The Avengers (2012)

Director: Joss Whedon
Story: Joss Whedon, Zak Penn
Cast: Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson  
Music: Alan Silvestri
Time: 142 minutes
Bottom-line: Impressive in most aspects; one of the few superhero films I liked

 You may like few players in the Indian cricket team, and you may like few players in the South African cricket team, and maybe few in some other team. You always see them play separately. Now supposing they were to play for the same side, you would feel pretty ecstatic right? That is exactly what The Avengers is about. All the heroes of the Marvel Universe come together for one epic battle. With an all stars team and cast, this film is almost irresistible to watch.

Ruffalo as Dr. Banner (left) and Downey Jr. as Tony Stark

Loki (Hiddleston) from Asgard is given an offer: if he can retrieve the Tesseract, a very powerful energy source, he will get an army so that he can conquer Earth. Nick Fury (Jackson), director of the espionage agency S.H.I.E.L.D has some scientists experimenting on the Tesseract, when Loki comes and steals it, and in the process converts agent Clint Burton (Renner) into one of his men. Fury decides to reactivate the ‘Avengers Initiative’, and begins to assemble various heroes: Natasha Romanoff (Johansson), Dr. Bruce Banner (Ruffalo), Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) and Captain America (Evans). While various heroes form a team (after lot of hesitation and stuff), Loki and his men try to activate the Tesseract. What follows is a battle between the good and the bad, until one of them wins.

Evans as Captain America (right) and Hemsworth
as Thor

Two things why I don’t take a liking to superhero films: one, almost anything is possible, and the viewers have to believe whatever they see; two, because there will be lots and lots of destruction, which sort of bores me. The main reason why I like Batman and Iron Man among other superheroes is because the characters are realistic: they use gadgets and not some magical powers. Here, you have Iron Man, a green angry giant, a guy with a shield made of some out-of-the-earth metal, a guy with an equally powerful hammer and an archer. Other than Burton (archer) and Iron Man, all the others have powers that are godly, so well, in that aspect the film does not impress me. However, I like the way the story brings together all the characters. The story goes very well till the fight with Loki and his army. After that, like I said, there’s just lot of destruction and lots of guys showing off their powers.

Scarlett Johansson as Natasha Romanoff 

The characters, well, there is nothing new about them. The heroes are already known to people; the movie just combines their strength against an equally powerful villain. But The Avengers had something which I don’t normally find in superhero films: excellent acting. Robert Downey Jr. was splendid in his role as Tony Stark: tons of punch lines, a lot of other funny ones, and he was perhaps the most entertaining character. I wouldn’t call this great acting, but it was certainly very stylish. In my opinion, Mark Ruffalo’s acting was very poor in Shutter Island, his previous known film, but his performance as Dr. Banner was pretty superb in this film. I also liked Renner’s acting, and Hiddleston as Loki played a very convincing villain. Some villains may lose the battle, but win the audience: The Joker and Loki are part of that list.

Jeremy Renner as Clint Burton

The visual effects were outstanding, no doubt. When it comes to making such a film, where the superheroes have to showcase their power, the effects need to play a big role. Towards the end, during that fight with Loki, the effects are really good: the wormhole and fight scenes are pretty interesting to watch, but as I said, the scenes did not impress me so much because every now and then something or the other breaks through a building, some dozen cars are flying to all parts of the street, and what not. The score was also awesome, and this gave a boost to the film.

Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury

The dialogues were brilliant. Each character has many catchy phrases and other memorable ones, especially Downey Jr. One dialogue by Downey Jr. I liked is when Loki says, “I have an army,” and Tony says, “We have a Hulk.” Another one is when agent Hill asks him, “When did you become an expert in thermonuclear astrophysics?” and Tony coolly says, “Last night.” But the best one might be this dialogue he says to Dr. Banner, “I'm a huge fan of the way you lose control and turn into an enormous green rage monster.”

Last but not the least: Tom Hiddleston as Loki 

To conclude, Marvel’s (and Joss Whedon’s) The Avengers is both: a good film and a crowd-puller. Big stars, who play some of the most powerful heroes (and villains) of all time, catchy dialogues, good score and a fairly good story make this film a high-octane thriller. Though this film didn’t get me any closer to liking superhero films, I admit that The Avengers was quite satisfying, among films in that genre.

My Rating: 3.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 92%

Spellbound (1945)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Story: Hilary Saint George Saunders, Francis Beeding 
Cast: Gregory Peck, Ingrid Bergman 
Music: Miklós Rózsa
Time: 111 minutes
Bottom-line: Good film, but not spellbinding  

  This is probably one of Hitchcock’s unrecognized, but good, films. Unlike his other famous ones, Spellbound doesn’t provide the pure straightforward thrills that we expect, but provides psychological thrills, literally. Yes, in this film, Hitchcock uses psychoanalysis as the underlying theme. So if you believe in psychoanalysis, you will enjoy the movie. If you consider Freudian techniques as mumbo-jumbo, you will hate the film. Hitchcock, knowing this, shows the audience some paragraphs highlighting the advantages of psychoanalysis.

Peck as Dr. Edwardes

Dr. Constance Petersen (Bergman) is a psychoanalyst at a mental hospital. The director of the hospital, Dr. Murchison (Leo G. Carroll) is being forced into retirement. His replacement is a young man, Dr. Anthony Edwardes (Peck). The new doctor is a weird chap: he has a phobia of black lines against a white background, which becomes clear after he expresses fear when Petersen makes lines on a tissue paper with a fork. Moreover, he suffers from massive amnesia. As the story goes on, Petersen discovers that Dr. Edwardes is not whom he claims to be, and that he has a dark past. She believes that he is innocent. Does Dr. Petersen use psychoanalysis to dig deep into the history of Dr. Edwardes and free him from fear? Or do the powers of psychoanalysis fail in this case? Watch this Hitchcock thriller to find out!

