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% 

Naduvula Konjam Pakkatha Kaanom (2012)

English translation: Few pages are missing in between
Director: Balaji Tharaneetharan
Story: Balaji Tharaneetharan
Cast: Vijay Sethupathi, Gayathrie Shankar 
Music: Ved Shankar, Siddarth Vipin
Time: 161 minutes
Bottom-line: A terrific family entertainer

   Another new director makes a mark, as Balaji Tharaneetharan provides a whole new experience in his comedy entertainer Naduvula Konjam Pakkatha Kaanom. While I don’t consider this film to be such a remarkable comedy film, several other critics have called it the comedy of the year. No duets, no fight scenes, just pure comedy is what you should expect in this film.

Prem Kumar (Sethupathi) is getting married to his lover Dhanalakshmi (Gayathrie), in the next couple of days. He tries to play cricket with his friends Saras (Vigneswaran), Bhagavathi (Bagavathi Perumal) and Balaji (Balaji). As he attempts to take a catch, he falls backward and hits himself on the head. Everything seems alright, but later that day, Prem’s friends find out that he has developed short term memory loss. Prem has forgotten a full year of his life, so he recognizes his friends, but does not have a clue about his marriage. The doctor says he can recover anytime. The stunts and drama Prem’s friends do till the wedding makes all the viewers laugh their hearts out.

In this poster, you can see that Saras (left),
Bhagavathi (third from left) and Balaji (right)
are worried about what to do, while Prem (second
from left) is without a care in the world.

While Ghajini portrayed short term memory loss in a serious manner, Naduvula Konjam Pakkatha Kaanom takes a more laughable route to show this defect. With memorable dialogues, especially Vijay Sethupathi’s “Enna Aachu? Cricket Vilaiyadinom…” (What happened? We played cricket…) and his “Paa… yaaruda indha ponnu?” (My God! Who’s this girl?) this film has almost completely washed out Ghajini’s fan following. The dialogue that took the actor two months to memorize can now be heard from almost any person who has watched this film.

The story is a very simple one. It is supposedly based on a true story. Photographer Prem Kumar suffered temporary memory loss, and this gave Balaji the idea (all this is shown during the closing credits). Of course, a simple fall on the head cannot possible cause a grown man short term memory loss, but these are some things you have to ignore when watching the film. The film also some other unrealistic stuff. For example, Saras tells the reason why Prem always listens to him, and I found that very absurd. The main thing that drives the film is the dialogue “Enna Aachu?” which Sethupathi says, and the fact that this dialogue comes over 15 times in the film is both the advantage and disadvantage of the film. The dialogue is shown in different scenarios, with different background music each time.

Gayathrie as Dhanalakshmi

When you first hear the dialogue, you will surely laugh. You will laugh louder when he says the dialogue for the second and third times, because now you realize that he has memory loss, and that he is not going to say anything else. Moreover, his friends’ reaction when he says this dialogue over and over again is excellent. First, they are shocked beyond description. After that, they put on a guilty look on their faces whenever he says that dialogue in public, as they are the reason behind it.

However, the same dialogue is also a negative factor. After hearing it some 5-6 times, I felt bored of the hearing the same thing. The comic tension wasn’t quite there. But the other famous dialogues: “Ennadhu? Sivaji sethutaara??” (What? Sivaji is no more??) and other ones make us laugh once again. The reception scene is considered one of the funniest in the film, but here, again, the repeated dialogue is funny at the beginning, but becomes slightly boring later on.

Another still from the film. Prem (Sethupathi) in the red shirt,
Saras, played by Vigneshwaran (wearing spectacles), Bhagavathi
(brown shirt) played by Bhagavathi, and Balaji, played
by Balaji.

