWN, has all the sine qua nons of a trademark ‘Quentin' movie.

To begin with, the combination of American & African-American gangster pair still continues on from its predecessor. Even this pair of gangsters (Robert De Niro and Samuel L Jackson) is as ruthless and unemotional as the pair (Samuel L Jackson and John Travolta) in PULP FICTION, in executing gory killings. The plot is pretty simple: A female flight attendant, working hand-in-glove with an arms dealer tries to trick him and loot him of his own money. Within the execution of the plot, one is bombarded with the quintessential ‘Tarantino': great ‘dirty' dialogues, brilliant retro music, (instead of using background scores, Quentin uses songs) detached & controlled butcherly violence, and of course, the bohemian funny nature of the characters.

Though pretty much in the same lines as PULP FICTION, JACKIE BROWN isn't as inane and mindless as its precursor. Far from his 1994 attempt, which is a classic, Quentin's 1997 attempt, though not in the ranks of PULP FICTION, is still a fantastically made ‘Tarantino' flick.

8/10

Fargo (1996)

A CLEVER DARK-HUMORED THRILLER

[10/10 · 20 August 2003]

This is a movie of abundance. First of all, it is abundant with fabulous acting by people, neither of whose names, I was familiar with, when I saw the movie: everybody is perfect in the movie. Each one of the actors fits perfectly for the role assigned to him/her. Secondly, it is abundant in innocence: Though the deeds of the villainous characters are contemptuous to the highest degree, they, along with of course, the `YA' -ing Frances Mc Dormand seem as lovable as Winnie The Pooh! Thirdly, it has an abundance of brilliant photographic shots: The shots, mainly capturing frosty harsh landscapes, in every mood, from every angle, are not only awe-inspiring, but also perfectly fit the downcast and stolid mood of the movie.

Above everything else, the movie is more abundant in subtlety, more than anything else. This flick is supposed to be a thriller. But, it is more humorous than it is violent; though it's few violent moments are really shocking. However, even in the violent scenes, there is a delicate humor, hidden somewhere in the scene. Though done deliberately, the movie is fraught with subtle humor, which gives the flick, a charming personality. The acting is brilliant, in the manner that just the straight faces and controlled emotions of the actors are enough to make us laugh, in the most serious situations. A prime example of the kind of outré humor in this movie, is the scene where Steve Buscemi, a crook, has a business-like conversation with a prostitute while hiring her for the night, in which he asks her whether she gets job-satisfaction in this profession or not: all in a manner, which seems as if two company executives are discussing the NASDAQ!

Seeing Marge Gunderson, (played by Frances McDormand) a beady-eyed seemingly innocuous sweet and homely cop, solve the crime with the encumbrance of pregnancy, is quite a change to the quintessential smart-aleck cop who arrives at a solution, in a trice over a cup of coffee. Every character, be it the crooks - hyper-talkative Carl (Steve Buscemi) and funereal Gaear (Peter Stormare) or the avaricious and confused Jerry Lundegaard (William H. Macy) and his naïve wife Jean (Kristin Rudrud) or the super-cop `Margie' and her hubby, has this little goofy innocence, which adds to the humor of this anomalously dark and comical thriller.

The clever mélange of the unique set of characters made to act in an even more unique way (especially the `YA'-laden accents), the outrageously subtle humor, and the grossly funny violence make the movie, humorous and subfusc, all at the same time. A movie, way far from the ordinary, FARGO deserves a heartening applause.

Rating-10/10

The Score (2001)

A STELLAR-CAST WASTED. NEVERTHELESS, A GOOD ENTERTAINER.

[7/10 · 12 August 2003]

The movie is entertaining, but due to reasons, other than the performances of its stellar cast: Angela Bassett has just a few and dull moments on the screen. Marlon Brando is helpless with the trite role assigned to him. Though De Niro plays the lead role in this flick, even his performance is limited by the action-oriented role, he plays. The starry-cast fails; but the suspense, the gizmos, and of course, Edward Norton save the day.

Edward Norton is full of life, zest, and enthusiasm. The dual role played be him, as a retarded housekeeper and as an adept thief, is pretty convincing and smartly enacted. The gadgets seem like con-jobs, but are however, pretty well-done and detailed. The computer-hacking part and the part about stealing the codes regarding the security system are overdone, and seem factitious and fatuous. The hacker-geek with a baneful mother is a lot more baneful than his squalling mother herself. Amidst of the many imperfections in the movie, it builds up steadily and interestingly to a well-written and well-directed climax. More than anything else, it is the climax of the movie, which makes it complete as an entertaining thriller.

