The Devil Wears Prada (2006)

Director: David Frankel
Screenplay: Aline Brosh McKenna (based on the book by Lauren Weisberger)
Cast: Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt, Stanley Tucci
Music: Theodore Shapiro 
Time: 109 minutes
Bottom-line: Highly engaging, thanks to the acting 

Meryl Streep in her top form again, in this 2006 comedy-drama The Devil Wears Prada. Directed by David Frankel, this film tells about how a girl who aims to satisfy her boss however she can. This film parodies the mechanical nature of people in industries, and is kind of like Modern Times, in this aspect. The film stars Anne Hathaway and Emily Blunt in the lead roles, and Streep’s performance in this film earned her the 14th Academy Award nomination for acting.

Hathaway as Andrea

Andrea Sachs (Hathaway) aspires to become a journalist. Despite mocking the fashion industry, she gets the job that ‘a thousand girls would kill for’: junior personal assistant to Miranda Priestly (Streep), the editor-in-chief if Runway magazine. She knows that a word from Miranda would secure her a job as a journalist in any place she wants. Miranda’s power is such that her pursing of lips can discard a $300,000 photo shoot. Yet, to get Miranda’s recommendation, Andrea puts up with Miranda’s weird demands and humiliating treatments. The senior assistant to Miranda is Emily Charlton (Blunt), who teaches Andrea the rules of the office. As the days go on, Miranda’s demands become more and more impossible to do, and this affects Andrea’s personal life as well. Does she continue to suffer, just to get Miranda’s recommendation? Or does she realize that there are better things to do? Watch The Devil Wears Prada to find out!

Streep as Miranda Priestly

I said that this film resembles Modern Times, in the sense that in both films, the way industries treat employees as machines is portrayed. Here too, from the day Andrea joins the job, she gets treated like a machine: do this, do that, wear this, not that…Miranda asks Andrea to perform a series of bizarre tasks, and she expects so much perfection that a single fault can lead to her firing Andrea. So Andrea ignores her health, personal life and almost everything else, just to please Miranda (which of course, means that she will get the job she loves). Miranda, we see, is so powerful that she does not really give a damn of what others think of her. Her sarcastic dialogues, her facial expressions all add to her character.

Blunt as Emily Charlton

The character of Miranda Priestly is what makes Streep’s acting great, in my view. The character is the main antagonist in the film, but not exactly a villain. Her egotistic and selfish attitude, her constant bossing around, and her impossible demands make you hate the character, but you will love Streep’s acting. To hate a person who does no harm, but just talks a lot, calls fro some great acting, and Streep delivers. The scenes in the beginning, where Emily gives such rigorous orders to others when Miranda arrives, shows how the others at the office worship Miranda. Hathaway has acted quite well too: her initial goof-ups at the office create comedy, and later she acts well to express sadness when her life hits the rocks, and in many scenes in the second half of the film. Emily Blunt plays a character that is hard-core follower of Miranda: listening to everything she says, obeys all the rules (however dumb they may be) to the letter etc. Andrea and Emily show similar and contrasting characteristics: Emily and Andrea do not mind following Miranda’s orders because they hope that the result will be good (Andrea hoping for her job, and Emily hoping for a trip to the Fashion Week in Paris). But while Andrea realizes that this horrible treatment is not worth it, Emily still has hope that she will get what she wants. This contrast shows a scenario that we also experience: we may hate a school or job or whatever, but yet we shut our mouths because we hope for a final reward. But there are few people who may feel that real happiness lies elsewhere, and do what they love.

Stanley Tucci as Nigel, another employee at
Runway magazine, with Hathaway

The costumes are great, and as this film is based on the fashion industry, the costumes are something that you have to see. When the opening credits are shown, several girls are shown, each dressing up in a different way. That should give an idea that the film is based on fashion. The score is good, and there is nothing great about the photography, except few scenes where the editing was particularly good. In the beginning, we see how powerful Miranda is, as several cuts are shown where she dumps her bag and coat on Andy's desk, asking for something new each time. these scenes are shown rapidly, with quick cuts, and this sort of gives a good effect. The scenes that show how Andy changes her style also involve some good bits of editing. The locations are shown well, and we also get to know little bit about the fashion industry through this film. However, the main reason you should watch the film is because of the characters, acting and the real-life scenario it portrays.

