A Life With Movies

On a day which I don’t recount, in the year 2007, I waked through the entrance of the cinema hall nearest to my house with my parents, my friend and his parents. I was six year old then. Although my parents bring up the fact that Taare Zameen Par was not the first movie I saw in theatres, I still believe it was although I am sure they are not lying. I say that because cinema is about feeling, and it was the first movie that made me do so. Roger Ebert once said that cinema is the greatest art because it embodies all the other arts such as painting, dance, music, etc. Taare Zameen Par was a standing testimony to that statement. There I was, sitting with my friend on one side, relishing popcorn and the screen lit. And for the next 164 minutes, I sat there, spellbound, with no other natural or physical elements meddling with my attention as I was pushed down a rabbit hole into a world no different than mine but populated by a whole different bunch of characters who resonated with me on levels unpenetrable. It was a vivid and unforgettable experience of visual poetry. As the movie neared its climax I looked around for a bit, and every single person’s cheeks had a greyish undertone, and some of the cheeks were still moist. And after the climax, there was a downpour of tears from every individual’s eyes, including me and I had just seen one of the greatest movies of all time. And so my love for cinema was kindled.

The next year I went to watch another movie which was making a lot of noise for its portrayal of India with major Bollywood artists condemning the movie. I once again revisited that same cinema hall, sat in a seat almost 5 rows behind it. I only obliged to go to the movie because of love for quiz. There was a question about who invented pistol, I recount during which I provided comic relief to the audiences by flaunting my knowledge about the topic by shouting out the answer in the cinema hall. But aside from that, I saw something really special. And for the first time I had seen something so chilling. My heart thumped and there was an angst in each second of the movie. It was a story of a couple who were perfect for each other but had all the other things in the world working against their existence and their relationship. The movie was the Oscar-winning Slumdog Millionaire, my first introduction to Hollywood.

And then, I got hooked to books, and as a matter of fact, I still am hooked to books, but not that much. Next stop on the journey was when I took a book from the bottom shelf of my nearby library called as ‘Harry Potter & The Philosopher’s Stone’ by J.K.Rowling. And within a year I had finished all the seven books and was longing to experience it in reality. And the closest that came was the movie series and once again  I fell in love with movies. But, for the next two years, I blocked everything else in my life and became a living encyclopaedia of the Harry Potter universe. I literally knew as much as J.K.Rowling did knew about the magical world of Hogwarts.

The next stop came when I was twelve years old. Due to a shift in my tuition timings, I had a hour left to me to do anything as it may please. As I surfed through the various television networks, I found a show called as ‘The Simpsons’. I loved it and watched every episode per day. But due to a shift in its showing time, I was left with only one show airing on my convenience and as a twist of destiny you may say, I began watching ‘Castle’. And it really changed my life. I became emotionally attached to Richard Castle and Kate Beckett, watching every episode religiously and loving them, longing for them to get into each other’s pants and in a way, becoming a follower of cinema as my religion.

And then I began watching a lot of English movies which then took a definitive stop when I watched Saving Mr.Banks, (500) Days Of Summer, The Theory Of Everything and The Imitation Game. I felt a rush of emotions in each of these movies which I cannot articulate in words but for the first time I felt an association with those motion picture. There was an inner feeling which dwelled in my heart that each frame of each of these motion pictures was speaking something. Then my love for movies was cemented due to Nolan’s Inception and Gondry’s Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind. I felt like a tramp who had just met the Almighty, getting my ignorance vanquished by philosophy. It made me question my existence, my beliefs, my feelings and in short, brought about a life-altering change.

And the next stop, the one due to which I am talking to you right now, my friend, was Damien Chazelle’s Whiplash. The rush of emotions which accumulated from the beginning shot exploded in a kinetic manner in a proportion of a volcanic explosion once I had seen Whiplash. It was cinema personified. I became aware that many didn’t have a chance to see the movie or gave it a miss. And I wanted to shout to everyone listening to see the movie which I had so ardently loved, so I began a blog and wrote a review about it. And that is the blog you are reading now, dear friend.