The acting is very much realistic and natural, whether it is good or not. When new actors come on the stage, only a few can act a new type of role. This is the main reason why many Tamil films made by new directors (including the ones whose reviews I have written) contain a simple story with normal characters and settings. Sethupathi’s dialogues and his expression when he says the dialogues over and over again are exactly the same, even if the settings change. I must appreciate him, as he has managed to say the exact same thing with the exact same look on his face, with the pauses and voice modulation in the exact same places. His friends’ expressions when they hear Prem saying the same thing repeatedly is also brilliant.

To conclude, Balaji Tharaneetharan provides a highly entertaining comedy film in his debut Naduvula Konjam Pakkatha Kaanom. With natural acting, some very laughable and memorable dialogues and with enough jokes to keep the film in your memory for a long time to come, this film ticks all the ingredients of a comedy film; but, as I said, some factors act as advantages to some and as disadvantages to others.

My Rating: 3.5/5

Payanam (2011)

English translation: Journey
Director: Radha Mohan
Story: Radha Mohan
Cast: Nagarjuna, Prakash Raj, Rishi, Sana Khan 
Music: Pravin Mani
Time: 120 minutes
Bottom-line: One of the finest thrillers in Tamil

   After seeing Radha Mohan’s previous films Mozhi and Abhiyum Naanum, Payanam was a bit of a surprise. From the director who made two great family films comes an action packed thriller. From the outward appearance, you may feel that this is ‘yet another terrorist film’, but once you start watching, you will see that Payanam is a class apart.

Nagarjuna as Raveendra (left) and Bharath as Nawaz

A plane, going from Chennai to Delhi, is ready to take-off. The people in the flight include a star actor, Chandrakanth (Babloo Prithviraj), a woman, Sandhya (Sana Khan), a man, Vinod (Rishi), a colonel, Jagadeesh (Thalaivasal Vijay), a central minister, and many others. After the flight takes off, five men go to the washroom, and retrieve hidden weapons. They threaten the people, and ask the pilot to land the plane in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. However, they damage one of the engines, thereby making the pilots perform an emergency landing in Thirupati. Enter Major Raveendra (Nagarjuna) and National Security Advisor N. Viswanath (Prakash Raj), who are assigned to save the people in the plane. Helping them is Captain Nawaz Khan (Bharath Reddy). The terrorists demand the release of another dreaded terrorist, Yusuf Khan, along with loads of money. The next evening is the deadline, and if Yusuf Khan is not brought, the terrorists will bomb the plane. What Raveendra and Viswanath, along with the help of others, do to save the people forms the rest of the film.

Prakash Raj as Viswanath (right)

So, now we have terrorists hijacking a plane, and a group of people trying to save the people and capture the terrorists. And this is a great story and one of the finest thrillers because…? Yes, I know you will be asking this question, and here is the answer. First, credit should go to Radha Mohan for choosing to make a film of the same genre. That should give an idea that a good director like Radha Mohan will obviously create something unique in the film to make it different from the other films of the same genre, and that is what he has done here.

Sana Khan as Sandhya (left) and Rishi as
Vinod

In Payanam, Radha Mohan doesn’t waste any time with deviating stuff like songs or romance. And in this film, he introduces the characters by freezing their faces and printing their names next to them, so that the audience can know. The way in which the terrorists attack the plane is also shown in a quick manner, without wasting too much time on suspense. From the first minute till the last, the script and story are taut, and all these make Payanam better than many other thrillers in Tamil.

A still showing the people of the plane

The story contains enough twists and turns to make you sit till the end, whether or not you like the film. Till the interval, almost everything goes normally, and then in the last couple of minutes before the break, the government officials, and the viewers, are hit with a major shock. Radha Mohan cleverly shows shots of all the parallel tracks going on in the film, so that the viewers can refresh themselves of what is happening. After the interval, the story moves at a breakneck pace, and as the twists keep coming one by one, the viewers are always on the edge of their seats. Towards the end, Radha Mohan also shows a timer at the bottom of the screen so that the audience realizes that he is indeed showing something that can really take place, and not just some sequence where time magically goes slowly so that the hero can win.

