Change Your Image
film_am_03
Reviews
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Better than I thought after the first viewing, though that doesn't say a whole lot!
The most disappointing of the first four movies for a number of reasons, GoF is a good movie though significantly different from the books. I wouldn't be bothered too much by the differences with the book, but it is important to recognize that there are some crucial aspects to the story that one can't change or ignore. In any story of the genres associated with this story (coming of age and fantasy), until the end of the story, the young and growing hero learns from a mentor who is the intellectual fulcrum of the story just as the hero is the emotional fulcrum. We experience the growth and the emotional upheaval of the story with the hero but are comforted (just as the hero is) in the guidance of his/her mentor. This setup allows the focus to dwell on learning about the world the hero inhabits and the various tools needed to survive in that world. The mentor represents the storehouse of all knowledge about the world that we enter, inhabit and learn about (along with the hero). Thus the mentor also represents a sense of stability of the world. Only when the hero is "ready" is this stability removed and this is done usually by the loss of mentor or loss of contact with the mentor. For those who are not into fantasy and/or coming of age genres, consider the role of Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings. (LoTR messed it up a bit as well, especially in the 3rd movie, but nothing so major.) The most disappointing feature of GoF was that both the emotional and the intellectual fulcrums are muddled. This results chiefly from the characterization of Dumbledore. Gambon gets the lion's share of the blame. Kloves and Newell are also to blame, Newell in particular for not restraining Gambon at all. It looks like they were all cheering for Dumbledore to lose all his marbles. Dumbledore in this movie is haunted, confused, scared, lost and so on - all that Harry is supposed to be! So, all sorts of dynamics in the movie are misplaced and there's a sense of chaos. May be they wanted to convey chaos, but we are supposed to feel Harry's sense of chaos, not that the entire wizarding world is lost. That happens in the future. Besides, as long as Dumbledore is around, there ought to be hope. That's the general idea. Here it's confusion galore! This weakness is major, because it shows that the people behind the scenes possibly don't understand the genre as much. That does not bode well for the rest of the movies.
The second biggest weakness of the movie is that everyone, including the death eaters started calling Voldemort by name! After establishing the You-Know-Who theme so heavily in the first three movies, hearing his name so often really undercut the terror he's supposed to project. Yeah, You-Know-Who is a really cheesy name, I'll grant that. But the whole point is that Voldemort's name shouldn't be used, except by a select few. If not, he becomes a regular-issue villain. Besides, who in the world imagined Ralph Fiennes' look? They really, really need to be fired. Voldemort is supposed to have RED eyes, no nose, is supposed to be bony like a clothed skeleton. Ralph Fiennes camped it up unrestrainedly (much like Gambon did) and that severely undercut the power of the movie. Frankly, I wouldn't have minded Voldemort being computer generated with motion capture (like a cross of Sauron's look and Gollum's filming technique in LoTR). Having an identifiable actor, however much his face was distorted, provided a human quality to Voldemort, significantly reducing his menace. Once again, fantasy villains are supposed to be really, really creepy. Why is Darth Vader, Sauron and every other fantasy villain cloaked and hidden? Revealing who they are makes them pedestrian. Once again, this doesn't bode very well for the rest of the series.
Other than that, I'll not complain too much. Special effects are fairly brilliant, though the changes made from the book were not all good or even necessary. Performances, except that of Michael Gambon, are good. Quidditch world cup was a sore tease. They could've shown two minutes of the game! I always imagined a certain class to death eaters. Mostly, they looked like amateurs. The first task with the dragon was done well. The third task was mostly disaster for anyone who has read the book, but those who haven't won't feel much of a loss. The movie looks fabulous, score's good and overall it's a good entry. Just much, much short of the greatness the book is. So far GoF is the second best book in the series for me (closely behind OotP). This movie is the worst of the adaptations. That summarizes it all.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
The best Harry Potter movie to date!