Movies have taught me to love [ 500 Days of Summer, Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, Flipped, The Fault In Our Stars, The Perks Of Being A Wallflower] , to question the nature of my existence [ Inception, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind], to consider the importance of my existence [ The Shawshank Redemption, It’s A Wonderful Life] , to know my inspirations [ Schindler’s List, The Imitation Game, The Theory Of Everything, Selma, Moneyball ] and most importantly to love myself and to find hope in my existence [ The Perks Of Being A Wallflower, The Shawshank Redemption ] and everything in between. This post is a personal declaration of my affection towards movie and their inception. Many of you may have stopped reading from the beginning itself, considering I didn’t put what I learnt from watching The Wolf Of Wall Street , but those who have finished reading it, my thanks. You share the same love I share with movie, because you wouldn’t have read it completely unless it resonated with you on a personal level. I would love to talk to you about your love for movies and life as well, if you are on Facebook you can send me a friend request on the link below. If you like what you read, you can subscribe to my blog. Thank You !

https://www.facebook.com/anand.nair.50115

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Katy Perry – Part of Me Review

Katy Perry is one of my favourite singers. ‘Firework’ inspires me every time I hear it and ‘Not Like The Movies’ is the most romantic song I have ever heard and her tour documentary ‘Katy Perry-Part Of Me’ is one of my favourite movies.

The movie is a documentary but it works as a stirring dramatic musical. It has got the persona of Singin’  In The Rain and the charm of Perry herself. We expect the movie to be just about the tour but the tour just made her and the audience revisit her entire life. And it works like hell !

I think a great movie should feel like a documentary, that no one should comprehend that this didn’t really happen. It should blur the lines of motion picture and reality. And I think a great documentary should feel like a movie. We should forget that a real incident is being depicted with real footage. And Part Of Me did just that. It is a 900-page book about Katy Perry encompassed in a single movie. There is nothing more to know about Katy once you have watched the movie. Rarely do movies work like that.

First of all, the camera work is fabulous and the whole movie is played out like a Wes Anderson movie with music and vibrant imagery, just like Katy Perry wants it – like a fairy tale. In one of the scenes she says her live is like a fairy tale. The movie plays out like that. There is a beautiful beginning, then darkness clouds the heroine’s life and then the light shows up culminating into a happy ending.

This is what a character study should be like. I think more than a documentary about her life and the tour, it is much more an effort to decode this pop icon and her life and how she attained her stardom. It also works as an inspirational movie, Katy’s journey from rags to rich is ever-inspiring.

She addresses every aspect of her life and more than that, this movie works also as a musical. Every situation of her life is conveyed through a song of the same nature which doesn’t make the scene or song a disruption, it moves along with perfect harmony, complementing and enhancing each other’s effect.

Around the climax, Katy performs Firework and after the performances she is seen gasping her breath and saying something. It is inaudible but it leaves an aching effect on the heart. That moment stays with you and towards the end you realise you are with her gasping for breath, smiling and applauding. Katy Perry says her dream is to sing with people singing with her and them leaving with tears in their eyes and a smile on their face. Whether you find it great like me or not, it doesn’t matter, there will be a smile on your face. Katy achieves what she set out to do.

Katy Perry – Part Of Me is a great movie with beautiful music and brilliant camera work and whether you approach it as a musical drama, or as a documentary, or simply as a Katy Perry fan, you are gonna love it. No need to be a Perry fan, this movie is going to make one out of you. Definitely a must watch.

Rating : 9.4 / 10

THANKS FOR READING. IF YOU HAVE LIKED/HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS / HAVE ANY  DOUBTS, PLEASE SHARE. I WILL RESPOND TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN. AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOOhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/Demanded-Critical-Reviews/1565666967024477?ref=hlYOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes.

 

Dr.Strangelove Review

Stanley Kubrick’s Dr.Strangelove follows a psychopath army general Jack Ripper (Sterling Hayden) who thinks the Russians are hatching an international conspiracy to pollute precious body fluids and therefore orders an air strike on Russia. Then we follow the plot into the War Room where the President of United States of America (Peter Sellers) and his associates try to handle the situation with the help of the Russian ambassador while a crew of B-52 bomber headed by Captain Kong (Slim Pickens) stop at no cost to bomb any one of the targets in Russia.

