The Terminal (2004)

Director: Steven Spielberg
Story: Andrew Niccol, Sacha Gervasi 
Cast: Tom Hanks, Catherine Zeta-Jones 
Music: John Williams
Time: 128 minutes
Bottom-line: Hanks’ terrific performance and few funny incidents are the lone bright spots

  A slight disappointment from Steven Spielberg this time, I must say. After Spielberg’s previous collaboration with Hanks in Catch Me if you Can, I expected something better in this 2004 film: The Terminal, but I only got a less impressive film. The film is based on Mehran Karimi Nasseri, an Iranian who stayed 17 years in Terminal I of the Charles de Gaulle International Airport. As the title says, the film takes place entirely inside the JFK International Airport.

Hanks as Viktor Navorski

Viktor Navorski (Hanks) arrives at the JFK Airport. He comes from an imaginary country called Krakozhia and can speak only Krakozhian, with little English. Soon after he lands, a civil war breaks out in his country, thereby making his passport and visa invalid. So, Viktor is stuck at the transit lounge of the airport, as he cannot go back to his own country, nor enter the USA. With no choice, he settles there with only a couple of suitcases, and importantly, a Planter peanut can (you will know the reason for that later). Frank Dixon (Stanley Tucci), a US Customs Official is irritated by the behaviour of Viktor, and tries to get him to enter US, so that the cops can arrest him. Meanwhile, Viktor befriends several people at the airport, including an airhostess named Amelia (Zeta-Jones). Does Viktor get back to his country, or does Dixon manage to get him arrested? What all can a man possibly do at an airport terminal? Watch this Spielberg film to find out.

Catherine Zeta-Jones as Amelia

Hats-off to Tom Hanks for his brilliant performance. It may not be worthy of the Oscar, but on the other hand, it may be the only thing that makes the film good. Speaking a Krakozhian accent may not be that difficult, and even less difficult for someone of Hanks’ caliber, but what I like about his role is that it is his acting that makes the comic scenes funny. When he lands, you can see that he is new to America (or rather, new to any foreign country). After landing, he is eating some snacks and shaving casually, without the slightest idea of what troubles he has to face because of his country’s war. When Dixon interrogates him, you can see that he is very poor in English, and also very frank and gullible. Dixon asks him his details, and Viktor replies, “Yellow taxicab please,” in a most innocent manner. Hanks’ acting in the beginning, when he finally understands his country’s pitiful condition, and his acting when he reads the English with difficulty, is also excellent.

Tucci as Dixon

Some other comic scenes include the scenes that show how Viktor earns money. He sees that arranging the trolleys in the stand gets the person a quarter for every trolley. As normal travelers, we don’t have time for that. But as a person stuck in the terminal, he starts collecting trolleys from all around the place (sometimes even pushing people and stuff placed on them!) to earn enough money to eat a nice meal at Burger King. As I said before, these scenes may or may not sound funny, but when you see Hanks’ expression and acting during these sequences, you will certainly laugh. Hanks is supported well by Tucci. He plays a character that is bent on getting rid of an innocent traveler, for apparently no reason at all! Tucci's comic expressions when Viktor foils his plans of getting rid of him are very funny.

A still from the film: Viktor arranges the chairs
in the lounge to make a bed for himself.

Now, the story is a bore. It starts out well, as we are initially curious to know what all a man can do at an airport. We laugh during the funny scenes as well. But as the story goes on, we kind of get the feeling that both Viktor (and the writers for that matter) run out of ideas of what to do at a terminal. We see Viktor building stuff and repairing walls at the airport, and I don’t think this seems realistic, and I can’t believe the authorities would permit him to do all that. The ending may seem far-fetched, but don’t think so. But what I feel far-fetched are the stories or the parts some other characters play in the film. The characters of Gupta, an Indian employee, and Enrique Cruz have kind of unrealistic (and the latter’s part is sort of necessary as well) roles. However, by the end of the story, their roles play a part (but still minor ones), as we find that Viktor has somehow (perhaps unknowingly) influenced their lives. The score, by John Williams, is as always, superb.

I am not American, but I feel that this film mainly shows the negative attitude of Americans in general. None of the airport authorities are friendly to Viktor, and they all treat him badly. Few Indians, especially Muslims, also have some incidents in history where they have been humiliated by the airport authorities of USA, somewhat similar to what Viktor experiences. Anyway, this sort of behaviour by the characters also adds to the film’s story.

To sum up, Spielberg’s The Terminal is a film that once again shows the class of Tom Hanks’ acting. Stanley Tucci has also acted well, and Catherine Zeta-Jones has only a small role in the film anyway. The comic scenes are made funny mainly (if not only) by Hanks’ (and Tucci’s) acting, and so credit must go to the actor(s) once again. Albeit the story is a bore, the acting and the comedy make up for the flaws.