Babloo as Chandrakanth (left) and his fan

Another aspect of the film (and this is perhaps the best one) I liked is the way Radha Mohan has brilliantly infused a comedy track into the film. From the beginning, the comedy is created mainly due to the varied background and nature of the characters. The conversations that take place between a common man and an astrologer, the talk between the star and his adulating fan, the talk between a husband and wife, the conversation between a common man and woman are all very funny. One moment you are on the edge of your seat because of the suspense, and the next moment you are rolling back on your seat laughing. But mind you, the comedy is not at all distracting, and this is perhaps the main thing that makes Payanam a thorough entertainer. However, there is a lot of shouting and yelling, especially by the terrorists, and I feel that these could have been reduced. There was no need of so much noise.

However, there are a few unrealistic parts of the story, but the underlying fact is, if the things didn’t go the way of the anti-hijack crew, the film would have ended right there. There are a number of times where the people inside and the officers are lucky, but you have to just think of the incidents as twists of fate, and enjoy the film. The acting by the lead actors is brilliant. All the people inside the plane have also acted well, and many of them were new to cinema. Radha Mohan doesn’t waste time in giving any elaborate entry sequence for the actors, and this also helps to make the film more compact.

To conclude, Payanam is the best film from Radha Mohan so far, in my view, and easily one of the best thrillers in Kollywood. A taut story, a greatly supporting and equally entertaining comedy track, some great acting, and the non-stop action make this film one of my all time favourites. With enough twists to keep you talking about it for a long time, Payanam will certainly give your dose of entertainment.

My Rating: 4/5

Sleepless in Seattle (1993)

Director: Nora Ephron
Story: Nora Ephron, Jeff Arch, David S. Ward
Cast: Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan  
Music: Marc Shaiman
Time: 105 minutes
Bottom-line: A beautiful film; a must-watch for whoever is in love

Another memorable film released in 1993, Sleepless in Seattle stars Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in the lead roles. Tom Hanks’ excellent acting and Meg Ryan’s beauty create a very emotional relationship between the two, and this is what makes this rom-com one of the best in that category. The film also stars Ross Malinger and Bill Pullman in the supporting roles.

Sam Baldwin (Hanks) and his son Jonah (Malinger) live in Chicago. Sam has just lost his wife due to cancer. He plans to go to Seattle to begin a fresh life. On Christmas Eve in 1992, Jonah calls into a radio show, telling how his father is depressed, having lost his wife; he says how Sam is sleepless in Seattle. Sam is also persuaded into pouring out his feelings to the public. What he says is heard by women all over the country, including Annie Reed (Ryan) in Baltimore. Sam receives hundreds of letters from various women, after his talk on the radio. Inspired by the film An Affair to Remember, Annie writes to Sam, asking him to meet her on top of the Empire State Building on Valentine’s Day. Jonah, without the consent of Sam, accepts the meeting. Sam, meanwhile meets Annie at the airport and immediately falls for her, but doesn’t know that she is the one who wrote to him. He is in a relationship with another woman Victoria. The rest of the film tells whether or not Jonah is able to get Sam to fall in love with Annie, and whether or not Sam continues his relationship with Victoria.

Malinger as Jonah (left) and Hanks as Sam, when
he calls the radio show

This is similar to another later Tamil film you may be familiar with: Kaadhal Kotai (1996), starring Ajith and Devayani. It is familiar in the sense that both the hero and heroine know that the other exists, but hasn’t seen the other. Here, there is a slight difference: Jonah knows Annie’s name, but doesn’t know how she looks; Sam has seen her, but doesn’t know that she is Annie. All this adds to the tension, if I can call it that. There is no thrill, but by the end, the romance and the story are built so well that you will be glued to your chair, hoping that Sam and Annie will meet.