To conclude, David Frankel’s The Devil Wears Prada is an entertaining drama, with a fair amount of comedy as well. Streep’s fabulous acting, along with splendid performances by Blunt and Hathaway are the standouts. The story is not great (and at times slow), but it shows two options of life in a nice entertaining manner: does one opt for a job that he/she really enjoys, even if it is not too great, or does one take-up a humiliating and strenuous job, just for the prestige? A movie that is worth your time and money…go for it.

My Rating: 3.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes: 76%

Evano Oruvan (2007)

English translation: Someone 
Director: Nishikanth Kamat
Story: Nishikanth Kamat (remaking his own film Dombivli Fast, which was adapted from Falling Down (1993))
Cast: R. Madhavan, Seeman, Sangeetha
Music: G.V. Prakash, P. Sameer 
Bottom-line: A simple story made effective by Madhavan’s acting

Another ‘common man’ story, Evano Oruvan is a film based on a simple idea: what happens when a common man gets angry? This film appeals to the Indian public, telling that it is the public who have to be in charge of the country’s proper functioning. This film stars R. Madhavan and Seeman in the lead roles, and is based on the 1993 Hollywood film starring Michael Douglas.

Madhavan as Sridhar

Sridhar (Madhavan) is an ordinary middle class family man, with a wife, Vatsala (Sangeetha) and two children. He works in a bank. He is heavily affected by the corrupt incidents taking place in the city: cheating, thieving, intake of drugs and other atrocities. His wife does not worry about these and wants her family to be good and safe, but Sridhar takes a different approach. He goes around the city on a rampage, destroying or harming anyone or anything that causes trouble and makes the common people miserable. People regard him as a psychopath. His deeds become so violent that officer Vetri Maran (Seeman) is put in charge of capturing Sridhar. Does Sridhar control himself and prevent getting caught? Or does he continue going on a rampage? Watch this film to find out…

Sangeetha as Vatsala

Madhavan’s character is no Bruce Banner, to just turn into a monster when he gets angry. When an ordinary man gets angry, he can only do so much. This is the reason why Indians are reluctant to fight against any social crimes. If one good guy starts a fight, he can succeed only if others join him; alone he is useless and can easily be trampled upon (unless he is Hulk of course). It is this problem of the society that is highlighted in the film. The educated Indians should fight against the atrocities taking place in and around the society, and the poor and uneducated people may not have knowledge. But, as Seeman’s last dialogue says (in Tamil), “Like how we skip a question to which we don’t know the answer to in an exam, we also ignore these social crimes as long as they do not affect us. When all of us live with our heads bent against these crimes, one man raises his head to fight…But we don’t lift our heads; we instead push down the head of that man who raises it.” Hence the title, Evano Oruvan: the film just focuses on one unknown man, and what he does and how his actions affect him.

Seeman (right) as Vetri Maran, with Madhavan

The story is one of the most realistic ones I have seen so far, in Tamil. It is violent, and it is initially boring, but there are no fights where the hero injures fifty people with one blow, no duets and no unwanted punch lines. After the incident where Sridhar smashes the store for not returning the exact change, the story just shows various crimes going on in the city, and what Sridhar does to stop them. The scene where he threatens the minister and the scene where he settles the dispute over the water lorry are few memorable ones.

(The paragraph may contain spoilers) But what I liked about the film most, is the ending: it is not audience-favouring, it is not justified, but it is realistic. When you see the twist in the ending, you feel like crying. After this ‘emotional’ ending (if I can call it that) comes Vetri Maran’s speech, and this also criticizes the attitude of Indians. Vetri says, in his head, the dialogue mentioned in the third paragraph, and during this time, Nishikanth shows hundreds of insects feeding on the corpse of a rat, and this scene pretty much summarises the meaning of the entire film.

Madhavan goes around town damaging
shops and other things with a cricket bat.

