The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Director: Martin Scorsese
Screenplay: Terence Winter (based on the memoir by Jordan Belfort)
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie
Time: 179 minutes
Bottom-line: DiCaprio at his best; rest of the film is average

The expectations were high, and result finally came. The Wolf of Wall Street is the fifth collaboration between Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio. This dark-comedy biopic tells the tale of a Wall Street stockbroker, Jordan Belfort. DiCaprio got his fourth acting nomination at the Oscars, while Scorsese got his eighth Best Director nomination. The film did not match my expectations, but it was still a fairly good entertainer.

The main character is Jordan Belfort (DiCaprio), who narrates the story of how he became rich. At 22, he goes to Wall Street, where he works under Mark Hanna (Matthew McConaughey), a person whose policies are “Screw the clients” and “It’s all about how to take the money from your client’s pocket, into your pocket.” He advises Jordan to lead a life filled with sex and drugs. Barely a month into the firm, Jordan loses his job after a stock market crash. He begins to deal in penny stocks, and his talent of selling wins the admiration of others. He soon starts his own film, with the help of his neighbour Donnie Azoff (Hill) and several friends, and names his firm Stratton Oakmont. Yet, in the company, only dirty money is made. The rest of the story tells how Jordan “makes so much money that he doesn’t know what to do with it”, and how it eventually leads to his downfall.

Leonardo DiCaprio as Jordan Belfort 

I find it hard to believe that this is based on a true story, because well, there is no real story. It starts out well, and then it is only parties followed by revelry followed by celebrations again. In between there is taking of drugs, and taking of more drugs again. The actual crux of the story is very less; there was absolutely no need of making a 3 hour film. There is lot of sexual content in the film, and I have never found those scenes as absolutely necessary in any film. Moreover, had most of those scenes been cut, the film could have been a good 30-45 minutes shorter. The other important question which you might be thinking is, ‘Is it necessary to know about stocks while watching the film?’ DiCaprio answers that (as he often talks into the camera) by saying (about some stock-related terms), “…I know you are not following what I’m saying anyway, that’s normal.” Yet, a little amount of knowledge is needed, at least if you want to know how Jordan makes money. The film has plenty of comedy. The scene where Jordan sells shares of a worthless company for $4000, and the scene where Hanna and Jordan have lunch are some of the funniest ones.

Jonah Hill as Donnie Azoff

The script is pretty good. As I have said before (in my review of The Iron Lady), making a biopic is tough, because you have to make it interesting to the audience. Terence Winter manages to do that, though I again feel that the film could have been much shorter. The dialogues are brilliant, and there are lots of catchy phrases. But, as usual, the profanity is never less. In fact, The Wolf of Wall Street is now officially the film with the most number of swear words among all English films! But remove those swear words, and the underlying dialogues are pure awesome.

Matthew McConaughey as Mark Hanna

Now the most important part of the film: the acting. DiCaprio is simply stunning in this film. Most of the time he is partying or enjoying with women, but he still has done extremely well to express happiness, sadness and anger. The film is more or less a one-man show, with DiCaprio taking up atleast 165-170 minutes of screen time. The scene where he goes from the club to his home, after taking an overdose of drugs, in one of the best sequences of Leo’s acting among all his films. Jonah Hill has acted quite well. Margot Robbie’ acting is poor most of the time, and gets good only at the end. But more than Hill, I liked McConaughey’s acting: he gets only 10-15 minutes on screen, but makes the most of it. His comical facial expressions, catchy dialogues (and moreover his idea forms the basis for the whole story) and his ‘song’ made me like his character and acting very much.

Margot Robbie as Naomi, Jordan's wife

To conclude, Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street is a good entertainer. Winter’s script and the great acting power the film. However, I don’t feel that the picture deserved a nomination at the Oscars. Yet, DiCaprio is at his best, and he deserves the Oscar in my view. The dialogues are vulgar, but excellent. The film could have been about 30 minutes shorter in my view, but once you start watching, very rarely are you bored.

My Rating: 3/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 77%

Ko (2011)

English translation: King
Director: K.V. Anand
Story: K.V. Anand, Subha
Cast: Jiiva, Karthika Nair, Ajmal Ameer
Music: Harris Jayaraj
Time: 165 minutes
Bottom-line: Excellent political thriller 

   One of the few recent films in Tamil to be a critical success and run in the theatres for over 175 days, K.V. Anand’s Ko is a brilliant fast-paced political thriller. Starring Jiiva (in what may be his best film till date), Karthika Nair, Piaa Bajpai and Ajmal Ameer in the lead roles, this film tells the story of the events taking place before a Chief Minister election in Tamil Nadu.

Ashwin (Jiiva), an energetic photojournalist, manages to capture photos of a Naxalite group robbing a bank. The group leader’s face, however, is covered with a mask (significance is known later). He works for the newspaper Dina Anjal, where a new Article Editor, Renuka (Nair), has joined. Another employee, Saraswathi (Piaa Bajpai) loves Ashwin, but he doesn’t love her. Enter Vasanthan (Ajmal), a recent graduate and engineer, who is contesting in the elections to become the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. His party members are all similar engineers, and none of them are experienced politicians. Meanwhile, another contestant, Aalavandhan tries to win majority using corrupt methods. The current Chief Minister is Yogeswaran (Prakash Raj). As the story goes on, the competition between Vasanthan, Aalavandhan and Yogeshwaran increases. The rest of the film is about which of them manages to win the election. Meanwhile, Ashwin uncovers some explosive secrets, and suddenly no one is who they seem to be…

Jiiva as Ashwin

The main themes in the story are the power of the media, and the different ways in which people compete in an election. In Ko, we see three categories of contestants: the current chief minister (who should also compete to get elected again), a contestant trying to win by corrupt methods, and an honest contestant. In the aspect of portraying their struggle for power, the film is very realistic. Then about the media: from the first scene of the bank robbery, we see how powerful the media can be. A single photo can spread nation-wide and spread news instantaneously. Along the film, the scene where Ashwin goes to the forest to take photos, the scene where Vasanthan holds the election campaign and many other scenes also bring out the media’s importance.