Meg Ryan as Annie Reed

The story is good. In many ways the film is similar to the 1957 film An Affair to Remember, and it also draws ideas from the 1957 film at certain points in the film, like when Annie writes her first letter to Sam, and towards the end, at the Empire State Building. But otherwise it is a very realistic story. I like the way the romance has been portrayed between Sam and Annie. The film has a boring start, until Jonah calls the radio show, which, by co-incidence, Annie also hears at the same time. Annie gets a surprise when she and Sam say the same word at the same time. Then, as the story progresses, we see that Jonah loves Annie (and wants Sam to marry her), and not Sam! Jonah replies to her message, he prepares himself to go to New York etc, while Sam continues to be with Victoria, but the mere sight of Annie changes his mind. Now, whether or not the previous sentence seems believable or not is up to you. In the film, Sam says, “Everybody’s an adjustment; no one’s perfect. There’s no such thing as a perfect…” and he stops as soon as he sees Annie. At this point, the story is set, and the tensions build. On one side, Jonah plans to go to New York to meet someone he has never seen before. On another side, Sam stays in Seattle, hoping to see that woman again. At the same time, Annie also goes to New York, hoping to see someone she has seen before.

One quote from the film, when
Sam pours out his feelings in the radio show.

Tom Hanks’ acting is superb. He plays a loving father, as well as a sad widower. His voice modulation and expression when he talks in the radio show are indeed emotional. His expression when he meets Annie for the first time, and his acting towards the end, when he searches anxiously for his son in New York are also pretty good. Meg Ryan may have overacted in the beginning of the film, but as the fill goes on, she has acted well too. Somehow I felt that her beauty is what created the chemistry between Hanks and her. From the moment Sam sees Annie at the airport, till the last scene, he is stunned by her looks. Another thing which also helps in building up the romance is the several long shots of Hanks’ and Ryan’s faces on screen, which show them, apparently lost in thought. There are no dialogues during these scenes, only the background score. Perhaps these scenes are to emphasize on the fact that both are miles apart, they both love someone else than each other, but still are meant to be together. But more than Ryan’s acting, Ross Malinger’s acting is brilliant. He creates the comedy throughout the film, and it is he who sets the foundation for the whole story. His character is important: he does all sorts of things beyond his age, so much so that Annie believes him to be the man she wants to meet.

The Empire State Building on Valentine's Day.
This still is shown several times towards the end
of the film.

To sum up, Nora Ephron’s Sleepless in Seattle is a memorable romantic comedy. The twists and turns that take place during the romance between Sam and Annie, the superb acting by all the three lead actors, and the dialogues make this film a delight. Any fan of Hanks should watch the film, but more importantly, anyone who thinks he/she has a far-fetched love interest should watch this film, so that he/she may know that there is always hope.

My Rating: 4/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 71%

Neram (2013)

English translation: Time
Director: Alphonse Putharen
Story: Alphonse Putharen
Cast: Nivin Pauly, Nazriya Nazim, Bobby Simha 
Music: Rajesh Murugesan
Time: 107 minutes
Bottom-line: Non-stop entertainment; rarely any deviation

Note: Neram was also released in Malayalam simultaneously, with the exact same story, and had the same director and lead actors.  

2013 is a year that saw the release of many Tamil films made by new directors. Most of these films had fresh actors, and almost all crew members were new to the world of Kollywood. Neram is one of my favourite films of 2013. Neram combines the hyperlink narrative structure of Chennaiyil Oru Naal (also released in 2013) and the comic twists and turns of Soodhu Kavvum (another 2013 film).

Nivin Pauly as Vetri

Vetri (Nivin) is an unemployed man in Chennai. He narrates his flashback, which tells us that he has borrowed loads of money from a moneylender and gangster, Vatti Raja (Simha), for his sister’s marriage. He says that he has repaid the loan for two months, but that day is the last day to fully settle the loan. He is broke, so he asks his friend John to get the money, and John gives the money to Vetri. Vetri loves Veni (Nazriya), but her father doesn’t prefer him because of his unemployment. As the day goes on, Veni decides to run away from her home and stay with Vetri. En route, her chain gets snatched, and at the same time, the money which Vetri was going to give Vatti Raja also gets mugged. Vetri’s brother-in-law meanwhile demands 50 grand as dowry. On top of all this, Veni gets kidnapped by Vatti Raja, and her father complains to the police, blaming Vetri as the kidnapper. Vetri has till 5pm that evening to settle Vatti Raja’s loan, to give the dowry amount, and to prove his innocence to the cops. What he does forms the rest of the film.

