p.o.p.c.o.r.n.p.a.p.e.r.s

Almanya – Willkomen in Deustchland

sunil — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:31:10 +0000

Overall: 7/10
Direction: 6/10
Acting:
7/10
Cinematography: 7/10
Script: 7/10
Salience: 7/10

Remarks: Though immigration is perhaps the single-most
common thread across all imaginable boundaries of our generation, I have
always felt stories that have dealt with the theme have often diluted
it in the larger context of individual stories or emphasised it strongly
to prove a political point. In other words, there wasn’t a story on
immigration and identity per se, exploring what these are, by themselves
in our times? It has been always what it means to someone or somewhere
and worst what it ought to mean? In this sense, Almanya, is the movie I
had seen several times in my head, long before it was made. Its
strength is that it’s not a part of anything else bigger or stronger.
Zadie Smith, writing in the White Teeth a decade back had said …. it
makes an immigrant laugh to hear the fears of the nationalist, scared of
infection, penetration, miscegenation, when this is small fry,
peanuts, compared to what the immigrant fears – dissolution, disappearance.
Almanya explores these fears without turning overtly political or
preachy.

The story is of Huseyin, one of the first wave Turkish
immigrants to Germany. Narrated between flashbacks and present time, the
story is lighthearted with a good dose of comedy. As it moves forward
it presents the case for different layers and perspectives of
immigration and identity in different stories of its characters. The
emotions therefore are rich and varied, yet not at all definite – the
typical confusion not very alien to an immigrant. While the second and
third generations ( children and the grandchildren) struggle with their
own notions of identity Huseyin has to deal with his own. All of these
questions are well explored with a warm, ( dare I even say, caring?)
touch, without getting carried away, as often the temptation is in such
efforts. The chief motif is that of conflict – ranging from ambivalence
for Huseyin who migrated for economic reasons contrasted against his
notions of rootedness to his grandson who though German, struggles to
decide which side he has to play football for in School- German or
Turkish? As he observes you can only play for one side, not both, as his
grandfather believes. Th various characters are given different
personalities to emphasise different viewpoints, while Fatma ( Huseyin’s
wife ) relishes her German passport, his daughter is fairly not
bothered about being anything or of any particular country?

The
movie is well made; I believe you can’t make a movie on this subject
without stereotypes, so yes, there’s liberal use of cliches and
stereotypes in the narration but they never once are boring and more
importantly, like I have witnessed in many Indian immigrant movies, they
are not trivialised into a completed morality ( Bend it like Beckham,
Namesake et al)

The acting is refreshing, though the characters
themselves are pretty stereotypical. The script is reasonable and I
found the cinematography decent. Direction is impressive in the context -
especially the omissions to maintain that sense of comedy whilst
exploring a reasonably non-comical topic - what I would term as ‘walking
the tight rope walk of light heartedness’ Almanya doesnt fall into
the category of Great Cinema but for the authenticity of its exploration
and for its bravery of not shying away from the typical, I would
certainly say it’s a very good movie.
Do not miss if you are keen on
the topic of immigration and identities in 21st century.

The Bounty Hunter

sunil — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:04:43 +0000

Overall: 1/10
Direction: 1/10
Acting: 1/10
Cinematography: 1/10
Script: 0/10
Salience: 0/10

Remarks: Utter waste of time. Its entertainment value is no better than staring at a dead fish at the bottom of a pond. Gerald Butler can’t act and Jennifer Aniston can’t be anyone beyond Rachel in Friends. Put them in a movie that has neither a script nor a sense of purpose. The result is a trauma. An effort as sagging as Aniston’s tits. Avoid.

PS- I didnt choose to watch it. Lovefilm sent me an extra disc.

Green Zone

sunil — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 23:43:38 +0000

Overall: 6/10
Direction: 7/10
Acting: 6/10
Cinematography: 6/10
Script: Hmmm/10
Salience: 7/10

Remarks: Watched it on a DVD between putting up a presentation and replying emails. Dealing with Iraq invasion, I guess perhaps the content is more honest than any other movie on the subject. But it struggles in a contradiction that it chooses to ignore- while the vision is grand to being impartial, well, even damning, the script just adds up to a very average roll-out of the 90s. It does try to acknowledge the complexities and the intricacies, but fails in its narration. The direction is just an extension of the Bourne movies but without the structural uniqueness that the story of Bourne offered. The camerawork with many over the shoulder shots is just a replica of Bournes without much to add, or even emphasise the Iraqiness of the situation. Script is garden variety Hollywood.Acting is basically reduced to a shot of holding a semiautomatic weapon in an army uniform and uttering a few words of jargon, like for instance – vanguard to alpha team or something on those lines. Not particularly unique- doesn’t in anyway add to political, social or cultural understanding of the conflict or the region. In other words, it’s no Syriana, but still a decent attempt.

Stalker

sunil — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 00:04:06 +0000

Overall: ?/10
Direction: ?/10
Acting: ?/10
Cinematography: 9/10
Script: ?/10
Salience: 10/10

Remarks: Are you kidding me? I guess one of the reasons to be alive is to watch Stalker as many times, at different points in your life and see how you find so different meaning every time.

