Killing Them Softly – Soft, Subtle, Brilliant

Director: Andrew Dominik

Actors: Brad Pitt, Ray Liotta, Richard Jenkins

Rating: 4/5

What is America? A great nation to some and to others an apostle of democracy, equality and liberty. Brad Pitt, in the last dialogue of ‘Killing Them Softly’ says, “America is not a country. It’s a business.”

It is this notion of ‘America’ that the film, succinctly, tacitly and humorously peels up by looking at one of America’s ‘greatest’ homegrown ‘business’ – organized crime.

Aware that Markie (Ray Liotta) the owner of a gambling den had organized a successful robbery on his own den, a crook hires two small time cons to rob it again knowing that the blame will go to Markie. With the town’s economy which depended on gambling, in ruins after this second hit, its crime lords call upon Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt) to clean up the mess.

What follows is not just a simple ‘clean-up’ but a complete overhaul and perception management of the ‘business’ in town.

The violence here is more a hint of the structural violence rather than gun-pumping action.

‘Killing Them…’ is both a thriller and a comedy. It weaves in the best elements of both to give you a film that delights at many levels despite its unconventional treatment.

Instead of focusing on physical action, the film trains its lenses on seemingly inane meetings and conversations. It is thus filled with beautifully written and spectacularly enacted dialogues that may seem pointless to the average audience, but serves to take the story, ‘action’ and the violence forward in subtle but menacing ways.

Viewers who enjoy a freshly brewed, deep and rich drink will savour this tiny masterpiece like they have very few modern thrillers or comedies.

Yet, the masterstroke of the film is its brilliant metaphor, its parallel running and tagging up of the American financial situation with President George W. Bush trying to fight an economic downturn and incumbent senator Barack Obama talking of ‘change’.

What the film insinuates with Bush and Obama talking economics on TV is something very provocative. It’s well known now that the financial collapse of the American economy beginning 2008 was an inside job (just like in the film). In a below-the-belt metaphor to American capitalism, the film suggests that the assault on the economy was Bush’s doing like Markie robbing his own gambling den.

And the ‘change’ required to restore order in the nation, comes from an enforcer Barack Obama whose parallel is Jackie Cogan in the film.

The only change, however, that a business or a nation as a business will permit, is the change in profit. And finally when all is done and there’s nothing left to be said, it all boils down to that one world ‘profit’ as Jackie Cogan and America talk business and minimizing losses.

Adapted from a 1974 novel ‘Cogan’s Trade’ by George V. Higgins, this film by auteur Andrew Dominik (The Assassination of Jesse James) is one of the most deceptively simple film you would have seen in a long time.

No matter what people say of America, one thing no one can doubt or deny is that America is the nation of the best politically critical cinema ever made in the world. And ‘Killing Them Softly’ because of its deceptive demeanor, would stand way up at the top of this list. 

(This review has been written for the wire-service, IANS)

Bel Ami – Tale Of A Misogynist Society

Directors: Declan Donnellan, Nick Ormerod

Actors: Robert Pattinson, Uma Thurman, Kristin Scott

Rating: 4/5

It is hard to imagine a time in the western world where the only difference between a slave and a woman was that women were permitted a little more dignity by allowing them to dress up (to serve men) and mingle with them at least in parties.

Perhaps it is not so difficult to imagine women as second class citizens, because the discrimination against women even in the western world – albeit in a different form – continues to date.

And though the prism of feminism is not the obvious way to look at this tale of a man from a lowly background rising up the ladder of a corrupt society with his own corruption, the feminist angle is indeed how the makers want you to look at the film.

In a patriarcal society, even a brilliant woman like Madeleine has no option but to work under the opression of visible and invisible veils.

Georges (Robert Pattinson), a down on his luck and barely literate but dashing soldier in the 1890s, uses his affairs with society women to rise up in the Parisian society. When on top however, his male chauvinism kicks in and he tries to control the women in his life, to no avail initially but to disastrous consequences finally.

At the face of it ‘Bel Ami’ is the story of the corruption of Parisian society. But when you try looking deeper at the causes for the corruption, one that comes up will surprise you. For the film asks you: can a society that does not give women their due, ever be free from rot and corruption.

This rot is embodied in the character of Madeleine played by Uma Thurman. Despite being a brilliant writer and strategist and being better at the affairs of men then most men themselves, she needs the support of men for even just a bit of her talents to be visible.

Thus the nincompoop Georges becomes a perfect vessel to carry her brilliance, something which the entire society knows, but does not acknowledge in the open.

Problems emerge when this man, who alternately uses and is used by women, develops jealousy and a desire to be acknowledged for talents he does not possess. In the process he resorts to every dirty tactics in an already dirty society.

Madeleine thus becomes a metaphor for all the brilliant women throughout history including those now, women who have been pushed and kicked to the ground, their faces forced stuck to the dirty mud by the powerful boots of a patriarchal and misogynist society.

Brilliantly adapted from a novel by Guy de Maupassant, the film does a decent job of condensing 400 odd pages into 100 odd minutes. In doing so, gaps become evident and might seem discordant to many. But if you have a healthy imagination, it will actually accentuate the pleasure.

Lending evidence to the director and writer giving it a feminist tinge are many things. E.g. if George’s poverty were shown a bit more closely, we’d have found much more empathy for him. But the makers don’t want that. Instead they want you to feel for the women trapped in a man’s world and in their stupid games.

The film packs many moments and scenes rife with poignancy and brilliant dialogues. In one, Madeleine tells Georges in a fit of rage, ‘You stupid stupid man. You complete and perfect man.”

Stupidity indeed, seems to be the only perfection men are capable of.

 (This review was written for the wire service, IANS)

Hit And Run – Refreshing and Ingenious Romantic Comedy

Directors: David Palmer, Dax Shepard

Actors: Dax Shepard, Kristen Bell, Bradley Cooper

Rating: 4/5

One of the delights in life is to sometimes unexpectedly behold a little-known gem of a film that thrills you with its ingenuity. Usually one experiences this in an old film. To find this in a film playing in the theatres is sheer luck.

‘Hit And Run’ is one such film made by a passionate bunch of people which but for a relatively lesser known cast and bad luck of not having a better studio patronising it, would have been the toast of the town.

That Dax and Kirsten are real life couple, helps the film.

 Under witness-protection in small town America, Charlie (Dax Shepard) falls in love with Annie (Kirsten Bell). When she gets a new job in LA, Charlie decides to drop her off despite the possible dangers. Annie’s jealous and foolish ex-lover not only follows them, but gets both his cop brother and Charlie’s arch-enemy Alex (Bradley Cooper) on their tail.

What follows is a hilarious ride where a doctorate in non-violent conflict resolution is paired with a former bank robber trying desperately to control himself, a nutty ex-lover crosses path with an accident prone federal marshal with a gay cop and a crazy gangster in hot pursuit through rural America.

‘Hit and Run’ literally hits and runs over you with its ingenious and delightful humour. Be warned though for you can’t expect the over the top, outlandish comedy Hollywood is known for.

Instead you have a very refined comedy riding on some very sophisticated writing and neatly conceptualised sequences and well thought out characters, their idiosyncrasies and some whacky situation. But the whackness of the situation is not just because of something crazy happening visually (of which there is enough), but the interplay of characters, their prejudices and the choices they make or have made in the past.   

Amongst all the good things about the film, the best are its writing and romance. Then there is writing of the romance which is so realistic and observant of couple’s mannerisms of debate and fights, that it is almost eerie to see it on screen. That the lead pair of Dax and Kirsten are real life couples, perhaps adds to the believability of their love. 

More than commerce, the film is a work of passion where Dax Shepard not only plays the lead but is also the writer, co-director, co-producer and co-editor of the film. He and David Palmer, who have co-directed a film before, refine their creative partnership here. 

The sophistication of the film might prove to be a drawback at the box office, as viewers expecting a typical comedy might be surprised by it and not many pleasantly so. However, those who enjoy a good sprinkling of intelligence in their comedies will have a rocking time.

A perfect movie to go with your partner as it mixes and satiates the urges of both parties involved - the need for romance and the urge for masculinity with powerful cars driven by nutty characters. 

(This review has been written for the wire service, IANS)

Total Recall – Decent Re-imagination, But Falls Short

Director: Len Wiseman

Actors: Colin Farrell, Kate Bekinsale, Jessica Biel

Rating: 3.5/5

Before there ever was a Jason Bourne, or even a Neo (Matrix), there was the super-spy Douglas Quaid who jumped out of paper, borrowed flesh and blood from a world champion body builder in an attempt to figure out who he was.

His quaint search of his memory and purpose in life endeared him to the masses and ensured he stayed etched in their memory.

22 years later, though a remake makes a decent attempt to replace old memory with new ones, it does not succeed as it could have.

Does this induce a 'Total Recall' baby?

After going to a travel company providing fake memory implant, Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell) realises he is more than a low-life factory worker. As he runs surprised by his lovely wife Lori (Kate Bekinsale) trying to kill him, he encounters a girl he has literally been dreaming about Melina (Jessica Beil).

Together they must find out what is there in his mind that has both the authorities and resistance fighters seeking him out. 

To be fair, this 2012 reboot did not have to be loyal to the 1990 film, just like that film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn’t completely loyal to the Philip K. Dick story ‘We Can Remember For You Wholesale’.

What both the films took from the short story, were its ideas on identity, totalitarianism and resistance. Yet, the 1990 version was more heartfelt and as emotions go, and seemed much more ‘real’ than this one despite its setting in Mars, mutants and alien technology.

The current version, as with most modern retelling of past films, sacrifices a good story and build up of emotion and suspense for a brilliant set design aided by corresponding camera work, spectacular visual effects and some great action sequences. In the older version, with air supply being turned off for ‘mutants’ you felt the pain and agony of those not like you unlike here where the ending seemed a let down despite a decent build up.

The representation of the perspective of those not like us, was the greatest strength of the 1990 version.

Secondly this version omits Mars and sets it entirely on earth with it being divided into two sections, the rich United Federation of Britain and the poorer colonies i.e. Australia where all the ‘workers’ live in one large, endless ghetto travelling back and forth on ‘The Fall’.

However, the characters of this ‘ghetto’ and their population was not built up well enough unlike the plight of the working mutants in the original. This was its major flaw.

Secondly, the 1990 version was much more subtle both in the story and in its message against totalitarianism. The freaks and mutants in it were a statement against the evils of everything nuclear considering that the affects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster was well known by then.

The major problem with this version is that it becomes too literal, and though you have characters making statements against all the evils in the world, the ‘telling’ of it instead of the ‘showing’ of it by a better script, lets the film down.

Yet, lovers of sci-fi and action films will have a lot to cheer as your three lead stars pack quite an action packed presence. The gadgets in the film, including the interesting concept of a mobile phone implanted in the hand will give you a lot to cheer about.

These elements make it a worthy watch despite the disappointments.

The Dark Knight Rises – Dark, Knightly and Rises Up to Expectations

Director: Christopher Nolan

Actors: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy

Rating: 4/5

Once in every few years, a films expectation reaches fever pitch. Yet, only a handful ever have lived up to it. The last in the Batman Trilogy, to the delight of fans, does. That it does so while continuing on the same themes it addressed before, is a feather hardly any film franchisee has claimed. 

Seven years since Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) retired Batman, a new villain Bane (Tom Hardy) threatens not only Gotham’s peace but its very existence. When the entire city is taken hostage by Bane’s men and the police are locked up, Batman must return, and fight an impossible resistance with a handful others.

The least one expects from a very popular, self-professed end of a series film is a grand scale. Most commercial cinema merely increases the effects and physical action. While Nolan indeed delivers on these, he goes beyond.

A bank or even a building being held hostage is well known in cinema. Did you ever imagine an entire city held hostage for months? Like in the second part of the series, Nolan then asks the question: would normal citizens rise up to become heroes?

Yet, morally and metaphorically, ‘The Dark Knight’ was stronger. There he asked the same question, but to individual citizens and in the climax on the two boats, to an opposite group of people. There, Batman wins because people in the two boats beat their instinct for self survival by refusing to kill the others for their own sake. In that scene, everyone becomes a superhero. Everyone becomes Batman.

That edginess of script, that triumph of true courage, is missing in this part. It compensates by rising on other counts.

The Nolan brothers (Christopher and Jonathan) know how to intermix a grim story of power, corruption, control and heroism with a spectacular razzle-dazzle. In a very powerful screenplay the brothers bring attention to the corruption, the power structures and the chaos of the affluent class.

And the brothers, in creating villains that are alter-egos of Batman, and in often giving them ideals as high as him but in the end showing these anarchist villains failing, perhaps makes the greatest joke, the greatest metaphor on the state of the world today.

Perhaps the hidden, dark message is that no matter how much one resists – be it Batman or his villains, a corrupt power structure and affluence, will survive. The brothers perhaps want to say that resistance, eventually, proves futile. Perhaps they want to say the opposite, that good and bad, light and darkness and falling and rising take turns and that no matter what, one has to resist.   

Nolan is a man in absolute control of his craft. You’ll be hard pressed to find a man with such an ability to interplay sound and visuals to create a three dimensional vision in your head.

Hans Zimmer assist him with superlative yet gentle and sombre background score while as expected, the special effects division delivers the wares without going overboard.

Nolan carries forward the themes from the previous two films, fear, death, anger, corruption, heroism and chaos and rounds them up into a perfect whole.

In the end though, the true hero that rises from this series is Christopher Nolan. In the wasteland of commercial Hollywood cinema, he is the best thing that has happened in a long long time. May his clan increase everywhere. 

(This review was written for the wire service, IANS)

The Intouchables – Must Touch & Feel

Director: Olivier Nakache, Eric Toledano

Actors: Omar Sy, François Cluzet

Rating: 4/5

What comes to mind when you think disability? Sadness, pity and charity? And what comes to mind when you think disability films? Same? If that’s the case, ‘The Intouchables’ – the story of a man paralysed from the neck down and his helper, will surprise you with its wit, humour, fun and zest for life.

Driss (Omar Sy) goes for an interview as a helper for a paraplegic person only to get unemployment benefits. His acerbic frankness wins the heart of the disabled person Philippe (François Cluzet) who hires him against better advice.

The two form an unlikely pair, one physically disabled, the other socially; one morose the other full of life; one with the money to do everything but not the limbs, the other with the limbs and life but no money or social standing; one white the other black.

As they touch each others life, in a fun, poignant manner they change forever, becoming more the men than they ever though possible.

Can disability be fun?

The two things that will win your heart in the film, is its witty humour and the chemistry of the lead pair. Rarely in cinema have two actors been so different and yet their pairing been so perfect, and their timing so immaculate.

Omar Sy as the black man from a Parisian ghetto is a revelation while veteran actor François Cluzet delivers a punchy performance.

The Intouchables is a very important film in the history of cinema, because it is one of the rare instances where a film about a person with disability does not rely on pathos, melodrama and pity. The writer/director pair of Olivier Nakache and Eric Toledano handle this true story of an actual odd couple with a dignity, sensitivity and humour rare in cinema. 

It becomes and important film because it explores a hitherto rarely explored dimension of disability i.e. the life and living of people with disability and not their sadness. Yes it is sad they are disabled, but it is in no way pathetic and no way does it mean that life ends where disability begins. Indeed, many disabled people claim today – to the utter surprise and horror of ‘normal’ people – that for many of them life actually began after their disability.  

Thus in showing that the most precious commodity in life is not necessarily the use of limbs, but a positive frame of mind, friends and laughter, it becomes a great, funny, poignant and uplifting film. Don’t miss it for the world. 

(This review has been written for the wire service, IANS)

The Amazing Spiderman – Poorly Executed Reboot

Director: Marc Webb

Actors: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans

Rating: 2.5/5

There is a similarity between the tribals of Chhattisgarh and the studio that has produced ‘The Amazing Spiderman’ (TAS). Both seem to be desperately battling for survival. What else would explain the reboot of a franchise that began hardly a decade back and which, despite its best intentions has only regressed the original story?

The all too familiar story of Spiderman’s beginnings has undergone only cosmetic changes. His father is shown to have been working for Oscorp before he disappeared. His girlfriend is Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) who is his first love in the comic books and not Mary Jane and her father is a cop. Spiderman inadvertently creates the monster he later fights. And Peter Parker/Spiderman (Andrew Garfield) lets both his girlfriend and her father know his secret identity.

The really amazing thing about this film is that this almost similar film to the 2002 version even got made...

 It is hence fun finding out why this film was made. Here are six probable reasons.

1. Peter Parker in the original franchisee got married and it was time to send him back to school. 2. If comic books can reboot from a Spiderman to ‘The Amazing Spiderman’, why can’t a film. 3. To help the Titanic of a sinking studio, stay afloat.

4. If kids can like Transformers, they will like anything that has special effects. 5. Girls hate lizards so every time the lizard guy comes up, girls will jump on the lap of their boyfriends who will create a word of mouth buzz. 6. The studio found a director whose last name was had some connection with spiders - Webb.

At its core level, one can describe this film as the template of the original Spiderman mixed with few scattered elements taken from various films. E.g. introduction of the concerned father of the girlfriend like in Twilight or have him make his own gadgets like Batman.

There are too many problems with the film to narrate. First is the story itself which does not have the emotional pull or the engagement of the original Spiderman. The characterisations are not handled properly and even Gwen ends up becoming just a pretty face without a mind or aspiration of her own.

Even the hesitant, love angle between Peter Parker and Gwen is not handled well. And many characters are left hanging without a conclusion, most notably that of Irrfan Khan. Despite being a brilliant actor he is hardly suited for this blink-and-miss role where he fumbles with his ascent.

One department where TAS does not fail, is its special effects. Considering the state of commercial cinema emanating from Hollywood, one can safely assume that this would be reason enough for the film to make a billion dollars globally.

TAS gets an early release in India. It is not hard to imagine why. Demographically India not only has the world’s largest number of teens, but also the worlds largest concentration of them, teens who have grown up ‘loving’ the brainless ‘Transformers’ series. The Indian angle with the presumably last minute introduction of Irfaan Khan is also meant to woo Indian audiences.

If reboot is what Hollywood was looking for, they could have done something much more interesting and fun. Maybe a kind of handheld camera, found footage film like you had in the underappreciated gem ‘Chronicle’ last year.

If quick reboot is the new flavour of Hollywood, one dreads to wonder what they will reboot next - Harry Potter and Twilight?

(This review was written for the wire service IANS)

Supermen of Malegaon – Poignant, Hilarious Ode To Filmmaking

Director: Faiza Ahmad Khan

Cast: Sheikh Nasir, Akram Khan, Shafique, Farogh Jafri

Rating: 4.5/5

There is global cinema and national cinema. In a country like India, there’s also regional cinema. What many don’t know is that India is also home to what can be called ‘Local Cinema’ where film are produced and consumed locally.

‘Supermen of Malegaon’ is a hilarious, poignant and well-researched take on one of the dozens of local film industries existing in India.

It is a love poem to cinema, an ode to the spirit of human ingenuity, a passionate tale about making films and it’s hilarious to boot. For most of the audience, this might be the funniest documentary ever made.

A film crew follows Sheikh Nasir a resident of Malegaon as he tries to make a parody of Superman called ‘Malegaon Ka Superman’ with actors, cast, technicians and props sourced from his town. We get a glimpse of the joys, the agony, the achievement and the epiphany of creating cinema.

That he is making a low budget, made for a local audience film without the aspiration of making money, lends it the poignancy and innocence missing from the biggest filmmaking centres of the world.

If Marin Scorsese’s ‘Hugo’ was the feature film version of the depiction of one man’s passion for making special effects laden cinema, SOM is the documentary version of the same passion.

Like Georges Méliès who desired to make a rocket fly and men disappear at a time when it was considered impossible, Sheikh Nasir tries to find cheap alternative to making superman fly, to find local solutions to complex cinematic problems at a budget where such special effects seem impossible.

SOM is thus a study in ingenuity, of a die-hard but untrained film crew’s intense desire and ability to conjure up tricks to create magic on screen. Thus we see Sheikh locally making the green chrome background used for special effects.

We see our crew tear up our Superman’s external undergarment and another mans jeans to hoist them, groins first, through an iron bar before the green chrome screen to show them flying. We see Sheikh using a cycle as a trolley and an empty bullock cart as a jimmy jib.

While it is a serious film about someone making a parody, it also becomes a metaphoric parody of commercial cinema, and all the clichés they belt out in a spirit of self-righteous megalomania.

For this is how filmmaking can and should be – a work of passion first and commercial considerations second, just like Georges Méliès and Sheikh Nasir saw and like thousands of aspiring filmmakers globally dream of but are not allowed to make.

Ironically, this tale of Malegaon’s filmmaking ‘Supermen’ has been made by a motley group of talented superwomen. Director Faiza Ahmad Khan’s keen sense of satire and irony are amply visible. Sneha Khanwalkar (Oye Lucky, Lucky Oye, Gangs Of Wasseypur) gives a rustic feel to the film with her earthen music while editor Shweta Venkat Matthew lends the film its poignancy with her observant edits.

Two superhero films release this week in India - SOM and ‘The Amazing Spiderman – The Untold Story’. Ironically it is SOM that has an amazing story that has not yet been told. Spiderman the world has watched on three previous occasions but this is perhaps the first time anyone is telling the funny, hugely inspiring and globally awarded story of a local film industry.

The choice of what to watch, dear viewer, is entirely yours. 

(This review has been written for the wire service IANS)

Kshay – Small Film, Big Message

Director: Karan Gour

Actors: Rasika Dugal, Alekh Sangal

Rating: 3.5/5

Digital filmmaking has opened up a whole universe of opportunity for those with cinematic aspirations. Today, like photography being the art of the masses, filmmaking has come closer home to the larger masses.

This should have resulted in crazy, wonderful experiments. And it has. To have proof watch independent film ‘Kshay’, made on a micro-budget, a handful of actors and over a two years period. It is a film which despite its flaws, not only manages to hold its own, but in a few moments, shines.

Chhaya (Rasika Dugal) gets enamoured by a white statue of goddess Laxmi and wants to have it at any cost. The husband, who is struggling to make ends meet, agrees to get it once he has money. Soon however her desire takes an obsessive turn to disastrous consequences.

A tale of obsession...

The greatest strength of the film, is its obvious but beautiful and extremely important metaphor. Chhaya’s obsession for the statue of Laxmi (goddess of wealth) and her ability to see it everywhere is an allegory to modern man’s maddening obsession for wealth. Driven by a madness not different from Chhaya’s, we want money. We do not care what this does to those near us or what its final conclusion would be.

Like the mythical king of greed who banished by a just king asks for refuge in the metal gold and is granted only to finally pollute the king because the king wears a golden crown, we have all been corrupted by the need of something more than that we can possibly consume in our lifetimes. And this obsession, debutante director/writer Karan Gour captures beautifully and metaphorically in his film.

The film shot in black and white, complements its straightforward statement against obsession. There’s no final reason given for the character’s fixation with the statue, but there really is no need. Obsession is an end in itself, an end of all beauty and grace.

The film however is not bereft of flaws. Though otherwise the editing is nice, it is 15 minutes too long. One has the nagging feeling that the makers were scared of not being taken too seriously if the film did not reach 90 minutes duration. This leads an otherwise beautiful film to slack.

Many shots are useless and don’t add to the narrative. E.g. in the end when the guy is crossing the road, it takes him forever and the camera meanders with the character. It does not serve any purpose because his next crucial act is not carried out in that one long take. Three minutes could have been easily saved just in that shot.

The film rests on the petite shoulders of Rasika Dugal. And this FTII graduate plays the transformation of an innocent, loving housewife into a bewitched woman elegantly. One can only wish her the best, hoping she’d catch the attention of more filmmakers for her solid performance.

It is simply amazing what a person with a sound knowledge of the art and craft of filmmaking can do today, without even going to film school and with often as much budget as it takes to buy the world’s cheapest car. The budget can be ‘nano’ but the film can really be big.

It is an exciting time indeed in India, to be a viewer full of aspirtation - for seek, and ye shall find the film of your seeking. 

(This review has been written for the wire service IANS)

Rock of Ages – Funniest Rock Comedy Since Spinal Tap

Director: Adam Shankman

Actors: Julianne Hough, Diego Boneta, Tom Cruise

Rating: 4/5

If you have been following the news lately, you’d have heard of ACP Vasant Dhoble. The ‘Dabaang’ cop is wreaking havoc on Mumbai’s already depleting night life by landing unannounced at parties armed with hockey stick, camera or an entire police battalion.

Dhoble has an enemy now – ‘Rock of Ages’ that takes off from where Dhoble’s vigilantism begins to deliver the funniest rock film since ‘This Is Spinal Tap’.

After his live music joint is threatened by moral police led by Patricia (Catherine Zeta-Jones) Dennis (Alec Baldwin) must find ways to save it. Hope comes in the form of Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise) the popular rocker going solo and his own waiter Drew (Diego Boneta) who is inspired by his singer girl friend Sherrie (Julianne Hough) to have rock dreams of his own. Things however, will take a turn for the worse. 

Tom Cruise is simply hilarious as the ageing rocker with a sense of self-persecution

If one were to look at this as a simply ‘Rock and Roll’ movie, one is bound to be disappointed. For one the songs in the film are not all rock and roll with generous dosage of pop, love ballads and a slight sprinkling of the blues.

However, look at the film as a farce, a satire on everything including rock and roll, and you’re on hilarious ground hardly ever traversed so well after ‘This Is Spinal Tap’ captured the imagination of the masses.

In the true essence of a farcical comedy this musical based on a Broadway musical directed by Kristin Hanggi with a book by Chris D'Arienzo, mocks rock and roll and its icons and their self indulgence. Thus Tom Cruise’s serious rocker act becomes a spoof on all rockers, and their over indulgence on sex and alcohol and their hilarious sense of persecution when they were all along enjoying life.  

The serious journalist from Rolling Stones magazine who almost ends up having sex with an ageing rocker she seems to hate, is a spoof on all ‘serious’ rock and roll journalists. Its tacit message: don’t burden music like rock and roll with too much of meaning. Enjoy it and forget it.

The films irreverence to the same things it seems to be valorising is its funniest gig.

Tom Cruise is a sheer delight. His slow, meanderingly paced act as the indulgent rocker, who cannot seem to stay in his senses is simply stunning and different from anything he has done. Despite some good competition from others around, especially the perennially delightful Paul Giamatti, and the lovely Catherine Zeta Jones, Cruise, cruises along brilliantly.

The film will be of particular interest to the generation that grew up listening to song of bands like Guns N' Roses, Def Leppard, Foreigner, Journey, Poison and Europe among many other. The way some of their popular songs are used, misused and often mutilated, is simply delightful.

It is a film that ACP Vasant Dhoble must watch for it just might be the pill that will ease him up a bit.  

(This review has been written for the wire service, IANS)

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel – Exquisitely Exotic

Director: John Madden
Actors: Judi Dench, Tom Wilkinson, Bill Nighy, Maggie Smith, Dev Patel
Rating: 4/5

Is old age the wait for the inevitable? But this inevitable was staring even in youth! Why is it that we get tired the older we get - tired to try new things. And what if circumstances force us to do exactly that? Will we rediscover the zest for life or will we give up without a fight because we believe we’re too old to fight?

‘The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel’ (TBEMH) by 'Shakespeare in Love' director John Madden confronts these questions in a hilarious, adventurous, light-hearted and yet poignant way. It is one of the best ‘exotic’ films to have come into your theatres in a long time.

Life is all sad and gloomy in the end? Not quite, as our gang ultimately discover

Seven British retirees ‘outsource’ their retirement to a reasonably priced and exotic hotel in Jaipur, India. Here their dreams of final peaceful days are shattered as they find that the truth about this retirement home had been ‘photoshopped’.

Instead of leisure, they are confronted with their own pasts and prejudices and each is forced to discover the meaning of life, anew.

The first and most important thing you’ll notice is its incredible wit. The writing, based on a novel by Deborah Moggach is simply stunning with wit that is hilarious without being patronising. An old woman says: “I don’t even buy green bananas. I can’t plan so far ahead.” Another says “What I can’t pronounce, I don’t eat.” Yet another comments, “I’m your wife. Have we met?”

Lines like these pop at regular intervals invigorating the soul of a cineaste desperate for such intelligent dialogues in cinema.

"Iceberg! Right ahead!!" Oops... its only an overtaking truck. 

The focus of the film, and all its subplots, is clearly age and time. Time becomes a metaphor to entice viewers to look inside themselves and find their own relationship with time and age. Thus, it might be a film situated in the stories of ‘old’ people, in reality it is about all of us finding ourselves. It will have a resonance across ages.

The script is extremely intelligent and manages to find the common between India and Britain e.g. when Tom Wilkinson plays cricket with kids on the street. That scene is meant not just to bridge the gap between Britain and India, but also between age and youth.

It also makes a comment on many evils plaguing the county, like the existence of caste hierarchy and the opposition to homosexuality in a very staid and gentle manner.

The casting is a charm. If the world were not so preoccupied with youth and beauty, one would have called this one of the best ensemble cast ever.

And a casting coup it indeed is, not of stars in an ‘Avengers’ sort of way, but real actors who breathe so much life into what they play that they stop being the person they are but the part they play.

Almost every one of the cast, be it Judi Dench, Tom Wilkinson, Bill Nighy, Maggie Smith, or even our very own Lillette Dubey are spectacular in their roles.

The only ‘actor’ who irritates this impeccable ensemble is Dev Patel. However one guesses that as a new representative of ‘diaspora’ actors, no British or Hollywood film set in India can be ‘complete’ without him.

Besides the special effects laden films, ‘The Best Exotic…” is the type of beautiful little films with big hearts for whom big screens are made. Go watch it in one. You’ll have the fun, touching ride of your life.

(This review was written for and published by the wire service Indo-Asian News Service - IANS)

'Titanic 3D' - More Magnificent After 15 Years

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet and Billy Zane;
Director: James Cameron;
Rating: ****1/2

Since "Titanic" originally released in 1997, the first question that comes to one's mind is of reasons to 'revisit' the film. The second question is about a film that may have won maximum Oscars, but whether 3D is good enough reason to not buy a DVD instead?

Vivacious Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) travelling third class on Titanic falls for the beautiful but lonely Rose (Kate Winslet). As the ship hits an iceberg, a battle for survival is waged even as the jealous, industrialist fiancé Cal (Billy Zane) bays for the blood of the two lovers.

Titanic, the film, as the ship in 1914, has become stuff of legends so it's pointless to recount the obvious. Let's try and see the invisible.

The most striking thing about 'Titanic' is the immaculate and almost painful detailing. Like Stanley Kubrick, James Cameron delights both the novice and discerning viewers with the detail in every door knob, every headgear, every marking on every china-plate and every expression on actors faces.

It is thus the mother of all disaster movies not because it is based on a real incident but because of this attention given to so much detail. That is perhaps the reason why, among many other probables, Titanic became first among the classics to gain a 3D restoration.

The already immaculate detailing is enhanced by 3D, increasing engagement and thus the viewer's experience.

Beyond its technology though, 'Titanic' is literally a masterpiece of metaphors. The most obvious and overarching is that of the class segregation in society. Titanic becomes a microcosm of our planet earth and its social, structural divisions.

Even physically the ship represents a class pyramid, with the majority in the lower decks filled with the have-nots, aspirational class forming the base while the higher decks of rich, hedonist and have-all class forming the pyramid's small but affluent, tip. Cameron scathingly points out the hypocrisy of the latter even as he celebrates the giving, caring and sacrificial spirits of the lower class.

"Titanic" is also a very feminist film. Set at a time where women were thought to be nothing better than decorative pieces, it pits two perspective: one where the woman has everything physically at the cost of her freedom and the second where she may not have any worldly riches but has love, beauty and freedom. Rose vacillates between the two perspectives, till finally going with her 'heart'.

Thus the story of 'Titanic' might seem linear and juvenile, but like his later film 'Avatar' Cameron hides layers and layers inside its deceptively simple, sugar-coated shell. And though the acting of our lead pair may not be up there, but their chemistry and youthful and innocent exuberance carries the film through.

Oscar-winning producer of Titanic Jon Landau had told IANS two week back when he was in India to promote the film, that James Cameron had himself supervised every one of the nearly half a million frames that had to be converted to 3D and $18 million and over a year spent in the same. The effort shows as 3D enhances the brilliant detailing, adding an extra shine to an already bright film.

In 1997 people had gone to watch 'Titanic' multiple times. Watch it in 3D on the large screen - on the 100th anniversary of the ship's sinking - and you'll go see it another time for the magic is not only still there, but is enhanced by 3D.

(This review was written for the news-wire service IANS)

Godmother Of Hollywood Comes To Rev Up Indian Films

If unofficial sobriquets could be turned official, Michelle Satter would be called the ‘Godmother’ of creative cinema. Over the last 31 year since she became the Founding Director of the Feature Film program at the Sundance Institute, she has mentored some of the greatest minds of cinema; Quentin Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson and Darren Aronofsky included. Now she has set eyes on India with Mumbai Mantra | Sundance Institute Screenwriters Lab 2012 where she will groom, nurture and guide 8 scripts.

Michelle Satter at a press conference in Mumbai

Yet there’s nothing in her genteel voice and demeanour to suggest that she has been such a strong influence on cinema without ever having made one herself. “I have learned from every filmmaker who has come through Sundance and have been moved by them and their stories,” she told IANS.

Her humility however is laid bare when one reads what her ‘students’ have to say about her. Aronofsky says: “Michelle has always had the most-sensitive ear and heart-warming words. Her early encouragements made me feel invincible.” Anderson, meanwhile says, “Michelle was firm and loving and gentle and intelligent in her advice… She changed the course of my life and I don’t know where I’d be without her.”

She confesses, “I love the creative process. It is extraordinary to be working with an artist at a time when you can have the greatest impact on their stories, to engage with them in dialogues where voices have been strengthened and where there often has been confusion but where wonderful directors have emerged. At Sundance our job has been to support the vision of the artists and to help them connect with their audience.”

And after 31 years of existence and of an extended presence in a lot of countries, she and Sundance are in India for the first time and she is excited about it. But why this delay?

“We have finally found partners with whom we can associate for a long time. This is just the beginning of a process where we believe that if you support the next generation of artists, the world audiences would be enriched by that,” she says. 

Michelle has always been enthralled by the vibrancy of Indian cinema and the many voices that exist here. She plans to make the Sundance association with India, long term. “We support our artists the year round as the lab only becomes the beginning of the relationship. In India we hope to continue supporting these artists and their projects on an ongoing basis,” she said.

She agrees that not all films tutored under the lab in India would be made. “What is more important is that we will change the craft of the artists and we’d have helped them find their own individual voices. And if not this film, then the affect will be seen in the next. It’s an ongoing process,” she says.

She is upbeat about the Indian scripts.  She is particularly enthused about Shonali Bose’s screenplay ‘Margarita. With a Straw’. “Shonali is bold and has great courage. ‘Margarita…’ is a beautiful screenplay, very moving and comes from a very personal space,” she says. Asked if she believes it has the potential to become the next ‘My Left Foot’ in terms of scope and she says, “Yes, it could.” 

But how does a writer in a remote corner of the world create cinema that touches the world. Michelle says, “I strongly feel that stories that are specifically set in time and place and in characters, with details that are authentic, such stories have universal appeal.” 

(This feature was written for the wire service IANS, finally appearing as these: 

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-03-23/news/31230150_1_artists-cinema-indian-films

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/godmother-of-hollywood-comes-to-rev-up-bollywood/242057-8-67.html)

Shonali Bose Focuses Lens on Taboo Subject - Again

Sisters Forever: Malini Chib (left) and Shonali Bose

Mumbai, March 20 (IANS) Once bitten twice shy is a proverb you cannot apply to filmmaker Shonali Bose. For the second time in her life, she is trying to make "Margarita. With a Straw", a film on a largely untouched subject - cerebral palsy.

This time, she is armed with a little experience. The film is inspired by her cousin who suffers from the condition.

Her "Amu" in 2005 was a rare feature film to be made on the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. Though it helped sensitise people about the issue, making it was an uphill task.

"Since it was a low budget film, I thought I would easily get funds from the Sikh community. But I found that they did not want to remember that darkest period in their history," Shonali told IANS in an interview.

"Then, while shooting, a prominent politician threatened us if we continued. Finally, even after winning two National Awards, Doordarshan, for whom it is mandated to show every National Award winning film, refused to show it," she said.

She realised the hard way why even after two decades there was no film on the 1984 riots - and not another made till now - for as far as taboo subjects go, in Punjabi dominated Bollywood, this was up there.

It is 2012 and Shonali is gearing up to make "Margarita. With a Straw" and cerebral palsy (CP) is another no-go subject.

Think of disability in cinema and names like Sanjay Leela Bhansali's "Black" or Gulzar's "Koshish" come up, one about visual and the other about hearing impairment. There are none in India and few films globally about cerebral palsy, and for good reason.

Cerebral Palsy causes multiple disabilities in a person, often distorting the body. Thus cinema, the greatest propagator of conventional beauty through the nubile bodies of actors, is not keen on having someone visibly 'ugly' as a lead.

It even goes against the dictates of the most renegade of world cinema which has at least one thing in common with commercial cinema - good looking actors. Though there is a notable exception in "My Left Foot", which won Daniel Day Lewis an Oscar for his stunning performance, there hasn't been one in over two decades that matches its power.

This Shonali knows. Yet, she is upbeat about her script "Margarita. With a Straw". The reason: it has already won accolades by winning the 2012 Sundance Institute Mahindra Global Filmmaking award along with three other global projects and being the only Indian among 500 scripts selected from the country.

"As a filmmaker with a conscience, I am drawn to stories that have never been told. My first cousin, Malini Chib, has cerebral palsy. She is only a year younger and we grew up like sisters. Cerebral palsy is very personal to me and despite not being biographical, 'Margarita..' is inspired by Malini," she said.

There is another taboo Shonali has not been bogged down by. While "My Left Foot" was about a man, would the world accept a film about a woman in a 'rejected body', searching for love?

On her part though, Shonali is unruffled, for hers is the case of "once bitten, twice try". This is good for cinema. For only those mad enough to think they can challenge and change taboos are the ones who in the end do.

(This feature was written for the news-wire service IANS and appeared as this: 
http://in.news.yahoo.com/shonali-bose-focuses-lens-taboo-subject-again-064128773.html
http://news.in.msn.com/gandhi/Features_article.aspx?cp-documentid=5928339
http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/movies/shonali-bose-focuses-lens-on-taboo-subject-again_107938.htm)

Portrait Of Three Disparate Men As Artists

At the turn of the new millennium Ayrton Senna, Asif Kapadia and Irrfan Khan were three souls as disparate and far from one another as they could be. Senna was a Brazilian who gave hope to million by breaking into the European dominated sport of Forumla 1, while Asif Kapadia was an Indian origin aspiring filmmaker trying to make it big in UK and Khan was a struggling actor who had almost quit acting. Yet the story of these three people would intertwine in ways in the first decade of the millennium that would show the similarity between them.

Those who like Irrfan in 'Paan Singh Tomar' should not miss him in 'The Warrior' directed by Asif Kapadia.

In 2000, British-Indian Asif Kapadia was looking to make ‘The Warrior’ about the spiritual journey of a man who one day quits as the henchman to a local landlord even as goons hunt him down. “Warrior was a difficult story and I needed an actor to tell it. Then I met a brilliant man who was a casting director then, Tigmanshu Dhulia. He read my script and said he knew exactly who to cast. I was sceptical since I had met many actors,” begins Asif.

He adds, “I was waiting in a casting room and Tigmanshu brought his actor friend Irrfan in. I just looked at his face and knew he was the guy. There was this instant connection between us for unlike most actors I had looked at for the role, Irrfan had seen all the international film I talked about.”

That was the time when Irrfan was doing roles in TV serials and children films of Children Film Society, India. His mettle and his acting prowess had not yet been tested. “At that time he told me that he was thinking of giving up acting. But ‘The Warrior’ came along and somehow gave him a chance to be the lead actor. It was an amazing experience to work with him and now look at what has become of him,” Asif says. 

‘The Warrior’ carried on the shoulders of a stunning performance by Irrfan Khan, travelled through the globe, winning many awards including two BAFTA Awards.

Here in India as a Creative Advisor for the 8 script selected for the Mumbai Mantra Sundance Institute Screenwriters Lab 2012, he talks about how ‘The Warrior’ led him to get ‘Senna’ the documentary of Formula 1 legend Ayrton Senna who tragically died in a crash in front of 300 million TV viewers. The film became the biggest grossing documentary in British history.

Yet Asif Kapadia and Ayrton Senna are as different as the cliché of chalk and cheese. Firstly Asif wasn’t such a big Formula 1 fan and secondly rumour has it that before him biggies like Oliver Stone, Michael Mann and Ridley Scott had approached the Senna family to make a film on him. Yet they entrusted the story to Asif and his writer Manish Pandey.

“Irrfan saw a special screening of ‘Senna’ and said that he saw me in the film. And the funny thing is I did not write Senna or produce it and the idea was also not mine. I was only asked to direct it. I think there are themes one is interested in and that is carried forward in everything you do,” Asif says.

Perhaps through the separation of time and space, there were indeed similarities between three completely different people Ayrton Senna, Asif Kapadia and Irrfan Khan – each an outsider, struggling to find their place in their fields while trying to stay pure to the chosen art. First it was Ayrton Senna, then Asif Kapadia and after the international productions of ‘The Amazing Spiderman’ and ‘The Life of Pi’ the world will finally see the full potential of this man called Irrfan Khan who almost quit acting once. 

(This feature was written for the wire service IANS, finally appearing as :http://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/senna-irrfan-asif-kapadias-lens-045414406.html)

The Iron Lady – The Perfect Streep Show

Director: Phyllida Lloyd

Actors: Meryl Streep, Jim Broadbent, Richard E. Grant

Rating: 4/5

The test of democracy is when a woman has as much right to a position of power, as any man. Yet, if you look into the history of the western world, you’ll realise that most aren’t true ‘democracies’ for most of them, including USA, has had no women ruler. A notable exception, though controversial, is Britain’s Margaret Thatcher.

Thus beyond the politics of that woman, lies the politics of gender against which she rose and captured the world’s imagination. In the same vein, beyond the politics of the film ‘The Iron Lady’ lies a film about ambition, of a woman in a bloody man’s world. And in that respect, this is one tough nut of a film, just like the lady it portrays.

Yet this biopic of Thatcher steers clear of any controversies and instead skims the surface in an attempt to truly show her as the ‘Iron Lady’. It is this attempt that works for the film, but distorts its politics and intention.

 The lone woman in blue in a man's black world, scorching her own way...

There is no denying that Thatcher was every bit of the lady of conviction the film portrays. But conviction itself is not a guarantee of correctness. If it were we’d be worshipping Hitler and Bollywood would be sweeping global film awards. In hiding much of Thatcher’s bad politics that is perhaps the reason why Britain is in such a soup, that the film tries to ameliorate her past.

Yet beyond the films covert intentions lies a woman who dominated world politics like few men have done, played by a woman who has dominated the space inside the four walls of a picture frame like few ever have. And therein lies the casting coup of the new millennium.  

With 17 Academy Award nomination (3 wins) and 26 Golden Globe nominations (8 wins), both more than any man or woman, Meryl Streep is clear the ‘Iron Lady’ of cinema. And in portraying the Iron Lady of politics, she exactly shows why she is who she is. And the film is indeed a complete Streep show from beginning to the end. There are other very good actors, but all of them pale in front of her domineering presence so much so that when you see her on screen, it is as if it is not Thatcher that is on the prowl, but the unstoppable Terminator himself.

On another side, the film also shows the other side of a woman desperate to rise and control everything around. You cannot seek to control so much and not break up in the process. Thus her hallucinations, and moments of dementia are like the price she has had to pay to be an woman with ambitions higher than a mans in a patriarchal world.

This battle of wits between this lone woman and men around is the high point of the film. It is also captured evocatively in beautiful montages like the one of being the only sandal in an ocean of shoes or being the only blue dress in a sea of black men’s coat, or being seated in the furthest seat from the man in power etc.

These, and many other deft touches, force you to forget the politics of the film, and focus on the politics that both made and broke the woman being portrayed. And that in itself, is a great triumph for any film anywhere.

This review has been written for the wire service Indo-Asian News Service (IANS)

The Artist – Clichéd, Melodramatic But Brilliant

Director: Michel Hazanavicius

Actors: Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo, John Goodman

Rating: 4/5

Imagine a feature film made during the silent era, lost and forgotten, to be found 80 years later? Would it even be released? Would it be a hit? Your perception perhaps would be a definitive no but as ‘The Artist’ has shown, once again, that sound in cinema, is highly over rated. After all, for those who have forgotten, cinema is first and foremost, a visual medium.

Yet, ‘The Artist’ is as clichéd and melodramatic as they come. If it were competing with the best of the lot in the 20s and 30s, it would have been amongst the average films then, perhaps garnering no critical or commercial success.

Come, lets zoom right ahead into the past... 

 The film thus works only in the context of the present since many of you have not watched a silent film in their lives and would be shocked by its temerity to hold your attention without uttering a word. One thus only hopes that ‘The Artist’ becomes an excuse for you to revisit the masterpieces of the 1920s and 30s, the films of masters like Charlie Chaplin, F W Murnau, Buster Keaton, Sergei Eisenstein, Fritz Lang, King Vidor, D W Griffith etc. Watch for example Murnau’s ‘Sunrise’ or Frank Borzage’s ‘Seventh Heaven’ which matches ‘The Artist’ in its melodrama.

Having said that one has to give ‘The Artist’ its due. It is witty, intelligent, funny and poignant at the same time. The story - that of an artist who finds himself obsolete with the changing times and technology and unable to cope, has been told several times before (one of the best being Charlie Chaplin’s ‘Limelight’). Yet, it has a freshness that tugs at your heart even when you cringe at the excessive melodrama.

You also forgive the makers for the melodrama and the excessive pathos. In our times, there was perhaps no other way to make you realise the power of silent cinema than by making it this simplistic and unashamedly melodramatic.

In essence this is also Charlie Chaplin’s story, who refused to move to talking pictures even as the world did and in rebellion made ‘Modern Times’ - a huge hit despite hardly having sound. And even when he spoke for the first time in cinema, in ‘The Great Dictator’ he did so to call for peace and justice for all in the world.

There is no doubt that a lot of hard work has gone into the making of ‘The Artist’. For that and for the conviction of the producers to fund something like this, the film deserves to be seen as widely as possible. See it and you’ll definitely want to go forward into the past where silent black and white cinema scorched the silver screen and your mind space.

This review was written for the newswire service, IANS (Indo Asian News Service). 

Warhorse – Sloppy Melodrama Rescued By A Beautiful Intention

Director: Steven Spielberg

Actors: Jeremy Irvine, Emily Watson, David Thewlis

Rating: 3/5

Every writer, artist, musician or filmmaker develops a certain style of representing his work that makes his work easily identifiable. ‘Warhorse’ is an example of what one can call either ‘Spielbergish’ or ‘Spielbergesque’ cinema with simple scenes overly dramatized and melodrama that is out of place and seems desperate and thus despicable.

Yet this, one of Spielberg’s worst directorial works, is rescued by three things – technical brilliance, a lovely metaphor and most importantly its beautiful, anti-war sentiment.

A kind of a war-based retelling of Anna Swell’s ‘Black Beauty’ ‘Warhorse’ is based on a children’s book of the same name by Michael Morpurgo that was adapted for stage by Nick Stafford. A beautiful and powerful horse passes through many hands before and during the First World War, observing with his silent, kind eyes the horrors that man inflicts upon man.

Steven Spielberg is a master at making aliens look and feel human. Making a horse more human than most human around would not have been such tough work for the master. And best of all, he has chosen a subject which is so rich in allusions and allegories, that even a decent direction would have sailed it through.

The beautiful, kind and powerful horse is a metaphor for humanity. In the true spirit of animal books or movies like Anna Swell’s ‘Black Beauty’ or Robert Bresson’s donkey ‘Balthazar’, he becomes both the symbol of humanity as well as an observer of its abundant lack and occasional triumph.

Thus in the end when it is trapped in barbed-wires of war in no man’s land where nothing survives, it needs the help of both warring factions – both of whom he has seen and served as a warhorse – it gives a strong message to us all. Love, compassion and humanity is in desperate need of patronage. In the absence of this, it will wither and die, trapped in a no-mans land it cannot get itself out of.

You cannot pick a bone with the film in terms of its story or its technicality. The last scene of the unmanned horse running through the battlefield with bullets and shells flying all around, not because it is scared, but because it is too proud and humane to take this insanity, is one of the most technically brilliant scene you would have seen in cinema.

Yet, you can indeed find flaws in its excessive emphasis on melodrama, especially in the end. Spielberg has a knack of making even small, ordinary moments look magical. However, excessive use of melodrama, especially at the end in an desperate attempt to wriggle some salty water from your eyes will perhaps indeed make you cry but only wondering where Spielberg has lost his directorial way in the film.

It is also too literal for its own good. A good director needs to trust his viewers to understand some unsaid thing. Hence the scene where a woman explains why she lives with a drunk husband or where it is directly making statements against the absurdity of war, seem not needed.

However, they seem unnecessary if you look at it from adult perspective. If you look at it as a children’s film, after all the original book was for children, you would really have no complaints with the film. Perhaps that is what Spielberg indeed intended – to make a children’s film. If that be so, he succeeds magnificently.

This review has been written for the newswire service Indo-Asian News Service (IANS).