To get the whole essence of the movie, you have to be really knowledgeable about Cold War. I love this stuff because I am a history buff, and that helped me get the essence of it, but not entirely I admit. Like every time you read about Cold War and re watch this movie, you love it even more. Dr.Strangelove is wacky and hilarious ride. Stanley Kubrick’s only entry in the comedy genre is the definitive satire of the satire genre. It is a work of genius right from the start to the end.

I once wrote an article upon how to identify a classic and I specified that many people disregard comedies as classics. This movie proves my point that a comedy can be a hell of a classic. I love over-the-top performances by actors when the scenario is of turmoil. And that is exactly what we get with George O Scott roaring uproariously with vigour and fury against U.S.S.R. and Peter Sellers’  hilarious interpretation of the diagnostic apraxia into a satirical take on the Third Reich Salute.

The script is work of genius. Entire hate against the U.S.S.R is accumulated in a kinetic explosion of hilarious dialogues which leaves the logic out of the ball-park yet is a commentatory of the banality at which U.S.A perceived each action of the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War and vice versa. And the thing is that it never takes sides, it does not determine which side is right or wrong, especially signified by the friendship between the President and the Premier.

Another factor which makes this movie great is the performances. George O Scott is just fabulous. Man, he deserved Best Actor nomination for this ! Just completely over-the-top. Loved it. But, Peter Sellers deserved a win in that category. It is so hard to get into a single character. But this guy portrays each of his three characters with such flair they each form their own identity. In many double-roles I have seen actors give performances in which the characters are indistinguishable but Sellers helms three at a time yet I wasn’t able to figure out that it was him in those three roles until I checked the Wikipedia page.

The effects of the plane flying may look silly now, but that just adds to the humour. The War Room is beautifully constructed and the lighting work is fabulous and the score which is seldom used is stupendous as well.

My favourite scene is a shot in which George Scott is appealing to the President that ‘The so-called Doomsday Machine is just a scam if the Commies’ and he falls, but he rolls over and points to the Big Board. It is a moment of certain flair. The climax conveys the message that if this hatred exists within ourselves, we are all our way to doom. A classic is like wine, it stands the test of time and only gets better with time. I laughed my guts out and enjoyed every millisecond of this 1964 motion picture which exactly as old as my father.

Dr. Strangelove is the king of satires, a jewel for film-lovers and Kubrick’s masterpiece which is a hilarious take on the Cold War and the mentality of the U.S.A and U.S.S.R individuals towards each other. In short, hell of a movie.

Rating : 9.3 / 10

THANKS FOR READING. IF YOU HAVE LIKED/HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS / HAVE ANY  DOUBTS, PLEASE SHARE. I WILL RESPOND TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN. AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOOhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/Demanded-Critical-Reviews/1565666967024477?ref=hlYOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes.

Spectre Review

Bond is back ! In this new Sam Mendes helmed Bond film, James Bond (Daniel Craig) returns, this time to fight the evil organisation from ‘From Russia With Love’ called as S.P.E.C.T.R.E. In this movie, light is thrown over the inception of previous Bond villains and also the unhappy endings of Bond girls and how they are all connected to Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz) while Bond tries to grapple between the connection between him and Oberhauser and also tries to save the life of Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux).

What I have loved about the re-invention of Bond series with Daniel Craig as lead is that they are dark and try to break away from the usual norms and traditions of making Bond movies while shedding light on James Bond’s personal life, i.e. humanize him as much as possible. Spectre is much on the lines of Quantum of Solace. No, the quality of the film is way above that crap, whose only highlight was Stana Katic’s cameo appearance. But, this is more of a traditional Bond film. Skyfall and Casino Royale were hardcore action movies which were realistic. Even the action was downplayed and it developed more as a thriller and completely abstained from using gadgetry which had plundered Bond movies during Pierce Brosnan’s time as 007. But this movie has its share of gadgets.

This is pure, sheer fun from the seductive elevator sequence in the start to bridge sequence in the climax. It begins with a bang. Literally because Bond gets into an elevator with a girl, they check into a room, girl lies on bed in a provocative pose while Bond slips away and blasts a building , chases a man who gets into a helicopter and then there is a fight sequence in the helicopter in which Bond throws the man and the pilot onto the ground and gets away. Not bad for a start, is it ?