My Rating: 3.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 60% 

The Iron Lady (2011)

Director: Phyllida Lloyd
Story: Abi Morgan
Cast: Meryl Streep, Jim Broadbent, Olivia Colman, Anthony Head 
Music: Thomas Newman
Time: 105 minutes
Bottom-line: Streep’s fabulous acting drives the film

 Meryl Streep once again shows why she is one of the greatest actresses Hollywood as seen. With two Academy Awards already in the bag, she pouches the third award in her 17th Oscar nomination. In this 2011 biopic, Meryl Streep plays the longest-serving and the first woman Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher.

The story is shown in a non-linear narrative structure. It begins in 2008, with an elderly Thatcher (Streep) buying milk. She is unnoticed by the public. She is shown struggling with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease and other problems of old age. She cannot distinguish between the past and the present, and she also sees projections of her dead husband Denis (Broadbent). She reflects back on her days of glory, and the viewers get to see the life of Margaret Thatcher through flashbacks. The flashbacks tell several important incidents of Thatcher’s life: her entrance into the male-dominated society, her rise to power, and her doings once in power, and all the other incidents till 2008.

Streep as Thatcher 

Now one thing about biopics that I want to tell you - and this is something I keep telling myself also - is: never decide how good a biographical film is, based on the life of the person shown. Just because say, Howard Hughes, led a more interesting life than say, Gandhi, does not necessarily mean that Scorsese’s The Aviator is better than Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi. However, one thing that I want to comment on about this film is that is shows only the positive aspects of Thatcher. The only negative part of her life shows is her old age problems. In all her flashbacks, she is shown to be a great ruler, with no faults at all. This is one reason why this film isn’t as good as The Social Network (2010) or The Aviator (2004). The former film shows mainly the darker side of Mark Zuckerburg, whom many people idolized till then. The latter film also showed few controversies of Hughes’ life as well. However, The Iron Lady shows Margaret Thatcher as a pure hero, with no controversies or negative points of her rule. That is not what a biopic should do: it should show both the ups and downs, and the proportion of these is up to the directors, but there should be some amount of both.

Alexandra Roach as the young Thatcher 

The story is moves slowly at first, and is never fast-paced. Thatcher’s past is shown is shown in a fractured manner, with bits and pieces of her past days interspersed with the events of the 2008 timeline. The viewers have to guess whether or not the event is a flashback based on how Thatcher looks. However, as not many of us are familiar with Thatcher or her doings, the film may seem boring. The score is also good. Several of Thatcher’s speeches are heard in the background, while on the screen we see how she progresses up the order to finally become Prime Minister. The period settings are also superb. However, some events of her past, like the British attack on the Argentinean troops over Falkland Islands, is shown like a TV coverage, but I felt that showing that event like it was actually happening would have looked better on screen.

Broadbent as Denis Thatcher 

Now, coming to the most important aspect of the film: the acting. Streep is the one who takes up most of the screen time. Her powerful speeches (as Thatcher) may make people inspired even now. Her expressions and acting when she suffers from dementia and Alzheimer’s disease are brilliant. Her emotions when she tries to come to her senses that Denis is dead, and when she realizes that she is indeed alone in the world are also superb. Streep has acted so well, that despite the loads of make up she put, her acting and character are still authentic. One of the best scenes, in my opinion, is when she leaves #10, Downing Street, after completing eleven years in power. She mixes all sorts of emotions in her face, as she leaves the building with tears in her eyes.

Anthony Head playing Geoffrey Howe 

To sum up, Phyllida Lloyd’s The Iron Lady should be watched mainly for Streep fantastic acting. The film covers only Thatcher’s days of glory, and hides the negative aspects. This film reinforces why Streep certainly deserves every word of praise she can get for her acting. I feel that Lloyd could have shown the basic events being covered in the film as a paragraph or voice-over, so that those unfamiliar with Thatcher's life can understand the film. Had that been done, I would have enjoyed the film more.

My Rating: 3/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 51%  

Kaun (1999)

English translation: Who? (Or) Who’s there?
Director: Ram Gopal Varma
Story: Anurag Kashap
Cast: Urmila Matondkar, Manoj Bajpai and Sushant Singh 
Music: Sandeep Chowta
Time: 100 minutes
Bottom-line: Lot of suspense; a terrific thriller

  One rainy evening, a big mansion, a lonely woman inside it, a serial killer on the loose, and a stranger knocking at the door. These few elements alone constitute Kaun. No songs, no specified hero, heroine or villain, no punch lines by anyone, no action stunts… just pure suspense and thrills. Once you finish watching the film, you will feel shocked that 100 minutes have passed since the film started, which shows that skill with which Ram Gopal Varma has compiled so much of thrill in such a small amount of time, and it also
shows how fast times moves when you enjoy yourself.

A lonely woman (Urmila) is home alone, talking on the phone with her parents, asking them to return soon as she is feeling scared. She plans on watching TV with her per kitten, when a man, identifying him as Sameer (Bajpai), knocks on the door. He repeatedly knocks, asking for Mr. Malhotra, but she does not open the door, by denying that is the house of the Guptas. Later, another man claiming to be Inspector Qureshi (Singh) also knocks on the door. Meanwhile, the news coverage on TV shows that a serial killer is on the loose. As the story progresses, we see that none of them are who they claim to be. The rest of the film tells the events happening in that house till next morning, and as the film progresses, it becomes clear that one of the three is the serial killer mentioned on TV.