*** The review assumes familiarity with the Harry Potter canon *** This isn't the perfect movie by any means. I'll grant that. For one, I'd definitely have liked more about Marauders and a much better clarification of how they were all related to Harry, especially Lupin. (This would've explained so much, like how Lupin could read the map while Snape couldn't and the significance of the stag patronus.) This is also the movie that deviates significantly (for the first time; the earlier two were rather slavish adaptations) from the book. But the differences are what I cherished the most. The whole time turner sequence is quite brilliant IMHO, cheesy but brilliant. There's absolutely no way Rowling could have written in all the visual flourishes and Kloves and Cuaron take full advantage of the possibilities presented with the whole time turner sequence. Sure it's sort of deus ex machina but that's the way it was written in the book and they couldn't possibly alter it entirely. For one, Harry, Ron and Hermoine aren't nearly quite magically or emotionally ready to do the whole thing right in the first go. So, while the deus ex machina weakens the whole plot a bit, this is about the best movie one can come up with, within the plot. Another small distraction is the very first scene when Harry obviously performs magic during summer, which he's not allowed to do. (And it gets stated explicitly multiple times in the movie!) That was a fairly major goof.
Now about the rest of the movie. It's the most visually sumptuous HP movie I've seen so far, even narrowly better than Goblet of Fire. The only sequence I can think of where special effects were below par was the knight bus sequence. I also like this movie's score more than the rest so far. Some of the sets could be better but overall they're great. Cinematography is easily the best I've seen in HP movies so far. Darkening of the visual palette was done brilliantly and set the stage for the rest of the movies.
Performances wise, the three leads are still finding their way. They each had good moments and clunkers - Harry when he cries at Hogsmeade, Hermoine when she greets Harry at Leaky Cauldron, and Ron when he freaks out in many scenes, for instance. Gambon was good as Dumbledore but there are portents of the disaster that came in Goblet of Fire. (IMHO, Gambon's performance was the single most disappointing feature of GoF. He just shrieks and shrieks some more. Whereas Richard Harris was delightfully understated, bringing out Dumbledore's experience, maturity, wisdom and humor, I don't even know who the guy Gambon plays is in GoF! Read the book and watch the movie - what a contrast!) Gambon was already showing a few signs of 'panic' in this movie. Then there are the three best perfs of the movie and how brilliant they are - Thewlis as Lupin, Oldman as Black and Rickman as Snape! They outdo each other and act circles around the rest of the cast each time. Alan Rickman, in particular, deserved some sort of nomination for his perf. Watch the scene when he finally asks Harry to turn to page 394 in the book. Years after watching the movie, I still remember the way his nose twitches then. I doubt he will ever play a role better than Snape's. William Hurt was given a supporting actor Oscar nomination in "A History of Violence" for a travesty (over-over-over-over-the-toooop) much shorter than the brilliance of Rickman in this movie. While I don't claim Alan Rickman was robbed of a nomination, I definitely would not have complained one bit if he'd gotten one.
Alfonso Cuaron has made absolutely fascinating movies, and in particular, movies with tremendous repeat value. He's someone to watch out for. I wish he'd come back and direct another HP movie.
All in all, a good and worthy addition to the HP sequence. 8.5 out of 10.
Brother Outsider: The Life of Bayard Rustin (2003)
Interesting, much-needed documentary - must-view for anyone with social conscience
Brother Outsider chronicles the life and times of Bayard Rustin, one of the great intellectuals, non-violent civil rights activist, quaker, and a prominent gay, African American persona.