With the kind of the star-cast it has, the movie is deceptive: It doesn't have substance, it doesn't have style, and it lacks maturity. If watched with keeping the brain aside to rest, it is thrilling and entertaining, and can be savored at best. Along with its healthful entertaining value, the score itself, of THE SCORE, by Howard Shore is good music for the ears.

7/10

Fever (1999)

VERY EERIE, FANTASTIC SETS

[7/10 · 28 July 2003]

To put it plainly, the movie revolves around this artist, who is so deeply disturbed by the gruesome murders of his landlord and his (landlord's) mother, that he becomes pallid and starts hallucinating. Now, why do the murders have such febrile effects on him and does he actually hallucinate, is where lies the suspense of the movie. Though a fairly simple movie with just a handful of characters, ‘FEVER' can be put under the rubric of scary movies. There is always an air of eeriness throughout the movie, with an abrupt ‘shocking' scene popping up every now and then, with a high potential to chill the bones most of the viewers. Much of the credit for what the movie is, should be given to the acting, mainly of the prime two characters, ‘Nick' and ‘Will', played by Henry Thomas and David O'Hara respectively. While Henry Thomas does a pretty good job of a person ‘spooked' by the murders in the movie, it is David O'Hara, who puts up a splendid performance, by acting as a mentally deranged, ‘psycho' Irishman, who is a sailor, and is a staunch believer of Nazism. The presence of such a character in the movie actually makes it spookier, than it already is. Along with good acting, the direction is pretty decent, too, maintaining just the right amount of the funereal atmosphere throughout, without going overboard with gory details. However, worth mentioning is this particular scene, which can be said as the pivotal scene of the movie, in which ‘Nick' encounters ‘Will', in a train: Though there is very little flaw in the direction in the rest of the movie, this particular scene, especially being a crucial one, is so grossly misdirected, that it ruins the build-up to it. Either this scene should have had more attention paid to the minor details, which are seriously flawed, (and do much damage to it) or else, it could've done without the backdrop of an underground train-ride, and could have done with a much less complicated backdrop.

The movie has all the elements of a spook-thriller, and is scary from the beginning to the end, building up to a good suspense. The overall feel of the movie is also well maintained, without trying to give too much detail to gore, and primarily paying attention to maintain the stolid and chilling atmosphere, in a very subtle manner.

Rating:7/10

Jurassic Park III (2001)

SHORT, SWEET, AND ACTION-PACKED

[7/10 · 21 July 2003]

JURASSIC PARK – 1, was larger than life; larger than anything else that had came out of Hollywood, larger than anything that Spielberg had done before. The concept was fresh, the dinosaurs were scary, the backdrop was unimaginably awesome, and the direction, impeccable. Justifiably, it turned out to be one of the best movies ever, with a huge cult following. It was only natural that it had to be followed up by a sequel, which turned out to be a great disappointment, alas! With the high expectations raised by the first part, in an attempt to live upto the high expectations, in THE LOST WORLD, Spielberg, it seems, tried a bit too hard, making a mess of the movie altogether, making it much too long, much too boring.

However, JURASSIC PARK – 3, is surprisingly much better than THE LOST WORLD, especially, since, it isn't directed by Spielberg. OK, so it has the same dinosaurs, and has them chasing around and killing the humans, who repeatedly happen to drop themselves by amongst the dinosaurs, for some strange reason or the other. Well, if THE LOST WORLD was solely about dinosaurs chasing around humans, with a very sorry ending giving out the message `don't mess with nature', this one however, has dinosaurs chasing around humans, but with the feel of a fast-paced action movie! In JURASSIC PARK – 3, the director doesn't try to complicate things by trying to bring the dinosaurs to the city and try to make a GODZILLA and a JURASSIC PARK at the same time, but concentrates wholly on the action taking place within the island itself. The movie is incredibly short, and is action-packed, with dinosaurs popping out from every corner of the screen, without a moment of respite; and before you know, the movie ends.