Karthika as Renuka

The story is quite fast-paced, with periodical twists and turns. There are a few masala aspects here and there, which however do not deter the main plot much. The song Enamo Aedho is quite good, with exotic locales and a nice tune, but none of the other songs are good. These songs, along with some other scenes, could have been cut, shortening the film by about 15 minutes or so. The twists are excellent, and few are very much unexpected. The ending is a debatable aspect, and I, for one, found it fairly believable. Ashwin and Renuka have conflicting opinions on a major issue, and one decision prevails. Whether this decision is right or not can be decided by the viewers.

Ajmal as Vasanthan

Jiiva’s acting is superb. Karthika Nair has also acted well. Piaa Bajpai’s role is important only for one particular scene, but her character and acting are otherwise useless. Ajmal Ameer has done a great job as Vasanthan, and his character is also the best one in the film. Kota Srinivasa Rao (Aalavandhan) and Prakash Raj (Yogeswaran) have done a good job in the supporting roles.

To conclude, K.V. Anand’s Ko is an enjoyable film, which also takes a realistic look at the election process in Tamil Nadu. A great story (whose ending is debatable) that is rarely offbeat, plenty of twists and turns and good acting make this film a good political thriller, and along with Payanam is my pick among 2011 films. Despite the usual masala elements, Ko has enough material in its story to score over other Tamil masala films.

My Rating: 4/5

Panic Room (2002)

Director: David Fincher
Story: David Koepp
Cast: Jodie Foster, Kristen Stewart, Forest Whitaker
Music: Howard Shore
Time: 112 minutes
Bottom-line: Tense, smart thriller, powered by Foster’s acting

   Pretty much like Kaun and Flightplan put together, David Fincher’s Panic Room is a real time story taking place almost entirely inside a mansion. This film gave a boost for Kristen Stewart’s acting career, and earned Jodie Foster a Saturn Award nomination. After Se7en and Fight Club, Fincher directs a non-action, non-drama, but a rather tense, gripping, psychological thriller. The film also stars Forest Whitaker, Jared Leto and Dwight Yoakam in the supporting roles.

 Recently divorced Meg Altman (Foster) and her 11-year-old daughter Sarah (Stewart) move into a four-storeyed mansion. The previous owner, a wealthy millionaire, used extensive measures to protect the house from intruders. In the house there is a practically impenetrable ‘panic room’, protected by concrete and steel on all sides, a thick steel door, and an extensive security system with multiple surveillance cameras, a PA system, and a separate phone line. That night, three burglars: Junior (Leto), Burnham (Whitaker) and Raoul (Yoakam) break in. Apparently, the previous owner has hidden three million dollars in the floor safe of the panic room. Meg and Sarah just manage to get into the panic room in time and away from the clutches of the thieves. But as problems worsen, both of them realize that it is only a matter of time before they have to get out of the panic room, and fall into the hands of the burglars. Whether or not Meg and Sarah keep themselves safe forms the rest of the film.

Kristen Stewart as Sarah (left) and Jodie
Foster as Meg Altman 

The story is pretty much like Kaun: one mansion, two people inside, three strangers trying to get something from the house…a real time story with a battle of wits. At first you think that the story is a bore, and that there is not going to be any surprise; I mean, both mother and daughter are in an impenetrable room… what harm could come to them? But as the story progresses, lots of twists and turns take place. Sarah is diabetic, and her shot of insulin is outside the room in a fridge; the burglars release propane gas into the room, forcing them to come out; the phone line from the room is cut, which means that they can't communicate with anyone else… Many other such twists take place, and soon you realize that what started out as a normal story turns into an adrenaline drive. However, the film gets violent towards the end, and I didn’t find the ending of Burnham’s part to be satisfying. In real life, you can say that fate is cruel, but as it is a movie, I felt that Koepp and Fincher could have given Burnham’s character a better ending.

Leto as Junior (left) and Whitaker as
Burnham

The camerawork is brilliant. Computer generated imagery is used to show the movement of cameras within the house and through the vents and pipes. A number of scenes are shown in slow motion, adding to the suspense. But the important and unique part of the film’s photography is that lots of scenes are shown through the surveillance cameras. The fact that one can see the entire house from the panic room also creates suspense. When Meg and Sarah are inside, they can observe what the burglars are planning to do next, and so can we. Of course, one advantage that the audience has, and Meg and Sarah don’t, is that we can hear the burglars speaking, but they can’t. While Meg and Sarah can only see them planning something, we can hear what they are actually doing or thinking of doing. The opening credits are also different: the letters are shown in a sort of 3D format. Along with this unique camerawork, Shore’s chilling score also adds to the suspense.