Urmila as the woman

This is one of the few real time films that have come, and perhaps the only one in Hindi. The entire story takes place in one evening and night, with about three minutes of the following morning shown on screen. The story starts off slowly, but there is a lot of suspense, thanks to the brilliant camera work. The spooky atmosphere created by the rainy evening and the lonely mansion provide the perfect ‘haunted house’ sort of background.

The score is excellent. As I said, if you need to provide a lot of suspense within a small amount of time, the score comes into play. Along with the score, the camera work is such that the viewers get the feeling that someone else is also in the house. This constant feeling or anticipation that someone will pop out from somewhere is what drives the film for the first twenty minutes or so. Now enter Manoj Bajpai, with a constant ‘Ma’am? Maaam?’ at the door. Then next twenty minutes or so are driven by dialogues between the woman and Sameer. Once it becomes clear that one of the three members is the killer, the film has nail-biting suspense. So, wait patiently for few minutes into the film, for once the suspense starts, there is nothing you can do but sit glued to your chair!

Bajpai as Sameer (as seen through the peephole by the woman)

The acting by Bajpai and Urmila is superb. The main reason why the acting is good is because the natures of all the characters shift frequently, especially that of Sameer. When you know that one of the three is the villain, you will expect some clue or hint to help you identify the person. Here, the mood or attitude of the characters keeps shifting so much that when you reach the ending, you are hit with a shock!

The story is very violent towards the end. Yet, credit must go to Ram Gopal Varma for setting up a great ending. He builds the suspense from the beginning, and gives the viewers just the right amount of thrills. The ending is not exactly ambiguous, but once the screen cuts to black, the viewers themselves can anticipate what will follow. So, the only negative part as far as the story is concerned, is that it is too violent.

Singh as Qureshi

To conclude, Ram Gopal Varma’s Kaun is one of the best thrillers that India has produced so far. A simple but haunting setting, a chilling score, some great acting and the right thrills provided at the right times are the elements which make the film a compact suspense thriller. Once you start watching the film, put on some gloves, for in the next hundred minutes, there is going to be some serious nail-biting!

My Rating: 4/5 

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock (remaking his own 1934 film of the same name)

Story: Charles Bennett, D.B. Wyndham-Lewis 

Cast: James Stewart, Doris Day

Music: Bernard Herrmann, Arthur Benjamin  

Time: 120 minutes

Bottom-line: Lot of time given for build-up, but delivers suspense and thrills masterfully

  If there was a Hitchcock film that is remembered for something other than the thrills, it is this 1956 film: The Man Who Knew Too Much. Though the film contains few Hitchcockian elements related to suspense, the film was more popular for the song ‘Que Sera Sera’, which also won the Academy Award for Best Song.  The third collaboration between James Stewart and Hitchcock proves to be another good thriller, but is still not as good as their previous collaboration: Rear Window. 

Dr. Ben McKenna (Stewart) and his wife, a retired theatre singer, Jo McKenna (Day), along with their son Hank (Christopher Olsen) are touring Marrakech. They meet a Frenchman in a bus, Louis Bernard (Daniel Gelin). Ben and Louis become friendly, though Jo is suspicious that Louis asks so many questions and avoids answering to theirs. The McKennas later meet an English couple: Lucy (Brenda De Banzie) and Edward Drayton (Bernard Miles), who also seem friendly. To the audience, some more suspicious moves of Bernard are shown. The next day, as the McKennas look around the market, they see an Arab man murdered in public. When Ben goes closer, he sees that it is actually Louis Bernard in disguise. He murmurs that an important foreign statesman will be assassinated in London, and that they must immediately tell authorities about ‘Ambrose Chappell’, and then dies. Meanwhile, another shock the McKennas get is that their son is kidnapped by the seemingly-friendly English couple, who demand Ben’s silence for their son’s safety. Does Ben tell the police about the last words of Bernard and risk his son’s life? Or does Ben try to prevent the assassination himself? Watch this Hitchcock film to find out!

Doris Day as Jo, and James Stewart as
Ben McKenna

The story is slightly slow. As I said, plenty of time is given for building up the story and suspense. In the beginning of the film, the story is more of a documentary about Morocco and Marrakech. It is only after the murder of Louis Bernard that the story speeds up. However, there are few clues in the beginning that should be paid attention to. There are few dialogues by Bernard, and some other scenes that may seem normal, but their importance is known later. 

Doris Day’s performance is brilliant. Her expressions when she suspects Bernard, her expression when she finds out that Hank is kidnapped, and finally her acting towards the end, in the Albert Hall, are excellent. She sings the song ‘Que Sera Sera’ at the end of the film, and this is what may have made the song (and in a way the film) so great that the song has become synonymous with the film. Stewart has also acted fairly well.

