Wake In Fright Review

Wake In Fright is a hell of a movie, and I mean that literally and figuratively. It has often been wrongly described as the inability of a man to escape the clutches of a town which seem to tighten on him every passing day. Like every great work of art, it is about something deeper than it cares to admit and at its crux, Wake In Fright is rather about the inability of a man to convince himself why he needs to escape. Free food, free beer, free housing, free sex and a great time with mates while doing absolutely no work. Now what could possibly be wrong with that ? Bundanyabba does seem to be a paradise on Earth. Yet show it to a 10 year old kid and even he would fish out the moral murkiness the happenings of the movie are surrounded with.

Is it the town that is insane for housing tenants who seem to have been raised in zoos, educated only to the base instincts ? Or is it John Grant who is insane for yearning to be a part of this savagery forsaking all sensibility ? Or is it we that are insane for having made moral order synonymous with the mundane, raising brows and coughing disapproving sighs when everyone happens to be just having a good time ? If it is the answers to these questions you are looking for while watching Wake In Fright, I believe you will be terribly disappointed. Like all great horror movies, it tries to evoke rather than supply.

The premise is stark plain and quaint. John Grant, a laid back schoolteacher  in an outback town in Australia travels to Bundanyabba by train during vacations. He plans to stay there for the night and set out in the morning to the airport to board a flight to Sydney to meet his girlfriend. Yet, trouble ensues in gambling as it always does, leaving John stranded penniless in Bundanyabba, a town where waiting for a bus would be inscrutably bound with thoughts of whether it has a darned bus line or not. The problem with most movies is that the premise seems to gradually develop into the plot, yet in the case of Wake In Fright, saying that the movie is just about these above lines would be like looking at a brick in the Great Wall Of China and saying that’s all there is to it.

Most films, even great ones, evaporate like mist once you’ve returned to the real world; they leave memories behind, but their reality fades fairly quickly. The terrifying part of Wake In Fright is that once it ends, it seems the reality of the movie has transcended into that of the world and it is this macabre that the viewer seems to be walking into. We realize that John Grant was just a vessel and it had been us, the viewers, that where his mind and soul all through.

Another stratagem of looking at Wake In Fright is through the prism of Jungian transcendence. John becomes conscious of the shadow and his anima through the course of the movie. The denouement hints at a possibility of self-realization as well, a sense of heightened understanding of how all of our days and ways are a fragile structure perched uneasily atop the hungry jaws of nature that will thoughtlessly devour us. How life is a spread of limitless ennui, interrupted briefly by insanity. Yet, no hints are given on whether John becomes conscious of his archetypal spirit. Is it to catechize whether the ordeals sustained and sacrifices made for enlightenment are worth the price of one’s soul ?  We don’t know. Kotcheff doesn’t say.

Michael Haneke while talking about his Funny Games once said ‘Anyone who leaves the cinema doesn’t need the film, and anybody who stays does’. If the very same can be said about Wake In Fright, I am darn sure no walkouts will ensue when it plays. We do need this movie, and to be frank, we need it very badly. And considering how it has emerged from all ruination and shambles to its past glory, I guess it needs us too.

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 TOO https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011549616628YOU 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

Advertisements

Blade Runner 2049 Review

With a movie so much about memories at hand, I would deem it the most inappropriate to not let you, dear reader, to not partake in one of mine while we are talking about it. While I was six of age, I was standing in a line to get my book checked by my English teacher. In front of me was a girl, and by God, she was the most beautiful thing I had laid eyes on till then. Quite unacquainted in these quandaries (as I should have been at six, and unfortunately, as I still am), I took the approach which had been tried and tested and had the indelible approval of Bollywood on it – I dropped my books. And guess what ? Cliches exist for a reason. She did bend down and help me pick up those worthless books ! I thanked her and smiled, and the motion was duly reciprocated. I introduced myself and so did she, and that was all that took for me to fall in love with her. And then ? Nothing. I never could muster the courage nor an approach to use it for, and as it always does, life happened. A decade later, she has shifted to far away, has a boyfriend and as far as I know, is quite happy with him, and I, well, I am talking movies to y’all. Over the years, I have revisited this above memory now and then, or to put it more correctly, this memory has revisited me now and then. For all the disappointment it holds, I still treasure it for the singular perfection is seemed to hold and the promise of much more. But more than that, it is that feeling of it which transcends words, so rare as if in the likeness of one of those misty halos that sometimes are made visible by spectral illumination of moonshine. This memory is what K (Ryan Gosling) would have died for, for in all its messiness, it is still as profound as the sound of bells in a Christian county. All that pain is all there is to be human.