Yoakam as Raoul 

Foster’s acting also powers the film. Like Flightplan, here too she plays a mother. Her expressions of fear are excellent. Her acting is so authentic that you fell also feel the same fear and panic she is feeling. Whitaker has also acted well. Kristen Stewart's acting in this film is quite good. Moreover, the characters are not superhuman or anything and in fact the fact that they are females sort of makes them a bit weak for heroes and it also increases the tension and fear. The film sort of empowers women, showing that women can also deal with burglars and murderers if they are smart and bold.

Several scenes are shown through surveillance cameras
from the panic room

To sum up, David Fincher’s Panic Room is a pretty solid, smart and tense thriller, with boosts from the score, brilliant camerawork, CGI and of course, acting. There is not much story, and I felt that the ending could have been improved; I felt that few loose ends were left untied. However, in almost all other aspects, Panic Room delivers strongly.

My Rating: 4/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 76%

Boss Engira Bhaskaran (2010)

English translation: Boss alias Bhaskaran
Director: M. Rajesh
Story: M. Rajesh
Cast: Arya, Nayantara, Santhanam
Music: Yuvan Shankar Raja
Time: 161 minutes
Bottom-line: Watch for Santhanam’s performance

M. Rajesh gives a pure-fun film in Boss Engira Bhaskaran. There is no real story, not much of acting either, but just more and more jokes. This film stars Arya, Santhanam and Nayantara in the lead roles. Unlike Santhanam’s many films, where he has only a small role as a comedian, in this film he plays main role, and in my view, this is his best film till date. Santhanam’s famous line ‘Nee Enna Avlo Periya Appatakkara?’ and Arya’s ‘Nanbenda!’ have gained a huge following from the local public.

Bhaskaran (Arya) is a casual fun-loving man, who is struggling to complete his arrears to get his B.A degree. His only friend is Nallathambi (Santhanam), who owns a barber shop. While writing one such arrear exam, Bhaskaran meets a young lecturer, Chandrika (Nayantara), and immediately falls in love with her. However, she disapproves of him because he tried to copy in the exam. Bhaskaran lives with his brother - who eventually marries Chandrika’s sister - and his mother. Yet, when it comes to his marriage, everyone talks about his unemployment, which causes him to leave his house. Determined to prove himself, he begins a tutorial centre for class 10 students, along with Nallathambi, all in the hope that Chandrika will reciprocate his love. What follows forms the rest of the film.

Nayantara as Chandrika (left) and Arya as
Bhaskaran

The film does not have any story. Just the same old ‘boy meets girl, girl doesn’t approve of boy, boy tries to win her favour’ story. What makes it different is that from the start, the film is a laughter ride. Laughter comes mostly from dialogue, so on that front, the film is awesome. Of course, few songs could have been cut, but as there is anyway no story, the songs are really not that much of a distraction. The ending of the story is horrible. I’m guessing Rajesh must have thought, “If there is no story, how do I end the film??” And so he brings another guess star, fools around a little, and ends the film very poorly in my view.

Santhanam as Nallathambi

However, almost throughout the story, the jokes keep the audience entertained. Santhanam’s and Arya’s memorable lines, including the two taglines that became viral among the local public – ‘Nee Enna Avlo Periya Appatakkara’ (can’t find a suitable English translation!!) and ‘Nanbenda!’ – and tons of other memorable and laughable lines make the film interesting. Bhaskaran’s lines when he writes the arrear exam, the scenes where they try to find the meaning of the word ‘pardon’, Nallathambi’s drunken behaviour at Chandrika’s father’s ceremony and many scenes at the tutorial centre are some of the funniest scenes of the film.

Santhanam and Arya with Ashwin Raja as
Paalpandi (second from left), another important character.

The acting is pretty average from Nayantara and Arya. Santhanam is not usually noticed for his acting, and in this film, you don’t need to. His jokes and one-liners are enough to keep you entertained. Few jokes that Arya and Santhanam say may be old and clichéd, but many others are new. As I said before, this is a film where Santhanam plays the lead role, and not just the role of a side-track comedian. His jovial mood and dialogues make his role the main driving force of the film. As I said before, the story is not new; so obviously, the thing that makes Boss Engira Bhaskaran different is the character of Nallathambi.

One funny sequence: Santhanam with Chitra
Lakshmanan, who plays Chandrika's father

To sum up, M. Rajesh’s Boss Engira Bhaskaran is a great family entertainer, only if you watch the film expecting jokes and more jokes, and nothing else. If you expect almost anything else: be it acting, or story etc, you will be disappointed. Few scenes are memorable, I admit; but whether you will remember the entire film for its comedy or stupidity is up to you, depending on your mentality. Overall, a shallow story, along with some very laughable and entertaining jokes constitute Boss Engira Bhaskaran.

My Rating: 3/5  

Kill Bill: Volume 2 (2004)

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Story: Quentin Tarantino
Cast: Uma Thurman, David Carradine
Music: Robert Rodriguez, The RZA
Time: 136 minutes
Bottom-line: More talking, less action, and very slow, compared to Volume 1

Released few months after the first part, the much anticipated sequel to Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill: Volume 1 completes the story of The Bride’s revenge. Uma Thurman reprises her role as The Bride, while David Carradine plays Bill, the person whom The Bride wants to take revenge on. While the first part had more action, more fights and more thrill, Volume 2 is comparatively less violent, and is driven by dialogues than action.

The film begins with The Bride (Thurman) going in a car, saying she is on her way to kill Bill, thereby completing her mission. She narrates the story of what actually happened on the day of her wedding, where Bill (Carradine) and his assassination squad killed all the guests and also tried to murder her. For the first time, Bill’s face is shown. The scene cuts back to the present, where Bill meets his brother Budd (Michael Madsen), another member who tried to kill The Bride. Bill tells him to be prepared. The rest of the film tells whether or not The Bride (whose real name is also revealed) gets her revenge against the three remaining members of the assassination squad: Budd, Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah) and finally Bill.