Gelin as Louis Bermard (left most); Olsen as
Hank McKenna (second from left); Day and Stewart

Unlike the shower scene in Psycho or the crop duster scene in North by Northwest, this film does not have any particular sequence in between the film that is interesting. The climax, however, is the best part of the film. The story proceeds slowly, and then goes tenser and tenser till a magnificent climax in the Albert Hall. The suspense is held at screaming point (literally!), and this scene, accompanied by Doris Day’s brilliant acting, is one of the best scenes in all Hitchcock films. 

A still that comes after the opening credits

To sum up, Alfred Hitchcock’s The Man Who Knew Too Much starts slowly, but has several boosts all leading to a teeth-gritting nail-biting finish. Doris Day’s acting, the story and magnificent climax make the film another treat from Hitchcock. There are not many elements of suspense and so, don’t expect many sudden twists and turns. The story is straightforward: no plot turns, no great score (but of course, a memorable song)… but the climax makes up for the lack of thrills in between the story.  

My Rating: 3.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 89%

Chennai 600028 (2007)

Title meaning: The pin code for Mandaveli, a region in Chennai  

Director: Venkat Prabhu

Story: Venkat Prabhu

Cast: Jai, Shiva, Premgi, Nithin Sathya, Aravind Akash

Music: Yuvan Shankar Raja, Premgi 

Time: 141 minutes

Bottom-line: Not a great film, but a terrific source of laughter

 Every Indian child loves cricket, whether or not he is good at it. So, Venkat Prabhu chooses cricket as his main theme for his debut film Chennai 600028. Taking place mostly in and around Chennai 28 a.k.a Mandaveli, this film tells the story of two rival cricket teams, and the friendship and rivalry between the players. 

The cast members: 3rd from left is Premgi. Third
from right is Shiva

The two rival teams are Sharks and Royapuram Rockers. The Rockers have just defeated Sharks, and this increases the rivalry between the teams. One member from Rockers, Raghu’s (Jai) family moves from Royapuram to Mandaveli. Due to his moving away into the territory of the Sharks team, his team mates ignore him. The members of the Sharks team also make fun of Raghu. The film mainly tells several incidents about the lives of the members: their love interests, friendship, some comic incidents related to cricket etc. The film finishes with a match between Sharks and Rockers.  

There is no real story. The film consists of several things that take place in the lives of the players over a period of time. What makes this film interesting is that all the cast members are fairly new to the world of cinema, so we can think of the film as the story between any groups of friends, like yours and mine. If you see Vijay or Kamal Haasan in the lead role, it looks very awkward, but because of this fresh cast, the film is more realistic in terms of portrayal of friendship and cricket. 

My favourite character, and probably the funniest
of the lot: Premgi

The acting is average, and in my opinion, the actors have not really acted well in any of their future films either. However, the comic timings and dialogues are excellent. Plenty of catchy lines and memorable jokes are there in the film, and in particular, Premgi’s comic actions are awesome. His famous line that occurs here and there throughout the film is ‘Enna koduma sir idhu?’ (Meaning ‘what torture is this sir?!’) One of the best scenes in the film is the cricket match the team plays with a bunch of school boys in the beach. Few scenes in the final match between the Sharks and Rockers are also very funny. Another funny sequence is the ‘stylish’ introduction by Jai. Few scenes may seem unnecessary, but you can call them ‘unnecessary’ or you can them ‘making the film more realistic’. As I said, this is not a great story, but by the time you finish watching it, only the comedy stays in your mind.  

However, like Thamizh Padam, this film also is favourable only to the locals, and among the present generation youth. Many scenes can be understood better by the locals, and many actions done by the characters in the film can be understood better by only Tamilians. Adults may not like the fresh cast, or may not like the jokes of the modern times. This film set the foundation for several actors, especially Shiva, Jai and Premgi; so some people who like the films of say, Shivaji Ganesan and actors of that era, may still feel that actors need to know proper Tamil; they need to be able to express emotions well and such like. Children, or any one who loves cricket, will like the film somewhat. People of the modern generation are used to seeing some specialist comedian, like Vivek or Vadivel, who don’t need to act well, but only need to make the viewers laugh. To them, the jokes in the film are very funny and so, this film will win some good feedback from the people of today’s generation. 

To sum up, Venkat Prabhu’s Chennai 600028 is a fun filled entertainer, which will any day make you laugh, if you are willing to watch the modern heroes and modern type of Kollywood films. If you are still a fan of the films of the era of Shivaji Ganesan, you may or may not like this film. There is no story and the acting is average, but you must watch this film if you are ever in need of a good laugh. If you are a fan of Jai or Shiva or Premgi, then watch Chennai 28 to see how it all started.  

My Rating: 3/5

Dial M for Murder (1954)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Screenplay: Frederick Knott (based on his play)
Cast: Ray Millard, Grace Kelly, Robert Cummins, John Williams 
Music: Dimitri Tiomkin
Time: 103 minutes
Bottom-line: Edge-of-the-seat suspense

Host: Welcome caller, to Dial M for Movies. What film are you going to tell the viewers about?

Caller: Today I am going to talk about Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘Dial M for Murder’. Mind you, any co-incidence between the name of the film and the show is purely fictional!