Madhavan’s acting is superb. His character is also well-chosen: that of a common man. Madhavan’s fast dialogues, with lot of stammering, when he scolds the people committing crimes are often used to parody Madhavan in mimicry shows and all, but his acting is top-class. His acting in the climax is something I particularly liked, which you have to see for yourself to appreciate. Seeman has also played a good supporting role as Vetri Maran.

To conclude, Nishikanth’s Evano Oruvan has one of the best performances by Madhavan, along with Anbe Sivam. With a strong message given to the society, this film should be watched by people who wish to bring about a change. The film contains violence and is also slow in the beginning, but the end result is brilliant. This film is not aimed at the general public who just watch a film for its stars, but it is aimed at all those who want a meaningful film, and Evano Oruvan delivers.

My Rating: 4/5

3 Idiots (2009)

Director: Rajkumar Hirani
Story: Abhijat Joshi, Rajkumar Hirani (based on the book by Chetan Bhagat)
Cast: Aamir Khan, Sharman Joshi, R. Madhavan, Kareena Kapoor 
Music: Shantanu Moitra
Time: 171 minutes
Bottom-line: A masterpiece among Bollywood films; a film to treasure

The Bollywood film that took both the box office and the award ceremonies by storm, 3 Idiots seems to have it all: comedy, romance and a message to deliver. Many films have been made about friendship, but this film would be my pick. Starring Aamir Khan, Sharman Joshi and R. Madhavan, the film (in one line) is the story of how two friends try to find another.

The trio: Sharman Joshi as Raju (right), Aamir Khan
as Rancho (centre) and Madhavan as Farhan

Farhan Qureshi (Madhavan) and Raju Rastogi (Joshi) are two friends in Delhi. Farhan gets a call from Chatur (Omi Vaidya), saying that their friend Rancho (Aamir) is in town. Farhan and Raju go with Chatur in search of Rancho, who is supposedly in Shimla. En route, Farhan narrates the story of their college days together. We see that Rancho (real name Rancchoddas Shyamaldas Chanchad) is a care-free student, always enjoying the moment. The three of them become thick friends. Rancho falls in love with Pia (Kareena), the daughter of the college dean Viru Sahastrabuddhe (Boman Irani). The rest of the film tells all the events that take place during their college days, and whether or not Farhan and Raju find Rancho in Shimla.

Kareena Kapoor as Pia

The story is quite fast-paced. I like the way the film begins: Farhan pretends to be sick and makes the plane perform an emergency landing in Delhi. When he calls Raju, Raju just forgets everything (including his pants!) and goes with Farhan to see Rancho. These scenes themselves show how thick the friendship is. Another part of the story I liked is the message it gives. This film gives the message, “Become what you want to become…don’t let others tell what to be and what not to be.” Rancho is a guy who loves engineering and wants to become an engineer. Farhan is a guy who has a deep interest in photography, but is being forced to study engineering because of his parents. Raju is a guy who likes engineering, but fails because of superstition and fear. How Rancho makes them follow their own passion and live a happy life forms the major part of the story. The other twists and turns that take place in the story (particularly in the house in Shimla) also add to the fun and thrill of the film.

Omi Vaidya as Chatur, giving his speech

The story also shows how strong the friendship between the three of them is. Normally we forget out friends as soon as our school days get over, or even if we don't forget, we don't go about the country searching them. But Farhan, as he says, "Stops a plane, almost puts the ashes of a person into the toilet...", and does many more dangerous and stupid things, just to find his friend, along with Raju. The way in which the film portrays friendship is what makes it a hit.

Now other than the moral the film gives, 3 Idiots also has plenty of comedy and entertainment. From the ragging scene in the beginning, till the scene at the lake in the end, every scene has some joke or the other. There are tons of memorable scenes in the film: the ragging scene, the scene where Rancho tells the definition of ‘book’, the scene where Chatur tells his speech (and that is the best of the lot), the comic sequences at Rancho’s house in Shimla and many more. The song Behti Hava Sa Tah Woh is one my most favourite songs, that describes the friendship in a melodious and beautiful manner. The songs Aal Izz Well and Zoobi Doobi are more fun-filled than meaningful, but both are comic to watch.