Uma Thurman reprises her role as The Bride

Uma Thurman’s acting is brilliant again. Her expressions of pain, anger and surprise and shock are all excellent. David Carradine was faceless in Volume 1, but in this part he plays a pretty evil villain. Some catchy phrases boost his character as well. Madsen and Hannah don’t have much acting, but they too play convincing villains in this film. Several things about the characters are revealed in this film: The Bride’s real name, Bill’s face, the character of Pai Mei, and one more important character who is shown towards the end of the movie.

Michael Madsen as Budd

The story has some good factors, but many negative aspects too. Kill Bill: Volume 2 completes the story well. It answers all the questions, shows the ending of all the tracks and ends the two-parter on a high note. Many questions are answered, and many other things are also revealed: the reason why Bill and his gang tried to kill The Bride and the explanation of the twist at the end of Volume 1 is shown clearly. But, as a film by itself, is disappointing, just like The Dark Knight Rises, which also completed the Batman trilogy very well, but was a disappointing film. The entertainment Kill Bill: Volume 1 could provide in 111 minutes, Volume 2 couldn’t provide in 136 minutes. The action scenes in Volume 1 were much more entertaining (except that fight with the Crazy 88), while the scenes in this film were more bloody, but less thrilling. There are many unnecessary scenes too, like the scenes showing Budd in the bar, some scenes from the flashback of Pai Mei, the entire sequence where The Bride meets Estaban (Bill’s father figure) and few scenes when The Bride goes to meet Bill, towards the end. If Tarantino released the film in two films because of the screen time of over four hours, he could have very well reviewed the films again and cut a good 45-60 minutes of screen from both films together.

Daryl Hannah as Elle

The score is good, but the camerawork is not so good compared to Volume 1. This is mainly because there was need of some good camerawork in Volume 1 to show the fight scenes in an entertaining way, but here, the action is much less, as is the violence. However, the fight scenes have more twists than Volume 1; when The Bride meets Budd for the first time, you will be hit with a shock, and I admit, this particular incident is pretty much unexpected (what follows is somewhat unrealistic in my view). The scene where Elle meets Budd also has another unexpected twist.

To sum up, Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill: Volume 2 is a good entertainer, but could have been at least 20-30 minutes shorter. Uma Thurman’s acting is splendid once again, and David Carradine’s acting is also superb. The film is comparatively very slow, and there are more of dialogues. After seeing Kill Bill: Volume 1, I sort of expected more action, and if you do too, you will be disappointed. Yet, the film concludes the four-hour story quite well and also provides more twists than Volume 1. Watch it to understand the complete story of Kill Bill (I would say watch it only for this reason), but in my view, Volume 2 still falls short of the earlier installment.

My Rating: 2.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 84%

Mozhi (2007)

English translation: Language 
Director: Radha Mohan
Story: Radha Mohan
Cast: Prithviraj, Prakash Raj, Jyotika, Swarnamalya 
Music: Vidyasagar
Time: 155 minutes
Bottom-line: Radha Mohan’s best work, along with Payanam

   Radha Mohan’s career best performance (in terms of gross amount), Mozhi is a film that entertains you all the way, with a very simple story. The film deals with the unusual romance between an ordinary man and a deaf and mute woman. The film stars Prithviraj, Prakash Raj, Jyotika and Swarnamalya in the lead roles, with M.S. Bhaskar and Brahmanandam in the supporting roles. Several scenes from this film were also parodied in Thamizh Padam.

Karthik (Prithviraj) and Viji (Prakash Raj) are two best friends, who are keyboard players for Vidyasagar’s music team. Fun-loving and jolly, both of them are very friendly and enthusiastic. They come to live in a new apartment complex, full of interesting people. One day, Karthik spots a girl (Jyotika) in the road, and is attracted by her braveness. To his surprise, she lives in the same flat as him, but to his shock, the girl is dumb and mute. Through her friend Sheela (Swarnamalya), Karthik learns about the girl, Archana, and also learns sign language to communicate. Karthik falls in love with Archana, who only regards him as a good friend. What happens to this romance, and what happens to the other important characters who live in the building form the rest of the story.

The four lead actors together

The story is just a simple, though unusual, love story. From the first, what makes it interesting is the comedy in the film. The film does not have slapstick comedy all the way, but has fairly decent, sensible comedy. Prakash Raj is the main source of the jokes, with other major contributions from M.S. Bhaskar, Brahmanandam and Prithviraj. The dialogues are very funny, and few other ones are memorable as well. The story is mainly a funny family entertainer for the first half, and even for about half an hour into the second, after which it gets more serious. Towards the end of the film, the life of the father (M.S. Bhaskar) is dealt with. Until that part, his character will be a funny one, but when his wife tells Karthik about the problem the father is facing, you feel a little sorry for him.

Prakash Raj as Viji; Prithviraj as Karthik (right)

The acting by Jyotika is brilliant. Like Iqbal in Iqbal, she has no dialogues, but only facial expressions and of course, the sign language. Her expressions of anger, sadness, happiness and confusion are all equally splendid. This is easily one of the best performances of her career. Prithivraj and Prakash Raj don’t have any major acting role, but they have acted quite well and have provided some good laughs. Swarnamalya has done a fairly good job as a supporting actress.