Millard as Tony

Host: OK, so we are revisiting a Hitchcock film now… the 1954 film starring Ray Millard and Grace Kelly. So, why don’t you start by telling the outline of the film?

Caller: Well, this is a different Hitchcock film, an unexpected one. Usually, when we say unexpected for a Hitchcock film, we mean it in a good sense. Here, it is not so. The story is based on a play. North by Northwest takes place across 3000 miles of America, Strangers on a Train takes place in a city, and Dial M for Murder takes place entirely inside one house. What makes this film different is that while other films start off slowly and later move rapidly, this film starts off with a high level of suspense, and then slows down.

Kelly as Margot 

Host: Well, that is a new perspective of the film. Why don’t you refresh the viewers by explaining the plot?

Caller: Sure. Tony Wendice (Millard) is the husband of his rich wife Margot (Kelly). Their relationship was on the rocks when Tony concentrated more on tennis than love, but he soon gave up tennis. However, during that time, Margot had a relationship with detective story writer Mark Halliday (Cummins), and she still loves him. Tony plans on murdering his wife for her money, and because he secretly finds out about her relationship with Mark. He calls over an old acquaintance, Swann (Anthony Dawson), and blackmails him into murdering Margot the next night. Tony devises a master plan, which is told quite clearly to the audience. The most important element of the murder plan, is the house key that belongs to Margot. Swann agrees. Everything goes according to plan, until a major twist takes place on the night of the planned murder.

Cummins as Halliday (centre) and Williams as
the Inspector 

Host: Well, that’s a pretty good plot. What else did you like about the film?

Caller: Well, as I said, this film starts off well. The plan which Tony proposes is brilliant, and credit has to go to Knott. Hitchcock does extremely well to build the suspense. The night of the murder starts at about 30 minutes into the film. It begins with Margot saying that she will go out on that night, and how Tony persuades her into staying at home. Then several twists take place, and the scene goes till about 50 minutes. During these 20 minutes, you will be at the edge of your seat, gritting you teeth. Along with a chilling score, this sequence reinforces Hitchcock’s masterful talent at creating suspense.

The murder scene. Anthony Dawson as
Swann behind Grace kelly

Host:  Well yes, Hitchcock is a master of suspense. What do you think about the acting?

Caller: The acting is excellent, especially that of Millard and John Williams, who plays a police inspector. Millard, as Tony, plays a diabolical villain. He plans a brilliant murder, and when it goes wrong, he still acts like a very loving husband, but at the same time, you can sense that he wants to somehow get her killed. Such are his facial expressions and dialogues. A great villain, I must say! Also, this is one of the few Hitchcock films, where the title character is the villain.

Host: OK, that’s another aspect covered. Any other specific thing about the film you want to say?

Caller: Well, you can watch the film for the murder scene: that’s the best part. After that it mostly dialogue driven, and focuses mainly on reconstruction of the murder. However, the dialogues are first-class. Through the dialogues itself, the inspector tries to make Tony confess to his crime, and through equally interesting dialogues, Tony defends himself. So, the film may be slow, but if you liked the other famous dialogue-driven thriller Rear Window, you will like this film as well. The score is excellent in this film, especially during the murder.

The film was remade in Hindi and Tamil. In Hindi, it was called Aitbaar. In Tamil, it was called Chaavi (meaning key; after all, the key is the most important element of the story!).

Host: OK, so, what is your final verdict on this film?

Caller: Hitchcock’s Dial M for Murder is a great suspense film, but not exactly a thriller. It is driven by dialogue and acting, and the twenty minutes of the murder scene are absolutely terrific. The film takes place entirely inside a house, so it doesn’t give thrills, but it certainly gives the chills! Overall, a fantastic film.

Host: Well, thank you for giving us a refreshing look at the film. We will now move on to our next caller…

My rating: 3.5/5

Sabhash (2000)

English translation: Bravo!

Director: Subash

Cast: R. Parthiban, Divya Unni, Ranjith 

Bottom-line: The underlying story is brilliant, but is made foggy by several other aspects

This 2000 thriller film is one that apparently got lost over the years. This film is only shown rarely on TV, but is otherwise very very hard to find. Google didn’t even show any trailer for the film either! Why this film went unnoticed I don’t know, but I thought I might as well write the review of it when the film is still there in my memory. Starring Parthiban and Ranjith in the lead roles, Sabhash is a mystery thriller, with a fairly interesting comedy track to accompany it. 

Cheenu (Parthiban) is a blind man. In the first scene of the film, we see that his wife Shanthi (Divya Unni) is hanging from the ceiling, dead. While the police and Cheenu’s close friend Dharan (Ranjith) think it is an obvious case of suicide, Cheenu strongly believes that someone has driven her into so much desperation that she finally hung herself. As the story goes on, we see that Shanthi and Dharan were lovers, who later split up. Due to this, Dharan begins to think that it because of him that she committed suicide, and he asks his lawyer to help him. At the same time, Dharan also suspects that Cheenu can actually see and is not blind. He thinks that Cheenu killed Shanthi, and is determined to prove that Cheenu is not blind. The rest of the film is about whether or not Dharan is indeed the cause of Shanthi’s death and whether or not Cheenu is blind.