Nazriya as Veni

I don’t know if I am the only one who noticed this, but I feel that this film is a great combination of two other good films of 2013: Soodhu Kavvum and Chennaiyil Oru Naal. Alphonse himself agreed that he has taken ideas from other films. In the beginning of the film, we see a quote by Quentin Tarantino, saying, “I steal from every movie ever made.” An arrow points to Alphonse saying that he has also done the same. Anyway, back to the point. Like Chennaiyil Oru Naal, the film contains several tracks that merge at the end, and all the tracks have satisfactory endings: no loopholes. What starts out as a serious film becomes a comedy thriller in the second half, just like Soodhu Kavvum; but, Soodhu Kavvum was funny from the start, and this one becomes funny only later.

Bobby Simha as Vatti Raja

The story, as Alphonse agreed, is not new. Basically it is a race against time, and with a faint reason. Vetri says that he had dodged Vatti Raja for nearly a month without paying the loan. If so, why should that particular day be the last? Why not take two more days, thereby making the film look useless? However, ignore these small things while watching the film; even if you don’t, by the end of the film, you will be amazed that such an effective thriller was made with such a simple story. I like the way the suspense is created: several shots of clocks, watches and other time-pieces are shown on screen, which add to the tension. Several close-ups of the actors’ faces are shown, and many scenes are also shown in slow motion. Along with that, the score is also composed according to the scene taking place: whether is suspenseful or comic.

Nassar in a cameo role

The twists are all timed well. In the beginning of the film, Vetri has a monologue, where he says (in Tamil), “Time is of two types: good times and bad times.” Here and there along the film, he keeps saying, “This is my bad time.” The mysterious ways of time are shown quite well in the film. Until the interval, Vetri’s life is continuously down the drain, and all the incidents only push him deeper into the filth. After the interval, lots of twists come up in quick succession, and several of them are funny. The film, though a thriller, has a meaning. It tells that if you face bad times, don’t lose hope. Somehow, sometime, somewhere, good times will also come your way. Good times may come on the same day, or even a couple of years later.

Veni's father Saravanar, played by Thanbi Ramaiah

The hyperlink narrative structure is put to good use. Just like Chennaiyil Oru Naal, many twists take place, which are shown in the flashbacks. This narrative structure enhances the twists and they hit the viewers with greater effect. The story is a straight road of entertainment, the only speed bumps being the romance between Vetri and Veni. Few scenes could have been cut, but otherwise, Neram is an excellent compact thriller.

One still, showing a sand timer. As I said, many such shots show
time pieces

The character of Veni’s father mainly adds to the comedy, along with the character of the inspector whom he complains to. Nivin has acted quite well, in my opinion. Nassar plays a cameo role in the film, and his role is mainly a funny one. Bobby Simha also plays a pretty good villain, who provides plenty of entertainment.

Another still, showing a watch, as the time nears 5pm

To sum up, Alphonse Putharen’s Neram once again shows Kollywood that new directors, new actors and a new crew can provide some great films. The suspense is very well built, the story is simple, but the way it is has been shown, with the hyperlink structure and all, make it an effective thriller. While you are watching this film, remember one thing: time is of two types, good and bad. If you are having a bad time, good times will follow, and watching Neram is equal to having a great time.

My Rating: 4/5

Dhoom 2 (2006)

Director: Sanjay Gadhvi
Story: Aditya Chopra
Cast: Hrithik Roshan, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abishek Bachchan, Uday Chopra, Bipasha Basu  
Music: Pritam, Salim-Sulaiman
Time: 152 minutes
Bottom-line: Entertaining action sequences and a powerful cast make Dhoom 2 an exciting film

 It was John Abraham in 2004, and in 2006, it is Hrithik Roshan. Sanjay Gadhvi returns with a Dhoom (literally!) two years later, with bigger and better stars and locations. The second installment in the Dhoom franchise proves to be another exciting thriller, and is powered by its ensemble cast. It starts with a Dhoom (the theme song ‘Dhoom Machale Dhoom’) and also ends with a Dhoom (as the character of Jai Dixit says).

Hrithik Roshan as Mr. A, and Aishwarya
Rai as Sunheri. Bike chases were popular
in both parts of the Dhoom series.

The new thief is Mr. A (Roshan). As the film begins, we see that he successfully steals the crown of the British queen. Meanwhile, in India, cops Jai Dixit and Ali are introduced to a new member of the crew, Shonali Bose (Basu). Jai put forth his theory of Mr. A’s methods, which make lot of sense. As per his calculation, Mr. A’s next two robberies will be in two museums in Mumbai. As Mr. A steals a sword, he is helped by another person, who turns out to be Sunheri (Rai), an idolizer of Mr. A. as the story proceeds, Mr. A’s game goes international, but he doesn’t realize that Jai is already onto him. What happens next? Watch Dhoom 2 and find out!

From the first scene, Gadhvi takes us into the action. He also doesn’t waste any time for giving Hrithik’s entry. The queen says (about the crown), “If I can see the sky in it, then it can be seen, from the sky.” And we see Hrithik gliding down from the sky, ready to steal the crown. In my opinion, this is the perfect entry Hrithik could have possibly had. Yet, I don’t know why the director created an elaborate set up for the intro of Ali and Jai. These two characters have already become popular after Dhoom, and it is actually Hrithik and Aishwarya Rai who should have a spectacular introduction, but here, it is the opposite.

Abhishek Bachchan as Jai Dixit

The story is quite fast paced. The heist methods have become better and more cunning and interesting over time, in films of all languages. Whether or not robbery has increased in the actual world, the life of crime in films certainly has! In this film too, the scenes where Mr. A steals the crown, the diamond, the coins and the sword are all exciting to see (and you, as a viewer, should not wonder whether such acts are possible in the real world). Of course, the songs somewhat slacken the pace of the story, but it is compensated for by the other action scenes. In all the heist scenes, the Dhoom theme music in the background gives the scene an additional boost. I particularly liked Hrithik’s escape after stealing the diamond. his escape after stealing the coins is awesome, but the way he gets away after stealing the diamond is very classy.

Uday Chopra as Ali

Hrithik’s acting is superb. With the catchy dialogues and the heist methods already written, Gadhvi needed someone with a sort of both heroic and villainous look, and he found Hrithik. A muscle man he may be, and along with the disguises he dons in the film, he makes a pretty good and classy villain. As I said, Abhishek Bachchan and Uday Chopra reprise their roles as the buddy cops. The former is the only one who looks like a cop, and while the latter has a strong body, Gadhvi uses him for the comedian role! Starting from the scene where Ali gives his introduction, till the last scene of the film, all the laughs are given by Uday Chopra. I am not sure why the character of Bipasha Basu was added. The character of Shonali only appears for the first 45 minutes or so, including in a song. After that, Basu plays a double role, as she also acts as Shonali’s sister, who literally has no role at all in the film other than being Ali’s girlfriend. So, in my opinion, both Bipasha Basu was added only to attract audiences. Rai’s character is important, but the actual contribution of her role to the story is very less.

Bipasha Basu as Shonali Bose

To conclude, Sanjay Gadhvi’s Dhoom 2 is a high octane thriller powered by Hrithik Roshan’s performance. Abhishek Bachchan has acted well, and Uday Chopra has acted poorly, but provides some good humour. The exciting action sequences, along with some catchy dialogues all add to the entertainment. Get ready to be ‘Dhoom’ed! 

My Rating: 3/5

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

Director: Steven Spielberg
Story: Melissa Mathinson
Cast: Henry Thomas, Dee Wallace, Drew Barrymore, Robert  MacNaughton 
Music: John Williams
Time: 114 minutes
Bottom-line: One of Spielberg’s best, along with Schindler’s List and Raiders of the Lost Ark

   Spielberg directs one of the greatest science fiction films ever made so far, and the simple reason for that is: E.T. is the best (if not the only) film to have a friendly alien. A film that masterfully combines a moving friendship, some comedy and thrill all into a sci-fi film, E.T. is a classic for its characters, story and several other elements. This may be Spielberg’s personal favourite, as a still from this film forms the logo of Amblin Entertainment, the company he founded; also because the basis for the film was an imaginary friend Spielberg had, after his parents’ divorce.

E.T. and Henry Thomas as Elliot

A group of aliens land in California to collect flora samples. When Government officials track them, they escape in their spaceship, leaving one alien behind. Meanwhile, Elliot (Thomas), a 10-year-old boy is playing with his older brother Michael (MacNaughton). When he goes to the backyard to pick up pizza, he finds some animal-like-thing in the tool shed. When they meet each other, both of them yelp and flee from each other. However, Elliot becomes friendly with the alien, which names itself E.T. The next day, Elliot’s brother and younger sister Gertie (Barrymore) meet the alien. They decide to keep the alien a secret from their mother (Wallace). The rest of the film portrays the strong friendship between Elliot and E.T, and also whether or not E.T is able to return home safely, without being caught by humans on the Earth.

Henry Thomas (left); Barrymore as Gertie (middle);
MacNaughton as Michael (right)

You may have seen Alien, Aliens, Predator or any other film about aliens. After Ridley Scott’s 1979 blockbuster Alien, the impact it  had on the public was so great that they had an impression that any future film about aliens would generally portray them as horrifying, gross, violent creatures. Yet, Spielberg surprised everyone by creating one of the friendliest characters from outer space: E.T. There is not much of a story in the film: it just tells how an alien changes the lives of Elliot and his family, as well as all the other people who are connected with it. But with a simple story, Spielberg beautifully shows a very close friendship between Elliot and E.T.

Dee Wallace as children's mother

The camera work also assists in showing the friendship. Many scenes are shown through the eyes of E.T. and Elliot, like when E.T. first lands, when Elliot covers E.T. with a sheet during Halloween etc. This shows that Spielberg also wants the viewers to be part of the friendship, as we also experience things as E.T. and Elliot. The friendship’s strength is also boosted by the great acting by the young cast. Henry Thomas has done so fabulous in this role, that knowingly or unknowingly, we also empathize with Elliot when he wants to protect E.T. from the scientists, and during the climax as well. Drew Barrymore looks very cute as Gertie in the film. Dee Wallace and Robert MacNaughton have also done well. The ending of the story is also very moving.

The scene where E.T. and Elliot fly in front of the
moon.

There are many memorable scenes in the film. The first one is when E.T. and Elliot see each other for the first time. When the alien lands on the earth, we see its face only when Elliot does. Until then, the camera shows the scenes from the eyes of E.T. when the alien steps out from the tool shed, we expect to see a giant, gruesome creature (because as I said, people expected to see such aliens in future films. Also, when you watch the film for the first time, you don’t know that the alien is actually friendly), but we see only a small, innocent ‘living being’ (calling it creature is sort of insulting, in my view). Another is when E.T. shows the others where he is from. He arranges all the fruits, marbles and other stuff in the form of a solar system. Some funny scenes are when E.T is hidden in the closet by the kids to prevent their mother from seeing it. The scene where E.T. learns to talk, and the scene where it keeps moving around in front of the kids’ mother without her knowledge are also funny. Of course, the best of the lot is when E.T makes the bicycles fly using telekinesis. The scene where E.T. and Elliot fly with moon in the background, is the logo of Amblin Entertainment.

Another scene from the film: Gertie and E.T.

To sum up, Steven Spielberg’s E.T the Extra-Terrestrial excels in all aspects. A simple story with a deeply emotional friendship, great acting, some very memorable scenes and excellent photography and music make this one of the greatest science-fiction and drama films ever made, and certainly one of Spielberg’s best. The film was nominated for nine Academy Awards, winning four. It lost the Best Picture and Best Director to Gandhi and Richard Attenborough respectively. Yet, Attenborough himself said that E.T. deserved the award more than Gandhi.

My Rating: 4.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 98%

Where Eagles Dare (1968)

Director: Brian G. Hutton

Screenplay: Alistair MacLean (based on his book of the same name)

Cast: Richard Burton, Clint Eastwood, Mary Ure 

Music: Ron Goodwin

Time: 155 minutes

Bottom-line: With a story that had already become famous, the film only makes it better

       Often considered MacLean’s magnum opus, his novel Where Eagles Dare, after The Guns of Navarone, is one book whose film adaptation was much awaited. And MacLean delivered! Other than providing the basic story, he also writes the screenplay of his film. Starring Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood, this film is a faithful copy of the book. So if you liked the book, you will love the film; and conversely if you hated the book, you will also hate the film.

Eastwood as Schaffer (left) and Burton as Smith

The story takes place during the Second World War. Members of the MI6: Major John Smith (Burton), Lieutenant Schaffer (Eastwood), and five other men are dropped from an airplane somewhere in Germany. Their mission is to rescue an American General from the Schloss Adler (or castle of the eagles), before the Germans can interrogate him. Though only seven men were selected, a woman (Mary Ure) is also dropped in that place, but no one seems to be aware of her presence. Soon after the men land and unite, two soldiers are mysteriously killed. As the story progresses further, we see that the actual mission is actually much more complex and tricky than the mission they were briefed about. As it becomes clear that one of the soldiers is a traitor, the tension escalates, and it becomes only a matter of time before the real members of MI6 complete their mission, before being captured by the enemy.

Mary Ure as Mary

The book became an immediate success after release. Writing the screenplay must have been comparatively easy for MacLean, as several books, starting from When Eight Bells Toll, were already written with a cinematic approach. If you are a regular reader of MacLean’s works, you will see that this film also has several of his trademark features: the actual spy being someone whom you never thought would be the one, the typical setting with the snow playing a big role etc. MacLean’s strengths include describing places. He doesn’t exactly describe the place in the film, but the chilly snowy background gives a greater effect in the film. There are also enough twists and turns, accompanied some terrific action sequences, which make this film a thrill ride. 

The Schloss Adler 

The novel

The film is much more violent that the book. Lots of scenes display some gruesome murders, along with lots of blood, which you don’t visualize when reading the book. But the action sequences have been brilliantly portrayed. Like how in The Guns of Navarone the men had to climb the steep mountain to reach the territory, here the soldiers can reach the Schloss Adler only by cable car. And as the real MI6 members are English, they go by clinging on to the top of the cable car. This sequence is one of the best ones in all of MacLean’s books, as well as among all thriller books in general. The way this scene has been shown, along with the background score and the settings, is dazzling to see. In fact, Burton and Eastwood called this film ‘Where Doubles Dare’, as in several action scenes, doubles were used for their roles.

This film is considered one of the best war films ever made, despite several historical inaccuracies (which anyway don’t affect the main story). The cable car sequence, the ending and the interrogation scene inside the castle are some of the best scenes of the film. The acting is not so good, but the thrills cover up for that defect. The score is very good, and provides good accompaniment to the thrills. 

The cable car scene: Smith and Schaffer clinging
to the top of one car 

To conclude, Brian G. Hutton’s Where Eagles Dare is a terrific war film, thanks mainly to the masterpiece Alistair MacLean wrote. A great story, good score and memorable action sequences make this film a fast-paced action thriller. It may not be one of Eastwood’s or Burton’s more recognized films, but as far as MacLean is concerned, both the novel and film are awesome. 

My Rating: 4/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 88%