Jyotika as Archana

The songs are excellent. The first song in the movie, Sevvanam Selai Katti is sung by Karthik as soon as he sees Archana for the first time. This song main portrays the various forms in which Karthik imagines Archana to be (for he doesn’t know anything about her at that time, not even her name!). The second song, Katrin Mozhi, is by far one of the best songs in Tamil that I have heard. This song mainly shows the good times the four friends have together. The lyrics of the song should be appreciated: they bring out the various languages of our surroundings. Kannal Pesum Penne is another song which shows how Karthik tries to apologize to Archana (the reason you will know when watching the film). The song has many funny scenes, and we see the various hilarious ways in which Karthik tries to say sorry.

To sum up, Radha Mohan’s Mozhi is one of the best films of Tamil that I have seen. The acting is superb, the songs are mesmerizing and beautiful, and the story is funny almost all the way. The portrayal of Archana’s deafness is shown in a moving way. After seeing so much of comedy in the first half, you may feel bored when the film gets more serious, but well, it is not so in my view. The film is a must watch for all families, and it is certain to win admiration and praise from people of all ages.

My Rating: 4.5/5 

Kill Bill: Volume 1 (2003)

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Story: Quentin Tarantino, Uma Thurman
Cast: Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu, Sonny Chiba 
Music: The RZA
Time: 111 minutes
Bottom-line: Usual story; stylish portrayal

The concept of revenge has been in existence from time immemorial, and somehow people have always had a fascination for this concept. Giving people a taste of their own medicine, showing them what they did to you…and indeed, when you get even with someone, you feel immense joy. So Quentin Tarantino chooses revenge as his theme for his fourth film Kill Bill: Volume 1. But what makes this story special? Well, the style, of course!

Thurman as The Bride

The film starts with the line, “Revenge is a dish best served cold.” A pregnant woman, called ‘The Bride’ (Thurman), lies badly wounded in a chapel. Her lover, an unseen Bill, shoots her in the head, though he knows that she is carrying his baby. The Bride miraculously survives the gunshot, but goes into a coma for four years. When she wakes, she is shocked to discover that she is no longer pregnant. So she decides to take revenge on all the people who did this to her: four members of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad, and their former leader Bill. The rest of the film shows her encounters with O-Ren Ishii (Liu) and Vernita Green, two of the five members on The Bride’s death list.

Lucy Liu as O-Ren Ishii

The story is told slightly out of chronological order. If it were shown chronologically, then it would be in the form of the plot summary above. Kill Bill, the full story, had a running time of over four hours, so Tarantino decided to break it into two parts: Volumes 1 and 2. The first part covers The Bride’s encounters with two members on her death list, and the story continues in Volume 2. This part ends with a sudden twist, and also has enough action to make you eagerly want to see Volume 2.

One scene from the animated sequence

The story is pretty much the usual. One hurts or destroys another, the latter wants to get even, blah blah… but with the non-linear narrative and typical Tarantino violence and action, this film proves to be somewhat better than most others. There are many scenes that create psychological suspense, but those scenes are a bit slow. I also find many other unwanted scenes; for example, the scenes that show O-Ren’s flashback are not needed at all. However, what I like about the film is the way it pays homage to Japanese animation and other martial art films. Few scenes are shown in black and white, and the flashback of O-Ren is shown in the form of Japanese animation. The violence could have reduced, but no matter what happens, Tarantino is not going to do that. Yet, in few places, the violence in this film is much more gory and horrible, compared to his other films like Django Unchained and Inglorious Basterds.

The fight between The Bride and the Crazy 88

The fight scenes were exciting to watch, but not really appealing. Seeing one person kill over eighty people was, is, and never will be believable to me. Moreover, having already seen such superhuman fights in various Tamil films, the fight between The Bride and O-Ren’s army (The Crazy 88) was more boring than interesting. However, the couple of solo fights: that between The Bride and O-Ren, and between The Bride and Vernita Green were thrilling. What made the fight with the Crazy 88 interesting was the score and camerawork. Some scenes are shown in black and white, and few scenes of the fight take place in the dark, where only the light of the swords is seen. Plenty of close-ups are also shown during the fights. The score in the film has many musical genres: country music, western etc.

The fight between The Bride and O-Ren

Uma Thruman comes in nearly al the scenes, and her acting is pure awesome. Her acting is so good that you can see the anger in her eyes, and also feel the revenge that she wants to take. Her character is named ‘The Bride’ throughout the film, and even when she says her name in Green’s house, it is censored. Tarantino sort of empowers women in this film. In Tamil films, when you see Rajni or Vijay beat up hundreds of people at once, the fans cheer like hell, but others don’t. Here, when you see a woman do the same, it feels new. Perhaps he wanted woman to feel more powerful after watching this film. Many dialogues are memorable, and few also bring out the anger of The Bride.

To conclude, Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill: Volume 1 is an action-packed film, boosted by Thurman’s acting. Brutal violence, tons of action, some unique camerawork and powerful dialogues make this another typical Tarantino flick. The fight with the Crazy 88 was sort of boring, but the others were excellent. The story was the same old revenge one, but the way in which it has been portrayed: with Japanese animation, with bits of black and white, and with an electric score make this film different. Kill Bill: Volume 1 may not be great, but it is certainly stylish.