With a pace reminiscent of a river eroding a rock, 2049 is beauty in the midst of all imperfections. It is a hybrid of science fiction, film noir, detective thriller, bounty hunter, western and a love story, that is to say it hasn’t strayed a bit from its origins. I could never write a proper review for the predecessor, instead resorting to hide my inadequacy in a mishmash study of its groundbreaking world with that of Cuaron’s Children of Men. So it comes off as no surprise that I can’t write a proper one for the sequel as well, yet for wholly different reasons. In the original Blade Runner, it was the imperfections that drew me in. I have rarely revisited it for its heartbreaking climax or for the ambiguity on whether Deckard is a replicant or not. No, more often than not, I find myself switching off my sound system when I watch Blade Runner and just let that eclectic visual style wash over me.

The towering skyscrapers of  2049 strain upward, gasping for air through the polluted skies. Sinister alleys and dark, cavelike crannies conceal unspeakable crimes against humanity. Nature has gone berserk, deluging the teeming city with an almost constant downpour. Smoke, steam and fog add to the fumigated congestion. It is a city of dreadful night, punctuated by neon signs in day-glo colors, cheap Orientalized billboards and a profusion of advertising come-ons with hunks of long-discarded machinery littering the landscape. The music by Zimmer provides no relief from the oppressive gloom, throbbing with eerie sounds, echoes, pounding pistons and the noises of flying vehicles shuttling through the poisonous atmosphere. Yet, through the eyes of the great Roger Deakins, the settings can be sinister and terrifying, or strikingly beautiful like an enchanted landscape depending upon the character focused on.

Denis Villeneuve, who has ascended to the ranks of Hollywood elite in a sparse amount of years, has incited criticisms for a number of reasons but character development has never been one of them. The love story, unlike its predecessor, stays with you, deeply involving us in the struggle of these lovers to feel love. When the Deckard angle enters, it does not feel like a forced attempt to cash in on the nostalgia of the original but rather to relieve it, and even better, comprehend it a bit more.

But the question here, and I am sure you are rather impatient about it by now, is whether it is as good as the original or not ? Objectively, no. Subjectively, yes. And this is because ignoring all the faults I singled out, which are too technical and boring to jot down here, I find a reflection of me in these characters longing to love yet finding no one to. I am not too sure to advertise my opinion since it is too fickle, but it is what it is and that is all I can manage to get onto a paper as well. Well, I guess I am only human.

But regardless of whether my judgement is a fallacy or not, go to the biggest screen you can find and experience 2049. Whether you like to admit it or not, the return of the world of Philip Dick to the screen is not just another movie, it is a cinematic event. So recline in your seat, forgetting the overblown air conditioning, that annoying couple getting to second base behind and the ever meddling Censor Board. Recline a bit more and let the lights, the sound and the emotions wash over you, and find yourself in the midst of the city choking on its own technology.

Personally speaking, as I always am, 2049 is everything I have wanted science fiction to be :- universal in its scope and personal in appeal.

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 TOO https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011549616628YOU 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 Wizard Of Oz Reviewed & Analyzed

The fact that a MGM musical is still celebrated by cinema lovers world over is an astonishing certitude. But after watching The Wizard Of Oz, I laugh in the face of the qualms I had regarding this movie before watching it. There isn’t a movie worthy enough of its position in world cinema than this adaptation of the Frank Baum classic by Victor Fleming.

I won’t get myself in the trouble of trying to explain its plot for the moment, for it’s as famous as the movie itself and so silly yet genius that I haven’t yet developed such a mastery of English language that it can be summarized by me within a paragraph.

The movie is a celebration of everything that we love about fantasies – characters reeking of innocence in a world which doesn’t. But rather than praising its beautiful and hilarious songs, the wonderful production design or the fabulous performances, I would much like to dedicate this post to why this MGM musical of 1939 still holds its ground in a world so strongly inhibited by the likes of Kubrick and Hitchcock and everyone else. And the only reason which seems to transpires before me except for the historical importance it reeks of for the use of Technicolor is the plot of the movie.