Bergman as Dr. Petersen 

Personally, I believe in psychoanalysis only to some extent, so the story in this film didn’t impress me so much. It starts out well,, with Edwardes’ phobia of black lines and the problem with his identity. The film proceeds well for the first 50 minutes or so, until Petersen and Edwardes meet Dr. Brulov (Michael Checkov). After that, it is mainly how Peterson and Burlov dig into the memory of Edwardes and find out who he really is and why he fears black lines against a white background. However, I found this film extremely boring for the first 30 minutes or so, and only after Petersen starts investigating Edwardes’ identity the film gets somewhat interesting.

A scene from the dream sequence

Now most other Hitchcock films have some notable scenes: the shower scene, the crop duster scene etc. In Spellbound, the most interesting sequence is the dream of Edwardes. This was designed by Salvador Dali, and contains many psychoanalytical symbols: cards, eyes, wings and loads of other stuff. This dream is what drives the film for the last 30 minutes, and it is this dream that Petersen and Burlov analyze to find out about Edwardes. But the scene I loved comes towards the end. (The remaining paragraph may contain spoilers) Petersen confronts the villain with the truth, and the villain calmly points a revolver at her, threatening to kill her. Petersen calmly uses psychology to convince the villain that killing her would surely lead to the electric chair. The villain follows Petersen with the gun till she leaves, and finally commits suicide. I liked the way the gun is shown: the camera is kept behind the gun, and it also follows Petersen. When the gunshot goes off, the screen is tinted red (in some versions of the film; not all). This is somewhat like the girl in the red dress, in Schindler’s List. So, in a way, this is Hitchcock’s first film to use colour, before Rope in 1948.

A quote shown in the beginning of the film.

The score is brilliant, though Rózsa supposedly hated working with David O. Selznick, the producer. Rózsa won the Oscar for his score, the only win out of six nominations. The music is suspenseful and chilling whenever the scene is about Edwardes’ fear, and the score becomes romantic when Edwardes and Petersen are together. Peck was new to cinema during this film, and he has acted quite well; I like the way he displays fear and horror at seeing the black lines against white backgrounds. Bergman has also acted superbly, and plays a convincing psychoanalyst. I did not find anything great about Checkov’s acting, and I don’t think he deserved the nomination for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor.

One passage about psychoanalysis shown at the
beginning of the film.

To sum up, Alfred Hitchcock’s Spellbound can be enjoyed if you believe in Freudian methods. If you don’t, then there is almost nothing else to enjoy. The acting is good, the score is splendid, and of course, those two memorable scenes I mentioned are brilliant to watch. Yet, the overall story is far-fetched, in my opinion, mainly because I don’t believe much in psychoanalysis. There are not many signature Hitchcockian elements either: no chases, no thrills, no suspense… the thrills are only given by the psychological interpretation of the dreams, and this is not what I expected from a Hitchcock film. But, if you can enjoy Inception, which is also predominantly about dreams, then the basic story of Spellbound should be fairly enjoyable, though not as much as Inception.

My Rating: 3/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 85% 

My Fair Lady (1964)

Director: George Cukor
Story: George Bernard Shaw, Alan Jay Lerner 
Cast: Audrey Hepburn, Rex Harrison, Stanley Holloway, Wilfrid Hyde-White 
Music: Frederick Loewe (music), Alan Jay Lerner (lyrics)
Time: 170 minutes
Bottom-line: Harrison’s and Hepburn’s scintillating performances, and their memorable characters, make this film a classic 

  This musical, along with The Sound of Music, is one of the best that Hollywood has seen. Starring Rex Harrison and Audrey Hepburn, this multi-Oscar winner is based on the 1934 musical and the play Pygmalion written by George Bernard Shaw. Known for its memorable characters and some famous songs, My Fair Lady is an evergreen film that entertains people even today.

Eliza Doolittle (Hepburn) is an ordinary flower girl living in the slums. One evening, Professor Henry Higgins (Harrison) meets her in the market and mocks her English. He openly says that he can pass her off as a duchess by teaching her proper English. His friend, Colonel Pickering (White) hears this. The next day, Eliza comes to Higgins’ house, asking him to give her classes so that she can work at the flower shop, where she is accepted only if she speaks proper English. Pickering challenges Higgins to train Eliza, and even pays for her coaching classes. Does Higgins, despite his sarcastic and misogynistic nature, give Eliza proper training? Does Eliza learn to speak the proper upper-class English? Watch the film to find out!

Eliza Doolittle, played by Hepburn. 

For all those who love the sitcom Frasier, this film is a must-watch. Rex Harrison’s character is perhaps the inspiration for the character of Frasier: always aware of class, sarcastic, and of course, someone who knows and speaks impeccable English. The Sound of Music is another musical from the 1960s, but I prefer this film to that, mainly because The Sound of Music has a very slow start, and gets interesting only after the entry of Von Trapp’s children. Here, the film is entertaining right from the first, mainly due to the acting of Harrison and Hepburn.