Unlike THE LOST WORLD, the straightforwardness of JURASSIC PARK – 3 is what makes it a highly viewable movie. There are however, certain things, which this movie could have carried on from THE LOST WORLD, like JEFF GOLDBLUM, and his sarcasms, reeking with pessimism. The movie is packed with action from the first scene to the last, without trying too hard to be intelligent. Since it doesn't try to achieve much, but only try to entertain, it is short, and makes the viewer want for more.

Rating: 7/10

I Shot a Man in Vegas (1995)

BAD STORY, BRILLIANT TIMING OF MUSIC

[5/10 · 21 July 2003]

The movie kicks off brilliantly, but doesn't build upto anything, making the ending, a bit of a disappointment. The only possible things that could keep the viewer interested are the rather 'natural' feel of the movie, and its brilliant music.

The direction is good; infact, it seems quite amateurish. Deliberately done or not, this amateurish look of the movie, can be said as a bit of a saving grace and gives an 'edge' to the otherwise horrible movie. But, the story line is so weak, that even the best of direction cannot save the movie from sinking. Though the movie tries to conjure up'suspense' so that the viewer could look forward to at least something towards the end of the movie, sadly however, even before the 'suspense' begins, it is quite easy to figure it out, what it is going to be. If this is the case, then there is not much to look forward to, in the movie.

The bottom line: the movie has bad acting, good direction by a helpless director, and on top of it all, a really bad story line. However, the music and the timing of music is fantastic, one of the best, ever. One more thing: the 'car' is beautiful.

Rating: 5/10

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

MOMMY........I AM CONFUSED

[6/10 · 2 July 2003]

*POSSIBLE SPOILERS*

The movie confuses not only itself, but also the viewer in terms of what it is trying to achieve, where it actually wants to go, and how to go about it. Initially, it starts off as a typical sci-fi movie, which exemplifies what would be one of the zeniths of the future-man's creation: the creation of custom-made robots, which not only look and feel like humans, but are also designed to exhibit a certain types of behaviors, and feel certain kinds of emotions. Then, the movie tries to answer the question, `can humans offer the same kind of unconditional love, as offered by the custom-made 'mecha'?' by taking the example of David, and how he tries to get himself accepted by a 'human'-family. The movie goes on fine through the course, which shows the various problems faced by the 'mecha', and the 'human' family, in trying to accept each other.

After the point at which David is deserted by his family, the movie, then goes through a labyrinth, trying to give a totally different meaning to it, and deviating from what it had actually started off with, until the end, which again tries to continue from where it had left off, about an hour ago. Though the movie ends well, (conceptually, though again, the execution is flawed by the introduction of aliens, (or futuristic robots of the ice-age, whichever it might be) who exhume David, and try to fulfill his wish) by the time the movie arrives at this point, it has passed through so many confusing and supererogatory paths in-between, that the charm of this otherwise 'touching' ending, and the movie, as a whole is completely lost.

The beginning and the ending of the movie are coherent with the punch line, `can humans respond equally to the unconditional love, the 'mecha' bestows upon them?' However, in the middle, it tries to depict that the human is, and always will be evil, by showing that the future-man will not only create the 'perfect' robot, (or make his 'best creation ever') he will also mercilessly destroy his own creation, regardless of their feelings, and the viewers are supposed to feel sorry about this. In the midst of all this, the story takes the shape of a fairy-tale, in which the protagonist, (in this case David) is in a search for the 'blue-fairy', who he believes, will make him a 'real' boy, so that his 'mommy' will love him. These links, which try to build up the ending, are not only muddled and fatuous, but also are seriously ill directed, especially the parts concerning the merciless destruction of 'mechas', at the 'flesh-fair'.

Spielberg is one of the best movie-directors of all time; not half as good as Kubrik, though (since this movie is supposed to be conceptually similar to `2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY') and the best, when it comes to creating fantasy-flicks. In this fantasy-movie, however, he has tried to introduce too many ideas, which not only make the movie too long and over-sentimental, but also out-of-focus, from what it actually wants to achieve.

6* out of 10*

Swimming with Sharks (1994)

AN UNDERRATED MASTERPIECE

[10/10 · 20 June 2003]

The movie is very simple, with just three main characters, and has the least complicated of plots: it simply deals with a tormenting employer, and how his tormented employee avenges his tormentor; simple, isn't it? Yet, I am amazed as to how one can make such a masterpiece considering it has the most of the trite of plots. The reason to this is also simple: a bit of outré ‘creativity' by the movie-director, and of course, Mr. Kevin Spacey.

The movie wouldn't be half as good without Spacey, who is the life of the movie. Though he plays the part of the villain, he is more adorable than anyone else in the movie. The whole of the 90 min. of the movie is full of Spacey, and his mordant dialogues. Though one is supposed to feel sorry for Frank Whaley, for the inclement treatment he receives from Spacey, one doesn't. On the contrary, one rather wants that Spacey continue this treatment, so that he (Spacey) could continue treating the viewer with his fantabulous dialogue-delivery of some of the most acerbic dialogues ever written. It is amazing that one actually ends up laughing throughout the major part of this otherwise subfusc movie, thanks to Spacey. Though Spacey has got a lot to do with making this movie, a treat to watch, the exceptional direction is also worth a mention. Though George Huang had nothing much to play with, as far as this movie is concerned, which mainly consists of exchange of dialogues, and very little of anything else, with some ‘intelligent' creativity from him, he has managed to make this a very interestingly directed movie. The interesting direction comes from the really weird arrangement of the movie, especially the non-chronological ordering of the scenes. The climax of the movie is unpredictable, and one of the best ever. The whole course of the movie changes drastically in the last five minutes. As a matter of fact, though the movie puts on a funny façade throughout, one actually feels quite sad after the movie ends, feeling sorry for Michelle Forbes, especially. This is where beauty lies in the movie: though it makes you laugh throughout, you actually feel ‘punched in the face', at the end. The movie truly exemplifies the ‘dog-eat-dog' world, in which all of us live. I GIVE IT A 10/10 RATING.

What Lies Beneath (2000)

SCARY, BUT DUMB

[8 December 2002]

*Possible spoilers*

The movie really has nothing much to save itself from the barrage of denunciations coming its way, except for the fact that it is very well made. It is very well directed, rather. Throughout the runtime, Michelle Pfeiffer keeps seeing these sudden images of a 'dead' girl, in all sorts of places, especially those, which store water!! You know, the pond, the bath - tub, etc. What's more interesting, is the reason behind the appearances of the 'defaced' face only in certain 'hydrated' places. Well, towards the end of the movie, one comes to know that Pfeiffer's hubby - dear had murdered a young woman, sometime in the 'forgotten' past, and got rid of the cadaver by driving it off into some lake of some sort. In the aftermath, the unappeased soul made those strange appearances in those 'hydrated' places, to seek revenge. What a smart piece of direction! I think not; no way. Now, one question pops up in mind that, if the 'dissatisfied' soul is unhappy over

its death - process, why bother Pfeiffer? Wouldn't it make life less complicated, if she scared Harrison Ford, if it is he, who she wants to settle a score with? I am confused. The story is baseless. In fact, there is no storyline at all. There are a lot of unexplained things, forced on the viewer, which are dumb, in effect, treating the viewer as someone, who can take any sort of crap, and be contented with the façade created by the horrifyingly thrilling special effects, to cover for the feeble story - line. On a different note, Michelle Pfeiffer puts up a brilliant performance. She is really good. Harrison Ford doesn't have much of a scope for acting; so he can be rendered as redundant. The thrill - creating scenes are very well done, and the movie is quite scary in a lot of places. At the end of the day, it is some 'cool' 'hair - raising' direction, that saves this otherwise sorry effort. Rating: 7/10

15 Minutes (2001)

ENTERTAINING AS WELL AS THOUGHT - PROVOKING

[7 November 2002]

The movie starts off as an average 'action' movie, with 'classy' cops like Robert De Niro doing the bad guys in, in style: Boring concept, seen it, in a whole lot of flicks. However, this is far off from a prosaic action movie. As a matter of fact, it is a very intelligent and thought provoking movie. It has an unusual concept, too. Two illegal immigrants take the advantage of the American culture and legal loopholes by planning to murder a 'popular' figure, videotape it, sell it for a huge price to some television network, and then, get away with it, on top of that, by admitting mentally deranged, before the law. Do they succeed in their motive? Well, that is basically what the movie is, about. Any guesses, as to the nationality of the immigrants? Why, one is a Russian and the other one, Czech, of course! And the cold war goes on! Dark, yet commercial, 15 MINUTES, is a movie, well made. The visual effects are quite admirable. It also, has an element of 'suspense' in it, and throughout its runtime, there is always a feeling of 'what will happen next?', which keeps the viewer glued till the 120th minute. The acting is great. The 'East European' villains put up a convincing performance. Robert De Niro, a classic actor he is, always out -does the rest of the cast in every movie he acts. In this one, however, his part is not justified. In fact, I feel, his talent is wasted, for the role he plays in this flick. As a result, he is overshadowed, alas! One thing, I would like to highlight, is the performance of Kelsey Grammer. A known comedian, for his roles in the TV. Programs, FRASIER and CHEERS, his role is drastically different from his comic roles. He plays, a sort of a baddie, in this movie, and let me tell you, he can act, and he can act, well. Anyway, 15 MINUTES is fantastic, entertaining, and it makes you think, too.

9/10 RATING.

Analyze This (1999)

GOOD HUMOR, FANTASTIC STAR - CAST

[7 November 2002]

*Possible SPOILERS*

There is a particular breed of comic flicks, which basically revolve around nothing. These movies don't have any story, as such, and conjure up the giggles out of a very simple thing, such as the exploits of an eight - year old, left home alone, while his parents conveniently forget to take him along with them, on their vacation. Well, 'ANALYZE THIS', in some ways belongs to this cohort, with the exception that, the eight - year old is substituted by a panic - stricken, ruthless gangster. If the panic - stricken, ruthless gangster is played by a 'big deal' of an actor such as Robert De Niro, then the flick becomes one, with something more than just infantile and slapstick pranks. With Robert, even the tritest of a concept seems interesting, all of a sudden. Although this is an average 'cute' film, it stands well above the rest of its kind, due to some brilliant acting by veterans. The story is simple. Billy Crystal is a psychiatrist, whose life is made miserable by this notorious gangster patient of his, De Niro, who grabs every opportunity to force Billy to treat him, even though Billy is too frightened to do the same, and is only too happy to abstain from him. Most of the laughs are provided by this experienced pair of actors. Like a lot of his other movies, De Niro plays the role of a notorious gangster. However, the gangster in this movie suffers this severe phobia of losing himself, his manhood, and everything. De Niro plays the role of the weaker side of a gangster, unlike his other 'gangster' parts, with such a great ease. Be it a comic or a villain, De Niro can play them all, without any problem. Such is the greatness of this talented actor. Even Billy Crystal displays a good performance; especially when he turns into De Niro's replacement from a mellow and peaceful doctor to a rather nasty person, at the gangster's convention. Noteworthy is the fact that the horizontally challenged cast of this movie proves to be as funny as either Crystal or De Niro. The rather corpulent son of Crystal, who makes these small, brief appearances throughout the movie, leaves a good laughable scene behind, before making an exit from the shot. Also, Joe Vitrelli, who plays the part of De Noro's valet, is fat, funny and very cute. His name in the movie is equally cute: 'Jelly'. With good humor, and a hilarious and fantastic star - cast, 'ANALYZE THIS', gets an 8 / 10 rating from me.

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

DARK, AMBIGUOUS, FANTASTIC MUSIC

[8/10 · 26 October 2002]