So, the movie’s central protagonist is Dorothy Gale who as you might know, unless you have been living under a rock for the entire course of your lifetime, gets transported by a cyclone to the land of Oz where she meets the Scarecrow (one who wishes for a brain), Tin Man (one who wishes for a heart) and the Cowardly Lion (one who wishes for courage). Together, they embark on the journey to Crystal Palace, to meet Oz who will fulfil all their desires. (A paragraph which seems to contradict my earlier statement about summarizing the plot of this movie in a paragraph, but believe me, reading this and thinking you now know the entirety of the plot of this movie would be to look at one brick of the Great Wall Of China and say that’s all there is to it)

The Scarecrow, Tin Man and Lion for me seem to epitome the innermost desires of Dorothy’s which seems to give the entire movie a surreal underlining which I will go into later. The Scarecrow seems to be a metaphorical representation of Dorothy’s yearning, or more better a child’s yearning, to be considered equal in his/her intelligence by the adults. In the beginning one can see how Dorothy’s family members seem to dispose of her troubles without giving it a moment’s thought, most probably giving her the idea that they consider her asinine, and thus the yearning to be intelligent.

The origin of Cowardly Lion can be traced back to when Zeke advises Dorothy to be a little brave while facing Almira Gulch. Dorothy’s reluctance to accept her consternation about Gulch seems to be the reason why the Cowardly Lion seems so unabating in making his cowardly nature so obtrusive.

Then what about the Tin Man who wishes for a heart to feel with, a quality which Dorothy seems so abound of ? I believe this is her yearning for Miss Almira Gulch, which further affirms her goodness.  Although the Wicked Witch of the West seems to be a representation of Gulch I believe it is restricted here to only her physicality and her hate for Toto. Tin Man here possesses the same yearning which Dorothy wishes came true for Gulch as well, thus making him a projection of the Gulch Dorothy wants her to be.

And about Oz itself ? It seems much to be a work of Dorothy’s subconscious rather than a parallel reality. The fact that the passage of time in the dream world is much faster than compared to the real world also explains the length of the journey as well. It seems Dorothy’s subconscious creates a world of imagination, inhibits it with characters which are reflections of her own self and introspect about her existence.

Or is this reading too much into nothing ? Is my chain of thought reminiscent of the way the adults in the movie reject the notion of Oz at the end of the movie ?

Whatever it may be, the creation of a child’s innocent subconscious or an unimaginable reality, The Wizard Of Oz is one of the most delightful movies to have ever come out and had me from that moment where Aunt Em says to Almira that ‘Miss Gulch, I now know exactly what I think about you, but I can’t say it because I am a Catholic’.

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 TOO https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011549616628 YOU 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

Noor Review

To appeal to the young-audiences who fill up most of the seats for any film up for release (for getting selfies in those seats with their dates is another reality), mainstream Bollywood has been diverting its focus towards making youth-oriented cinema. Since the release of Shuddh Desi Romance in 2013, which paved the way for characters who are emotionally and sexually liberated, many movies have followed the suit and Noor is one of them. Unfortunately, this effort to break the shackles of a formulaic plots has also resulted in a formula and Noor falls an unfortunate prey to that.

It’s major quandary is an inability to surf from comic to tragic elements. Dramedys take a huge risk for they are two movies emulsified into one, and more often that not they come off as phony, which is what Noor feels like throughout its run-time. Predictability is a curse of cinema, and Noor is jinxed with it. It adopts a Ferris Bueller’s Day Off structure, yet has none of the charm it exuded. When will screenplay writers understand that comedy isn’t witty one-liners wrote off as dialogues ? There needs to be scenarios created so as to make these dialogues effective as well and Noor lacks them in ginormous amounts.

The other quandary is its take on journalistic integrity. It takes shares and retweets on social media as a scale to measure the popularity of a news item. And believe me, there is even a one minute scene where all that flashes on the scene is a number of hashtags, status updates and like counter. I can’t imagine how a film-maker even thought in his wildest dreams that this is not cringe-worthy. The film for some inexplicable reason tries to accommodate the entire life of its character in a bunch of hashtags. In a world where even someone saying ‘Damn Daniel’ repeatedly gets viral, I have rights to assert that social media is the least of all mediums to be used to illustrate the impact of a news item.

