Apps
Contact
Seminars
RSS FeedMay 4th, 2009
Movie Review: Dasvidanyia (2008)
| “The Best Goodbye Movie Ever“ | “In a Nutshell” rating: 9/10. |
The theme of a person having only a few months to live and suddenly turning life upside down is not new, but it is the execution and the perspective that counts, isn’t it? That is certainly the case in Dasvidaniya, the 2008 Bollywood movie, starring Vinay Pathak, Rajat Kapoor and Neha Dhupia. As Amar Kaul (Vinay Pathak) suddenly finds out that he has only 3 months to live due to stomach cancer, he is forced to reevaluate his life. Having spent his entire life making banal lists of banal things to do, he makes a final list of things to do, the things that he actually wants. The list of 10 things includes “love” (which should make it a memorable list for anyone with any number of years), having a photograph on the front page, and travel, which presumably can resonate with a lot of people, even seasoned travelers.
The entire cast fits right in. The editing is spot on – there is not a moment in the movie that looks made up or awkward. The movie has only a couple of songs, and they are very appropriate for their location. “Mumma”, sung by Kailash Kher, especially fits along nicely. Movies such as these make Bollywood richer, and the very normal/casual dialog delivery style of these so called “independent” movies is a pleasant change from the so called “blockbusters”.
There is a special message in the gifts that Amar Kaul leaves for everyone – he leaves things not in terms of monitory value and closeness of the relation, but only in terms of the need of the person. He does not leave the car (perhaps monetarily his biggest item) for his mother or brother, rather he leaves it for Savio, his music teacher since he needs it. He leaves the apartment for rent to the car saleswoman since she needs it. The mother and brother are left with each other as a family. He leaves a collection of his childhood memories for Neha, and a DVD set for Tatiana. He doesn’t leave anything per se for Rajiv Jhulka, but the list of things to do (the list of life), serves as his gift. He leaves the guitar for his ex boss – the connection there is that his boss took all the time that he had. So, he 
passes on the guitar to his boss, so his boss can now learn music, and Kaul can finally become the boss of the boss.
Finally, a note of thanks to the director for not spoiling the ending. It might have been very tempting to have the cancer go suddenly in remission (or even worse later found out that the results were mixed up or something) to finish the movie on a happy note. Instead however, the protagonist does indeed die, and still it is a very uplifting movie with an especially uplifting ending. Perhaps that is true for all of us – we can’t really choose the time of going, but if we can finish with a dasvidaniya, that wouldn’t be too bad.
July 28th, 2008
Movie Review: Khosla ka Ghosla (2006)
Memorable lines:
- “Yeh theek hai, same ka same, change ka change.” (Banti)
(This is good. It is same. It is different.) - “To hum bewkoof hain jo pee rahe hain? Saahni saab bewkoof hain jo roz roz peete hain?” (Kamal Kishore Khosla)
(And are we idiots that we are drinking? Mr. Saahni is an idiot that he drinks every day?”) - “Waise ‘Chiraunji Lal’ software programmer kam aur paan wala zyada lagta hai.” (Saahni saab)
(You know that name Chiraunji Lal doesn’t really sound like a software guy. Maybe like a cigarette seller.)
Must say that with this one movie, we can wipe away the era of pretentious, unpractical dialog writing in Bollywood. The dialogs are very down to earth, like normal people talk (imagining for a sec that you can define “normal” for a country with 1.1 billion people). The script is largely believable too – I am not 100% sure whether some guys can pull off such a trick and get away with 24-25 lakhs, but I have heard similar stories happening.
So, the plot is largely this: a hardworking family man (Kamal Kishore Khosla, played by Anupam Kher) works hard to buy a piece of land in a upscale neighborhood. Barely a few days after settling the deal, he takes his family out to see the land, only to find an occupied boundary wall with a clear sign outside “Yahan peshaab karna mana hai” (not allowed to pee here). He logically points out (to no one in particular) that he hasn’t come this far just to pee, but to look at his piece of land. So, it turns out that his piece of land has been illegally occupied by some political big shot and that it is going to cost him 50% of his original buy price to get the land free again. He doesn’t have that sort of cash, but luck brings him in contact with some one who understands these matters, and together they set about beating the bad guy at his own game.