Heartbeats

sunil — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:09:42 +0000

Overall: 7/10
Direction: 7/10
Acting: 6/10
Cinematography: 7/10
Script: 7/10
Salience: 7/10

Remarks: Caught it on Film 4 just with a faint memory of seeing its title being on the Cannes list last year. The movie is unique in the story it attempts to narrate. The story is of three friends – Montrealers- a girl (Marie) and two guys (Nico and Francis), who hang out together. In fact, they are more like acquaintances with enough secrets, who come across as wanting to impress each other. Familiarity and the need to feel something deeper makes them believe they are feeling love for each other. But it’s more like a narcissistic need for self acknowledgement than any real devotion for the other. In this aspect, its French title Les amours imaginaires suits it better than a very reductionist and almost improper ’Heartbeats’.

Their story start off as intense preoccupations that grow into obsessions for each other, and evolves , especially during the later half into an entangled confusion to expose their individual inabilities to feel any true emotion of worth. Marie and Francis are devoted to Nico whose narcissism wouldn’t let him love either or both of them back. Marie though slightly falls towards the exception. The film’s strength is in capturing different forms of love, if it is love at all?

The treatment is very French School. I loved the cinematography, may be because it had been a while that I had watched an typical art-house at leisure. The acting is decent, but mind you the story is very script driven. The first half is more or less adoloscent - almost like the Dreamers- but watch out for the second half when the defenses of its characters open up into painful acceptance.

10000 BC

sunil — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 07:54:00 +0000

Overall: 6/10
Direction: 5/10
Acting: 4/10
Cinematography: 5/10
Script: 2/10
Salience: 5/10

Remarks: Got around to watch it after all. A very run of the mill love story made unique by its period setting. Nothing spectacular except the concept of watching peoples’ lives during the prehistoric era. Not much to write home about as the plot is hinged on a very linear love story. The action is commendable in one impressive hunting scene watching which on the telly actually prompted me to watch the movie. Perhaps, would have made a good viewing in an imax. Acting, direction and script are basic and limited to the simple plot. The script is unremarkable. The salience is in the development of historical fiction /action as a genre, or more accurately prehistoric fiction.

But the movie adds more evidence to the argument of inaccuracies in hollywood depiction of history. As gross as showing humans and Raptors in the same frame, when your movie title is 10000BC. And Remember 300 totally overlooking 5000 odd greek soldiers who fought along with the Spartans at Thermopylae? Here presumed Middle eastern/ Egyptian civilization ? ( though this is not acknowledged, and even is anachronistic) is shown to employ slave labour in building structures which look like early pyramids. But as we know now, no slave labourers were employed in prehistoric Egypt.

Watchable once when your concentration reserves are running very low.

Zindagi Na Mile Dobara

sunil — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 03:56:19 +0000

Overall: 2/10
Direction: 2/10
Acting: 2/10
Cinematography: 2/10
Script: 1/10
Salience: 0/10

Remarks: Regret watching it. Two and half hours long cliche that incorporates within as many cliches as possible. A sort of typical emotional elbowing with a formulaic love-story, an unresolved out of wedlock story and an enforced circumstantial marriage all somewhat suitably settled in Spain over a road-trip. Acting, even by Indian standards is forgettable. Direction is a long joke, script is monotonous, over all the film reeks with dearth of creativity from the first reel to the last. If really keen on Spain, better watch an I need Spain advert, which I surely makes more sense.

Delhi Belly

sunil — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 02:49:31 +0000

Overall: 4/10
Direction: 4/10
Acting: 4/10
Cinematography: 5/10
Script: 4/10
Salience: 3/10

Remarks: Yet another post-modern attempt to Indianise versions of a Guy Ritchie and a Tarantino flick. The linear plot is peppered with deliberately subversive script to attract the Indian sms generation who would laugh and talk about the sequences for days. No real memorable cinema as such as the story devolves from slapstick to shit reel after reel. Acting is exaggerated and traumatic at times ; music is peppy but will dry off from memory as all shit that ever happened on Indian roadsides would.

Uzak

sunil — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 19:18:02 +0000

Overall: 8/10
Direction: 6/10
Acting: 6/10
Cinematography: 6/10
Script: 6/10
Salience: 4/10

Remarks: Very quaint and melancholic exploration of alienation and displacement. One man in midlife crisis of sorts and another struggling to start. The story is narrated in sombre shots to emphasize the two souls when the world around them moves at a quicker pace. And there is Istanbul for the backdrop, that mystfied, melancholic city for the lovers who have lost their love. I liked the interactions and some authentic complexities in the characters. The helplessness between and within the characters is well portrayed. Well conceived and executed, though at times ‘typical’ in European cinema circles. Reminded me on Tony Takitani.

The Horse Whisperer

sunil — Fri, 20 May 2011 21:52:24 +0000

Overall: 6/10
Direction: 6/10
Acting: 7/10
Cinematography: 6/10
Script: 6/10
Salience: 3/10

Remarks: It’s amazing that though I knew a lot about it( but haven’t read the book), how I hadn’t gotten around to watch it after all these years. A well made typical Hollywood product. A strong, moving story with author-backed roles. Decent acting by well accomplished actors. Scarlett Johansson holds her own as the traumatized kid ( amazing how being a sexual symbol might undermine acting skills or at least the perception of it). Nothing remarkable, the story is about healing might have been better if it was just that than being mixed with love and lack of it in a marriage. Something which was later done in Sea Biscuit ( There’s so much cultural material one might do with a thesis about how horses symbolize healing and recovery in American psyche)

Put it in one word : Healing.