             Boman Irani as Viru Sahastrabuddhe

The acting is excellent. Aamir’s character is what makes his role interesting to watch, more than his acting. But Sharman Joshi has done the best job in acting. His expression of sadness when he is asked to type the letter, by Viru, is the scene that brings out the best in him. Boman Irani has acted equally well, and he plays a terrific role as Viru. He has the typical attitude of all headmasters: wanting his college to be first, someone who doesn’t care about his students but only about his college… His put-on lisp also makes his role a funny one. His facial expressions during Chatur’s speech are brilliant, and you will find yourself laughing during that scene even if you don’t want to. Madhavan and Omi have also acted superbly.

Poster of  Nanban

This film was remade in Tamil as Nanban (meaning ‘friend’), directed by Shankar. This film stars Vijay for Aamir, Jiiva for Joshi and Srikanth for Madhavan’s role. The Tamil film was a scene by scene copy of 3 Idiots , with even few jokes being the same. The songs were much worse in the Tamil film, compared to the Hindi one, except the song, Aal is Well, which I liked.

To sum up, Rajkumar Hirani’s 3 Idiots is a film that can be watched how many ever times without getting bored. A film which provides the right amount of comedy (romance may have been a tad extra) along with a meaningful story, Hirani’s blockbuster provides entertainment from all angles, be it acting, story or dialogues. Simply brilliant is 3 Idiots, don’t miss it!

My Rating: 5/5

A Wednesday! (2008)

Director: Neeraj Pandey
Story: Neeraj Pandey
Cast: Naseeruddin Shah, Anupam Kher 
Music: Sanjoy Chowdhary
Time: 103 minutes
Bottom-line: A fine thriller; sublime performances from the leads

  A film that you can watch on any day of the week, and at any time, A Wednesday just shows you how much power a single man has in his hands. Starring Naseeruddin Shah and Anupam Kher in the leads, the story takes place within 2pm and 6pm on a Wednesday in Mumbai. With a fast paced story and a surprise twist ending, this film provides plenty of thrills and also gives a social message to Indian people.

Naseeruddin Shah as the unnamed caller

Mumbai Police commissioner Prakash Rathod (Kher), on the day before retirement, recalls his most challenging case. One Wednesday, an ordinary unnamed man (Shah) places a couple of black bags, supposedly containing explosives, in several places in Mumbai. He then goes to the top of a building, under construction, and sets up his gadgets: a phone, several SIM cards, a laptop etc. He calls Rathod, and informs him that he has planted five bombs in Mumbai, that will go off simultaneously in another four hours, unless Rathod agrees to his demands: to release four terrorists. Rathod thinks the caller is bluffing, but starts to fear when the caller informs him that a bomb has been planted in the station itself. Rathod has four hours to either agree to the caller’s demands or to find all the five bombs and disarm them. Does the caller bring the Mumbai police to its knees, or does Rathod sniffle out the caller before the time is up? Watch A Wednesday to find out!

Anupam Kher as Rathod (left), with Aamir Bashir
as Jai, another cop 

The story is clean from the start. The fact that the story is told in a first-person narrative is pretty good thinking, and the significance of this is known only at the end. Other than a few violent (and sort of offbeat) scenes in the beginning, the film has no gunfights, no action, but only psychological thrills. When you see Shah take out all his gadgets and stuff you feel that he is a pretty cool villain, unlike the ones we see in Tamil films, with tons of hitmen and stuff. After this build-up for Shah, the film goes very smoothly and at a rapid pace. In the first half it may seem like this is just another race against time movie, but what makes it unique in the events that take place towards the end.

Jimmy Shergill as Arif, another important character

The suspense is built very well. On one side you have Shah, a guy who is sitting in the open with just a bunch of gadgets, bringing the police to its knees. On the other hand you have Rathod, a man with enormous power and resources, but who is helpless against a common man. Throughout the film, Rathod uses all the facilities available to him: computer hackers, call traces etc. but still cannot find the caller. All the phone calls between the caller and Rathod create psychological suspense. But the adrenaline really starts to flow in the last fifteen minutes.