I just saw this documentary at the University of Florida campus (where I study), sponsored by the Student Government, Pride Community Center of North Central Florida, LGBT Affairs at UF and the Reitz Union Board (which screens movies). Curious, the screening was not sponsored by either the Black Students Union or the Pride Students Union (formerly the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Students Union). There were about 15 people - one African American, and 7-8 gay/lesbian people, and the rest were straight white people. What a pity! Back to the documentary. I knew next to nothing about Bayard Rustin before watching this documentary - I did not learn about the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. during my schooldays in India. I only knew him in connection with the Washington March in 1963 - he was the director of the march and organized it with no cell phones, computers, or even fax machines! He was born at a time when no one talked about being gay. He was never apologetic about his sexual orientation and never tried to hide it, which in itself, is something amazing considering the times. In late 1930s he had a white partner and they were open about it! He was a strong follower of non-violence and was with the Pacifist movement, was a conscientious objector during World War II, fought against the internment of Japanese-Americans, and took all his experiences to the Civil Rights Movement, Anti-Nuclear Movement, Campaigns for Refugee Rights in Southeast Asia and Africa. A wise man with tireless enthusiasm and energy, with a wonderful sense of humor, keen eye for detail and organization, tremendous determination, deep convictions of his principles, and an open mind to learning and self-growth, Bayard Rustin comes out as a colorful and towering personality in the course of the feature documentary.
Yet, for all these wonderful things I learned about him, I walked out with a feeling that I wanted to get to know him more. His sexuality, which has been a big part of his life, shadowed him and all his work. Often times, he was involved with movements but had to leave them rather abruptly because the powers-that-be started attacking the movements by slandering him, and the "open-minded" leaders of the movements were not able to accept it. It is, in fact, amazing that he contributed so significantly to a number of causes, given the homophobia of the times. It is a testimony to not only his skills but also his perseverance and sincerity. It is very interesting to watch A. Philip Randolph and Martin Luther King Jr. (both Deputy Directors of the Washington March) being interviewed about the supposedly communist and pervert leanings of Rustin, the director of the march. They are so distinctly uncomfortable talking about it and King defends him by merely saying that Rustin completely stands by the democratic ideals of the nation. A. J. Muste, the pioneer of the Pacificists, who was once a mentor of Rustin, is said to have repeatedly urged Rustin to renounce homosexuality. However, having shown all these in the documentary, the filmmakers merely interview two of Rustin's partners - one at the very beginning and one at the very end - for a total of no more than a few minutes. They do not at all explore one of the core issues - the role of his sexuality in his life choices, how it shaped his interests, opinions, and activism.
On the whole, though, a powerful documentary about a powerful person. A must watch for everyone!
Moolaadé (2003)
Wonderful, moving film
This is my first experience watching a film made in Africa. What a wonderful film to begin with! Moolade is one of the best films I have seen in recent times. It is a social commentary on the position of women in many parts of the African continent focusing on female genital mutilation (circumcision) called as "purification". The movie is tightly scripted, full of subtle, thought-provoking observations of the familial and social order in an unnamed African community. The director patiently tells the story of a woman (Colle) who is against female circumcision and offers a protection (Moolade) to four little girls who escape the ritual and seek shelter from her. The men in the community are unable to comprehend or handle her actions and the change it would bring in the community. They see her actions as a threat to the status quo and to the traditions. Ancient or modern, many traditions are based on superstitions and worse yet, are harmful to people. There is absolutely no question that female circumcision is a horrific practice that is not only physically harmful to women but also one of the worst forms of oppression. How deep this rot has spread in the community is lucidly depicted in the movie. The men in the community are unable to think outside the traditions and the women, especially Colle, end up paying a steep price for them to learn and grow.
Some scenes in the movie were very powerful and disturbing - the female circumcision (the actual process happens off screen), the scene where Colle's husband f**ks her (she is cut), the climax and the denouement. However, the movie proceeds at a relaxed pace in tune with life in the community, and always has interesting things to say. I was fascinated by the culture and the people that were in the movie, outside of the issues of female oppression. The movie is also backed by strong performances, particularly from Fatoumata Coulibaly, who portrays Colle with an interesting blend of resolution and motherliness - a powerful performance in a powerful film.
DO NOT MISS! 9 out of 10
Shi mian mai fu (2004)
Wonderful visuals, good movie, I personally had some problems though
I can't recollect a more visually stunning movie that I have seen in the past 2 or 3 years, probably even longer. Even after 4 days, the visuals are so strongly etched in my mind, it is amazing. Yimou Zhang, once-photographer-turned-director, knows how to conjure up magic in celluloid and pulls absolutely no punches. If you thought Hero or Crouching Tiger was gorgeous to look at, you're in for a big surprise.