The basic story is that of a crime-thriller. The story is told in a non-linear narrative, with several flashbacks. In the flashbacks, the past and hidden natures of the characters are known, which also provides several twists and turns. The film starts in a serious tone, but from the time Dharan starts suspecting that Cheenu is not blind, the film turns into a comedy film. Dharan attempts several ways to trick Cheenu into confessing that he can see. Dharan tries to poison a glass of soda that Cheenu drinks; he tries to make Cheenu ram his head into some flower pots… These scenes are very funny and make the viewers laugh out loud. 

Some may feel that this comedy track makes the film go offbeat and it disrupts the serious tone the film started out with. Yet, I felt that the comic scenes were excellent and they also added to the thrills. The romance between Cheenu and Shanthi – shown in flashbacks – is kind of irritating. You can say that directors add songs to films to make a better business, but I felt that the couple of songs were neither good nor necessary. The comedy that comes during these scenes is not good, but the comic scenes that take place between Dharan and Cheenu (as I said in the previous paragraph) are very good. The film also has a lot of adult content, which could have been reduced considerably. Towards the end, there is one more flashback about the relation between Dharan and Shanthi, which has lot of vulgar scenes. There is also one ‘item song’ towards the end. Had these been reduced, the film would have been much better, in my opinion. 

Ranjith’s acting is fantastic. He plays a diabolical villain, but of course, his true nature is known only later in the film. When the film begins, he acts like a very close friend of Cheenu, but later he becomes villainous, even attempting to murder his friend. His acting drives the film. Parthiban has also acted fairly well. Divya Unni has not acted well: she is very emotional throughout the film, and she is crying half the time. The background score is fantastic. It is chilling, and is in accordance with the scenes taking place. The dialogues are also fairly good. The dialogues between Cheenu and Shanthi, and also the ones between Dharan and Shanthi are boring, but the dialogues between Dharan and Cheenu are superb. They are funny and there are plenty of punch lines. 

Overall, Sabhash is a road of entertainment, with several ‘take diversion’ boards. It starts out a good crime thriller, and then goes even better during the scenes when Dharan tries to prove that Cheenu is not blind, but also goes off track during few flashbacks. Yet, a chilling score, great acting by Ranjith and a fairly good story make this film a good watch. In my opinion, if you are like less than fifteen years old, just watch the comedy scenes alone. That will provide you with almost as much entertainment as the entire film. However, I am not sure if Sabhash is easily available in the market. Catch it when the film comes on TV. 

My Rating: 3.5/5

Taare Zameen Par (2007)

English translation: Stars on the Earth

Director: Aamir Khan

Story: Amole Gupte

Cast: Aamir Khan, Darsheel Safary 

Music: Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy

Time: 164 minutes

Bottom-line: A film that every parent and teacher must watch 

   Is your child poor at studies? Do teachers consider him an idiot or a duffer? Do you think your child has a talent for something other than studies? Is the fault with the child… or the teacher? 

No film can give advice or a message regarding the above questions in the beautiful and emotional way Taare Zameen Par does. Driven by Safary’s and Aamir’s performances, this film portrays a relationship between a teacher and a student.  

Aamir Khan as Nikumbh and
Safary as Ishaan

Ishaan Nandkishore Awasti (Safary) is an eight-year-old boy, who is very poor at academics. However, he is a really talented artist. He fails in all his exams, but his talent is unrecognized. His brother, Yohaan (Sachet Engineer) is a great scholar and tennis player, and this worsens Ishaan’s life, as he is always compared to his brother. Their father (Vipin Sharma) wants both his children to excel, and often gets angry with Ishaan for being poor at studies. Their mother, Maya (Tisca Chopra) is sad, but not angry, that her son is considered an idiot. As his academic performance gets worse, Ishaan’s father decides to send him to a boarding school, creating an emotional breakdown for Ishaan and his mother. However, as days go by, a new art teacher, Ram Shankar Nikumbh (Aamir) comes to the school, and he takes a particular interest in Ishaan. The rest of the film is whether or not Ram is able to guide Ishaan in the right path, and whether he is able to advice Ishaan’s parents about Ishaan’s true talent. 

Ishaan and his father (played by Vipin Sharma) 

This film portrays something that is common in almost every house in India. Whether a child is talented in sports, music, dance or whatever it may be, he/she has to go to school, and in school, maximum importance is given to academics, and not to the other so-called extra curricular activities. A child may be a great cricketer, but if he is poor in studies, all the teachers will only call him an idiot. And more often that not, the parents also join the teachers and discourage the child. Not many parents realize that there is more to life than just excelling in academic performances. 

Ishaan is one such child: a great artist, brilliant in imagination and use of colours etc, but lags in studies. He faces constant scolding from parents and teachers alike. Yet, one teacher was able to recognize his true talent. So, I ask my question again: is the fault with the student, or the teacher? Any child can come out great if there is a proper teacher to guide him. And this film shows what an ideal student-teacher relationship should be like. 