The character that I enjoyed the most was Banti. He is the brother who is not considered academically brilliant (at least is not shown in that light), but is a practical guy. Perhaps this could be pointing to the fact that when I was little I longed for a brother. The brother that I longed for didn’t have to be Einstein or a glam or a movie start – just a normal guy.
Thoroughly enjoyed this movie – double thumbs and bigtoes up!
July 20th, 2008
Movie Review: Wall E (2008)
“In a Nutshell”® rating: 7/10.
I had heard good reviews of the movie, and that was basically the reason I went in to see the movie. Some of the nice images that the movie conveys – an obese human who can no longer stand up, humans being dependent upon robots for their very existence, robots trying to take control of the world, a male robot flirting with a female robot are all very nicely done.
Also, this is a different kind of animation from pixar, and the first half hour of the movie has only sounds, no words.
That being said, the subject matter is old, the movie does not provide any more insights, and it appeared way too long, as compared to the information they wanted to show. There was a Czech movie (I hear) that presented the dilemma of technology much better – in that movie the robot has nothing to do either and the robot finally shoots itself.
One also notes that while science fiction writers have been telling us that with technology one day we may not have anything to do, currently, with technology, we have only become busier! Also, while it is true that sedentary jobs may not be the best for our physique, again, the technologists of today are leaner, taller and more athletic than farmers of yesterday (or is this not true?)
May 24th, 2007
Movie Review – Kundun (1997)
“In a Nutshell”® rating: 9/10.
This spell binding documentary style movie set in the scenic Himalayas pictures the life of 14th (current) Dalai Lama.
The movie is extremely intelligent, minimalistic and retains a very fresh focus on the life of the Dalai Lama. From a young mischiveous boy who thinks he is king to an immature youth who is easily outfoxed by worldly politicians to an adult who questions if the correct Dalai Lama was found, the movie weaves the ground realities of a political problem into the biography.
What now for Tibet? The 14th Dalai Lama has recently expressed that he may never be able to return to Tibet. However, the 11th Panchen Lama remains missing, and this is an issue that continues to anger Tibetans all over the world. The world awaits a peaceful resolution to Tibet-China crisis.
December 31st, 2006
Movie Review – Casino Royale (2006)
“In a Nutshell”® rating: 3/10.
The latest Bond Movie, “Casino Royale” attempts to be highly sophisticated, but fails more often than it succeeds.
Basics: Before I start my rant, here are the basics: James Bond (played by Daniel Craig) is the MI 007, working for M (played by Judi Dench), the MI chief (or something like that, who cares).
My Gripes Begin: I have three main gripes about this entire movie:
- Unconnected, irrelevant concatenation of 3 items: Firstly, this is not one movie, but a combination of 3 separate, irrelevant, action sequences. In the first sequence, Bond is required to catch a guy who likes to climb over bulldozers and construction sites. In the second sequence, Bond is trying to win a poker game against a banker (Le Chiffre) who is a banker for corrupt heads of states and terrorists. In the third sequence, Bond is trying to stop a terrorist from blowing up a commercial airliner in its inaugral run.
- Lack of Imagination: It appears that science has not made any advancement in the 40 years that Bond has been around, or even in the last 200 years. Guys like Bond and Le Chiffre may be smart enough to calculate probabilities while counting cards, but the best mechanism they know to kill someone is by poisoning their drink. Let me say that one more time, and allow that to sink in: Le Chiffre poisoned Bond’s drink. Yes! Knowing fully well that he is surrounded by enemies who know who he is, our dear friend Bond 007 asks for a drink and casually chats away while the drink is poisoned.