Having said that, I have some reservations with the movie (HOFD). I don't know if it is because scene after scene was so beautiful to look at and I got immersed in looking at a sequence of stunningly gorgeous paintings that I felt a distance from what was happening on screen. Now don't mistake me, the movie throbs with life. It is so poetic that half the time I felt like I was having a supernatural experience. But the ending was way beyond my limits of credibility.
The performances were wonderful. Takeshi Kaneshiro, however, has played his character differently from the rest of them. It is not always a straight-up dramatic performance but has bits of satire in it. Intentional?
SPOILERS BEGIN: Read further at your own risk!!! The ending was a big disappointment when I watched it. It almost holds together upon thinking back. In any case, what IS with Chinese films and tragic endings? I groused about it in Hero and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as well. CTHD particularly went too far in this regard, I was upset when I first saw it - a poisoned needle in Li Mu Bai's neck, shown a good minute after Jade Fox was killed - showing one resolution and then drastically altering it for no understandable reason other than the whim of the writer/director. What gets to me about these endings is that I cannot see them as a natural progression of the story but only as contrivances from the part of the writers/directors. I'm not against tragedies per se, but tragedies never work for me as plot twists. Tragedies work when the characters and their relationships that meet tragic ends have been backed up with sufficient weight that the buckling seems inevitable. It almost worked for me in CTHD because the movie was developed as a tragedy from the get-go. But I would have envisioned it as Li Mu Bai devoting his life to teaching Jen and both of them abdicating their romances again. By killing Li Mu Bai and denying Jen the knowledge she deserved, CTHD disappointed me.
In Hero, I have an objection about the underlying principle that for the sake of progress and peace, ancient wisdom has to be lost and the masters have to sacrifice themselves. There was no need for that to happen. They could just as well have blessed the king and walked out. I could understand the argument in terms of power dynamics, but I come from a culture (India) where kings were always treated as less powerful than the sages, the masters of ancient wisdom. Perhaps other people see it differently.
In HOFD, the tragic ending was so over-the-top I almost laughed out loud. First of all, the romance between Leo and Mei was not even shown or developed (because of the constraints of the structure). So the third side of the romantic triangle is never even drawn properly. This seriously undermines the tragedy that is to be hoisted on the romance a short while from then. Further, within two minutes of introducing their romance, Leo is shown to assault Mei against her wishes! He then demands her to sacrifice because he has sacrificed for 3 years and then just walks out! And finally he kills her. What are we supposed to make of this? Am I supposed to feel sorry for Leo and his sacrifices and call his an epic tragic romance? Poor Jin has no idea what's going on, and no sooner does he know what has happened he is forced into an epic tragic battle with Leo. At the end Mei wakes up after God-knows-how-long, only to die again. It is all fantasy, all right, but all it did was completely yank me out of the experience of watching the movie. Probably all these films share a certain Buddhist fascination of absolute perfection in nothingness. But in HOFD, it was taken to such extremes that it turned around and became unintentional comedy, at least for me.
James Berardinelli, a critic I respect a lot, wrote in his review that the expected conflict between the government and the House of Flying Daggers is missing. Yes, but I think it's intentional. I think the director wanted to make a point that these individual relationships and their resolutions are irrelevant in the larger scheme of things and vice versa. Nobody except Leo cares that Mei and Jin escaped. And the three of them die. Perfection in nothingness (nirvana)?
The general or the big bosses of the government are not shown in the movie at all. It would have been better, in my opinion, to not show Nia, HOFD's leader, either. That is a minor quibble though.
END SPOILERS
In summary, a movie not to be missed, for all the spectacular visuals and action. I wish I could say the same of the central story. What begins as a fantastic romance ends as an over-the-top fantasy that I couldn't take. Still a brilliant piece of cinema!