My Rating: 3.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 85%

Raja Rani (2013)

English translation: King and Queen
Director: Atlee
Story: Atlee
Cast: Arya, Jai, Nayantara, Nazriya 
Music: G.V. Prakash
Time: 159 minutes
Bottom-line: Delivers a good message, which could have been provided 40 minutes sooner

Atlee’s debut film, Raja Rani, for the first half, seems like a normal romantic comedy, but by the end of the film, it has a lingering impact on you. After Boss Engira Bhaskaran, Arya, Nayantara and Santhanam join hands in this film, with Sathyaraj, Nazriya Nazim, Jai and Sathyan playing the other lead roles. The film’s screen time is 159 minutes, which could have considerably been reduced, to about 120 minutes. But, the message delivered almost makes up for the other flaws of the film.

The film begins with the lines: There is life after love failure, which changes to there is love after love failure. John (Arya) and Regina (Nayantara) are about to get married in a church. While saying their oaths, Regina, by mistake, says ‘Surya’ instead of John, and her father (Sathyaraj) faints in the church. They however get married, only to lead an unhappy life. John comes home late every night, drunk, and disturbing his wife and neighbours. One night, Regina has fits. When John asks her if she has suffered from fits before, she recalls the story of her former love, Surya (Jai), a person working at a call-centre. Eventually they fall in love and decide to marry, much to the discontent of Surya’s father. However, Regina’s life hits the rocks in a few days. Later in the story, John’s friend Sarathy (Santhanam) tells Regina the story of John’s former love, Keerthana (Nazriya). The rest of the story covers how the lives of John and Regina change, after hearing about each other’s flashbacks.

Arya as John, and Nayantara as Regina 

The story starts off as a comedy, with John’s drunken behaviour and Santhanam’s dialogues creating lots of laughs. Until the end of Regina’s flashback, the story seems off beat and lame. The story of Regina and Jai is really boring: few useless jokes by Sathyan and lots of useless and time-consuming dialogues that are supposed to make us laugh. John’s and Keerthana’s story is as boring. It is only by the end of these flashbacks that the whole story has some meaning and depth. The story of John and Regina is overall, good, but has meaning only towards the end. So basically, in all the tracks, Atlee gives a useless start, but provides a fairly good ending to all of them. the twist towards the end of the story is unexpected, and that was a nice touch by Atlee. Importantly, Raja Rani is one of the most realistic films in Tamil that I have seen; the twists, romance and other elements are very believable.

Jai as Surya, with Nayantara

Nayantara’s acting was surprisingly good, considering her previous performance in Boss Engira Bhaskaran, where too she played alongside Arya. On the other hand, the second heroine, Nazriya’s performance, was horrible. She is new to Kollywood, but she could have done better. Arya has acted superbly, while Jai’s acting was very poor. Arya has done well to express sadness, drunken behaviour and happiness equally well. When you see the way Jai cries you only laugh; his crying neither sounds nor feels real. Santhanam, well, his role is to provide jokes, and he does that well. Few of his jokes have proper timing, but most of his jokes don’t provide the laughs, unlike Boss Engira Bhaskaran. However, this is one film where Santhanam also plays an emotional role, instead of just being a comedian. G.V. Prakash’s score is splendid, but the songs are not appealing. The songs also add to the screen time, and no song was actually needed. But well, in Tamil cinema, songs contribute to the earnings, and very few directors make films without them.

Nazriya as Keerthana

The message, however, is a valuable one. As Santhanam says (probably one of the few good lines he has said in films), “If all people stop living after a love failure, all of us would die by the age of 22.” We often hear of many suicides because love failure. When there are seven billion people in the world, why should you commit suicide because of one person?? The way in which the film shows this message is excellent, but it would have been much more effective if the message had been provided 40 minutes earlier, as I said. Another issue the film deals with is that of love marriages and arranged marriages. In India, both cases exist, and in the film, both types are shown. John and Keerthana fell in love and got married, and similarly Regina and Surya also fell in love and then got married. But John and Regina had an arranged marriage. How their lives go on after marriages is what is shown in the film.

To sum up, Atlee’s Raja Rani is an entertaining family drama, that may feel bored in the beginning, but as the story goes on, it gets interesting and meaningful. Arya and Nayantara have acted well, but Jai and Nazriya could have improved. A valuable message is delivered, but if delivering the message was the main aim of Atlee, he could have done a slightly better job.

My Rating: 3/5  

Juno (2007)

Director: Jason Reitman
Story: Diablo Cody
Cast: Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner
Music: Mateo Messina
Time: 96 minutes
Bottom-line: A story that is so natural, so realistic, that it hardly feels like a movie 

One film where the story, acting, dialogues and almost everything in it seems like they were shot and made without the knowledge of the cast and (most of the) crew, Juno is a film where you feel that the story is really happening. Starring Ellen Page and Michael Cera in the leads, this film is the story of how a sixteen year old girl accidentally gets pregnant, and how it affects her life. Other than winning the Academy Award for the Best Screenplay, another achievement of the film is that its soundtrack topped the charts; the first film to do so of 20th Century Fox after Titanic.

Ellen Page as Juno

Juno MacGuff (Page), a 16-year-old girl, discovers that she is pregnant, with the future father being her boyfriend Paulie Bleeker (Cera). Her first thought is that of abortion, but she sees her friend fighting against abortion and she gets angry when people accuse her of being ‘sexually active’. All these make her decide to deliver the baby after all, but hand it over to adoptive parents. Juno and her friend Leah find an adoptive couple: Mark (Jason Bateman) and Vanessa (Garner), whom Juno likes. So, they agree for a closed adoption. What happens in the next few months of Juno’s life forms the story.