- Repetitive Fight Sequences: This is the least of the problems that this movie has, but is a problem nevertheless. Fight sequences are basically repetitive, they might very well have used the same sequence in the 3 sections of the movie (Perhaps they did, I could’t tell).
The movie is boring. Daniel Craig acts well as the Bond 007, but cannot save the movie. This movie is unlikely to get any Oscar nomination or award.
July 6th, 2006
Movie Review – Devil Wears Prada (2006)
“In a Nutshell”® rating: 8/10.
Set in the glitter world of fashion, “Devil Wears Prada” reaches the level of simplicity and complexity that is highly desirable, but uncommon in Hollywood.
Andrea Sachs (played by Anne Hathaway) is a journalism graduate who comes to NYC for a journalism job but ends up as the second assistant to Miranda Priestley (played by Meryl Streep), the chief editor of top fashion magazine “Runway”.
While people all around her tell her that the position is one that ‘a million girls would kill for’, Andrea (Andy) is less impressed and considers it merely her temp job for a year (“to the jobs that pay the rent”). Her upbringing and ethics have her convinced that fashion is a trivial activity, that should matter very little in life. Subtle changes in her thinking as she progresses in the fashion world and the first “all consuming” job that fresh graduates typically experience are the highlights of the movie.
["..better you do at work, more your personal life suffers.. When your personal life is completely blown away, know that you are due for a promotion.." -- Nigel (played by Stanley Tucci)]
The movie is refreshingly simple and does not fall for the “love triangle caused by confusion” or the “loving mom, terrible boss” traps. It stays close to its theme, and does so in a light, fun manner. Still under its deceptive simplicity lie nuances of complexity. During a conversation between Andy and Miranda, when driving to the premier fashion event in Paris, Miranda points out that though they may appear to be very different from each other, Andy is just a younger reflection of herself. This lighter touch manifestation of Narcissus and Goldmund is a highlight of the movie. Through a subtle touch of Andy’s seduction by a writer, the duality of good in bad and bad in good is highlighted in passing. A very brief scene of the New York Mirror office at the end (where fashion indeed does not matter), highlights the issue of “my perspective is my universe (and rightly so)”.
This may be a sleeper hit of 2006, and may get a nomination for best supporting actress for Meryl Streep.
February 12th, 2001
Movie Review – Gladiator (2000)
“In a Nutshell”® rating: 9/10.
Now here is a movie, decent enough and doing pretty good. We reached the theater a trifle 4 minutes late and had to occupy the only remaining seats on the extreme corner of the first row.
With outstanding wide-angle photography and an excellent story-line, Gladiator provides a two and half-hour spell that takes one into the Roman empire of around 200 AD.
Russell Crowe, in the role of Roman general Maximus, outshines the remaining cast. Hounsou (from Amistad) provides a solid performance. ‘Comodus’ (Joaquin Phoenix, Parenthood, 1989) does an excellent job too.
Even though the movie is tightly wound to its central theme of the enmity between Maximus and Comodus, with the crowd rooting for Maximus, at times the story does look a wee bit cheesy.
December 25th, 2000
Highlander 4 – Endgame (2000)
“In a Nutshell”® rating: 0/10
It is usually thought that any fourth in a series is the worst. Well, it is more than true in the case of Highlander. You can go ahead and read my review, but the bottomline is: don’t see it.
With attempts at creating extra-ordinary special effects, the movie falls a bit short (like what, a few miles?) of anything that can be termed interesting (I mean, even soap operas are ok). We all know the story: there are immortals, and they die (?), and only one of them lives (now maybe he (or she) ) should be called immortal. What we want to see when we go to see a “Highlander” is something more than that, or atleast a good depiction. Highlander gives nothing of that. It actually is a good movie if all you are interested is your date, and you are worried she might see the movie and not talk to you. With this movie playing she will have to talk to you.
In one scene, there is an utterly needless and explicit sexual content, that looks like interference from an adult-movie playing in the next theater. It has no relevance to the story, and is not long enough to make a movie a success using that weapon.