7 out of 10
Ying xiong (2002)
Excellently shot but a very disappointing ending ...
WARNING: Major spoilers
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, until the last 10 or so minutes, which left me just as deeply disappointed. Believe me, I don't necessarily hate films with tragic ending, but there has to be a purpose for it. I saw no justification in the movie for the ending that it has, and in *this* aspect, the movie is indeed similar to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (where I believe there was absolutely no reason for Chow Yun-Fat's Li Mu Bai character to die).
*** Spoiler-free zone (well, almost) ***
The movie is vivid and stylish, with emphasis on images to convey the story. The dialog is minimal. There are excellently and surreally choreographed and photographed martial arts sequences.
The story is this: The King of Qin dynasty in China wants to unite all the warring kingdoms in China under one rule for the sake of lasting peace in the land. For this sake, he wages war on all other kingdoms and these wars cause great deal of destruction. Four great warriors, who are great masters of amazing martial arts (and therefore in essence, the masters of the great arts and knowledge in the country) are pained by the bloodshed and want to assassinate the king, even though the fourth one is not a known assassin. (Each of them is shown to have a personal motive to assassinate the king, even though at least two of them talk at a level much higher than mere vendetta - about philosophy, sacrifice, greater good et al.) The king himself is no slouch even if he's not as great a warrior as them. He builds almost impregnable barriers to protect himself. So the fourth warrior, called Nameless (played by Jet Li), kills the other three, and as a reward gets an audience with the king and therefore a chance to assassinate him. The biggest plot twist is the argument of one of the other three warriors, Broken Sword, who is farsighted enough to see the merit in the king's wars. The question then is this: has he managed to convince Nameless to stop his assassination plans?
*** MAJOR SPOILERS *** (I'm revealing the end.)
Nameless finally sees the wisdom behind the king's wars and does not assassinate the king when he gets a chance. But what was the reason for Nameless, Flying Snow, and Broken Sword to kill themselves in the denouement? What happened to Sky? Did he die too? I was not quite clear on that. In any case, these four warriors are shown to be above and beyond all the others. If they live, they will at least be able to transmit the priceless knowledge to others. If it is not their personal right to openly support the king's endeavor, let them 'retire' and disappear. What is the reason for them to "sacrifice" themselves? I can only think of one: contrivance. It makes the movie tragic. But it also makes the movie contrived.
For 80-85 minutes, the director Yimou Zhang gives us a wonderfully meditative and artistically breathtaking movie. But in the last 10-15 minutes, he seriously missteps. The movie, as a whole, is good but falls short of the greatness it could have achieved.
Touch of Pink (2004)
A very interesting movie ... mixed feelings about it though
WARNING: Not only spoilers but some personal comments/rants
Yeah, the premise is stale - multicultural (white/non-american) gay couple, homophobic mother, coming out etc. For most people, Cary Grant/Kyle Maclahan was the best aspect of the movie. Kyle Maclahan has clearly enjoyed himself, and it is a delight to watch him perform. But there is more to the movie. It is surprisingly realistic! Now reviewers I have a lot of respect for, including NY Times, have been harsh on the movie and that is understandable even though it's surprising. In my humble opinion, based on living in the South Asian culture for 27+ years of my life, I beg to differ.
The fundamental difference between the "Western" culture and the "Asian" culture, as I can see, is the disproportionate emphasis on family in Asian culture as opposed to individuality, privacy, and personal space. To give you an example, in all the time I lived in India (the first 22 years of my life), I never had my "own" room. Even my parents didn't have their bedroom. Everyone slept in the living room. We shared closets for keeping clothes, shelves for books etc. People grow up differently under such circumstances. You learn to "sacrifice" for the sake of family. A tremendous amount of the individual pride in the Western culture - all that living your life to the fullest extent, being what you want to be in life, making your own choices and learning to take responsibility for them - is lost. It resurfaces as family pride. You do everything for your family. Your family has to be the best it can be. Your choices are guided by the ultimate prestige of the family. The elders (the heads of the family) make the choices for the younger ones. You would live at your parents' house till you are married to a person of opposite sex and once your parents retire, you and your spouse become heads of the family. Then its your turn. Even then you can't make decisions based on your preferences but based on what is "appropriate" to maintain and build the prestige of the family.
I am probably saying stuff people think they know. You really don't until you experience it. I've found my American friends find all the Indian movies (Bollywood) very amusing with all its over-the-top melodrama. Having lived in US for 5+ years, I find it over-the-top and am turned off by it most of the time. But when I do sit and watch an Indian movie, I'm sucked into it at some point. I've always wondered why. The reason is this: in India, people actually live like that. My parents are living proofs for this fact. Everything is turned into an emotional blackmail so that I uphold the prestige of the family and help my parents "win" in their social life. Yes, parents actually consider arranged marriages of their children as personal victories in upholding family prestige and "love" marriages of their children as personal failures. Oh, the fact that I'm gay doesn't even enter the picture! So, for all its unbelievability and over-the-top amateur production values, this movie is indeed believable, simply because I have heard this very dialog from my own mother about plunging a knife in her heart for something much less trivial than falling in love with a "phirangi" - a foreign (different skin-colored) woman. Is my mom a selfish controlling monster? She probably is, according to Western culture, because she wants me to marry a South Indian, Iyengar Brahmin girl of good heritage despite the fact that I am gay, and that she'd throw much worse tantrums than Nuru ever did in the movie. But then, I know my mom better. I know the kind of personal sacrifices she did for the sake of her family, sacrifices that would have been called foolish, stupid, and naiveté by Western culture. Now I won't marry a girl and "sacrifice" like her, but I do understand that in my mom is a manipulator and a victim. I completely understand why Alim went to Toronto after his mom than stay in London and go after Giles.
The movie touched me personally despite being flawed in many ways. Jimi Mistry's performance was horrible and Giles and Alim had almost no chemistry. The production values were amateurish. The biggest problem for me with the movie was that Alim's character was not fleshed out at all even in the screenplay level. Despite all that, the movie rang true in a number of levels for me and did not stereotype or reduce the issue of a gay man coming out in an Indian culture to a caricature. I applaud Ian Iqbal Rashid for that.
7 out of 10
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)
A celebration of movies
I haven't watched Kill Bill vol.1 yet. I watched Vol. 2 last night. It is an amazing celebration of kung fu movies, sphagetti westerns, meaningless action movies and all stuff that is cool. Its biggest strength is that the movie knows what it is doing. You are meant to take the movie seriously in a different way - not as in caring deeply about the characters and whether certain things happen to them or not - but how cool the movie really is. Quentin Tarantino has brought together an immense array of talent and has stacked them exactly the way he wants them stacked. That then is his genius, to know what exactly what you want to do and to do a damn good job of that. One of the most interesting and complete films from one of the most interesting and complete filmmakers. Now if only he took all his talent and worked on some really serious and meaningful themes ... that would be a challenge!
Kal Ho Naa Ho (2003)
Can one make a drama that also works as a parody?
I believe that Karan Johar and Nikhil Advani have tried to do a cross between drama and parody. Mind you, it'd have been a hoot if they lampooned the serious Bollywood tearjerkers that are churned out dime a dozen. But they want the cake and eat it too. They want to parody the Bollywood tearjerker and still cater to the section of audience that wants to believe it to be real. I ended up getting a bit disoriented because at times they were showing serious stuff but were laughing behind the scenes and at other times, they took their own script too seriously. It all seems confusing and disastrous. But the end product is not too bad and that is due to the tremendous talent of the crew and cast.