Spectre has its dark moments as well and does act as a good boost for the previous Bond films. Each Bond film, like the Mad Max series, used to stand on its own, but this movie does require some knowledge about the previous Bond movies to comprehend it and I love that because I have watched all the previous Bond films. But this could provide as a party- pooper for many who aren’t acquainted with Bond’s previous repertoires. The humour is, I won’t say low, there is a hilarious sequence involving a rat, but not as much as I wanted it to be. I think it should have been more like Skyfall which made fun of the silliness of the previous Bond movies.

Now there is a sub-plot which I think could have been edited out of the movie, since it doesn’t affect the outcome of the story in much ways just like the presence of Indiana Jones in The Raiders of the Lost Ark, but since it involves Jim Moriarty, no complaints !

Daniel Craig is superb as 007 and so is Lea Seydoux as Swann but the spotlight definitely belonged to Christoph Waltz’s performance which is terrifying. Another problem of the movie is that although it gave Waltz’s character a terrific entrance, it never gives enough time for Waltz to capitalise on his character. He is awesome but time is not devoted for the villain as much as it should have been like it was done in Skyfall for Silva.

Hoyte Van’s cinematography is just mind-blowing. I was greatly disappointed that Roger Deakins wasn’t gonna be a part of this movie, since Skyfall was just an orgasm to the eyes, but Hoyte Van, who has movies like Her (the best looking movie of this decade) to his credentials makes up pretty well for it. Thomas Newman’s score wasn’t as good as Skyfall’s but I didn’t mind. See, this is the problem, Skyfall and Casino Royale were so exemplary that we can’t accept superb movies like this.

Spectre is pure, sheer entertainment from the first to the last and though it is on the lines of traditional Bond movies, it is well worth its price because of the cinematography and Waltz’s stirring performance. Hell, the ticket’s price is worth it just when that Bond theme plays and Bond enters.

Rating : 8 / 10

THANKS FOR READING. IF YOU HAVE LIKED/HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS / HAVE ANY  DOUBTS, PLEASE SHARE. I WILL RESPOND TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN. AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOOhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/Demanded-Critical-Reviews/1565666967024477?ref=hlYOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Tree of Life Review

Although I am not much of a fan of his work, Terrence Malick is my role-model in life. I do want to be a film-maker, but I am well aware of the risk that I may put on my shoulders if I choose film-making as my occupation right after school. There are various examples of my favourite directors – Quentin Tarantino who dropped out of school and made a movie and so on. I partially fulfil the requirements to become a film-maker as well. I have begun my work on a script. Martin Scorsese, Terrence Malick, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino all catapulted to stardom with their own scripts. I have a unfathomable love of cinema. I have watched hundreds of classics. But I am well aware there are thousands of thousands who have or had the same love of cinema and aspirations to direct a movie, but ended up being nothings. Behind Spielberg, Tarantino, Scorsese and Malick there is group of thousands who never did anything in this field. So, that is why Malick. Malick is a graduate from Harvard University in philosophy and taught at MIT as well. I too want to have a established career as an archaeologist before I become a film-maker.

Now enough of my love for Malick as an individual, let us talk about his work. I actually begin all my reviews with a synopsis of the plot, but The Tree Of Life doesn’t have a plot technically on paper. It is about Jack played by Sean Penn who is grappling with questions about his existence.  Malick then employs visual imagery to trace the connection between the creation of universe and our existence in the 21st century while tracing Jack’s life as a child in the 60’s growing under his tough father and gentle mother and siblings.

In the beginning of the movie, Mrs.O’Brien says that the nuns taught them two ways of life – the way of grace and the way of nature. The entire movie follows into establishing the truth in that. Mr.O’Brien represents the way of nature tough, relentless. There is a line in Pitt’s war movie Fury which explains his ideology ‘Ideals are peaceful. History is violent’. He believes it is of utmost importance to be though to survive in the world.

Mrs.O’Brien represents the way of grace. She loves everyone from the bottom of her heart. She thinks that there is no need to be though because anyone who follows the way of grace has a happy ending. She loves life and life loves her back. Jack, our protagonist is more attached to his mother. He loves her but ends up being more like his father.