(The paragraph may contain spoilers) The three tracks - that of Shah calling, that of the terrorists being taken in the bus, and that of the reporter – are interspersed. This helps to build the suspense. The final call which the man makes to Rathod brings out the true nature of the characters, and also provides a message to the public (to tell the message would be a big spoiler). The call also changes the attitude of all the other people in the police station. That monologue by Shah is one of the best scenes in the film. The twists that take place towards the end in the airport are simply brilliant: you will really be hit with a shock when you see them! The final dialogue by Kher is also good. I like the way Pandey ends the film without any name for the character of Shah. To the viewers, he is just a stupid common man, as he calls himself. But the fact that the caller remains known as a common man adds to the meaning of the message he gives, of how common people should deal with matters the authorities don’t.

The acting by both the leads is excellent. Shah plays a cool character that is prepared for everything. Till the end he acts in such a way that you will think he is an awesome villain: so cool, yet so powerful. That monologue of his is superb, and his expressions during that scene are splendid. Anupam Kher has also acted equally well. He displays the boldness and authoritative attitude of a cop, but also displays fear as the story progresses.

Poster for Unnaipol Oruvan

The film was remade in three languages. In Tamil it was Unnaipol Oruvan (meaning ‘someone like you’), starring Kamal Haasan for Shah’s role and Mohanlal for Kher’s role. In Telugu it was Eeenadu, with Kamal Haasan and Victory Venkatesh playing the leads. In English it was The Common Man, with Ben Kingsley and Ben Cross playing the leads. I think this is one of the few Indian movies that were made in English. The Tamil version was a scene-by-scene copy of A Wednesday, with the same twists and same story all the way. Both Kamal and Mohanlal have acted well in the Tamil remake.

To conclude, Neeraj Pandey’s A Wednesday is one of the few thrillers in Hindi that I like, along with Kaun. A smooth story from the beginning with no diversions, a mind-blowing twist ending, accompanied by sublime performances by both Naseeruddin Shah and Anupam Kher make this film a fabulous entertainer: no fights and no action, but a classy psychological thriller.

My Rating: 4.5/5

Swades (2004)

English translation: Motherland (swades pronounced swa-desh)
Director: Ashutosh Gowariker
Story: M.G. Sathya
Cast: Shah Rukh Khan, Gayatri Joshi 
Music: A.R. Rahman
Time: 195 minutes
Bottom-line: If you hate India, this film has enough power to make you change your mind

    One of the few films of Shah Rukh Khan where his muscle body and sexiness do not play a role, Swades is a film that must be watched by all Indians. After Lagaan, Ashutosh Gowariker directs another film about India, only this time, the timeline is the 21st century. We see thousands of people leaving India for better job opportunities and what not. What happens when one such person decides to visit his motherland again?

Shah Rukh Khan as Mohan

Mohan Bhargava (SRK) is an NRI working for NASA. With the foundation of a major project ready, Mohan decides to visit India to meet his nanny, Kaveri Amma, with whom he has lost touch. In India, he meets a beautiful woman, Gita, (Gayatri Joshi) at his friend’s shop, and asks her the directions for Charanpur, the village where Kaveri Amma lives. He eventually reaches the village and meets Kaveri Amma, and also finds out that Gita is from the same village. In the village he meets lots of interesting people, and wins their admiration. He also gets to know about the problems faced by the villages in and around that area: caste discrimination, child marriage, debt traps etc. Deeply affected by these incidents, he decides to help the villagers, at least till he gets back to the US. What he does forms the rest of the film.

Gayatri Joshi as Gita

This film is not a classic, but will surely become one. Unlike Lagaan, this film failed at the box-office, and I am not surprised. Good films like these don’t run, because most of the Indian public wants SRK to sing some duets and show his six-packs! He plays a normal role and so people just skip this film. These films are meant to inspire this generation of teenagers and children, and it should definitely be watched by them. All the people who say that they will settle in US say that they will visit India every month or two, but they never do. Maybe job opportunities are better there, but that does not mean that you forget your motherland and treat it like junk! No matter where you are, you will never find the culture and tradition like that of India, nor will you find the hospitality of Indians.

Kishori Balal as Kaveri Amma, with SRK

The story is fast-paced, and this is accompanied by few bits of humour here and there. The film is funny in the beginning, and then becomes more serious as it delves into the social issues. The incidents are such that the mentality of Mohan gradually changes from being ignorant towards the problems to slowly deciding to solve them himself; the incidents are not in a way such that Mohan is like, “Who cares?” and the next minute he is like, “Time to save the country!!” The way in which his attitude changes is realistic. The film also portrays the condition of villages accurately. Many villagers are not educated enough: they fall into debt traps, they have very simple needs, they are not aware of how to make improve something; most of the time they just accept it as fate if something is damaged or if someone is sick. With such a pitiful condition, it is up to the so-called modern and educated Indians to stay in the country and strive for its development, instead of packing bags and leaving for some other country.

Many consider this film as SRK’s best performance, and I agree, though it probably comes second to his performance in Chak De! India. He has done excellently to display all emotions on his face, even expressions of nostalgia. Gayatri Joshi has also acted well, and the other actors who play the various characters in the village have also acted well.

The single shot that captures the thrill of the entire film.
One of the best stills ever seen In Hindi cinema, in my view. 

The music is superb. The song Yun Hi Chala Chal Rahi is perfect for singing whenever you are traveling, as it has a fast tempo and the lyrics are such. The song Yeh Jo Desh Hai Tera comes towards the end, and this shows how nostalgic Mohan is about India. The scenes shown during this song pretty much summarizes the entire trip he makes to India. Moreover, this song is heard on all national festivals, along with Vande Mataram and the national anthem.

To sum up, Ashutosh Gowariker’s Swades is almost as good as Lagaan, but slightly slow in some places. I appreciate the accurate portrayal of the poor condition of Indian villages, and the way in which the message of how an Indian should work for the development of his motherland is shown in a beautiful and moving way. The songs and their lyrics are superb. Shah Rukh Khan has also acted brilliantly, as has Gayatri Joshi. This film is bound to make you love your country despite its many faults, and it is also inspiring enough to make you help other fellow Indians to live a better life, instead of making their own life better.

My Rating: 4.5/5

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

Director: Robert Mulligan
Screenplay: Horton Foote (based on the book by Harper Lee)
Cast: Gregory Peck, Mary Badham, Brock Peters 
Music: Elmer Bernstein
Time: 129 minutes
Bottom-line: As good as the book; a film that delivers in all aspects

   When Harper Lee’s book came out, it took the world by storm. She won the Pulitzer Prize for this novel, and even after fifty years, the novel is considered be a classic for its memorable characters, inspiring story, and of course, one of the best courtroom scenes ever. After the book’s success, the film was obviously much awaited, and I revisit that very film on New Year’s Day.

The story takes place in the fictional town of Maycomb, Alabama. Atticus Finch (Peck), a lawyer, is the father of two children: Jean “Scout” Finch (Badham) and Jem Finch (Phillip Alford). The children are befriended by another boy, Dill. As the story goes on, Atticus is asked to defend a Negro, Tom Robinson (Peters), who is accused of raping a white girl, Mayella Ewell. Whether or not Atticus is able to successfully defend Tom, and how he brings up his children in a society filled with social crimes forms the rest of the story.

Peck as Atticus Finch (left) and Peters
as Tom Robinson

Now when you read the summary, you are going to think that there is almost nothing filmable in the story except the courtroom scene. That was my thought exactly, until I saw the film. The courtroom scene begins at about an hour into the film. Before that, the film mainly shows the various incidents of the children’s childhood: their neighbours, their friendship, their mysterious neighbour ‘Boo’ Radley. It also shows how the children react to the fact that their father is defending a black man, and how Atticus gets his children to know about ‘the stuff they are not old enough to know about’.

Alford as Jem (left) and Badham as
Scout

Now the book tells lot of values to the readers, which are not shown so clearly in the film. Many children think that their dad is a hero at one stage, and then as they grow older they realize that their dad is not perfect and has many faults. This film also shows the same: Jem and Scout think that Atticus is a weak man, and cannot do anything outside the house, until the time Atticus is made to shoot a mad dog. Immediately after this, Jem and Scout realize how skilled Atticus is. The way Atticus brings up his children is given more clearly in the book, and not so much in the film. The story mainly deals with racism. From the moment people get to know that Atticus is defending a black man, everyone starts insulting him, calling him ‘nigger-lover’ and stuff, which also leads Scout into fights. Atticus calmly asks Scout to keep away from fights, no matter what people say about him. Atticus’ long speech in the courtroom also tells us about how the whites treat the blacks: “…the evil assumption - that all Negroes lie. All Negroes are basically immoral beings. All Negro men are not to be trusted around our women, an assumption that one associates with minds of their caliber, and which is in itself, gentlemen, a lie - which I do not need to point out to you,” as he says.

One of the best scenes in the film: all the
members of the courtroom standing up as Atticus leaves. 

The story is a boring one till the courtroom scene, but is made interesting by the lively performances of Mary Badham and Phillip Alford. Harper Lee wrote the book in first-person narrative, with the story as seen through the eyes of an eight-year-old girl. Badham has done brilliantly to show exactly how a small girl would react to all these social crises. It looks like she hasn’t acted, but has actually felt this way. All her emotions - be it the happy ones when playing, and the sad expressions when she gets into a fight, and the sort of curious expressions at the courtroom – all seem authentic. This film is Gregory Peck’s career best performance, in my view. A calm and loving father, a brilliant lawyer… he seems to be the ideal actor for both these roles. His acting before the courtroom scene, when he guides Scout and Jem by teaching them values; and his acting in the courtroom, with his cross-questioning, and of course, that memorable monologue, prove why he deserved and won the Academy Award for the Best Actor.

The book To Kill a Mockingbird,
by Harper Lee

The American Film Institute has recognized this film as the second most inspirational film of all time, after It’s a Wonderful Life. But it is Gregory Peck who takes the cake. His character, Atticus Finch, was recognized as the greatest film hero of all time, and that is something to be really really proud of. The courtroom scene is one of the best in Hollywood history, but I felt that 12 Angry Men was better in that aspect. There are also tons of memorable lines in the film, including that lengthy speech by Atticus. Few lines are worth mentioning here. Atticus says, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it,” indicating how wrong we are when we comment about someone else without understanding anything about him/her. Atticus also says, to Jem, “Shoot all the blue jays you can, but remember it is a sin to kill a mockingbird. Mockingbirds don't do anything but make music for us to enjoy,” and this gives the title of the story.

To sum up, Robert Mulligan’s To Kill a Mockingbird is an evergreen classic. Credit must go to Horton Foote for making possible a movie with an almost unfilmable story, not that the story is bad. Harper Lee’s story is very inspiring, emotional and also funny here and there. With magnificent performances by all the actors, a great story, many memorable lines and a terrific score, this film is certainly the magnum opus of Harper Lee and Gregory Peck. An enthralling experience awaits you… go for it!

My Rating: 4/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 94%

The Avengers (2012)

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

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

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

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

Evans as Captain America (right) and Hemsworth
as Thor

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

Scarlett Johansson as Natasha Romanoff 

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

Jeremy Renner as Clint Burton

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

Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury

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

Last but not the least: Tom Hiddleston as Loki 

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

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

Spellbound (1945)

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

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

Peck as Dr. Edwardes

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

Bergman as Dr. Petersen 

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

A scene from the dream sequence

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

A quote shown in the beginning of the film.

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

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

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

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

My Fair Lady (1964)

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

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

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

Eliza Doolittle, played by Hepburn. 

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

Hepburn as Doolittle, this time after Higgins
works on her

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

Harrison as Prof. Henry Higgins

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

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

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

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

The Great Dictator (1940)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Oakie as Napaloni

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

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

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

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

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

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