Too many movies have been shown where the old ones in US adhere to Indian traditions more ritualistically than those in India and the young ones conveniently go between being the ultra modern (whatever that means!) and ultra traditional as the script demands. They also have the poor girl married off and going to India (Some traditional family from India will ask for her hand) which doesn't make much sense because it seems to defeat the very purpose of uprooting the entire family from India. Kal Ho Naa Ho takes every one of these supposedly serious stuff (including Karan Johar's own DDLJ) and pokes fun at them. The uppity Naina (Priety), the confused Rohit (Saif), the serious grandmother and I must make bold to say, the ultimate do-gooder Aman (none other than Shah Rukh) - everyone of them is a caricature. And they have done these roles before. It is hard to take them very seriously because you get the feeling that the director and the writer are chuckling behind the cameras even as they are filming these scenes.
And then there is the pretty funny, long comedy track of a mistaken homosexual relationship between Saif and Shah Rukh. That "O ... Kantabhen" just puts it way over the top. I laughed like crazy. Is there an inside joke there Karan and Nikhil?
I don't know if I should say the casting is perfect or the performance is perfect for the parody. Every time I think nobody can ever act more theatrical than Shah Rukh, he out does himself. His performances are so unnatural and stilted that they are actually funny. With all the parodying going on, I am wondering if Karan and Nikhil decided to milk Shah Rukh for all he is worth and make him ham it up even more! Saif Ali Khan acts brilliantly in his repeat performance of Dil Chahta Hai and so does Priety Zinta of a number of her own roles.
Then, the writer-director duo decide to take things seriously and the problem is I still can't stop laughing. That makes it uneasy. They take every dramatic scene, blow it out of proportion - as is the convention of Bollywood standards - and keep showing it long after it has exhausted all its dramatic potential. This makes the second half of the movie a bit uneasy to watch. Particularly when Shah Rukh leaves the hospital to go convince Saif and Priety, I was very uneasy. Then they show Saif Ali Khan in that I'm-20-years-older-so-I-need-gray-hairs wig that is just too much!
Overall, it was an interesting movie. Somehow I feel that the filmmakers had more fun making it than we have watching it. Makes me wish I was involved in the process! 7 out of 10.
PS: The only issue I have with the gay joke is this - India is one of the few countries where men are not as inhibited and uptight as those from Europe or US. After this movie, I am afraid that Indian guys are going to become a lot more self-conscious about non-sexual intimacy between each other. It is a pity!
3 Deewarein (2003)
One of the most interesting recent movies I've seen
A very interesting movie indeed! Screenplay, acting and direction are strong points. Some incidents are very disturbing. Nagesh Kukunoor is a better director than actor (he's not a bad actor though). The climax - ? I have to watch the movie again. I sure did not expect the climax, even though once it started unfolding, I started getting the whole thing. I'm not sure what I think of the climax.
MAJOR, MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD - PLEASE DO NOT READ AHEAD IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE
If Ishaan is the only one who knows what is going on right from the beginning of the movie, does it mean that Naseeruddin Shah and the director decided to deliberately deceive the audience by not portraying the role as they should have? "Aapko pehle kahin dekha hoon" is the lamest excuse. May be I did miss Ishaan's reactions when I watched the movie for the first time. So I don't know for sure if this is greatness or this is cheating that Kukunoor pulled the wool on my eyes, though I tend to think it's the latter.
In any case, the way Kukunoor used the inspiration from Shawshank Redemption is brilliant. Kudos!
*** END MAJOR SPOILERS
The movie clocks at just 2 hours. I wished Juhi's life could be fleshed out a little bit better. Shri Vallabh Vyas's role as her husband is woefully underused and underwritten. Pity.
On the other hand, the prison life as depicted in the movie deeply affected me - particularly the issue of prison homosexuality and AIDS. The conflict of the HIV+ rapist is eschewed to show him as a monster. The indirect effect is the negative impression of homosexuality that all gay men are predators. Even though one can objectively see that the hatred depicted for him is because he is a rapist who could get away with the heinous crime, it could very easily be projected on to homosexuals in general. A pretty damning condition of homosexuals in India. I wish Kukunoor had not muddled up different issues here.
Overall, a very interesting movie by Nagesh Kukunoor. Keep it up!