But the main context of the movie is that grace and nature go hand in hand like branches of a tree, thus the title ‘The Tree of Life’. Emmanuel Lubezki’s cinematography is stupendous. This can actually qualify as a nature documentary as well. The Tree of Life has a beautiful score composed by one of my favourite composers Alexandre Desplat.

The Tree of Life is a beautiful movie about family, existence and everything in between but the non-presence of a hardcore plot will make the audience feel left off and bored as well, but the visual imagery is so brilliant, it is pretty as it can be and no one can imagine the creation of universe like Malick can.

Rating : 7.1 / 10

THANKS FOR READING. IF YOU HAVE LIKED/HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS / HAVE ANY  DOUBTS, PLEASE SHARE. I WILL RESPOND TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN. AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOOhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/Demanded-Critical-Reviews/1565666967024477?ref=hlYOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Prestige Review

Christopher Nolan’s The Prestige is about a tragedy which cause a great rivalry between two aspiring magicians Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) as they both try to defeat each other by creating the greatest illusion in the history of magic.

When you see the name Christopher Nolan, you know you are in for something great. The guy even made the superhero genre great and that is your pass to the hall of legends and if this guy isn’t the Stanley Kubrick of our times, nobody is. I had my doubts with The Prestige, I admit. It is based on a novel of the same name by Christopher Priest. Now, I had my doubts not because I thought the Nolan siblings are going to falter in the film-making but I had serious doubts if during the process of adapting a 404 pages book into a 130 minutes movie will falter. Magic, as we know it, is the perfect harmony of the steps and if the magician falters in one step, the whole act goes down. And to adapt a 404 page trick with steps being interconnected in every phase is a humongous task to be accomplished in a 2 hour movie. But, I forgot we were talking about Christopher Nolan.

The screenplay became the trick, and what it made it more special, what made it great, is the showmanship. There is a tension that Nolan carries right from the dressing room after the first show to the climax that drifts us away to the later half of the 19th century. The Prestige begins on a slow note. The story progresses as a tragedy of mishaps and we see, and sorry I stand corrected, we feel the tension between them. And then, it is time for the big guns.

When Borden comes up with The Transportation Man, the greatest trick Angier ever sees. And in it, Nolan triggers pure sheer magic and also the demonic nature of a rivalry which intensifies after every performance. There is a driving force beyond each of the character. Angier’s is the demise of his love, after which he works just to justify his title ‘The Great Danton’. Borden’s is his conquest to do something great, so great that Angier won’t be able to figure it out.

The common mistake that directors do when they make a movie which pits two individuals of the same calibre is that they make the audience love one of them from the start to the end, and the other one repugnant from the first to the last. There are dire need of moments when the audience is in a fix about which character they will chose as their sweetheart. The most accomplished work in this aspect is Ron Howard’s Rush which put me in Niki Lauda’s side first, then James Hunt and then did the unbelievable, in the climax, I viewed them both as equals, without any prejudice cornered to any of them. I won’t say this movie accomplished this aspect, and thankfully it shouldn’t have as well, but there is a line from Rush in which Niki says, and I am paraphrasing ,”You learn more from an enemy than you learn from a friend. And a good nemesis keeps you going.” The tragedy or the reason of the satanic fog around the rivalry of Angier and Borden is their inability to comprehend this fact.

Hugh Jackman is brilliant as Angier. Christian Bale is superb. Michael Caine works like he always does, the safe bet of Nolan. Scarlett Johansson gives an average performance. Andy Serkis and David Bowie are spectacular.

The cinematography is just beautiful. That scene in which those light bulbs flash in a white snowy layout is just fabulous. Wally Pfister then follows the lead of Dick Pope by using small lightings set against a dark background giving the set-up a dark and grim sensation, just like Pope’s The Illusionist released the same year, when magic smeared the cinematic arena.