Ishaan and his mother (played by Tisca Chopra)

Safary has done extremely well to portray a dyslexic child. His expressions when he is scolded by his father and teachers, his expression when his mother leaves him in the boarding school, his expressions when his teacher slowly guides him are all brilliant. Aamir has done equally well to play a patient and calm teacher. His acting is so good that all teachers would have been inspired by this film to become better persons. 

The songs are fantastic: hats off to Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy. I particularly liked the song ‘Maa’, which is played in the background after Ishaan is left in the boarding school. The lyrics have meaningful, the song is melodious, and the scenes that are shown during the song are very moving. The song ‘Bum Bum Bole’ is more fun-filled and joyous, and it provides a great entry for Aamir Khan. There are two more songs that are played in the background: ‘Kholo Kholo’ and ‘Taare Zameen Par’. The former comes towards the end of the film, and by the time it ends, the scene that is shown is so emotional that it made me cry. 

Ishaan and his brother Yohaan
(played by Sachet Engineer)

The way in which Ram Nikumbh slowly guides Ishaan to become a better child is shown beautifully. Nikumbh initially criticizes the school for not giving recognition to talent, and then when he realizes that the teachers won’t help Ishaan, he decides to do it himself, in a manner that Ishaan likes. The scene where he goes to Ishaan’s house to talk to his parents is one that parents should listen to closely, and take in all the advice that Nikumbh gives. 

Tanay Chheda as Rajan, Ishaan close friend
at the boarding school

To sum up, Aamir Khan’s Taare Zameen Par is a beautiful and emotional film about a student-teacher relationship, which also criticizes the mind and attitude of several parents. Kudos to Safary and Aamir for their exceptional performances. Hats off to the music trio for giving us some beautiful and melodious songs. A must watch film; one of Bollywood’s best. 

My Rating: 5/5

Thamizh Padam (2010)

English translation: A Tamil film
Director: C.S. Amudhan
Story: C. S. Amudhan and K. Chandru 
Cast: Shiva, Disha Pandey
Music: Kannan
Time: 120 minutes
Bottom-line: Recommended if and only if you watch Tamil films regularly

       Now there are tons and tons of people who like Tamil films. At the same, there are lots of people who criticize Tamil films for several things: the hero always winning, the superhuman stunts performed by the hero, many useless songs etc. Yet, we cannot do more than criticize. We cannot publicly show how lame these aspects are, as we are afraid of the people’s reaction. Now C.S. Amudhan has made something unique: a spoof film that ridicules and makes fun of many Tamil films that have been made.

The story: in a small village, male infanticide is common. However, one boy, Shiva (played by Shiva) is determined to escape. So, along with his grandmother (Paravai Muniyamma), he comes to Chennai to become a hero. Shiva does so after defeating a local gangster. He falls in love with a headstrong girl, Priya (Pandey). Meanwhile, a new villain, known as D, is troubling the city. Shiva attempts to find and confront D. The rest of the film combines several ideas from different films to complete the story.

Shiva as Shiva

Now, the main thing that is needed to enjoy the film is that you should be a regular viewer of Tamil cinema. The reason?  Most of the comedy comes from showing the incidents that happen in the actual films in a comic way. For example, in the film Apoorva Sagodharargal, Kamal Haasan, as a dwarf, kills the villain using a Rube Goldberg Machine. Here, Shiva appears to be a dwarf, but we see that he is actually kneeling down. He tries several attempts to kill a bad guy, but fails every time. Finally, the bad guy gets so irritated that he shoots himself! So, if you see the original films, you can enjoy the comic scenes better.

There is no story in the film. Amudhan has taken ideas from several Tamil films, but what I like most is that he has managed to make a story out of them. However, you may understand and laugh at many of the jokes, but you will laugh even more when you see how Amudhan has made a spoof of the original film/dialogue. Even the song ‘Oh Maha Zeeya’ has lyrics taken from several other songs from various Tamil films!

Disha Pandey as Priya. A still from the song
'Oh Maha Zeeya'

I could understand several jokes only with the help of others. If you see it while you are new to Kollywood cinema, the jokes may seem dumb. But if you see it when you are already familiar with Tamil cinema, the jokes are excellent. So, the opinions may vary depending on how well you know the world of Kollywood. Yet, the film does a great job in spoofing other Tamil films. In several films, the journey of the hero becoming rich or becoming famous is shown in about 5 minutes. This unrealistic scenario is made fun of in a song that is about 2 minutes long. Priya’s father says that Shiva is not rich enough to be a suitor. Immediately, Shiva starts making money by ironing clothes, selling newspapers etc, and becomes rich enough to have his own beach!

Shiva with M.S. Bhaskar. A scene from the
spoof of the film 'Sivaji: the Boss'

To conclude, Tamizh Padam is one film that will receive ratings ranging from very poor to fantastic. To the Tamilians, this film is 100% pure fun and entertainment; this film has enough comedy to make you roll on the floor with laughter. To others who are not familiar with Kollywood, this film may be lame and boring; the jokes may seem weird and awkward. The fact that the jokes come only from spoofing other Tamil films make this favourable only among the locals. However, as a person who is familiar with Tamil cinema, I enjoyed the film very much; but of course, it is not really a film. There is no acting, no story, no good song… the only thing to look out for is the resemblance the comic scenes bear to the actual film.