Michael Cera as Paulie

The story is fast-paced, but bit vulgar in the beginning. However, after that, Juno is a fun-filled ride, with plenty of jokes and other elements of a drama film. The dialogues are so free-flowing that I think Cody and Reitman must have said, “Speak whatever you feel like, as long as it is according to the situation,” to the actors. Page, Cera, Garner and all others speak dialogues that you and I speak everyday: using all slangs, colloquial terms etc. (and so the dialogues are also a bit vulgar). The story mainly deals with teenage pregnancy. Usually we hear about stuff related to this issue, but we just ignore them, mainly because we think that no such thing will happen. After seeing this film, you will get to know how it actually is, and then you will really go against teenage pregnancy. Reitman also uses different settings to show autumn, winter, spring and summer, possibly to show the nine-month period of pregnancy of Juno.  

Garner as Vanessa (left), Bateman as Mark (centre), and
Ellen Page

The film also tells about what real love should be like, how obsession with something can lead to hurting others' feelings and how a woman feels when she knows she is going to become a mother and other related themes.

The acting of all the actors is again, natural. The dialogues, facial expressions and even the characters are all like that of normal people like us. Page has done a splendid job, and Wikipedia says that as soon as Reitman saw the script, he pictured Page for Juno’s character (I think because she looks exactly like a sixteen-year-old!). She portrays the various emotions quite well, and her acting perfectly matches the reactions and behaviour of any normal sixteen year old girl with the same condition, in my view. Cera and Jennifer Garner have acted superbly too. Page was nominated for Academy Award for Best Actress for this performance.

The opening sequence of Juno, with animated backgrounds
and Juno walking with an orange juice can.

The background music mainly consists of several songs, most of which were sung by Kimya Dawson. The songs have a fast tempo and the lyrics are also good. The song All I want is You is played during the opening credits, and the scenes shown here are impressive. Juno walks around the town, drinking a can of orange juice, and the scenes are sort of animated: the background images are in 2D, with Juno walking ahead. During the song before the ending, Anyone Else but You, the camera slowly goes farther and farther away for two minutes or so (while the song lasts) before cutting to black, and I liked this bit of camerawork.

To conclude, Jason Reitman’s Juno is an enjoyable film, but is not for children. Diablo Cody’s Oscar-winning script is brilliant, providing the right amount of comedy without disturbing the main theme. The way in which the film shows a serious issue – that of teenage pregnancy – is excellent: it doesn’t make the film too boring, does not contain too much of adult content, but rather delivers the message in an interesting and entertaining way. Scintillating acting performances, funny and other ‘natural’ dialogues, and a fast-moving story are the other positive aspects of the film. As long as you over 13 years old, the film is a joy-ride. Must-watch!

My Rating: 3.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 94%

Deiva Thirumagal (2011)

English translation: God’s daughter
Director: A. L. Vijay
Story: A. L. Vijay
Cast: Vikram, Anushka Shetty, Amala Paul, Nassar 
Music: G.V. Prakash
Time: 164 minutes
Bottom-line: First half is average, but the second half more than makes up for it

A heart-warming story of a father-daughter relationship, Deiva Thirumagal is one of the few good Indian, non-masala films of recent times. This film is as good as Radha Mohan’s Abhiyum Naanum, but in many ways is better. This film is the adaptation of the 2001 Hollywood film I Am Sam, starring Sean Penn and Michelle Pfeiffer for Vikram and Anushka's roles respectively. With Amala Paul, Nassar and Santhanam in the supporting roles, Deiva Thirunmagal is a great film, with an ending that will linger on your minds for a long time.

Vikram as Krishna (right) and Baby Sara as Nila

Krishna (Vikram) is an intellectually disabled man, who comes to the court. Lawyer Vinod (Santhanam) thinks that Krishna is rich, and offers to take him to his boss, Anuradha (Anushka). Krishna tells that he wants ‘Nila’, which in Tamil means ‘moon’. Realizing that he is mad, they try to avoid him, and also misguide him. But soon, another man, Victor, tells Anuradha about Krishna’s pathetic condition. Krishna lived in a village near Ooty. When he has a daughter (Baby Sara), whom he names Nila, his wife dies immediately. Nila becomes friendly with her school’s correspondent Shwetha (Amala Paul). But she demands Nila from Krishna, because her sister is Krishna’s wife. She believes that Krishna cannot take care of Nila. Shwetha’s father agrees to take both Krishna and Nila to Chennai, but tricks Krishna into leaving his daughter with them. So Krishna eventually comes to the court. Moved by the story, Anuradha decides to help Krishna to win the case. However, she finds out that Shwetha’s father’s lawyer is Bashyam (Nassar), who has never lost a case before. Whether or not Krishna is able to reunite with his daughter forms the rest of the film.

Anushka as Anuradha

Vikram’s acting is stunning. After seeing films like Anniyan and Ravanan, I felt this role to be one of the best of his career. No showing off of muscle, no punch lines, no heroic entry… none of that masala stuff, but brilliant acting as both a father and an intellectually disabled man. Of course, others say that Vikram has completely copied his actions from Kamal Haasan, but I still find his acting to be awesome. His acting is what makes you feel sorry for both Krishna (and Nila), towards the ending of the film. Anushka and Amala Paul have acted well, and Nassar’s acting was also superb. Baby Sara’s acting is not that great, but is fairly good. This film made her a big star. Santhanam mainly does only comedy, which provides a few good laughs in the beginning, but he does not really have a role in the second half of the film.