However, even in the midst of all this ruckus, Sonakshi Sinha stands tall. This movie really did not deserve this amazing performance.The few chuckles I garnered was for the odd charm she brought into the character with her adorable mannerisms. I have high regard for her and I wish she does more of such phenomenal work, however with better scripts. Kanan Gill is fabulous as the comedic and emotional relief, and the movie does an excellent work in exploring the romantic undertones of their relationship with a gradual pace.

Maybe the reason why I am writing so despondently about this movie is I expected more. I walked into this movie actually holding high hopes, and except for the performances and cinematography, I was let down. I would however recommend you to give it a go without holding high hopes. Maybe you might love it as much as I loved Sinha’s performance. You can walk into the cinema hall just to watch her, and it still wouldn’t be a waste of hard-earned money.

RATING : 5.5 / 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 TOO https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011549616628 YOU 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 Shining Review

A book and its movie adaptation should be treated as two different entities when they are talked about. This is a principle I have always adhered to when I have reviewed any book adaptation on this blog. This may be due to the fact that in the case of every book adaptation I have reviewed here, I watched the movie first and book later. In the case of The Shining, the case was different.

And to be honest, the workings of these two are so divergent that it is impossible to treat the movie with the same mindset as one might treat the book. First of all, Kubrick is a visual suzerian, so he treats the subject matter with that mindset. The images in The Shining and perplexing, especially the layout of The Overlook hotel. There are windows and doors where there should not be, carpet designs so abstract and asymmetrical in terms of their color scheme that seem to have a convulsing effect on the subconscious. It feels like the unfulfilled dream of Alfred Hitchcock, who envisioned to trick the subconscious with images and sound to create horror.

The camera seems more menacing than Jack throughout the movie. The steadicam gives an eerie feel to the shots, of a silent intruder who is always behind the heels of these characters tiptoeing his presence into their minds. However, this entire effect is atrophied by the background score which got on my nerves with its untimely explosions. Instead of creating a feeling of distress which I believe was its objective, it atrophies the entire feeling of dread. The most brilliant scenes are Jack and Grady’s conversation and Jack’s encounter with the girl in the tub, devoid of any noise. Silence, as I have repeatedly said without any avail, is the most scariest tool in the arsenal of any film-maker who aspires to make a horror film.

The reason why I found the movie less effective than the book seems to be Kubrick’s mindset that the true evil is Jack. He explores him as a non compos mentis from the first scene itself, a man who is hostile and distant to his family. This seems to take the very essence out of what was the actual horror of Stephen King’s work, which was to paint Jack as a tormented and pitiful soul who loves his family and how The Overlook and its ghosts eventually wear all humanity out of him. In the novel, the effect is distressing because we actually care about Jack as an individual and actually do feel contrite when he gradually goes down the spiral.

Kubrick’s movie however raises serious questions on the reliability on the mental state of its characters, which in turn, raises questions on the presence of any real supernatural entity in the hotel. The book by Stephen King gave us characters which seemed to consider the Overlook as a redemption to their diabolical lives and induced a feeling of claustrophobia and cabin-fever with its slow-pacing which made me feel as if I was shut in by the ghosts the Overlook seemed to house, creating a feeling of utter distress and eventual terror. On the other hand, Kubrick’s movie grows on to you and then lets go and oscillates with these feelings throughout, in the end creating an impersonal work which is at times chilling, but rest of the times, making an effort to be.

RATING :- 5 / 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 TOO https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011549616628 YOU 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.

Million Dollar Baby Review

Million Dollar is two movies emulsified into one, one is a sports movie and the other is a drama. Many movies have attempted this transition and failed miserably, but the skillful hands of Clint Eastwood never errs. As I am writing about this movie, I should warn you my dear friend, that if I spoil any of this movie for you, I ask for your apology beforehand. You see, I won’t get a sound sleep if I do a half-assed job at describing one of the greatest movies I have ever seen in my life. So, my apologies.

Million Dollar Baby dives head-first into a world of cliches with its familiar settings. You have the obsessed natural fighter, the gruff old trainer who is at loss after a betrayal and the likeable nobody. However, Paul Haggis’ screenplay circumscribes you from being skeptical about it from the first dialogue. Morgan Freeman’s rusty and soothing voice belts out some of the finest, if not THE finest dialogues written for any sports movie. It paints a picture from just plain words.

As the movie progresses, it takes you with it, completely enchanted. There, I found myself, cheering for Maggie with all my heart, with love I couldn’t even muster for my best friends when they competed in those inter-school football matches. I rarely root for a protagonist, but when I do, I do it with all my heart. In Million Dollar Baby, there was a brief moment where I felt to pay for an injury Maggie sustains after a fight. One of my favorite film critics, Mark Hobin once said ‘At its apex, the medium of film can capture a situation so perfectly that it goes beyond mere entertainment and matures into a reflection on the human experience. A presentation of characters so authentic and so raw that you forget that you’re sitting in a theater watching a movie, but have wandered into a circle of people and are now eavesdropping on their lives.’ That’s what Million Dollar Baby did to me. It blurred all lines of fiction.

The second half is probably one of the most depressing cinema ever filmed. It left me inconsolably sobbing. I wish film-schools make Million Dollar Baby a mandatory cinema for study. I wish all the aspiring film-makers and screenplay writers learn how to inundate the audience with a bond so powerful between characters that the film-going experience translates into a life changing one. When I was set to watch Million Dollar Baby, I expected to take a thing or two from it back home when it ended and make a good case for why Hotel Rwanda would have been a better choice for Best Picture, instead I found myself proclaiming it as one of the greatest movies ever made, and taking away the whole meaning of life itself when it ended. This is why I go to the movies.

(Hilary Swank trained 5 hours per day for this movie which resulted in her winding up with a potentially life-threatening staphylococcus infection. She chose not to tell Eastwood about this because she thought it would be out of character for Maggie. Just thought you should know, that real actors do exist, who live and breathe their art)

RATING :- 9.6 / 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 TOO https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011549616628 YOU 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Philomena Review

Philomena is based on the story of a ‘shamed mother’ by the name of Philomena Lee who sets out on a journey to find her lost son with the help of a journalist by the name of Martin Sixsmith. So, in Ireland, the shamed mothers were the ones who had a child out of wedlock. The parents of these women used to abandon them with churches where the nuns carried out the delivery of the children with their exiguous medical knowledge, in which most of the mothers and children died during childbirth. Philomena wasn’t one of them. She gave birth to a boy, who was later adopted under the church’s policy that these children are up for adoption if the couple pays 1000 euros.

I expected Philomena to be a thrilling movie of-sorts walking in to it, with the protagonists undertaking a needle-in-a-haystack task and finally succeeding and to my surprise, it wasn’t. It is more about a mother trying to reconnect with her son and his memories and trailing a path to find out whether her existence was of any value to his. Looking at Philomena, it is hard not to notice the religious and faith-based undertones of this movie. I feel it is structured to be a questioning of faith under the most adverse of circumstances.

In a way, it feels like a work of creative difference, for the screenplay writers seem to be telling a different tale and the director another. Philomena wants to succeed as both a dramatic and religious piece, which seems to create a rift of understanding for the viewer as well as a lot of unruly editing. It stretches out for so long that the narrative seems to assume an unwavering pensive mood, so as to let the viewer meditate on his own stability of mind on the concept of faith. And to be honest, I have no interest. I prefer identifying myself as an agnostic because it gives me the peace of mind to indulge my brain cells in more productive work than brooding over questions without definite or rational answers.

However, the only factor that lets us stay in our seats in the midst of all this creative mess, with our eyes plastered on the screen is the brilliant performances of Judi Dench and Steve Coogan. Both shine, especially Judy with her adorable act. She moulds a character of her own and her pretty nuances are entertaining to the hilt. Coogan is fabulous as Martin, even overshadowing Dench in an indisputably powerful climax.

Philomena didn’t resonate with me in the way I expected it to, but there is no shame in admitting that it is well because of my personal opinion on religion and faith. It is not an anti- Christian movie as some have asserted, and I am pretty sure it will relate to most of the audiences. Well, unfortunately, just not me.

RATING :- 6.8 / 10

P.S. Although I abstain from my religious beliefs to conflict with my point of thinking when it comes to film criticism, this movie demands that I bring them into the picture, for they hold paramount importance in regards to the narrative of the movie.

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 TOO https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011549616628 YOU 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.