So, to those who feel that they need to more about Tamil films, I suggest you find out about few films from which the scenes are taken from, and then watch the film. To those who are already followers of Kollywood, I say, go for it!

My Rating: 3/5

Batman Begins (2005)

Director: Christopher Nolan
Story: Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer
Cast: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy 
Music: Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard
Time: 140 minutes
Bottom-line: The beginning of a new class of superhero films; terrific entertainment


 As December begins, I post the review for Batman Begins: the film that set the foundation one of the greatest trilogies made so far. This is the film that revived one of the world’s greatest superheroes, Batman. What starts in this 2005 was continued three years later (2008) in The Dark Knight, and was successfully concluded in 2012, in The Dark Knight Rises. In Batman Begins, Christopher Nolan uses his trademark narrative structure and direction to give the viewers exactly what they expect.

Bale as Bruce Wayne

  Bruce Wayne (Bale), as a child, falls into a well, and is attacked by bats. This creates a fear of bats in him. Another tragic incident of his childhood is the murder of both his parents, by mugger Joe Chill. Bruce is raised by the family butler, Alfred Pennyworth (Caine). Bruce inherits the family fortune and runs Wayne Enterprises,   and Bruce’s childhood friend, Rachel Dawes (Holmes) becomes a Gotham City district attorney. Bruce decides to gain knowledge of the underworld, and travels to a Bhutanese prison, where Henri Ducard (Neeson) gives him training in stealth and fear as a member of the League of Shadows. Later, Bruce returns to Gotham, and uses the equipment created by Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) to fight the criminals of Gotham, by taking on the identity of ‘The Batman’. The rest of the film is whether or not Bruce Wayne, as Batman, is able to save Gotham from the claws of villains like Scarecrow and others.

Neeson as Ducard

Holmes as Rachel Dawes

From 2000,  several comic book-based superhero films were made: X-Men series, Spiderman series, Batman series, the Marvel series and so on… Among these, the Batman films have been coming for a long time. The best known one was perhaps the 1989 film starring Jack Nicholson. After that, all the other Batman films were unsuccessful, until Christopher Nolan revived the superhero with Batman Begins. The main thing I like about this film is that the superhero does not have any supernatural power: he cannot fly, he does not have a shield made of some out-of-the-world element… the hero is someone who has ordinary human powers, but can do extraordinary things using science. This is why I said ‘new class of superhero films’ as the bottom-line; this is why Batman films are better than the other similar films. With this film, several successful collaborations took place: the Nolan-Bale Nolan-Caine, Nolan-Zimmer collaborations all started in this film, and then continued in the next four films of Nolan.

Oldman as James Gordon

The story is simple, but more realistic than what you would normally expect in a superhero film. Nolan decided to show the darker side of Batman as well in the film. He also shows other important incidents of Bruce’s childhood: the murder of his parents, the fear of bats etc. Instead of just showing Batman beat up all the bad guys, the film shows Batman in a more human film, which is also what makes this film better than many other films of the same genre. As I said before, the hero himself is human, like you and me. The only fictional thing about the film is the city of Gotham. The story is told in the typical non-linear narrative structure, with several brief flashes of Bruce’s childhood here and there. However, few negative aspects of the story are the fact it is more violent than the next two Batman films, and also contains more gore than those films.

The action sequences are good, and the ones that take place in the Bhutanese prison are excellent. The scene where Bruce is asked to find Ducard among a group of similar ninjas, and the fight between Bruce and Ducard in the snow are terrific to watch. The acting is also superb. In the next two Batman films, Bruce is already a hero, so Nolan focuses more on crime-fighting in those films. Here, Batman is still human for the first hour of the film. Bale has acted very well, and is well supported by Michael Caine and Katie Holmes.

Caine as Alfred Pennyworth

The score is brilliant; Zimmer and Howard have composed a score that goes high and low, fast and slow, just like Batman. The Batman theme that featured in this film was continued in The Dark Knight and in The Dark Knight Rises. Along with the score, the photography is also excellent. The locations are well-chosen, especially the scenes that take place in Bhutan. The action sequences are well-filmed, and the visual effects, especially the ones used to show Scarecrow, are also good.

Cillian Murphy as Dr. Jonathan Crane

With Nolan’s debut film, Following, people realized that he has a talent for directing, but needed a good producer. With Memento, people found that Nolan was a guy who was sure to influence Hollywood. Insomnia was a comparatively minor film, but it showed that Nolan can choose good locations and can direct psychological thrillers as well. With Batman Begins, people knew that he was a master. The next four films only made his fame and class greater and greater. To conclude, Batman Begins may not be as good as The Dark Knight, but definitely a great superhero film. The simple proof? If this film was bad, why did Nolan direct the remaining two Batman films?

My Rating: 4/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 85%