And obviously we do have to talk about the climax, the big twist which I won’t spoil. But, if you haven’t seen the movie, you may find some of the sentences ahead uncomprehending and sunder. Some say that Nolan leaves the audience at an ambiguous point, and yes, you end up feeling or awe or fucked up, but I think the main intention is that Nolan must feel that audience must comprehend what was the nature of the movie. We see that Angier is the better showman and Borden is the better magician. The end actually turns the tables on it. The complexity of his thoughts, his so called desire, Borden sold the idea of an unimaginable apparatus of the trick to us, the audience and to Angier which just says he was always the better showman, not the magician. But Angier on the other hand, was always the better magician. There is a scene in which Michael Caine enhances the simple pigeon act into a modification which was worthy to be the climax of a show. Angier took a trick and stretched it into impossible heights. He just didn’t realise he was the better one.

There is a line ‘Are you looking closely ?’ that Bale uses constantly. We undoubtedly are. The climax is the prestige. It is an illusion for which we won’t find the secret because in quite honesty there were a lot of markers about the twist. We didn’t pay heed to them, because we never really were looking closely, we always wanted to be fooled.

The Prestige is grim and magical and a superb character study. My heart thumped with every footstep Angier took when he unveiled his great illusion and I found myself sitting amongst the audience, full of anticipation and clapped when the prestige materialized. That is what I always wanted a movie to be, a magical journey, a portal to another world, where we are perplexed, observing and more than that, amazed.

 Rating : 9.4 / 10

THANKS FOR READING. IF YOU HAVE LIKED/HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS / HAVE ANY  DOUBTS, PLEASE SHARE. I WILL RESPOND TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN. AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOOhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/Demanded-Critical-Reviews/1565666967024477?ref=hlYOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes.

Jackie Brown Review

Quentin Tarantino’s Jackie Brown is about Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) a flight attendant who carries money illegally from Mexico to United States Of America for gun dealer Ordell Robbie (Samuel.L.Jackson). But when she is busted by Ray Nicolette (Micheal Keaton) an ATF officer, she hatches a plan along with Max Cherry (Robert Forster) to help Ray catch Ordell and get away with Ordell’s money.

Jackie Brown is more or less on the lines of The Godfather. The characters are schemers. They talk, they plan, they dispose, they again plan and so on till the explosive climax. The movie is slow and tensely gripping. It begins as a Tarantino movie should with a stylish opening sequence.

The movie then progresses at a very slow pace which may be a letdown for Tarantino fans out there who are accustomed to his fast moving, entertaining and violent cinematic style. There is not much going on. But characters keep coming in. It is a game of chess laid out on the screen. The pawns move first and then we take out the big guns. The movie’s actual plot begins in a hour.

It is a very complex plot in itself, being based on a novel Rum Punch. There is an ingenious plan  set into motion in the climax of the movie which will assure you that your time hasn’t been spent futile. It was more or less considered as relaunch pad for Pam Grier and Robert Forster and even if it was, I don’t mind for both are superb. Robert Forster is the main attraction of the stellar cast. We can’t take our eyes of him ad his chemistry with Pam Grier is awesome. Like we comprehend there is a sensual thing going on between them and we know it, they know it but it is never said till the climax. Samuel.L.Jackson as Ordell is fabulous and has an evil menace to him. Robert DeNiro has given one of his rare bad performances. He doesn’t do much, hell it sucks.

The major disappointment is obviously is the dialogues. There are some stylish entries here and there but the Tarantino charm is missing. Even in Kill Bill, where it was a matter of solace there was dialogues among the visual spectacle of severed heads, amputated hands and crushed eyeballs, there were superb conversations, like the one about the goldfish and about comic book superheroes. There is a noteworthy lack of such superb pieces of dialogue writing in Jackie Brown, which can be in a way attributed to the fact that this wasn’t a Tarantino original, this was an adaptation. But that doesn’t cover up for the fact that Tarantino has failed in this department which is his trademark.

Jackie Brown is raw, slow paced and gripping with stellar performances by Robert Forster and Pam Grier but the slow paced first half maybe a big let down for the fans of fast paced cinema which is Tarantino’s forte and the insipid dialogues aren’t what we expect from Quentin Tarantino, it is entertaining nonetheless.

Rating : 8 / 10

THANKS FOR READING. IF YOU HAVE LIKED/HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS / HAVE ANY  DOUBTS, PLEASE SHARE. I WILL RESPOND TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN. AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOOhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/Demanded-Critical-Reviews/1565666967024477?ref=hlYOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes.