Beautiful Creatures

Your Twilight alarm may be screaming at first glimpse of Beautiful Creatures, a supernatural romance between two teenagers-- one human, one immortal-- who long to be together, and express that longing in a lot of gorgeous natural locations while scored to modern pop music. And while the world of Beautiful Creatures is no less absurd than Twilight, filled with witches called "casters" and curses from the Civil War and an all-knowing Viola Davis, it possesses a crucial self-awareness to actually allow you to get in on the fun. It's not always easy to follow the rules of this new supernatural world, but by not getting caught up in the details and exploring the giggly thrill of teen romance, Beautiful Creatures is way more fun than your Twilight-weary soul might imagine.

It starts, surprisingly enough, with the two attractive young leads, both of whom commit to the high emotions of romance without forgetting that they're supposed to be, y'know, enjoying each others' company. Alden Ehrenreich slaps on a syrupy Southern accent to play Ethan Wate, a sweet-natured kid itching to escape his South Carolina hometown, but also stuck caring for his dad following his mother's death. He's drawn immediately to the new girl in town, Lena (Alice Englert), who's staying with her uncle Macon Ravenwood (Jeremy Irons) in a run-down old mansion that everyone thinks is haunted (the connection between Macon and To Kill a Mockingbird's Boo Radley is stated early, one of many hints that Beautiful Creatures is smarter than it looks). Ethan pursues Lena not with smoldering glances but an easy smile and a willingness to look silly, and the imperious Lena eventually softens-- but not before revealing the family secrets that could keep them apart.

You see, Lena is a caster-- the terms for witch used in Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl's novels-- and on her approaching 16th birthday she will be "claimed" for either the dark or light side. In the chaotic group of supporting characters we see both the light side (Margo Martindale in an insane wig, mainly) and the dark (Emmy Rossum's vampy Cousin Ridley), and Lena's own dark caster mother Seraphine comes to town, possesses the body of the local Moral Majority snoop (Emma Thompson) and tries to meddle in Lena's life enough to make her dark transition a guarantee. On top of all that, there's also a curse left over from the Civil War that guarantees that Lena's love for a mortal will make her dark forever. Being 16 ain't easy, y'all.

When Thompson first appears as the schoolmarmish yokel she seems wildly out of place, but when she transforms into Seraphine with one delicious monologue delivered to Irons, she lights a rocket under the movie and delivers its purpose. Yes, all the Southern accents in this movie are awful. Yes, it's impossible to keep track of which caster is meddling with Lena in which way. Yes, there are moments where we peek into Lena's magical world and something completely nonsensical-- like a man with his entire body painted like clouds-- is presented as if we should understand it. But even when Beautiful Creatures is nonsense, it is stylish, captivating, gloriously enjoyable nonsense, with all of its performers well aware of what they're given. Director Richard LaGravanese, seemingly grateful to have assembled this kind of cast, lets his actors cut loose, but all are smart enough not to turn it into a joke. You'll find yourself believing in it all despite yourself; like the Civil War re-enactments featured in the final action scene, it all looks insane on the surface, but has a mighty power to suck you in.

Englert, with her moody eyes and powerful charisma, is an obvious star in the making, but Ehrenreich matches her not in sex appeal, but boy-next-door relatability-- the two of them alone are worth a sequel to dip back into this loony-tunes world. As a South Carolinian I think I finally understand what it's been like for Louisianans to watch True Blood all these years, seeing their culture transformed into something howling and maybe even offensive. I also can't wait to see it happen again.

Read More

Oz The Great And Powerful

In a world of sequels, reboots, remakes, re-adaptations and re-imaginings, prequels have become one of Hollywood?s hardest nuts to crack. There have been far fewer successes than notorious missteps, from George Lucas? second Star Wars trilogy to X-Men Origins: Wolverine. In directing Oz The Great and Powerful, Sam Raimi was facing an uphill battle working to live up to the legacy of Victor Fleming?s classic The Wizard of Oz, but by embracing what was great about the old film while introducing plenty of new to the world, he has succeeded.

The legacy of both Disney and Oz both could have found a way to stifle Raimi?s style, but Oz The Great and Powerful is undeniably a Raimi film. The director brings all of his little flourishes that he?s had since The Evil Dead to the new blockbuster - most notably the quick-zooms that distinguish scenes of chaos ? and he?s also even able to play around with some scarier elements. The film is never any more frightening than The Wizard of Oz is, but between dragon-winged baboons, intense witches and a scene involving some freaky plant monsters, the movie will raise your pulse at times.

And credit to Raimi for actually building Oz for his actors to interact in instead of a bunch of green screens. Not only does it give the film a surreal quality, convincing the audience of its otherworldliness, it?s also a boon to the 3D cinematography, which succeeds in not making the characters look like cardboard cutouts against a matte painting. But where the CGI does come in its fantastic, particularly in the design and integration of the China Girl, who looks impressively photorealistic.

As an origin story for The Wizard of Oz, this film cleverly balances its own story while also embracing the elements that made the original great to begin with. Raimi includes many nods to Fleming?s movie, including the sepia-toned 4:3 aspect ratio opening that turns to color and widescreen in the Land of Oz, and the fact that both stories have a group of unlikely heroes joining together to go on a great adventure, but keeps the story surprising and clever enough for it all to play as loving homage. The troupe that the movie pulls together - which includes Oz (James Franco), the con-man/magician/presumed wizard destined to save the land from the wicked witch; Finley (Zach Braff), a flying monkey who owes a life-debt to Oz; and the aforementioned China Girl (Joey King), a sassy young porcelain doll who Oz rescues ? has wonderful chemistry and conflicting personalities, while the three witches Glinda, Evanora and Theodora (Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz, and Mila Kunis) all get interesting new backstories that add surprising depth to previously underdeveloped characters.

Fun as Franco is in the eponymous role, it?s surprisingly his CGI co-stars that wind up stealing the show. As Finley, Braff has the benefit of getting the lion?s share of the funniest one-liners and quips, but the actor deserves the credit for his great timing and simply having the perfect voice for the part. King, meanwhile, brings the ideal level of pluck and cute humor to the China Girl without ever being cloying or reducing the character to being a stereotype.

Unlike 2011?s The Thing, Hannibal Rising or Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd, Oz The Great and Powerful is the rare prequel that fans will want to rewatch back to back with the original classic, not only finding the places where the stories sync up, but also just enjoying the story of it all. It?s an entertaining family movie, a true Sam Raimi film, and a fun return to a merry old land.

Read More

Stoker

The best way to watch Stoker, the new film from director Park Chan-wook, is as if you have the senses of its lead character. India Stoker, played by the brilliant Mia Wasikowska, has a special gift where she can hear and see things imperceptible to the rest of us, seeing the world for all of its smallest details and elements. Watching the movie, audiences should completely absorb themselves in it, pushing back reality to focus on every line, every cut, every pan and every sound. It?s the only way to properly view something this magnificent.

Mixing elements of the modern day, the Victorian gothic era and the mid-20th century, Stoker is a stunning mix of coming of age tale and horror/thriller that begins on India?s 18th birthday ? the day her father (Dermot Mulroney) is killed in a terrible car accident. But it isn?t until the funeral that she discovers she won?t be alone in her giant house with her unbalanced mother, Evie (Nicole Kidman). It is there that she first learns of her mysterious Uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode), family she has never knew existed. From there, Park and screenwriter Wentworth Miller weave a captivating and phenomenal tale of mystery and terror, as sexual and psychological tension constantly rises between the mother, daughter and uncle and India?s fascination with her estranged relative unravels not only his past, but also her future.

Every frame in Stoker feels like it was crafted with satin-gloved fingertips and a pair of tweezers held by a filmmaker in complete control. Park makes regular use of long, flowing shots that take the audience around the palatial Stoker estate, lending the film not only a feeling of elegance, but a creepy, underlying voyeurism. ?The sound design is otherworldly, as we occasionally dip into India?s perceptions and listen to the world the way she hears it, from the light breathing and shallow gulps during a quiet family dinner to the shatter of a gunshot and gurgling blood. The film creates an opulent, wonderful landscape of senses that lures you in and snaps like a bear trap when the dark undertones become extreme overtones.

Leading the cast and lending a stoic, mesmerizing quality to India, Wasikowska is a stand-out in a cast replete with awesome performances. The young actress creates an impressive balance for the character, accentuating her great strength (like when she strikes back at bullies tormenting her at school) while also making her vulnerable (particularly when in the presence of Uncle Charlie). Goode?s take on the film?s mysterious antagonist is frighteningly reminiscent of Anthony Perkins? Norman Bates in Psycho, while Kidman?s turn is blessed with subtlety that makes Evie?s instability all the more engaging. When the three gather in one room you can palpably feel the emotions between all the characters and it?s immediately clear you?re watching something special.

You won?t find any jump scares in Stoker. Nor will you find any demonically-possessed children, CGI beasts, or half-assed twist endings. The movie forgoes any stunts and tropes and instead generates genuine terror from flawless filmmaking, a collection of outstanding performances and a story of bubbling monstrosity and bad blood. If this is what Park Chan-wook can bring to the American film world, then hopefully he will stay for a very long time.

Read More

The Last Exorcism Part II

New Orleans is a really spooky place. It?s a strange mix of buttoned up Christianity, hidden superstitions and nighttime sin. It has its own pace, its own bilingual history and its own demons. In many ways, it?s the perfect setting for a horror movie interested in creepy and off-putting visuals and/ or backstories involving slavery, vampires and old mansions that have fallen into disrepair.

At times, The Last Exorcism really seems to understand the potential in its location. It cuts to creepers in Mardi Gras masks and disturbing painted street performers. It even throws in some voodoo-like rituals, but none of it is enough to save a flat exorcism story arc that few of us asked for and even fewer will enjoy.

Even casual horror fans have probably seen at least one young woman?s body twisted, contorted and raised into the air. If not, they?ve at least seen one member of a weird cult or religious organization get called out of the bullpen to try his home spun remedies on a protagonist slowly losing his or her mind. That?s why exorcism movies have to be about the characters now, as as characters go, The Last Exorcism is short on good ones.

After the de-possession story of the first The Last Exorcism, Nell Sweetzer (Ashley Bell) is discovered in the woods and brought to live in a group home for troubled young girls. After repeatedly being told the demon who possessed her, Abalam, isn?t real, she starts to make a real life for herself. There's a potential boyfriend (Spencer Treat Clark) to awkwardly go to the zoo with, a gaggle of girlfriends to talk about it with, and a job as a maid in a local hotel, but alas, we all know that bliss can?t last in an exorcism movie. Abalam reappears in various forms to sometimes torture her, sometimes woo her and consistently confuse the hell out of any viewers with common sense.

There?s a difference between a genre movie not answering every possible question a viewer might have and a horror movie straight up not making sense, and The Last Exorcism 2 is on the wrong side of that unforgiving line. We?re told Abalam is powerless without Nell; yet, he?s apparently capable of inhabiting people?s bodies and committing a boatload of felonies with only a marginal bit of effort. Sometimes we?re given evidence to believe certain characters and certain behaviors are figments of people?s imaginations, and sometimes we?re given evidence to believe certain characters and certain behaviors are actually happening. It?s a big jumbled, needlessly complicated mess.

The Last Exorcism worked because it made clever use of a skeptic, got a great performance from its lead actress and offered just enough genuine scares. The Last Exorcism 2 gets that same great performance from Bell, but beyond that, it doesn?t offer much more than confusion and the occasional New Orleans shoutout. Unlike its predecessor, this one isn?t destined for good word of mouth, and if we?re in luck, it won?t be destined for another sequel either.

Read More

Jack The Giant Slayer

The beanstalk has been eliminated from the title of this version of Jack and the adventure that happens when he brings home magic beans, and we have to wait a hell of a long time to see it. When padding out a children's fairy tale to become an epic, CGI-heavy film, you've got to add some story in there somehow, and in its opening act Jack slides painfully from animated recreation of the giant legends to meet-cute between our hero and heroine to the political instability of a kingdom that doesn't exist.

Even when the beanstalk erupts, and Jack (dewy and engaging Nicholas Hoult) joins a rescue party to rescue the pretty princess (Eleanor Tomlinson) who's trapped atop it, director Bryan Singer can't quite wrap his arms around this wily revisionist fairy tale. Only when those titular giants emerge, miraculous creations of motion-capture and imagination, do Jack the movie and Jack the person seem to find their purpose, spinning a children's film with surprising violence and even more goofy humor, a fairly standard-issue fantasy with just enough sparks of wit that show someone cared enough to make it better.

That's not necessarily what I'd hoped for from Singer, who's spent the the four years since the muddled release of his terrific film Valkyrie working on this and overseeing the X-Men universe. Though Jack works with some excellent moments of tension-- like when Jack and his princess love are on the verge of being cooked into a giant pie-- it's not nearly the high wire expertise Singer has shown in the past, and the grinding mechanics of the script credited to four different people keeps the film leaden for far too long. A movie that gets good only after 45 minutes is a tough sit, but Jack only manages to become OK-- a hard sell both to the kids it's aimed at and the parents who might know Singer is capable of better.

Jack isn't as chaotic as Clash of the Titans and not nearly as self-serious as John Carter, which at least puts it ahead of some of its fellow early-spring fantasy competition. And its bright spots are often remarkable, like the swashbuckling Errol Flynn-style performance from Ewan MacGregor as the head of the rescue party, or Stanley Tucci as the princess's sniveling intended, with his own secret plans for how to rule the kingdom. When the rescue party begins the men-- of course they're all men-- are an unruly gaggle of about a dozen, and only after about half of them literally fall off the beanstalk is it possible to figure out group dynamics (Eddie Marsan is in there somewhere, but has a hard time breaking out of the pack). And though it's hard to to sense the love connection between Jack and Princess Isabelle that sends him clambering up that beanstalk, once they're reunited they have a nice thing going on. It's a shame the adventuresome princess barely gets to be a part of the actual action, but with so much else going on in the plot, it's almost a relief to have one less story to deal with.

The giants, and especially a motion-capture Bill Nighy as the leader Fallon, are a mighty impressive CGI creation, covered in all kinds of weird warts and growths and, on one of them at least, a second head. Shooting much of the film outdoors allows the giants to feel even more authentic, though parents might find that realism a bit too intense for kids. In an effort to balance that intensity Jack is crammed with silly humor, leaving it in an odd middle-ground between straight-up family adventure and a more familiar fantasy cribbed from Lord of the Rings. It's a strange hybrid, and not entirely a successful one, but hey, at least it's trying something different.

Read More

This Means War

• Release Date: 02/17/2012 
• Rating: R  
• Runtime: 98 min
• Genre: Comedy, Action , Romance
• Director: McG
• Cast: Reese Witherspoon, Chris Pine, Tom Hardy, Chelsea Handler

Storyline

Two top CIA operatives wage an epic battle against one another after they discover they are dating the same woman. 



Review 

In This Means War – a stylish action/rom-com hybrid from director McG – Tom Hardy (The Dark Knight Rises) and Chris Pine (Star Trek) star as CIA operatives whose close friendship is strained by the fires of romantic rivalry. Best pals FDR (Pine) and Tuck (Hardy) are equally accomplished at the spy game, but their fortunes diverge dramatically in the dating realm: FDR (so nicknamed for his obvious resemblance to our 32nd president) is a smooth-talking player with an endless string of conquests, while Tuck is a straight-laced introvert whose love life has stalled since his divorce. Enter Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), a pretty, plucky consumer-products evaluator who piques both their interests in separate, unrelated encounters. Tuck meets her via an online-dating site, FDR at a video-rental store. (That Lauren is tech-savvy enough to date online but still rents movies in video stores is either a testament to her fascinating mix of contradictions, or more likely an example of lazy screenwriting.)

When Tuck and FDR realize they’re pursuing the same girl, it sparks their respective competitive natures, and they decide to make a friendly game of it. But what begins as a good-natured rivalry swiftly devolves into romantic bloodsport, with both men using the vast array of espionage tools at their disposal – from digital surveillance to poison darts – to gain an edge in the battle for Lauren’s affections. If her constitutional rights happen to be violated repeatedly in the process, then so be it.

Lauren, for her part, remains oblivious to the clandestine machinations of her dueling suitors, and happily basks in the sudden attention from two gorgeous men. Herein we find the Reese Witherspoon Dilemma: While certainly desirable, Lauren is far from the irresistible Helen of Troy type that would inspire the likes of Tuck and FDR to risk their friendship, their careers, and potential incarceration for. At several points in This Means War, I found myself wondering if there were no other peppy blondes in Los Angeles (where the film is primarily set) for these men to pursue. Then again, this is a film that wishes us to believe that Tom Hardy would have trouble finding a date, so perhaps plausibility is not its strong point.

When Lauren needs advice, she looks to her boozy, foul-mouthed best friend, Trish (Chelsea Handler). Essentially an extension of Handler’s talk-show persona – an acquired taste if there ever was one – Trish’s dialogue consists almost exclusively of filthy one-liners, delivered in rapid-fire succession. Handler does have some choice lines – indeed, they’re practically the centerpiece of This Means War’s ad campaign – but the film derives the bulk of its humor from the outrageous lengths Tuck and FDR go to sabotage each others’ efforts, a raucous game of spy-versus-spy that carries the film long after Handler’s shtick has grown stale.

Business occasionally intrudes upon matters in the guise of Heinrich (Til Schweiger), a Teutonic arms dealer bent on revenge for the death of his brother. The subplot is largely an afterthought, existing primarily as a means to provide third-act fireworks – and to allow McGenius an outlet for his ADD-inspired aesthetic proclivities. The film’s action scenes are edited in such a manic, quick-cut fashion that they become almost laughably incoherent. In fairness to McG, he does stage a rather marvelous sequence in the middle of the film, in which Tuck and FDR surreptitiously skulk about Lauren's apartment, unaware of each other's presence, carefully avoiding detection by Lauren, who grooves absentmindedly to Montel Jordan's "This Is How We Do It." The whole scene unfolds in one continuous take – or is at least craftily constructed to appear as such – captured by one very agile steadicam operator.

Whatever his flaws as a director, McG is at least smart enough to know how much a witty script and appealing leads can compensate for a film’s structural and logical deficiencies. He proved as much with Charlie’s Angels, a film that enjoys a permanent spot on many a critic’s Guilty Pleasures list, and does so again with This Means War. The film coasts on the chemistry of its three co-stars, and only runs into trouble when the time comes to resolve its romantic competition, which, by the end, has driven its male protagonists to engage in all manner of underhanded and duplicitous activities. This Means War being a commercial film – and likely an expensive one at that – Witherspoon's heroine is mandated to make a choice, and McG all but sidesteps the whole thorny matter of Tuck and FDR’s unwavering dishonesty, not to mention their craven disregard for her privacy. (They regularly eavesdrop on her activities.) For all their obvious charms, the truth is that neither deserves Lauren – or anything other than a lengthy jail sentence, for that matter.

Read More

The Vow (2012)

Release Date: 02/10/2012
Rating: PG13
Runtime: 1 hr 44 mins
Genre: Drama,Romance
Director: Michael Sucsy
Cast: Rachel McAdams, Channing Tatum, Sam Neill, Jessica Lange

Storyline
A car accident puts Paige (McAdams) in a coma, and when she wakes up with severe memory loss, her husband Leo (Tatum) works to win her heart again.


Review

The romantic drama The Vow is not adapted from a Nicholas Sparks novel, though I doubt its producers would be offended if you’d assumed otherwise. In fact, I suspect they’re banking on it. The film’s stars, Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum, are both recognized veterans of the Sparks subgenre – she gave us the indelible (for better or worse) Notebook, while he starred in the somewhat less successful Dear John. Moreover, its premise, pitting love against the insidious after-effects of brain trauma, may be inspired by a true story, but its one-two punch of tragedy and sentiment is straight out of Sparks’ tear-jerking playbook.

It’s all there in The Vow’s opening montage, which first introduces Leo (Tatum) and Paige (McAdams), two desperately smitten bohemian-artist types (she’s a sculptor; he’s a musician/studio owner), and then rudely separates them, all in one slick, heartbreaking sequence. There’s the meet-cute at the DMV, the whirlwind courtship, the quirky marriage proposal, the kitschy guerrilla wedding (replete with vows scrawled on restaurant menus), and, finally, the brutal car accident, glimpsed in agonizing slow-motion, that leaves poor Paige in a coma.

When Paige awakens in the hospital, Leo is aghast to discover his wife doesn’t recognize him. While her girl-next-door beauty emerged from the crash remarkably intact, it seems her brain did not fare so well, suffering injuries that effectively wiped out her memory of the preceding five years – a span comprising the entirety of her relationship with Leo. Her mind’s clock rewound a half-decade, Paige assumes the identity of Paige from five years prior, like a rebooted computer whose owner neglected to backup the hard drive in a timely manner.

It soon becomes achingly apparent that the Paige from five years prior was markedly different from the Paige we met in the opening credits: a superficial sorority girl, on track for a law degree, averse to city-dwelling, partial to blueberry mojitos, cowed by her domineering father (Sam Neill), and engaged to a corporate douche (Scott Speedman). Upon emerging from her slumber, she finds the remnants from her old life all-too-eager to re-assimilate their lost lamb into the Bourgeois Borg, even if she does have one of those icky tattoos.

In danger of losing the love of his life to her former one, a heartbroken Leo resolves to win back Paige, even if it means starting from scratch and wooing her all over again. Aligned against him are the grim realities of brain damage as well as Paige’s family and former fiancé, whose cult-like efforts at re-education seem ever-creepier the more I contemplate them. (There are unintentional echoes of Total Recall in Paige’s arc, which I suppose would make Leo her Kuato.)

Cultishness and Total Recall allusions notwithstanding, The Vow flirts with a more unsettling notion, one seemingly at odds with the romantic drama mission, implying that what we know as love is simply the product of our memories, tenuous and transient, and not the profound, transcendent bond that Hallmark promised.

Fear not: The Vow is by no means a dense metaphysical treatise. Director Michael Sucsy (Grey Gardens) and is far more concerned with heart-tugging than thought-provoking. To that end, he steers admirably clear of grand epiphanies and other moments of high melodrama, preferring instead to apportion the sap relatively evenly throughout the story. The strategy is less manipulative but also less impactful. The script, from Abby Kohn, Marc Silverstein, and Jason Katims, can’t maintain the energy of its opening act, and apart from its brain damage twist, is a tediously familiar romantic-drama slog. I found myself secretly rooting for some old-fashioned emotional overkill, if only to alleviate the boredom.

The two leads, for their part, form a charming pair. McAdams is as endearing as ever, working well within her comfort zone, and equally likable Tatum bears his character’s anguish ably, even if he’ll never be credible as a bohemian-artist type. Their easy, appealing chemistry might be enough to satisfy the Sparks-philes, but it’s not enough to sustain the film.

Read More

Gali Gali Chor Hai movie review

Gali Gali Chor Hai February 3, 2012 11:48:02 AM IST
updated February 4, 2012 01:52:30 PM IST
By Martin D'Souza, Glamsham Editorial
For a movie that slots itself as comedy/drama, GALI GALI CHOR HAI leaves a sobering impact. In fact, it has you tottering out of the auditorium after having driven home its point with such finesse that it makes you wonder how Rumi Jaffery managed this Houdini act!
'Houdini act' because it's a subject so real and so close to home that it has never been addressed with such intelligence. True, there have been movies on politics and politicians and the corrupt system; but the way the 'system' is looked into in a holistic way, through the life of just one common man, is indeed an eye-opener. I'm sure, R K Laxman would be proud of this achievement. After decades, some other artist has managed to portray the 'Common Man' that really excites, incites and has you thinking.

CHECK OUT: Mugdha- No bikini show in GALI GALI CHOR HAI
The story is simple. It could happen to you. Bharat (Akshaye Khanna) is a quintessential character, you would find in your neighbourhood. It could be you. He is married; works in a bank as a cashier and his only crime is that he refuses a room in his large house for a local politician to set up his temporary office during election time. The setting is in Madhya Pradesh. Bharat is part of a play where he longs to play Ram, but portrays Hanuman. The local politician's brother enacts Ram, thanks to his lineage, even though he is a bad actor. The genesis of Bharat's problem can be traced from here.
Before you know it, in front of your eyes, Bharat is implicated in a problem so trivial that it actually shocks you as to how he could be sucked into the vortex of the corrupt system so incredulously convincingly by a cop (Anu Kapoor, brilliant) who obviously has been let loose on the unsuspecting man.

It appears that the cops have caught a robber who has robbed a table fan from Bharat's home. Bharat is not aware of any such fan. But after a veiled threat from the cop he is convinced to go to the local police station where the game begins to retrieve his fan. How Rumi exploits the plot, weaving in the accompaniment that goes along with any case that lands in the small court is what frustrates you as a viewer. You feel for Bharat as he helplessly moves around not knowing what has hit him as he starts bribing his way through the system.
Then begins the quest to get rid of the 'unlucky' fan.
Akshaye is first rate in portraying the angst of someone who is perplexed as to the way the system functions. He transfers his anxiety to the viewer who is as helpless. That is the mark of a genius. Shriya Saran as his wife has a small but meaningful role. Murli Sharma who plays local MLA Manku Tripathi and the guy who plays his brother don't have much of a role. But just the minimum time they have on screen is enough to have a maximum impact. Who says you need several scenes and a meaty role to leave your mark as an actor?
CHECK OUT: Can GALI GALI CHOR HAI spring a surprise?
The final scene and the dialogue by Bharat, 'Yeh system ke gaal pe tamacha hai' is what really has you reeling. He does get to play Ram after all, using all the strength of a Hanuman!
The Bomb Blast angle notwithstanding (not convincing, it could have been interwoven more smartly or could have been done away with), GALLI GALLI CHOR HAIN is indeed an eye-opener. Positioned cleverly around election time, it should encourage those who never leave their homes to exercise their franchise.
Don't mistake the name Bharat for the main protagonist. India can have many more Anna Hazares who can stand up against the system.
The five star rating is for the concept and the intelligent way it has been executed, without going over-the-top. It is also for the director's chutzpah. Methinks it should be made tax free.
This movie is Timely, Topical and Terrific!
Rating - 5/5

View the original article here

Read More

Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu

Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu  February 10, 2012 12:30:48 PM IST
updated February 10, 2012 03:11:11 PM IST
By Martin D'Souza, Glamsham Editorial
This clearly is an Imran Khan show. Sedate and subdued, he goes about bringing Rahul (his character) to life. Overburdened by the expectations from his parents (Boman Irani and Ratna Pathak-Shah) to excel in what they decide is best for him, Rahul loses his identity and lives to please them. He opens his mouth, but is never able to voice his opinion. He is an architect in a big firm in Las Vegas. Sin city obviously is going to lure you to do things you would never have imagined. So what if you never rebel. There is always that side wanting to explode at the slightest provocation.
That provocation comes in the form of Kareena Kapoor (Riana Braganza) a hair-stylist who is nursing another broken relationship. Their chance meeting at a Mall, followed by a visit to the shrink in the same vicinity puts them in an odd spot. Before you know it, both are 'punch drunk' and wake up as a married couple the next morning. Neither has any clue of what happened. Britney Spears did that too, a few years ago and got the marriage annulled.
CHECK OUT: Imran's wife Avantika does cameo in EK MAIN AUR EKK TU
Rahul and Riana too want this mistake annulled. How this 'drunken error' weaves into a larger plot is what EK MAIN AUR EKK TU is all about. Shakun Batra does not give one the impression that this is his maiden venture as a director. The editing is sharp, the plot pushy enough to drive the movie the full length and the screenplay appropriate. For most part, the movie gives one a Hollywood feel, since Las Vegas is the action spot. The smart narration before, between and at the end, enhances the entire movie. Actually, it's another character of the movie.
Of late, Imran has been typecast with roles he has been associated with. Take the case of MERE BROTHER KI DULHAN and his debut film JAANE TU... YA JAANE NA... The characters, body language, dialogue delivery are almost similar. In EMAET, he goes three steps further. He sheds his image and clothes himself in the character. As for me, I got a Hugh Grant feel from his performance.

The same cannot be said of Kareena Kapoor. She is a fine actor but somewhere she has failed to shake off the image of Geet from JAB WE MET. You encounter Geet even here. For an actor to excel, he or she has to start afresh with every role. Having said that, it can be argued in her favour, that Riana is indeed a happy-go-lucky character who only sees the brighter side of life. Her family too, embodies the spirit she exudes. But then, you expect more from a Kareena, na?!.
For all the talk of their age difference, Imran and Kareena do make a good couple. The script helps too with her being shown two years older. However, the film does tend to get monotonous with the focus being on just the two. Batra tries to rope in a few more characters as the plot moves to India with Riana's parents and her extended family. Here, Batra falters as he portrays her family more like Parsis than Catholics. The scene at St Xavier's School where Riana takes Rahul on a tour too is a mistake because we all know that only boys study here. Talking about her best friend Amu, too, trivializes the scene a bit. We all know who she is referring to.
CHECK OUT: Kareena is unaffected by her stardom
The Auntyji track is peppy and ups the tempo and the end is actually the beginning. Full marks to Batra for being different.
At least you go back thinking about what could have been.
EMAET had the potential of being an even better film. The three stars are for the excellent treatment and Imran's performance.
Rating : 3/5

Read More

Ghost

Kumaar, A.M. Turaz and Sandeep Nath Shiney Ahuja, Sayali Bhagat, Tej Sapru, Deepraj Rana, Julia Bliss and Gulshan Rana January 13, 2012 03:37:37 PM IST
By Martin D'Souza, Glamsham Editorial
Do not mistake this for the remake of the Patick Swayze-Demi Moore starrer with the same name. This one is far removed from the brilliance of that 1990 flick.
This GHOST is a nuisance. The directors needs to learn the ABC of scripting before venturing into a horror story. What he does know is to keep the lighting low and make scary background sounds. Apart from that he just scratches the surface. Whoever coined the saying, 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing', must surely have had this director in mind.
Picture this: There's a lady who is rushed to the hospital with third degree burns. Her saree is intact! Get a load of this too: Just when the investigation into the killings in the City Hospital is reaching its peak with the investigating officer (Shiney) stumbling on some important facts, he answers a call from Dr Suhani (Sayali) to dance in a night club. There are many such flaws in this film that leaves the viewer enough time to catch a quick nap and wake up at the opportune time to hear another background score that tries hard to scare.

For the record, a few killings at the City Hospital is baffling the authorities. All the victims have their heart pulled out and face disfigured. In walks Shiney, the investigating officer. Sayali is a doctor who has just joined this hospital and in her second meeting is singing songs with the investigating officer. It also appears that Shiney is suffering from retrograde amnesia, meaning he has forgotten a certain phase of his life. No prizes for guessing that it has some link to the happenings.
At least, the Ramsay brothers, whose name is synonymous with horror films, had a set formula which made sense. This one is comical in its approach.
Rating - 1/5






View the original article here

Read More