The movie is 'beautifully' ambiguous. It is beautiful, not in any metaphorical sense, but it actually looks 'good', on the surface. Everything; right from the manner in which the starting credits are shown (especially the way the movie title is presented) to stunning camera angles, from some great vantage points. The movie is set somewhere in the midst of the late 50's; so every detail has been catered to, in order to create an aura of 'those old days'. Most of the settings of the movie is based in Italy, and the visuals of the place is the stuff of heavens: the claustrophobic 'tiled' roads, the 'out -of -date' and 'uncared for' vehicles, the enchantingly blue ocean, the 'dreamy' houses with grand décor, even the corpulent 'ice - box', et al. It is the most aesthetically pleasing movie I have ever seen, or maybe I have been missing out on good - looking movies. This is as far as one of the aspects of the movie goes, and is a good reason to watch the flick. A better reason to view this motion picture, goes as follows: There is much more to this movie than meets the eye. The plot revolves around the trials and tribulations of a young, small - time con - man, Tom Ripley, who ventures into an unusual business of convincing a very rich and spoilt brat ('Dickie Greenleaf') of this humongous business magnate ('Herbert Greenleaf') to return to his father and stop being a worthless ass. The movie actually begins when Ripley goes to Italy to confront Dickie, as entrusted by Herbert Greenleaf, lured by the promise of a reward of a thousand dollars; then, a lot of things begin to happen, which make up the movie. The picture, basically, throws a light on the various facets of Ripley's persona. Ripley is presented as this very normal, lonely person. He is, however, quite talented. He plays the piano well, and has the unique ability to impersonate people, feign people's hand - writing, signature, etc.; and he uses these qualities to make a living. Lonely, insecure and lovelorn Mr. Ripley instantly finds a liking towards Dickie Greenleaf, when Greenleaf shows a brotherly affection towards him. This attraction turns sexual, and even fatal, when Ripley accidentally murders Dick. Sexually confused, yet calm, Mr. Ripley also finds affinity towards other people: Marge Sherwood, Meredith Logue, and Peter Smith-Kingsley. Muffled, he is; also he is sensitive. A moving scene at the opera succeeds in Ripley, jerking a couple of teardrops. Though he commits three murders, he does feel remorse, especially after killing Peter Smith-Kingsley, in a desperate attempt to save his skin. Also, this is the last scene of the movie, shot brilliantly, with multiple images of Ripley crying, from aptly angled mirrors, which leaves the conclusion of the movie, upto the viewer, to decide. Ripley doesn't like who he is. He uses his feigning qualities in impersonating the rich kid, Dickie, himself, which he quite well succeeds in doing so. All in all, director Anthony Minghella has done a fantastic job in successfully portraying the less pleasing human sides, by using Matt Damon as a guinea -pig. Matt, too does an impressive job in displaying the lesser characteristics of human emotions, quite effectively.

The movie has a dark undercurrent and is, at times, also frightening: all this, in a very subtle sense. There is hardly any crappy 'orchestral' music at critical moments, telling the viewers, when to feel any kind of emotion, appropriate for the situation. The feel is quite stolid, adding an eerie effect to the movie. In fact, the movie has a lot of fantastic jazz music, all throughout its duration and adds its own charm to the feel of the movie.

An intelligent movie, if you don't prefer a 'depressing' flick, watch it for the wonderful music and the masterful cinematography and choice of locations, and eventually, you will end up liking even the 'depression' of it.

Meet the Parents (2000)

fantastic comedy!

[27 July 2002]

Contains Spoilers! The plot? Ben Stiller is a nurse, very much in love with Teri Polo. Just as he is about to propose, he comes to know about Teri's sister's engagement to some doctor – guy who was courteous enough to ask Teri's father before asking her sister! Obviously Ben wants to be in the good books of Teri. As a result, he decides to spend the weekend with Teri's parents (and propose to her parents, before he proposes to Teri). Of course, he screws up the weekend, with the aid of my man – Robert De Nero, who is Teri's father (surprise!) and is, in not in a mood to have a nurse as his son – in – law. A slew of idiosyncrasies exhibited by Ben soon follow, till the movie ends. The end? (Take a guess.) The movie is a war between a nurse (Ben) and an ex – C.I.A. interrogator (De Nero) – the former trying to win the heart of the latter, and the latter finding it hard to accept the former because of a lot of things, such as the former's name, profession, hatred towards cats, and a whole lot of other goofy things, which make up the movie. Ben can be looked upon with pity, considering the things he has to go through, throughout the weekend, but the movie is, by no means, a warm hearted comedy. So, laugh your heart out on Ben, as he makes a total ass of himself (very seriously), with no sense of pathos. The humor is not merely slapstick and is, in a lot of parts, very subtle. Apart from Ben, falling off the roof of the house, making a fruitless attempt to catch De Nero's pet cat and almost setting the house on fire and making a healthy contribution to overflowing the septic tank (and blaming the cat for doing it, on top of that) the funny bits are well contained within formal conversation between Di Nero & Ben, with a stoic expression on the faces of both which makes the comedy more mordant and funny. The exchange of words between Ben & Robert which appear seething on the surface, is what gives a high to the movie. Even as Ben breaks up before the flight attendant, towards the end of the movie, while returning home after a terrible weekend, makes us laugh rather than feel sorry for him. The end is as sweet as it can get, with things, somehow patched up between Di Nero and Ben, of course. All is well that ends well….