Amala Paul as Swhetha

The story is sort of distracting in the beginning, with Santhanam’s comedy and other comic scenes. The film moves slowly till the flashback is over. By that time, half the audience would already be wiping their eyes with tissues, for it is after the flashback that the story becomes emotional. Until then it is mainly fun-filled: it is almost a comedy film. Sure, the story may be slow and boring for those who expect an action thriller with Vikram playing the lead, but once you have finished watching, the experience is very strong. The film is 164 minutes long but it could have been reduced to about 140 minutes, if some comedy scenes and the scenes in the hotel - which provide comic tension, but again, ruin the pace of the story – were removed.

Santhanam as Vinod (right), with Vikram

The scene in the courtroom towards the end is another very moving scene. Bashyam viciously interrogates Krishna, who is helpless against such powerful questions. Bashyam asks how Krishna can make his daughter a doctor, if he cannot even remember the school she goes to. Vikram’s expressions during these scenes are very touching, and will make you cry, even if you have a heart of stone. The part where Krishna and Nila greet each other in court is one of the best scenes in the film. If this scene doesn’t make you cry, then the last scene (where Krishna walks away from Shwetha’s house) surely will.

To sum up, A.L. Vijay’s Deiva Thirumagal is a film that does not really entertain you, but provides a really powerful story. Sublime acting by Vikram (and Baby Sara), some memorable and very emotional scenes, a strong portrayal of the bond between a father and daughter all make this film one of the best of the decade. Whether or not Vikram has copied from Kamal Haasan is a different issue, but in this film, his acting is top-class. If you want a masala movie, ten don’t watch the film. If you want a different, but well-worth, experience, this film is one of my top recommendations.

My Rating: 4/5

Iqbal (2005)

Director: Nagesh Kukunoor
Story: Vipul K. Rawal
Cast: Naseeruddin Shah, Shreyas Talpade
Music: Himesh Reshammiya, Salim-Sulaiman
Bottom-line: Perhaps the most realistic film based on cricket

  There have been many films about cricket where the batting the hero belongs to the batting team, but this is the first film I have seen where a bowler is the hero. Starring Shreyas Talpade and veteran actor Naseeruddin Shah in the lead roles, this film tells the story of one of the million children of India who aim for a place in the Indian cricket team. For this performance, Shah won the National Award for Best Supporting Actor.

Iqbal (Talpade) is a deaf and mute boy in a village in India. He, like thousands of other people of his age, has a dream of playing for the Indian Cricket Team. His father, however, thinks that this ambition is only a daydream, and wants Iqbal to help him in the field. Iqbal’s sister, Khadija, supports him and takes him to a coaching centre nearby, run by Guruji (Girish Karnad). Guruji accepts Iqbal, impressed by his bowling talent. However, after a fight with another student, Iqbal is asked to leave the coaching. Iqbal eventually discovers that a local drunkard, Mohit (Shah) was actually a cricketer. He persuades Mohit to coach him. Whether or not Iqbal is able to get Mohit to coach him, despite Mohit’s addictive drinking habits, and what follows, form the rest of the film.

Talpade as Iqbal and Shweta as Khadija

As I said before, this is a realistic portrayal of a cricket-obsessed boy. Cricket is the toughest game to get a chance in the national squad, mainly because of the number of people who want to be a part. Out of the one million children who have the dream, only twenty or so get the chance. This film shows what a boy must go through, how much one should struggle, and what all one should accomplish before making the dream a reality.

We have Iqbal, a boy for whom cricket is in his blood; he depends solely on his sister for translation purposes, but he strongly believes in himself, that he can accomplish the goal. The characters are well-developed: a father, who wants his son to work in the field and ignore cricket; a mother who loves her son and does not mind him playing cricket; a loving sister who helps her brother through thick and thin; a drunkard who lacks the self-belief that he can quit drinking and revive the cricketing skills in him. All the contrasting attitudes of the characters make the film realistic.

Naseeruddin Shah as Mohit

The story is excellent. From the beginning, it is about what all Iqbal does to get into the squad. Few scenes are very inspiring, like the scenes where Iqbal goes everyday to the field to make Mohit sober so that he can teach him. Whenever Iqbal asks Mohit to coach him, Mohit just responds in a drunken haze; Talpade’s expression will make you feel sorry for Iqbal, and the acting of Shah is such that you will also hate Mohit for being such a useless person. The cricket matches are not shown so well, and I would have liked it if few interesting scenes from the matches were shown. However, the scenes where Iqbal practices are shown superbly. I am not sure whether they consulted a cricket coach about the training methods, but the ones shown in the film are quite useful for bowlers.

The acting is the main thing that drives the film. Talpade has no dialogues, so it is only his facial expressions of happiness, sadness and inspiration that make his acting great. The scenes where his father burns his shoes, the scene where he bowls for the first time, and the scenes where he tries to get Mohit to coach him are all made better by his acting. When his dad burns his shoes, his expression is such that you will also feel like crying. Shah’s acting is brilliant as well, but I liked Talpade’s acting better. Shweta Prasad, who plays Iqbal’s sister, has acted as superbly as the others.

Kapil Dev in a cameo appearance 

To conclude, Nagesh Kukunoor’s Iqbal is film that provides wholesome entertainment. Those who love cricket, those who love good acting, and those who like a good film will all be satisfied. Brilliant acting by the lead actors, a good and a very inspiring story, and the realistic portrayal of events make this one of the best films based on cricket that I have seen.

My rating: 4.5/5