Hepburn as Doolittle, this time after Higgins
works on her

The comedy created by Eliza and Harrison in the market in the beginning shows the nature of the characters: Eliza, a poor fun-loving girl who doesn’t give a damn about how her English sounds, and Higgins: a connoisseur of the language, who has enough knowledge to find out where people have lived, just by listening to their English. Throughout the film, Eliza’s accent, her anger and hatred towards Higgins, the way she learns English; and the sarcastic, egotistic and callous nature of Higgins, his misogynistic attitude create lot of comic scenes with memorable dialogues. Higgins’ acting is simply brilliant. His expressions of mockery, his dialogues and his attitude towards Eliza (“squashed cabbage” as he calls her) make you laugh and also make you hate him the same time. Hepburn’s acting is equally good. Her put-on accent for the film, her expressions of anger and hatred, and then joy when she learns to speak English are splendid. I am shocked that she wasn’t even nominated for the Academy Award for this performance, which I find better than her performance in Roman Holiday.

Harrison as Prof. Henry Higgins

The story is fast paced, as I said. When it comes to a musical, if the songs are good, then the film is mot boring; if the songs are bad, then the film is slow. In My Fair Lady, most of the songs are superb. The song ‘Wouldn’t it be Loverly?’ tells about the simple nature of Eliza. The song Just you Wait brings out the anger of Eliza against Higgins; but the best part of the song is after it ends. Eliza dreams as though Higgins is dead and shouts in joy, but Higgins shows up in front of her. Their expressions when they see each other, and Higgins’ attitude when he doesn’t care about the fact Eliza hates him, and says “A…” (asking her to continue practicing) to her will surely make you laugh. The song I’ve Grown Accustomed to her Face is also good, and Harrison’s acting during this song is first-class. Within the five minutes of the song, his expression changes so many times that you are not sure whether how he feels. His expression after the song is over (which is also the last scene of the film) has all emotions put into one. On the other hand, the songs featuring Eliza’s father (Holloway) are mainly fun-filled ones, with comic lyrics. However, I didn’t like any songs that feature Jeremy Brett (who plays Eliza’s boyfriend). Most of the other songs sung by either Higgins or Eliza, like I could have Danced All Night, and Why Can’t the English Learn to Speak? are also good to listen to: the former because of the tune and the latter because of the lyrics.

Harrison, Hepburn, and Wilfrid Hyde-White
as Colonel Pickering

To sum up, George Cukor’s My Fair Lady is a film that brings the best of both Rex Harrison and Audrey Hepburn. The songs are brilliant: some being funny, others sad, and others melodious. First-rate acting by both the leads, lots of memorable and comic dialogues and a simple but entertaining story make this film one of the best musicals in Hollywood.

My rating: 4.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 95%

The Great Dictator (1940)

Director: Charlie Chaplin
Story: Charlie Chaplin
Cast: Charlie Chaplin, Paulette Goddard, Jack Oakie
Music: Charlie Chaplin, Meredith Willson
Time: 120 minutes
Bottom-line: A terrific entertainer as always, but this film does not contain the charm of the silent films

   Many films have been made based on the Second World War, but this Chaplin classic takes place in between the two World Wars: a time where “insanity cut loose and humanity was kicked around somewhat,” as the opening lines say. Though basically a comedy, The Great Dictator also parodies the reign of Hitler and Mussolini. Chaplin plays a double role in this film. The most important feature of this film is that it is Chaplin’s first full-length talking picture.

Chaplin as Adenoid Hynkel. This speech
is one of the funniest scenes in the film.

A Jewish barber (Chaplin) is fighting for Central Powers during WWI. He rescues an exhausted officer, Commander Schultz. They both escape in a plane, which crashes. The barber suffers from memory loss, while the commander is injured. He is told that the war is over and Tomania lost. Many years later, the barber is released. At the same time, thousands of miles away, Adenoid Hynkel (Chaplin), the dictator of Tomania has decided to persecute Jews all over the country.
   The barber returns to his profession, and also falls in love with the neighbour Hannah (Goddard). As the story progresses, the barber’s and Hynkel’s tracks are shown alternately, until they both meet towards the end of the film.

Goddard as Hannah, with Chaplin as
the barber (double role).

After seeing City Lights and Modern Times, seeing a talkie from Chaplin was a new experience. This is why I felt that the sound reduced the charm of the silent films I had seen before. Chaplin had so beautifully delivered a very moving love story with absolutely no words at all, and that is how great his direction is (even though the actual story may be boring and simple). When a man can do so much without any dialogues, that is, with just pure acting talent, seeing a talkie was not that impressive in my opinion.

Yet, on the other hand, the fact that it was a sound film gave other benefits to The Great Dictator. While his two previous films had only slapstick comedy, it was refreshing to see some different type of comedy, even more so because now I know for sure that Chaplin had the caliber for making the audience laugh without getting himself hurt or making a fool of himself.

Jack Oakie as Napaloni

The comedy in the film is perhaps better than that of his silent films, mainly because seeing slapstick comedy does not work in the long run, especially if you keep doing the same stuff again and again. The comedy created by the fights between Napaloni (played by Oakie; a parody on Mussolini) and Hynkel covers most of the second half of the film, and you cannot stop laughing during theses scenes. Both the dialogues and the actions are very funny. The comic parts in the barber’s part of the story are also funny, but not as much as the comedy that comes in the second part of the film.

The film has several notable scenes. There is the scene where Hynkel plays around with a toy globe, which in a way shows his tremendous power. The war scenes shown in the beginning are hilarious. Another memorable scene is the one where one of the five members is chosen for sacrificing himself to the Germans so that the others can escape. Whoever has a coin in his pudding is the chosen one. This scene how the human mind works: no one wants to die; everyone wants the other person to do it. What follows is a series of ridiculous actions, which will make you laugh heartily. Of course, all the scenes in the entire second half, after the entry of Jack Oakie, are the best parts of the film.

The famous 'globe scene'. Hynkel shows
that he can 'kick the world with his butt', indicating
his power. This is perhaps the most famous sequence
among all Chaplin films.

