Lagaan (2001)

English translation: Land tax
Director: Ashutosh Gowariker
Story: Ashutosh Gowariker, Sanjay Daima, Abbas Tyrewala
Cast: Aamir Khan, Gracy Singh, Rachel Shelley, Paul Blackthorne  
Music: A.R. Rahman
Time: 224 minutes
Bottom-line: One of the best Indian films ever made; excels in every aspect

  This being my 50th review, I thought I will start writing reviews for Bollywood films as well. I start with Lagaan, one of my all time favourites. This 2001 film is the third Indian film to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film, and it certainly deserved that award, in my opinion. The running time is just shy of four hours, but once you start watching, time just flies by, and you hardly realize that a sixth of your day is gone.

Aamir Khan as Bhuvan

Sometime in the 19th century, Captain Russell (Blackthorne) has imposed very high taxes in the village of Champaner and adjoining villages in Gujarat. The people are not able to pay them because of a prolonged drought. One day, a group of villagers witness a cricket match played by the British officers. One villager, Bhuvan (Aamir) mocks the game. Taking an immediately dislike of him, Russell lays a bet, that if the villagers can beat the British in a cricket, he will cancel all the taxes for three years. However, if the villagers lose, they will have to pay three times the tax. Bhuvan, without the consent of others, accepts the deal. When the others understand about his decision they are furious with him. The only person who supports him is his love interest, Gauri (Gracy). However, Russell’s sister, Elizabeth (Shelley), feels sorry for the people, and with the help of an interpreter, Ram Singh (Javed Khan), she offers to teach the villagers the game. Eventually, Bhuvan does form a team. Does Bhuvan successfully manage to win the match against the British? Or are the founders of cricket too strong for the villagers? Watch Lagaan to find out!

Gracy Singh as Gauri

The story is excellent. When you see the screen time, you might think it will be very boring and slow. But the main plot begins almost immediately, after introducing all the characters in some incidents. The way in which Bhuvan shows inspiration and the way in which he changes the mind of the people from being hostile to him for accepting the deal, to making them follow him in his quest of beating the British, is excellent. The match that is shown at the end is filmed superbly, and by the time the match begins, you will already be so involved in the film that whether you know it or not, you will be supporting Bhuvan’s team, as if the match were an actual test match between Indian and England.

Blackthorne as Russell

 

Shelley as Elizabeth

         The acting plays a major role in this film, and if this film went all the way up to the Oscars, it couldn’t have done so without the great acting by all the actors. Aamir Khan has done extremely well. As I said, he acts so well that you are also inspired to take on a leadership and ‘make’ people follow you without blackmail and such. Gracy Singh has also acted very well. The two main British actors: Rachel Shelley and Paul Blackthorne, have acted superbly too. The latter plays the role of Russell so well, that you as a viewer will really feel like hating him, though he is only a character. One incident where all the villagers act well, is during the song Ghanan Ghanan. When they see the rain clouds approaching, all their faces are lit up, and they sing and dance merrily. But soon, the clouds go away, and when they find out that there is no rain, their expression magically changes into sadness again.

The team

The songs are first-class. Great music, melody and a fantastic background score for the songs and during other incidents by A.R. Rahman provide some memorable songs. As a viewer, you will want to dance and celebrate the joy with the villagers during Ghanan Ghanan; you will be inspired to gear up for the battle during ‘O Mitwa!’ and during ‘Baar Baar Haan’.

The song 'Baar Baar Haan'

To sum up, Ashutosh Gowariker’s 2001 blockbuster Lagaan is a masterpiece in Indian cinema. There may be many films made about pre-independent India, and regarding freedom, like Madrasipattinam, Gandhi, etc, but no film can give the entertainment and quality as Lagaan. Great acting, great music, and a superb script make this sports-drama film a classic in Bollywood. Lagaan deserves every word of praise it can get.

My Rating: 5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 95%

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

Director: Steven Spielberg
Story: George Lucas, Philip Kaufman 
Cast: Harrison Ford, Karen Allen, Paul Freeman   
Music: John Williams
Time: 115 minutes
Bottom-line: A taut story and terrific action sequences make this film a classic adventure story  

  A treasure hunt film that has gone down in history as one of the greatest adventure films ever made, Steven Spielberg’s Raiders of the Lost Ark is one film, where you will be glued to your seat no matter what happens around you. Starring Harrison Ford, the man who has made his name synonymous with Indiana Jones, supported by Karen Allen and Paul Freeman, the first installment in the Indianan Jones series is often considered the best film of the lot, and a classic in Hollywood cinema.

In 1936, archeologist Indiana Jones, a.k.a Indy (Ford) narrowly escapes from a booby-trapped filled temple in South America, after taking a gold idol from inside. Jones somehow escapes from there, and comes back to US. Here, we see that Indy is actually a professor of archeology. He is approached by two Army Intelligence agents, who request him to find the Lost Ark of the Covenant before the Nazis can (as the Nazis believe that possession of the ark will make them invincible). The key to finding the location where it is buried, is a headpiece of an artifact, which is currently possessed by Marion Ravenwood (Allen). Indy travels to Nepal. She gives Indy the headpiece, and they travel together to Egypt. At the same time, Belloq, Indy's arch rival, is also on the quest for capturing the Ark. The rest of the film is whether or not Indiana and Marion find the Ark, and more importantly, whether or not they can do so before Belloq can.

Ford as Indiana Jones. A scene from the
South American temple

Karen Allen as Marion

The story is excellent. From the first minute, when we see Indy in the South American jungles, till the last ten minutes or so, all we see is non-stop thrills and action. I consider this a ‘treasure hunt’ film, but it does not contain only code-breaking like say, The Da Vinci Code, does not contain only action, like R.L. Stevenson’s Treasure Island, does not contain only booby-trap filled caves/ temples, but this film is a perfect mix of all the elements required for a treasure hunt. This film was ranked #10 in the American Film Institute’s list of top 100 thrillers, and Ford as Indy was ranked the second greatest hero of all time, after Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch.

Freeman as Rene Belloq

There are plenty of twists and turns along the way. The sequence where he escapes from the temple in S. America is one of the most exciting scenes in the film, though it adds very little to the actual story. First we see Indy replace the gold idol carefully with a bag of sand. Nothing happens… almost immediately after he turns, the temple starts collapsing. The scene where he is followed by the huge boulder is quite famous, and very exciting to watch. Another thrilling sequence is when Indy and Marion are trapped in the pit full of snakes. This looks pretty gross, but while watching it, you will definitely clutch something tightly, as the tension is at screaming point here. Throughout the film, the suspense is well-maintained, and the story almost never goes offbeat.

Ronald Lacey as Toht, a person working for Belloq 

All the three lead actors have acted well. Ford has acted so well, and his character is so famous, that every time you ask someone, “Do you know Harrison Ford?” they are like, “Yeah, he is that Indiana Jones guy.” Few dialogues are funny and few are memorable as well. John Williams’ score is brilliant. The Indiana Jones theme music is good, and in almost every scene where there are no dialogues, the music plays a role in giving the entertainment.

The famous 'boulder scene' 

The sets are also excellent. Most of the film takes place in Egypt, and the beginning is in S. America. The settings of both these places have been created very well. The South American temple shown in the beginning is certainly a place that will give you the creeps, even if you only watching it on screen, and Spielberg makes the most of such a location to make his viewers glued to their seats. Along with the sets, the visual effects also play a role, especially in the last twenty minutes, on the island in the Aegean Sea.

Indy's friend Sallah asks, "Indy, why is the floor moving?" As
Indiana throws the torch down, we see that the
floor is not 'moving' but is full of snakes!

To conclude, Spielberg’s Raiders of the Lost Ark is one such thriller where each and every scene is exciting to see. With good acting, an electrifying story, great score and great direction from Spielberg, this film will be a classic for its top-notch action sequences. No matter how many more Indiana Jones films are made, the first one is still unmatchable in every aspect.

My Rating: 5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 95%

The Prestige (2006)

Director: Christopher Nolan
Screenplay: Christopher and Jonathan Nolan (based on the book by Christopher Priest)
Cast: Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Scarlett Johansson, Michael Caine 
Music: David Julyan
Time: 130 minutes
Bottom-line: A magical experience    

  You know them better as Wolverine and Batman, but in Christopher Nolan’s 2006 film, Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale are not superheroes, but are people you and me loved to see when we were children (and perhaps even now): magicians. With veteran actor Michael Caine, Scarlett Johansson and David Bowie in the supporting roles and with David Julyan composing the score, The Prestige proves to be another treat from the never-disappointing Christopher Nolan.

The following lines from Michael Caine start the film: Every great magic trick consists of three parts. The first part is "The Pledge". The magician shows you something ordinary.  Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course...it probably isn't. The second act is "The Turn". The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. But making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part: "The Prestige".

Now, here’s the plot, in three parts.

Bale as Borden, and Rebecca Hall as his wife
Sarah. This romance might be like a side-track,
but its significance is known only at the ending

The first part: Nolan shows you something ordinary. He probably asks you to inspect it, in trailers, to see if the film is normal, but of course, it isn’t. No Nolan film is ever so simple. Sometime in the 19th century, two magicians, Alfred Borden (Bale) and Robert Angier (Jackman) become friends at a magic show, when they debate over how the magician performed the trick. John Cutter (Caine), an assistant to the magician, asks them to see another Chinese man’s magic show to understand the secret about magic. As the story progresses, a magic show takes place, where Borden and Angier are called from the audience as volunteers to an escape act. The victim is Angier’s wife. Somehow, she cannot escape from the tank, because she could not untie the knot Borden tied, and so, she dies.

Hugh Jackman as Angier, and Johansson as
Olivia

The second part: Nolan takes the ordinary story, and turns it into something extraordinary: a Nolan masterpiece. The two magicians become fierce rivals, after Angier blames Borden for killing his wife by tying a different knot and not what was planned. Borden becomes ‘The Professor’, and Angier becomes ‘The Great Danton’. Borden has Bernard Fallon as his assistant, and Angier has Cutter and Olivia Wenscombe (Johansson) as his assistants. Both the magicians try to sabotage each other’s acts, and aim to win the audience. Both of them attempt to master a certain trick: the transported man.

Michael Caine as John Cutter

The third part: Making a film isn’t enough… you have to make it big. That’s what the third part is about. As Borden and Angier become more and more cunning and obsessed in beating the other, they realize that only trickery can outwit the other. So, each magician brings his own method of wit and wisdom, to give the audience the biggest prestige they have seen.

Another typical Nolan film is The Prestige. Non-linear narration, twisted nature of characters, a good score and great acting make this another Nolan hit. However, unlike Memento, the narration doesn’t have any pattern. In Memento, there is a pattern of narration: first the black and white sequences in chronological order, and then the colour sequences in reverse. Here, the sequences are jumbled up in no particular order, and this kind of makes it more difficult to understand. The film begins with Caine’s lines, and during this time, there are several scenes shown on screen. These obviously don’t make sense at that time, but hey, if they did, they that wouldn’t make it Nolanish now, would it? After that, the story begins with Cutter being interrogated in court, and then the story is told in the form of flashbacks through the diary of Angier.  

David Bowie as Nikola Tesla, who plays a small, but major,
role

There is no ambiguity in the end. In Memento, there is a lot of ambiguity at the end, and so how the story actually is can be decided by the audience. The only decision that the viewers have to make in this film, is to decide who is good and who is not. And believe me, that is a tough decision. There are tons of twists, that all come one after another rapidly, at the end. So, the story might seem simple most of the time, but Nolan knows just when to surprise his viewers!

Coming to the story, it is excellent. By the time you finish watching it, you will probably be as confused as you were after watching Memento, but here, there is a slight change. Follow the clues properly, and the story is as straight as an arrow: no doubts and no loose ends. And the catch? Nolan has so ingeniously managed to hide the clues that it takes a keen eye, and more than one watch to spot them. All twists are satisfying, and non-linear narrative structure adds to the Nolan touch. The film also deals with themes like sacrifice, obsession, pride, and of course, magic. How much of sacrifice and courage does it take to really perform magic? What happens when one gets too obsessed with magic? And is performance all about pride and winning the favour of the audience? The Prestige answers this all, thereby giving the audience something to think about and also providing an entertaining story.

Angier performing 'The Transported Man'

The natures of characters are excellent. Nolan has brilliantly shown the change in the attitude of the characters from being friends, to rivals, and finally, hard-core enemies. To support Nolan, Bale and Jackman have acted brilliantly. Jackman displays anger, sadness and also the typical looks and gestures of a magician very well. Bale has also acted equally well, and in my opinion, this is his best performance in Nolan’s movies. Michael Caine has also acted very well. The dialogues are also good, and it is in the dialogues that most of the clues (I’d say about 80%) are hidden.

The period settings and details are authentic. All the costumes and surroundings and other settings related to the actual magic tricks: the stage and all that, are great to see. The score is also composed according to any magic show. The score is good throughout the film, and during the magic shows, it is even better.

To sum up, Christopher Nolan’s 2006 film is another terrific film. Great acting, great visual effects and period settings, and a terrific story with plenty of Nolan touches, make this one of the best films of this decade. This may be a lesser known film of Nolan, but yet, it deserves better recognition. After watching it, you will realize that it is neither Angier nor Borden, but Nolan, who has given the audience a grand prestige.

My Rating: 5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 76%

Roman Holiday (1953)

Director: William Wyler
Story: Dalton Trumbo
Cast: Gregory Peck, Audrey Hepburn, Eddie Albert 
Music: Georges Auric, Victor Young
Time: 118 minutes
Bottom-line: Peck’s and Hepburn’s performances make this a beautiful and classic rom-com  

  This is the movie that gave Audrey Hepburn a terrific, Oscar-winning start to her acting career, and which strengthened the career of Gregory Peck. William Wyler’s 1953 classic joints City Lights, Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, The West Side Story and other films as one of the greatest love stories of all time, and it is #4 in AFI’s list of the top 100 such films.

The story takes place in one day in Rome. Princess Ann (Hepburn) is taking a tour of several European capitals. When in Rome, she gets fed up of her tight schedule, and escapes from her residence to see Rome on her own. She is sedated, and so she falls asleep on a bench, where a reporter, Joe Bradley (Peck) meets her and takes her to his home. He is supposed to interview Princess Ann the next day, but he hasn’t met her yet. He oversleeps, and so lies to his boss about the interview. Joe’s boss tells him that the interview never took place as the Princess was ‘supposedly ill’. When Joe sees her photo in the paper, he is shocked and surprised. He decides to get an exclusive interview from her, for which his boss is willing to pay 5000 bucks. Joe offers to show Ann around Rome, but she declines the offer and goes off on her own. He calls his photographer, Irving Radovich (Albert) to tag along. The rest of the film is about whether Joe and Irving manage to get exclusive photos and answers from Ann, and whether Ann enjoys the day without being found.

Hepburn as Ann, and Peck as Joe

The story is not great… it is rather bland. The story tells what all Ann does in Rome, and how Joe and Irving follow her without her suspicion, making it more of an advertisement of the tourist attractions in Rome than a story. However, the ending of the film, like City Lights, is moving. The dialogues are funny and toward the end, they are also emotional. The story has a message though: that of unselfishness and sacrifice.

Peck as Joe and Albert as Irving

(The paragraph may contain spoilers) First Joe takes advantage of Ann and decides to use her only to get his 5000 dollars. As the day progresses, he still doesn’t care about what she thinks, but only does more and more things to get his exclusive interview. However, towards the end, he realizes his mistake and also Ann’s pitiable condition. She gets only one day to herself, and he almost ruins it by making that day into a questioning session. By the end he falls in love with her, and also decides to give Ann her day. On the other side, Irving has no interest on Ann, and he is determined to sell the photographs and make money. However, Joe’s attitude changes so much in that one day, that he does what is right, and not necessarily what is good for him. 

One famous still from the film: Joe's hand is bitten by the Mouth of Truth

The acting is terrific. As I said, there is not much of a story, and the film isn’t filled with slapstick comedy or anything. The laughs come from few incidents of slapstick comedy, and from few scenes of subtle humour. The dialogues are another source of comedy. But the real standout in the film is the performances of Peck, Hepburn and Albert. In Hepburn’s face you can see the joy and happiness a caged bird would feel when let free. In Peck’s expressions you can see a romantic look, initially mixed with little greed (as he wants the exclusive interview). Albert mainly gives the viewers something to laugh about, and among the characters, his role is the funniest. The scene at Rocca’s, when the three characters meet for the first time, is one of the funniest scenes in the film.

Another still from the film

Peck may be stone faced in other films, but in this film he plays a gentle and kind person, whose emotions go from greed to love all in one day. Hepburn has done extremely well. Her acting in the palace, when she is gets angry over her schedule; her acting when she talks to Joe under sedation and her overall acting throughout the film like that of a prisoner who has escaped from jail, is terrific. Moreover, Ann’s character is an innocent one. Hepburn’s expressions when she is oblivious to the plans of Irving and Joe to use her to their advantage, is initially funny, but as the story progresses, she acts in such a way that we feel sorry for Ann.

To conclude, William Wyler’s Roman Holiday should be watched to enjoy the laughs, but more importantly to appreciate the acting of the leads. It may not be as entertaining as Wyler’s bigger and more successful Ben-Hur, but in terms of acting and romance, Roman Holiday is one of the best in Hollywood history.

My Rating: 4/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 98%

Yavarum Nalam (2009)

English translation: Everyone is well
Director: Vikram Kumar
Story: Vikram Kumar, Neelu Iyappan
Cast: R. Madhavan, Neetu Chandra, Sachin Khedekar 
Music: Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy, Tubby Parik
Time: 137 minutes
Bottom-line: Clever use of horror and supernatural elements

   There are two types of horror films: one category includes films like The Exorcist or The Omen, Saw, The Grudge etc. where all the film does is scare the hell out of you by showing lots of blood and other gross stuff. The second category contains films like Psycho, Shutter Island etc. which have some horror content, but where horror plays second fiddle to suspense and mystery thrills. Yavarum Nalam is one such Tamil film that falls in the second category.

Manohar (Madhavan) and his family have moved into a new flat, 13B. His family consists of his wife (Neetu Chandra), brother, his brother’s wife, daughter, son, and their mother. Manohar finds several things go wrong in the flat, but what is more shocking is that they go wrong only for him: photos of him taken from the phone are disfigured; the elevator doesn’t work if he goes alone, but works for others; the milk gets spoilt everyday; he is not able to hammer nails in the house… and so on. The three ladies in the house start watching a new serial on TV, called Yavaraum Nalam. One day, Manohar watches the serial, when the TV switches itself on. He sees, much to his shock, that the events in the serial exactly match the events that happen to him and his family. The family in the serial has moved into a new house, the family also has the same number of members… As days go by, he discovers that all the events in the serial, good or bad, take place in his family as well. As Manohar investigates further, he learns a shocking and explosive secret about the family in the serial… and he soon realizes that a horrible fate is approaching his family as well!

Madhavan as Manohar, and Meetu Chandra as
Priya, Manohar's wife

Making horror films in Tamil is a new approach, and I appreciate Vikram Kumar for attempting to make an unorthodox film. In the film, the story is a big plus point, and also a minus point. I am not a fan of supernatural elements, and I don’t really like any film that shows ghosts and stuff. Yet, this film was a different experience. Kumar has cleverly mixed horror and supernatural stuff into a fairly believable mystery thriller. One of the reasons why this film is unique is because there are no deviations: no comedy track, no unwanted fight etc. What starts out as a suspense film stays that way till the end.

Murli Sharma as Shiva

There are several clues in the film that help the viewers guess the ending. In that aspect, this is a loophole-free mystery, with the solution being perfect. The ‘connection’ between the criminal and the crime is given by the supernatural elements. Without them, the film would not have been able to provide a satisfactory conclusion. However, people do believe in ghosts, and you never know, maybe there are ghosts existing! So, don’t think that the ghosts and other stuff deviate the story.. they add to the entertainment.

The story begins like an ordinary family story, by showing some funny incidents related to Manohar’s family. Then, from the time Manohar watches the serial, the film quickly changes genres to a crime thriller. Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy may be better known for their melodious songs, but here, in this film, they have composed a brilliant score. The score is suspenseful, chilling, and plays a key role in creating a spooky atmosphere in the film. The spooky atmosphere is also created by several camera angles and the facial expressions of especially Madhavan. The story is highly unrealistic, as I said, because it has several ghosts and stuff. Yet, by the film the film ends, you will most probably remember only a well-constructed mystery story, and not the supernatural add-ons. The suspense is terrific, and is well-maintained throughout the film.

From right: Manohar's mother (Saranya), his brother's wife
(Amitha Rajan), and Neetu Chandra

The horror content comes mainly from violence and lot of blood on the screen. Madhavan and Murli Sharma (who plays a friend of Manohar) have acted well, but no one else has really acted nicely. Acting has only a minor role in the film: mystery and horror take the spotlight. The ending is ambiguous, and this is very rare in Indian films, where usually a song or some celebration conclude the film. Till the last minute, everything goes according to plan, and then in the last ten seconds, literally, there is sudden twist, and the screen cuts to black. There is one song in the film, and that may the worst five minutes of the film. The film goes so well, and then bam, there is a useless song that takes the stage. Had this been cut, this film would have been better.

To conclude, Vikram Kumar’s Yavarum Nalam is a must-watch for any fan of thriller films. This is not the usual film where hero fights villain, loses, and rises back or anything (the so-called ‘adhiradi theraipadam’ in Tamil)… only suspense, mystery and horror give the thrills. Watch for the great, but sort of unrealistic, story and the score. The film will have an impact on all the people who have just moved into new flats, and all people who watch any serial in their homes.

My Rating: 3.5/5    

Mrs. Doubtfire (1993)

Director: Chris Columbus
Screenplay: Randi Mayem Singer, Leslie Dixon
Cast: Robin Williams, Sally Field, Pierce Brosnan 
Music: Howard Shore
Time: 125 minutes
Bottom-line: Watch the film for Williams’ performance

Another good film in 1993, Mrs. Doubtfire is a funny and romantic drama, starring Robin Williams and Sally Field in the lead roles. Fair warning, this sounds like a children’s film, but thanks to few scenes, it is not. So if you are say, 13 and above, you can enjoy the film. Williams’ performance drives the film, and is supported by the jokes and comic tension all the way. This film was ranked #67 in AFI’s top 100 comedy films of all time.

We have heard of the phrase “a blessing in disguise.” This film portrays exactly that. Daniel Hillard (Williams) is a talented voice artist, who quits his latest job. As he is unable to hold a steady job, his well-earning wife, Miranda Hillard (Field) files for divorce, as he also sets a bad example for their three children: Natalie, Chris and Lydia. So, Daniel starts living in his own house, and finds a small job at a TV station. He gets to see his kids only in the weekends. When Miranda tells him one day, that she is advertising to hire a housekeeper, Daniel makes use of the opportunity. He changes the contact details, and eventually calls Miranda himself for the job. He changes his voice to that of an old British nanny called Mrs. Euphegenia Doubtfire. Highly impressed by her credentials, Miranda appoints her for the job. However, as Daniel starts going there often, he finds that Miranda is in a relationship with another man, Stuart Dunmire (Brosnan). The rest of the film is how Daniel, as Mrs. Doubtfire, guides his children in the right path, and whether or not he manages to win back Miranda through the disguise of Mrs. Doubtfire.

Robin Williams as Daniel Hillard

Sally Field as Miranda

Williams has done a terrific job in acting, both as Daniel and Mrs. Doubtfire. He is known for his vocal work, and he has certainly a great job in that aspect in this film. The beginning of the film, where he is shown giving voices to different cartoon characters; when he showcases his talent in front of the lady at the interview; and later when he calls Miranda while applying for the job… in all these scenes, Williams does well do make all the viewers laugh heartily. His acting toward the end, at the restaurant, when he has to meet both his boss, as Daniel, and celebrate Miranda’s birthday at the same time, as Mrs. Doubtfire, is excellent. Along with Williams, Sally Field has done well as Miranda Hillard. The three children have also acted well.

Brosnan as Stuart

From left: Chris, Lydia, Mrs. Doubtfire, Natalie
and Miranda Hillard

The story is good, but may be far-fetched. You might think it weird that a man would do so much to see his children, including creating a new identity, modify his voice everyday etc. Yet, whether or not a father would actually do that can be answered only by people in similar situations I guess. Anyway, other than the plot, the language is also vulgar at some places in the film, especially in the dialogues of Williams. Had these dialogues and other ‘not-for-children’ lines been reduced, this film could have well been made into a nice family film. But for others, the story is a funny and laughable one, which is boosted by the acting.

Poster of Avvai Shanmugi

Poster of Chachi 420 

This film was remade twice. In 1996, it came in Tamil as Avvai Shanmugi, starring veteran actor Kamal Haasan for the role of Robin Williams. The co-stars were Nagesh, Meena and Gemini Ganesan.  In 1998, it came in Hindi as ‘Chachi 420’ (chachi meaning grandma and Section 420 in the Indian penal code covers offences related to cheating. In common use, it refers to any trickster). This film also starred Kamal Haasan for the role of Williams. The supporting actors were Tabu, Om Puri and Johnny Walker. Both these films were successful among Indian audiences.

To conclude, Chris Columbus’ Mrs. Doubtfire is a fun-filled comic entertainer, but watch out for the use of profane language. Williams has done extremely well to guide the film, and is supported well by Sally Field as well. The plot may be far-fetched, but still is very believable. Anyway, whether you like the film or not, you will certainly like Williams’ performance as Daniel Hillard, and as Mrs. Doubtfire.


My Rating: 3.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 71%

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Director: Frank Darabont
Screenplay: Frank Darabont (based on the book by Stephen King)  
Cast: Tim Robbins, Morgan Freeman, Bob Gunton
Music: Thomas Newman 
Time: 142 minutes
Bottom-line: A highly inspiring story, made a classic by the acting of the three lead actors

   A directorial triumph in his debut film, Frank Darabont brings us this highly entertaining prison drama. Starring Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman in the lead roles, The Shawshank Redemption is the story of a prisoner who changes the lives of everyone in the prison, including the warden’s. Directed in such a way that the meaning of hope goes deep into the viewers, this is a great film, though it did not win any Oscar, despite its seven nominations.

1947: Banker Andy Dufresne (Robbins) is sentenced to two back-to-back life sentences in Shawshank prison, for murdering his wife and her lover. In the prison, there exists a man called Ellis Boyd ‘Red’ Redding (Freeman), a friendly guy who can ‘get things’ for people inside. Andy and Red become thick friends, and Andy asks Red to get him a rock hammer, as he wants to make small chess pieces from rocks. Among all men, Andy is the only one with a different mind. He believes everyone is innocent like himself; he believes that requesting for something persistently and politely will help him get it, and he believes that hope is a good thing. As time goes by, he releases that there is a darker side to the prison, in events especially related to the Warden Samuel Norton (Gunton) and the chief guard Byron Hadley (Clancy Brown). The rest of the film is about what Andy does to inspire the other inmates, and the film also covers other events that happen in Shawshank prison.

Robbins as Andy and Freeman as Red (right)

Like The Hurt Locker, this film also has no ‘story’; it tells various events taking place in the prison. Due to this, I feel that the story goes off beat in some places, and also goes slow occasionally. Yet, it is a very inspiring one. As I said before, instead of directing a film only about hope, Darabont does well do infuse both hope and lots of drama into this film, thereby making it interesting to watch, and also spreading the meaning of hope. The score and photography are also good. The camera work is in such a way that not too much violence is shown on screen, making this more of a drama film than a violent action film.

Bob Gunton as Warden Norton

The dialogues are excellent. I like the way Red’s narration in the background makes the viewers understand the story, without any flashback or such. Through the dialogues we can also understand the different views of prisoners: one prisoner who thinks that he is certain to be in the prison for the rest of his life (Red); one for whom coming out of the prison is more weird and frightening than being inside it (Brooks); and one who believes that hope can set anyone free (Andy). Red says, “These prison walls are funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, gets so you depend on them. That's institutionalized.” This statement indeed shows a harsh truth about prisons. Red also says, “Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane.” Yet, Andy manages to convince him, and all the others in the prison, that hope is, and will be, a good thing. The message of hope is shown in such a powerful manner in this film.

Whitmore as Brooks Hatlen,
another inmate

The acting is also terrific. The dialogues give a boost to the acting, and Robbins, Freeman and Gunton have all done brilliantly. Freeman dialogues and his facial expression go well together. His acting is good throughout the film, but I liked it especially towards the end. His dialogues towards the end of the film are also great and moving. I also liked Gunton’s role as Warden Norton. I don’t think any one else could have acted that character as well as he did: it’s like he was made to play such a villainous role, and he doesn’t disappoint. Robbins may not have so many facial expressions, but his character and dialogues make his acting great.

Gil Bellows as Tommy

(This paragraph may contain spoilers) Andy’s character is the main thing that gives the viewers hope. He writes many letters to the state government to start a library in the prison. He keeps writing letters even though the warden discourages him, and even though he receives no response. In another incident, he turns on some music in the public address system for which he gets a solitary confinement; yet he is not worried, as the others in the prison were happy after hearing the music. He doesn’t mind doing accounts for Warden Norton either. In fact, he does banking work for all the guards at Shawshank. Such is the character of Andy Dufresne: don’t mind about how others treat you; just do good to others around you.

One memorable quote by Andy

This film takes the 72nd position in AFI’s top 100 movies (different from the list of top 100  thrillers), but it tops the IMDb’s list of 250 films, with a rating of 9.2 on 10. This film ranks ahead of other classics like The Godfather Parts 1 and 2, and even ahead of the Best Picture winner of 1994, Forrest Gump.

Overall, Darabont’s The Shawshank Redemption is an inspiring film, taking place in a location where no one would associate hope with. With its great acting and powerful dialogues, this film proves to be more than just another ordinary drama film. Watch for Freeman’s and Gunton’s acting, and be inspired by the message it gives.

My Rating: 5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 90%

The Birds (1963)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Screenplay: Evan Hunter (based on the book by Daphne du Maurier) 
Cast: ‘Tippi’ Hedren, Rod Taylor, Jessica Tandy 
Time: 115 minutes
Bottom-line: Delivers short bursts of powerful thrills, but is otherwise a very slow story

  Hitchcock decides to take a break from suspense thrillers, and surprises all his viewers by directing this 1963 horror-thriller ‘The Birds’. Hitchcock reinforces that building up the suspense is what gives the best thrill, but in this case, he may have given too much of a build up, thereby giving a slow story. Starring Tippi Hedren and Rod Taylor in the lead roles, Hitchcock creates one of the most unexpected and horrifying villains in the film. No, the villains are not psychos, nor some strangers on a train,  not even people who dial M for murder… this time, the villains are, the birds!

Melanie Daniels (Hedren) meets Mitch Brenner (Taylor) at a bird shop. He wants some lovebirds for his sister’s 11th birthday, but the shop has none. After chatting with Melanie, she becomes intrigued by him, and tracks his house in Bodega Bay, taking a pair of lovebirds with her. He spots her while she is coming, and saves her just as some seagulls attack her. She starts a relationship with Mitch, and also befriends his sister Cathy (Veronica Cartwright) and mother Lydia (Tandy); she also becomes friendly with the local school teacher Anne Hayworth (Suzanne Pleshette). Melanie stays at Annie’s house, when a seagull smashes itself on the door, and dying on the spot. Following this weird incident, thousands of birds repeatedly attack the city and harm people. The rest of the film is about the damage and horror the birds cause to the people of the city, and how the people try desperately to avoid them.

All the cast members: Rod Taylor as Mitch, Pleshette as Anne (left),
Tandy as Lydia (second from left), Cartwright
as Cathy (centre) and Hedren as Melanie (second from right).

Released three years after Psycho, The Birds was also another benchmark in horror films. This new idea was what makes the film great. Everyday we see thousands of birds around us, and we are like. “What’s the worst thing they can do? Poop on us?” The impact this film has on you as a viewer is so great that after one watch, you will see every bird around you with some fear. The visual effects used to show the birds are nothing compared to those of James Cameron films, but hey, James Cameron was only nine years old when this film was released. To have this much of visual effects 50 years ago was remarkable indeed.

Wanting to concentrate more on the horror, Hitchcock decided not to have any background score for this film, and this particular decision shows that this is not the usual type of film from this director. Most of the time when there are no dialogues, you hear squawking and other bird sounds. All these add to the buildup. Now, coming to the horror part, this film does not show ghosts or any supernatural stuff. The horror comes from the attack of the birds. This does not ‘sound’ scary, but only when you watch the film will you understand and feel the thrill it gives. In Psycho too Hitchcock showed a lot of blood, but here, when you see it in colour, it feels more gory and sick. In the bottom-line, I said ‘short bursts of powerful thrills’. I mean that every time the birds attack, Hitchcock creates the thrill using different camera angles, close-ups, repeated sound of the birds, and by showing some amount of blood. The sound of the birds and the other visual effects make the attacks very ‘realistic’.

A still from the film: a group of birds waiting to attack

One such attack by the birds

However, the birds don’t attack throughout the film. During the rest of the film, the story is a big bore. Most dialogues are about the romance between Mitch and Melanie and other stuff. This romance is kind of boring and dumb, but well, you need something to fill in the blank spaces: you can’t just show more and more attacks by birds. Along with effects, the acting is also pretty good. All the leads have acted in such a way that you can sense their terror and panic when so many birds attack them.

This film provides a different type of thrill. Unlike North by Northwest, or any other Hitchcock film, where suspense and thrills come from some surprise attack, or some plot twist, here, the thrills come because the attacks are so ‘scary’ and very realistic. By scary, I don’t mean that Hitchcock shows just a lot of blood and gore like say, Jaws. I mean that you feel scared or shocked that birds can actually do so much of damage. As I said before, the noise of the birds, and the ‘number’ of birds make you want to clutch something tightly,
until the attack is over. This film ranks 7th, in the American Film Institute’s list of top 100 thriller films, and only two Hitchcock films rank ahead of this: Psycho (#1) and North by Northwest (#4). Another ‘different’ thing about the film is the ending. All the other Hitchcock films have endings that are straightforward: no loose ends, the screen doesn’t suddenly cut to black… here, the ending is slightly ambiguous.

It is perhaps a common thing to see birds sitting on an electric wire...
This film turns such a sight into a fearful one!

To conclude, Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘The Birds’ is highly entertaining and horrifying during the attacks, but is equally boring during the other scenes. If you are a Hitchcock fan, go for it, but don’t be disappointed, because, as I said, this is not a typical Hitchcockian film. The visual effects are great, and the acting is also good. Whether the story is offbeat or not, you will get a fair of amount of thrill from this film. Like Psycho, this film will have a big impact on you, and for a long time after watching the film, you will fear the birds!

My Rating: 3/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 96%

Night at the Museum (2006)

Director: Shawn Levy
Story: Thomas Lennon, Robert Ben Garant (based on the book by Milan Trenc) 
Cast: Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Carla Gugino, Robin Williams  
Music: Alan Silvestri
Time: 108 minutes
Bottom-line: An interesting and exciting film for youngsters; may receive mixed responses from adults

 Shawn Levy brings out the next gen children’s film, in his 2006 movie, Night at the Museum. This film may be one of the decade’s best films for children, but not necessarily for adults/ parents. Starring Ben Stiller and Carla Gugino in the leads, this film is about a man, who gets a job as the night watchman at the Museum of Natural History.

The story follows Larry Daley (Stiller), a divorced man, in search of a job. He cannot find a stable job, and his ex-wife Erica, thinks that he might set a bad example for their son, Nicky (Jake Cherry). So, after searching for a job for many days, Larry finally gets a job as the night watchman at the Museum of Natural History, replacing three older guards, Cecil (Dick van Dyke), Gus (Mickey Rooney) and Reginald (Bill Cobbs). They warn him not to let anything in… ‘or out’.
    On the first night, Larry discovers that everything in the museum comes to life. The artifacts that come to life include a big T-rex, a wax model of Teddy Roosevelt (Williams), a cowboy, Jedediah (Wilson), a Roman soldier Octavius (Steve Coogan) and several others. Through Roosevelt, he learns that all the artifacts come to life at night, and become still by sunrise. The rest of the film is about what Larry does to keep all the artifacts inside the museum throughout the night, and all the mishaps and comic incidents that happen along the way.

Stiller as Larry (left) and Robin Williams
as Teddy Roosevelt 

The main interesting thing about this film is the idea that all things come to life at night, and turn to figures by dawn. This is kind of Toy Story, where the toys ‘come to life’ when no one is looking. In a way this film is also like Groundhog Day, in the sense that no matter what Larry does, the artifacts always come to life every night. Like how Phil, in Groundhog Day, uses each day to become a better man, Larry uses each progressive day to understand the secrets of the museum and learn the skills of controlling the artifacts. However, though the ‘idea’ is good, the story itself is only a loose one. The story is just a collection of incidents that happen in the museum over a period of time.

The visual effects are good. The T-rex is kind of a stand out here; in fact, all the statues that come to life are shown superbly. Most of the comedy is from the objects at the museum, especially from the fights between Octavius and Jedediah, and from the doings of Attila the Hun. Almost every scene is funny, but one of the funniest sequences is the first night Larry spends at the museum. He, as well as the viewers, is oblivious to the fact that everything comes alive at night. He just casually fools around with the mechanisms of the museum, and then suddenly he realizes that everything is moving and alive. Most of the dialogues are funny; Stiller has plenty of funny lines, as do most of the other characters. In fact, once you start watching the film, laughter is guaranteed.

Owen Wilson as Jedediah (left) and Coogan as
Octavius

The acting is average. Ben Stiller does a lot of running and screaming, but that’s all he does. No one else has acted well either, except maybe Robin Williams and Owen Wilson. The comic tension and the slapstick comedy try to cover up the lack of acting, but it doesn’t quite work. As I said before, kids will find the film interesting because they look only for the comic part. As adults, you don’t really like slapstick comedy anymore, and you kind of feel that the film is a bore. This may be the reason why this film received below average ratings from other critics.

Gugino as Rebecca and Cherry as Nicky

 Overall, Night at the Museum is an excellent entertainer if you are a youngster (and that includes teens), but maybe an average film if you are an adult. A very funny story, plenty of funny dialogues and a good story make the film a joy ride. But the sequel may not be such a great entertainer. You may feel bored of seeing the exact same story, but well, some may like it and some may not. Watch the film with a light heart, and you will get your dose of entertainment.

My Rating: 3.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 44%