The acting, as always, is top notch. Chaplin plays two contrasting characters equally well. On one hand he plays a calm barber, who protests against the Germans. On the other hand he plays a ruthless dictator. His expressions, his dialogues are all excellent, and his acting when he tries to win over Napaloni is terrific. Chaplin’s speech towards the close of the film contains a deep meaning, and the way he says it reinforces why he is one of the greatest actors ever known.

To sum up, Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator ranks with Chaplin’s best films including City Lights and Modern Times. Though this film heated up the enmity between US and Germany, the film was a commercial success. Chaplin’s splendid acting, supported by an equally funny performance by Jack Oakie, tons of memorable dialogues and as many famous scenes and a good story make this film a great entertainer, but as I said before, though it does not have the same class as the silent films, it is as good as any of them.

My Rating: 4.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 92%

District 9 (2009)

Director: Neill Blomkamp

Story: Neill Blomkamp, Terri Tatchel

Cast: Sharlto Copley, Jason Cope, David James 

Music: Clinton Shorter

Time: 112 minutes

Bottom-line: Clever use of aliens to show the dark side of human nature

 Hollywood has shown us, over the years, in films such as Independence Day, E.T and several other films, that aliens favour USA whenever they want to land on the earth. In District 9, Neill Blomkamp chooses District 9 in Johannesburg as the landing site of aliens. In his debut film, Neill uses mock-documentary and surveillance styles of photography to show a thriller film, which also a hidden meaning behind it.  

An alien mother ship hovers over Johannesburg, but nothing is coming out of it. The ship just hangs in the air, and the government finally decides to physically enter the ship. Inside, they find malnourished and sick aliens. The government, after the consent of several people, decides to temporarily keep the aliens in District 9. Government bureaucrat Wikus van de Merwe (Copley) is made in charge of shifting the aliens from District 9 to a farther and safer location, District 10, as the people demand so. However, he comes in contact with an alien fluid, which slowly starts converting him into an alien. The authorities decide to use him for biotechnological research, and he flees, making him a fugitive. As Wikus continues to slowly transform into an alien, he knows there is only limited time before he find a way to cure himself, and to escape from the authorities led by Koobus Venter (James). What he does forms the rest of the film. 

Sharlto Copley as Wikus

The film was inspired by the infamous District 6 in Cape Town, where blacks were forcibly asked to relocate. The term used to denote the aliens in the film is ‘prawn’, which is used in nearly every conversation regarding the aliens. As someone rightly said, if you substitute the word prawn with black, Jew, or any other derogatory term, the film slowly begins to open up to the darker side of human nature. Another thing the film shows is the greediness of humans. From the time Wikus is taken to the hospital till the last scene, the government never thinks of protecting him. They only chase him all around town, and they even tap his emotional calls to his wife, just so that they can use him to get millions of dollars worth of research. 

David James as Koobus

There is no story in the film. From the outward appearance i.e. from your first watch, you feel that this is a boring and dumb film, and the aliens don’t play any role at all. They don’t attack anyone; they are not really friendly like E.T either, so what is the point of using the extra-terrestrial beings?? Like I said in the bottom-line, this film shows aliens in quite a different way: they are used to represent all the backward and oppressed people of the society. 

For such a low budget (seriously, in 2009, $30 million is low budget, especially when you have another 2009 film Avatar made on a budget of around $250 million), the special effects are pretty awesome. At the same time, the aliens looked gross and disgusting, especially in the close-ups. Yes, I know Ridley Scott showed even more gruesome stuff in Alien and James Cameron showed equally gruesome stuff in Aliens, but well, I just felt sick when looking at the aliens. As I said, the aliens don’t attack the people or anything and in fact, two aliens are reasonably friendly (they are the main alien characters), and the smaller one looks kind of like E.T. 

One such alien

I liked the acting of Copley and David James. Copley’s supposedly-friendly attitude towards the aliens (he even asks them to sign a form, agreeing to their relocation!), his expression when he realizes that he is turning into an alien, and his sad and loving expressions and voice modulation when he talks to his wife are all superb. David James plays Koobus, a character who is bent on capturing Wikus, and who is willing to kill anyone for money (as he says in a dialogue, when he is about to kill an alien, “I can’t believe I’m being paid to do this!”). 

The photography is another I particularly liked. To make the film authentic, Neill has also shot some locations in District 6. But what makes the film unique, is that many scenes are shown as though they are shot from a surveillance camera. Several scenes are also shown where the characters talk directly into the camera. These elements make District 9 more of a documentary type of film. Of course, the scenes that are shown from a surveillance camera are not always clear, but that adds to the effect. I felt that the graphic violence was too much in the film. The film was going well, and then here and there, just like Blood Diamond, people suddenly take out their guns and start firing away at everything. With the aliens giving the viewers enough chills with their gross looks, the violence could have reduced, even if it made the film more authentic. 

To sum up, Neill Blomkamp’s District 9 is strong in terms of technical aspects, and also has some excellent acting by Copley and James. The story may be simple and boring, but it takes more than one watch, and some googling to understand the hidden meaning. One you do find out what the film actually reflects, you will like the film. 

My Rating: 3/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 90%

English Vinglish (2012)

Director: Gauri Shinde
Story: Gauri Shinde
Cast: Sridevi, Mehdi Nebbou, Priya Anand
Music: Amit Trivedi
Time: 133 minutes
Bottom-line: Watch for Sridevi’s exceptional performance 

  This is, in my opinion, the best film made by a female director. After fifteen years of staying away from cinema, Sridevi returns in a stunning manner, with her performance in English Vinglish. In this 2012 film, Gauri Shinde shows the viewers how the knowledge of a language can affect one’s life. The story, in one line, is: what happens to a lady who goes to the US without knowing English?

Sridevi as Sashi, and Priya Anand as Radha (right)

Sashi (Sridevi) is an ordinary middle-class woman, who lives with her husband, mother, and two children. She is very talented in making laddoos (a sweet), and even has her own successful catering business. An excellent cook, a good mother, Sashi seems to be the ideal housewife… the only problem? She is very poor in English. Her daughter gets angry with Sashi after an embarrassing incident at school. Soon, the family gets a call from New York, where Sashi’s sister’s daughter is getting married. She invites all of them to come to New York, and she also asks Sashi to come a month earlier, to help with preparations. Sashi somehow manages in US with her broken English, but after causing mishap in a café, she becomes deeply upset. Her sister’s second daughter (Priya Anand) casually mocks at a sign about a class which offers to teach spoken English within four weeks. Sashi remembers the phone number of the tutorial. Whether or not she learns English before her husband and the others arrive, and whether or not she is able to prove herself in front of others form the rest of the film.

Adil Hussain as Satish 

I have heard of retired sportspersons being called back into the squad, but this is the first time I am hearing of an actress coming back into acting, that too after a decade and a half. Yet, shocked as I was, I believe that Sridevi should still continue acting. She hasn’t lost any skills in acting. Remarkable indeed, from Sridevi in English Vinglish! At first, she plays a mother who is happy as long as her children and husband are happy. Then she realizes that she has a defect – that she cannot speak proper English – and she becomes affected by this. Then she plays a woman going into a foreign land, which to her is like leaving the Earth. After that she plays a character that is determined to stand up for herself and prove herself to others.

Sridevi, with Mehdi Nebbou, who plays Laurent

In these various ‘avatars’ of the same character, Sridevi excels in everything. Playing a mother, a role like that of a teenager going to hostel for the first time (assuming he doesn’t like hostels)… it seems she can do everything! Brilliant acting, supported by powerful emotions, makes this one of the few successful comebacks. I am pretty sure that in real life she can speak proper English, but in the film, her broken English is what makes her acting great. When you see the film, you feel sort of sorry for Sashi, especially after the embarrassing incident she causes at the café in New York.

The others have also acted well in the supporting roles. But more than the actors, the characters is what I liked. Shinde has chosen an ordinary woman: not very rich, nor poor, caste being irrelevant. But through her, she brings out something which takes place quite commonly in every society. This doesn’t happen in my house, but I feel that in many houses, if you do not know English, your self esteem is immediately brought down by others. Sashi’s talents of making laddoos and her cooking skills are overshadowed by the fact that she cannot speak English. Her daughter, Sapna, is also a typical teenager, who doesn’t want her parent around her friends. She feels so irritated and angry at her mother after what happens in Sapna’s school. The different characters from all over the world at Sashi’s English class also add to the humour. A Frenchman, Laurent (Nebbou) plays an important role in the film.

The English tutorial that Sashi attends.  

(This paragraph may contain spoilers) Sridevi’s speech towards the ending is such that you, as a viewer, feel like applauding from your chair. It is a speech with a moral, and the way she says it is what makes it great. After a long struggle, even after sacrificing the class for her family, she manages to speak so well; the boldness with which she says, “May I?” when her husband says, “I’m afraid my wife’s English is not so good,” is very inspiring indeed. The ending of the film is another memorable scene. When they go back to India, the air hostess asks them whether they need any newspaper. Sashi asks, “The New York… sorry, do you have any Hindi newspaper?” This shows that no matter what she accomplished in the States, she will always be an Indian at heart.

With a story that always keeps you engaged, except for few scenes, English Vinglish is a must watch for people of all ages. Splendid acting by Sridevi, a couple of fast songs (one with lyrics both in Hindi and English), well-developed characters and an inspiring story make this one of the best films of Sridevi’s career and of the best of the decade.

My Rating: 4.5/5

It's A Wonderful Life (1946)

Director: Frank Capra
Screenplay: Frank Capra, Albert Hackett, Frances Goodrich, Joe Swirling (based on the book by   Philip Van Doren Stern) Cast: James Stewart, Donna Reed, Lionel Barrymore 
Music: Dimitri Tiomkin 
Time: 130 minutes
Bottom-line: A wonderful heart-warming experience; a classic film

   As Christmas approaches, I revive a classic film that tells us about God’s greatest gift to humans: the gift of life. Ranked by the American Film Institute as the most inspirational film ever made, this 1946 film starring James Stewart, Donna Reed and Lionel Barrymore also has one of the greatest heroes and villains in Hollywood film history. If there was one film you watch that tells you how to live a good life, it is this great film.

Reed as Mary (left); Stewart as George, with his
youngest daughter Zuzu

The film begins with a family praying to God, asking Him to save someone from committing suicide on Christmas Eve. Two head angels listen to their prayers and summon an angel, Clarence, for the purpose. As the angel agrees, the two head angels brief the other angel about the life of the person he has to save, George Bailey (Stewart), and the viewers also get to see the life of George, and what made him to take the grave step of committing suicide. We see that George, when a small boy, saved his brother Harry from drowning, but this lead to deafness in George’s left ear. George has a desire to travel around the world. He later marries Mary Hatch (Reed). The richest man in town, Mr. Henry F. Potter (Barrymore) is a fierce competitor to George’s bank, and is bent on ruining George. The rest of the film covers the other incidents of George’s life till the eve of Christmas.

Clarence the angel

The story is not that of an ordinary drama. It is the story of someone’s life, as the title says. So, unlike other drama films, this film actually shows all the ups and downs of a person’s life, like a biography, only this time, the person is not famous, but he is like you and me. The film is one with a deep meaning, so it might feel boring and slow to many, but if you watch it till the end, it will have a great impact on you. The nature of George is something we should all emulate to become better people.

The acting is first-class. Stewart’s famous films may have been the ones directed by Alfred Hitchcock, but he has not acted that well in any of those collaborations, mainly because the story has enough thrills and suspense to keep people engaged. But here, the acting of both Stewart and Barrymore drive the film. The character of George Bailey is that of a generous, completely unselfish, and kind-hearted person, while that of Mr. Potter is everything that George is not. He is mean, selfish and miserly. Stewart has done brilliantly to express all types of emotions: happiness, sadness, anger… one particular scene where George’s goodness is shown, is when people crowd in his bank demanding their money back. He has only 2000 dollars that he has reserved or a honeymoon trip, but yet, he willingly gives the people how much ever they need. Stewart’s acting towards the end of the flashback is also excellent. Barrymore is on a wheelchair throughout the film, but his acting makes him a great villain. George Bailey was voted the 9th best hero and Mr. Potter was voted the 6th greatest villain of all time, by the AFI. The film also has several memorable lines by the characters. The villainous nature of Barrymore is revealed only through dialogues and his fantastic acting.

Lionel Barrymore as Henry F. Potter

The camera work or the background score are not great, but the story and the characters are what make this film a classic. We often hear people saying, ‘God’s greatest gift’, or ‘What is the real meaning of Christmas?’ or ‘Is Christmas only about gifts?’ and many other things. This film answers all such questions.

Christmas is not only about giving gifts and stuff, but is about helping others around us. Throughout the film, George puts others’ lives before his in all aspects and situations. He decides to take charge of the bank – though it will ruin his dream of being a globetrotter – because his brother got a better job. He is tempted to accept Potter’s offer of traveling around the world, but declines it when he realizes that it will lead to Potter’s overtaking of his bank, which will result in higher loans charged on poorer people.

All of us should be (and will be, after watching the film) like George. No matter how good you are, you will always have someone like Mr. Potter: someone richer or stronger or more powerful than you, who will always try to win over you. Yet, you should remain firm in your decisions and continue in your own way. There are some people like Mr. Potter who win respect by inducing fear into the people, but we should be like George, who wins others’ respect and love and kindness by being respectful and loving and kind to them. As the saying goes, “The world treats you in the same way you treat them.” Another message the film gives is the very importance of our lives. There are hundreds of people committing suicides every month, for some reasons of their own. This film tells you what a great life each of us have, and how God has blessed us with a life. The way in which the message has been portrayed is very moving.

To sum up, Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life is a film that everyone on the Earth must watch before they die i.e. when they have a wonderful life. A wonderful message, great acting and terrific characters make this film a classic. This film definitely needs an annual viewing, just to remind us of how good God has been to us. Watch the film and you will definitely feel like thanking God for the greatest gift he has given us: our lives. What better time to watch the film than before Christmas?

My Rating: 4.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 94%

Dhoom 3 (2013)

Director: Vijay Krishna Acharya
Story: Vijay Krishna Acharya, Aditya Chopra
Cast: Aamir Khan, Abhishek Bachchan, Uday Chopra, Katrina Kaif 
Music: Pritam, Julius Packiam
Time: 172 minutes
Bottom-line: You can either enjoy The Prestige or you can enjoy Dhoom 3; you cannot enjoy both

The third installment of the Dhoom franchise releases seven years after Hrithik Roshan entertained the audience in Dhoom 2. This time, it is Aamir Khan and Katrina Kaif who play the lead roles, with Abhishek Bachchan and Uday Chopra reprising their roles. Unless you want to write a review of the film (like me) and unless you just want to hang out with your friends, and most importantly, if you haven’t seen The Prestige (which I consider a masterpiece), you can see Dhoom 3. Else, stay away.

Aamir Khan as Sahir

The story begins in 1990 at Chicago, where magician Iqbal commits suicide as he cannot repay the loan to the bank, and because the bank threatens to close down his circus. His child, Sahir (Aamir Khan), vows to avenge his father’s death and decides to rob all the branches of the Western Bank of Chicago. He revives ‘The Great Indian Circus’, and his new partner for the acts is Aaliya (Kaif). Eventually Indian cops Jai Dixit (Bachchan) and Ali Akbar (Chopra) are called to Chicago to investigate, as the thief leaves a message in Hindi after each robbery. As the story progresses, we see that Sahir has a secret of his own, and it is that secret that helps him to successfully perform robberies and also perform magic tricks. But in a parallel track, we see that Jai finds a way to bring down Sahir. What follows are repeated cop-criminal chases, until finally one wins over the other.

Katrina Kaif as Aaliya, with Aamir Khan

Dhoom 3 comes with better locales, better stunts, better acting but a banal story. While Dhoom took place entirely in India, Dhoom 2 takes place in India and Brazil, and this film takes place entirely in Chicago. Why? I guess Vijay Acharya discovered that such bike chases on Indian roads would only lead to the death of all the stunt artists! And of course, robbing Indian banks has become common: seeing it in the paper tells us enough.

The stunts may be twice as better compared to Dhoom 2, and they are also twice as unrealistic. In the previous film, more importance was given to the actual heists: the viewers could actually see how Hrithik steals the diamond, the crown and other stuff. Here, we see Aamir go into the bank, and suddenly money starts flying from the sky, god knows how! The writers have no idea how to show a heist, so they decide to concentrate more on the stunts. But, again, the writers don’t know how to show stunts either. So they watch a couple of Transformers films, and also the Batman trilogy, and suddenly, Aamir becomes Lucius Fox. He can turn his vehicle from bike to Jet Ski to bike and what not? Perhaps he would have turned it into a plane too, but well, that will be reserved for Dhoom 4 or 5 or 6. The slow motion scene where Aamir first comes out of the truck in the bike is the only stunt I enjoyed.

Abhishek Bachchan as Jai Dixit

The acting is better than Dhoom 2. Aamir plays the character Uday Chopra has been playing in all the Dhoom films: that of a clown (of course, the reason why I didn't like Uday's acting was mainly because of his stupid character, and you have to blame the director for that). Aamir’s acting is brilliant; of course, his real talent is shown only after the intermission, but to say why would be a spoiler. And if you feel that any logic is missing, look out for Aamir's mysterious smile. It doesn't tell you the answer, but apparently Aamir is also too confused, so all he can do is smile mysteriously . Abhishek Bachchan has acted fairly well, and Uday Chopra…well, I don’t call that acting in the first place (reason mentioned above)! Katrina Kaif has only a small role, but she has helped Dhoom 3 to break many box office records, because 20% of the viewers will be seeing the film only for her (and I am glad that I am not part of that 20%).

Uday Chopra as Ali (right), with Abhishek Bachchan

The story is both good and bad. Like I said (and you would have also seen this in several reviews), the film contains 75% of the story of The Prestige. The remaining 25% consists of various bits and pieces drawn from Transformers, Batman trilogy, and even tons of other action films for the bike chases and other stunts. There is only one twist I found satisfying, and that is not the main one, mind you. All the other ones were either copied, or were too dumb to be considered twists. While Dhoom 2 has lesser fights and more heist, this film has more fights, more songs (I admit, only the song ‘Malang’ was both good and visually dazzling) and more unbelievable stuff than the previous one. Dhoom 2 was pretty original, while this film is more of a collage work of several other films.

To sum up, Dhoom 3 is entertaining with its stunts and all, but in many action scenes I was like, “Yeah right! How much worse can this get?” Aamir has acted well, the locations are good, and the basic story was poor, considering the fact that I watched nearly all the films from which the ideas where copied from. In short, if you haven’t seen The Prestige, the year ends with a Dhoom. If you have seen the Christopher Nolan film, the year ends with a boom!

My Rating: 1.5/5 

Argo (2012)

Director: Ben Affleck

Screenplay: Chris Terrio (based on Tony Mendez’s book and Joshuah Bearman’s article) 

Cast: Ben Affleck, Alan Arkin, John Goodman, Bryan Cranston 

Music: Alexandre Desplat

Time: 120 minutes

Bottom-line: Remarkable direction from Affleck; one of the best films of the decade

  "From the director of The Town comes the declassified true story" is what the cover photo of Argo said, and Ben Affleck tries his directing skills at making a political thriller, after a mystery thriller (Gone Baby Gone) and an action film (The Town). He wasn’t nominated for the Oscar, but the film was the winner of the Academy Award for the Best Picture. In Argo, Affleck brings us the true story of the planned escape mission to rescue six U.S diplomats from Iran, during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis. 

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter grants the Iranian Shah asylum in the United States, much to the agitation of the Iranian public. They storm into the US embassy in Iran, demanding that the shah be tried and hanged. They capture over fifty staff from the embassy and take them as hostages, but six people escape, and hide in the Canadian Ambassador’s house. Meanwhile, in the US, the State Department calls in Tony Mendez (Affleck) to exfiltrate the six members from Iran. He criticizes their ideas, but cannot come up with one himself. After seeing Battle for the Planet of the Apes, he gets an idea: he would go to Iran, and make the six members look like a film crew who are looking for exotic locations to film Argo, a science fiction adventure film. He would provide them with credentials and background information. At the same time in Iran, the soldiers find out that six members have escaped, and they ask several children to reassemble shreds of paper found in the embassy, so that the faces of the escapees are revealed. Does Mendez get the diplomats out of Iran in time? Or does the military capture them before they can leave the country? Watch Affleck’s Argo to find out.

John Goodman as John Chambers (left); Alan
Arkin as Lester (middle) and Ben Affleck as
Tony Mendez

When it comes to making biopics, or even films like this that are based on true stories, the story is already there. The director’s skills are shown in making a usually boring part of history into an interesting one. Scorsese managed to do so in The Aviator, Phyllida doesn’t quite do so in The Iron Lady, but Ben Affleck does a splendid job in this 2012 blockbuster. The historical part: about the history of Iran, the reign of the shah, and the US granting him asylum, are all shown in the form of comics and news coverage. From the first minute, where the Iranians storm into the embassy, till the last minute of their escape mission, the story is always fast-paced.

Bryan Cranston as Jack O'Donnell (left), with Ben
Affleck

What I particularly liked about this film is that it contains only suspense thrills. There is no unwanted splattering of blood, no unwanted gunfights (like in Affleck’s The Town); just smart thrills. The quick cuts between the ambassador’s house where Mendez tutors the six members to escape, and the Iranian soldiers slowly reassembling the shreds of paper proves quite effective in giving the thrills. On one side you think Mendez’s plan is pretty good, but on the other hand, you start to have doubts when you see the faces of the escapees slowly taking shape from the bits of paper. This method of shifting between two tracks in several scenes in the film provides lot of suspense. The scenes in the airport in the last half an hour are so tense that you will always be on the edge of your seat. 

Ben Affleck has done a great job in direction, but when I saw his acting, I felt that he hated his own film! Throughout the film, he puts on a sort of bored and ‘why-should-I-act’ look on his face, except in the last five minutes or so, when he smiles for the first time in the film. However, Alan Arkin (who plays Lester Seigel) and John Goodman (who plays make-up artist John Chambers) have acted fairly well, providing bits of humour here and there. The six diplomats hiding in the ambassador’s house have acted superbly: displaying sadness, tension, happiness and various other emotions. The dialogues are quite witty. My favourite one was when the President asks Mendez whether he has any worse ideas than this one, and his friend Jack (Cranston) says, “This is the best bad idea we have, sir.”  

Affleck (standing), and the six diplomats
in the Canadian Ambassador's house. 

Thumbs-up to the score as well. It is fast and suspenseful during the thrilling scenes, and it is soft and melodious during the emotional scenes, particularly towards the end. The photography is also superb. As I said, the quick cuts between the parallel tracks add to the thrills. I like the way Affleck shows the historical events in the form of comics in the beginning. But, he shows the aftermath of the escape mission in the form of text on the screen, and this, along with the soft background music, provides a fairly good ending.    

Poster of the actual Argo

To sum up, Ben Affleck’s Argo is a masterpiece. It is perhaps the best English film I have seen since The Social Network. An already famous, declassified story made better by first-rate direction, good photography, and some great bits of acting make Argo worthy of tremendous praise. However, I just felt that the Oscar committee mixed up a couple of nominations. In my opinion, they should have nominated Affleck for Best Director, instead of nominating Alan Arkin for Best Supporting Actor. 

My Rating: 5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 96% 

Modern Times (1936)

Director: Charlie Chaplin
Story: Charlie Chaplin
Cast: Charlie Chaplin, Paulette Goddard  
Music: Charlie Chaplin
Time: 87 minutes
Bottom-line: As good as City Lights 

  This Chaplin film wasn’t made in modern times, but it certainly continues to amaze and enthrall the audience even today. Unlike City Lights, which was purely a rom-com, Modern Times is also somewhat social, as it portrays the mechanical nature of the industrialists in a satirical manner. With a running time of less than one and a half hours, Chaplin makes sure that not even a single minute is wasted while providing entertainment to the viewers.

A factory worker (Chaplin) gets a nervous disorder after being made to rigorously and mechanically in the assembly line. He gets arrested by the police soon after. In jail, he is caught for cocaine possession, which he takes from a neighbouring prisoner, mistaking it for salt. But, in his delirium, he catches some other convicts who are about to escape, and so he is released as a hero. As the story goes on, he meets an orphan girl (Goddard) and falls in love with her. Both of them survive for some time by stealing goods, and with the deep recession causing havoc, the couple tries to find some job or the other to sustain them. What happens to their relationship, with the recession in the background, forms the rest of the film.

Chaplin as the worker. The scene where is used
to test the new machine.

Modern Times looks into the sad nature of the workers in the factory, and it also looks into the wide-spread unemployment crisis of the 1930s. We see Chaplin as an assembly line worker, who cannot even afford to scratch himself: in those two seconds, a number of un-tightened bolts go further in the line, due to which all the other people working in the assembly line are affected. We see that Chaplin becomes so mechanized that he cannot control himself from ‘tightening’ some designs in a woman’s frock which look like bolts. This practice of making humans work like machines was criticized in a brilliant manner in Modern Times.

The romance comes only later in the film. This film has lesser romance content, but tons of slapstick comedy. It also deals with things other than just love. But, like the previous film, the comedy will make you laugh hard, but you realize only later how painful and sad the actual situation is. One of the scenes where I couldn’t help laughing was the scene where some men bring a new machine into the factory: a machine that feeds the workers, so that they can work while eating (at least, that’s how I interpreted it). Chaplin is chosen to test the machine, and soon, the machine goes cranky. It starts feeding nuts and bolts to Chaplin, and also keeps banging corn into his mouth. When you see this sequence, you will not feel sorry for a man who is having metal forced down his throat, but rather, you laugh even more. The facial expression of Chaplin is such that we can only laugh, even if don’t want to.

Paulette Goddard as the orphan girl

 Another emotional scene is when the couple finds a house to stay in. We may live in an independent house, with all luxuries, or we may live in a simpler apartment, but the house they find is a simple one with a wooden roof, from where a plank keeps falling on Chaplin’s head whenever he opens the door, and the roof bursts open when someone removes the broom holding it in place. The girl says, “It’s no Buckingham Palace.” But Chaplin says, “It’s paradise.” When you are in such deep poverty, even this simple house seems like a five star hotel. Chaplin’s and Goddard’s expressions when they see another happy couple, and their expressions when they find this home, are brilliant, and this acting makes you laugh and cry at the same time.

Perhaps the most famous still from all Charlie Chaplin films.

Chaplin’s acting, like in all his films, is simply superb. And when it comes to his films, you know it is mainly a one man show, as in most of his films, the direction, story and even the music are done by him, and not by anyone else. Such a versatile genius needs to be recognized and praised by everyone, even the teens and kids of today’s times, for whom films before the 1990s are all boring and lame. Today’s actors like Tom Cruise, Robert Downey Jr. or even older stars like Will Smith and Johnny Depp may win the favour of the audience, but will never ever equal the class of Chaplin.

To sum up, Charlie Chaplin’s 1936 classic Modern Times was, is, and will always be remembered as a masterpiece, and as I said before, even if it wasn’t made in modern times, it will still continue to win praise from viewers of today’s generation. Brilliant acting by Chaplin and Goddard, some very funny sequences, and a simple but effective story make this film one of his best, and along with City Lights, is one of the best films in the rom-com genre ever made.

My Rating: 4.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 100%