Movie Makers have always seen the potential of sequels, and sequels of sequels. And rightfully so, even a decade back, there have been a good number of movies (or should I say, movie franchises) which have made use of this.

Case in point :
The Friday the 13th series, the Godfather series and who can forget the Star Wars franchise.

But it is only in recent times that movie studios have come to make full use of the sequel mania. Every major Hollywood studio is into making sequels, trilogies and whatnot. Disney, Newline, Revolution, everybody is making them. Why, the Terminator franchise, supposedly the most successful movie franchise till date is gearing up to make a Fourth installment of the Human Vs Computer War.

Even the Indian film industry has woken up to the money machine that the making of movie series are. Granted, you can count on your one hand the number of sequels/trilogies/series ever attempted, but there is definitely an effort, feeble as it may be. One reason for this state of affairs may be the budget, or may be the lack of it. Making a movie series, or the very least, a sequel means serious money, and though budgets for Indian movies are getting higher and higher, they are nowhere near than the typical Hollywood product.

A prime example of this would be the recently hyped to sky high and released "Dhoom 2". The first installment "Dhoom" was itself neither original nor groundbreaking. But it had some things going for it, namely a somewhat taut storyline, good casting, great music and slick editing. While this was the case, one would expect the sequel to be even better, especially as it boasted of a much bigger budget, better music and a fantastic star lineup of A-list actors, bollywood's best. But unfortunately, the movie sucked big time, riddles with so many plot holes that you would think it is a sieve. And some of the characters had no place in the story, wafer thin as it was. The only thing that the movie had going for it was the rocking soundtrack, everything else was just eye-candy, nothing more. And to make matters worse, the makers are planning a third movie in the series.

What I am trying to say is that when everybody and their second cousin is making sequels and trilogies, not everyone is cut out for it. While Hollywood has gotten pretty good at this art, the Indian film industry has a long way to go. Doubly so as in the case of most mainstream Indian movies, they are simply a mish-mash of a pool of Hollywood films or in some cases, a straight copy-paste product. Making sequels/trilogies or a movie series is more than big budgets, big stars and bigger SFX sequences. It is a labor in art, where only a very minuscule percentage come out on top. It would be a favor to us all, and to the grand institution that is cinema, if movie makers realize this before they even think of embarking upon one.

yours truly, Ar'Nath

Read the rest of the story >>

The Rag-to-riches is not a phenomenon exclusive to America. Mani ratnam's "Guru" is a testimony to the fact that ambition, determination and perseverance can be a winning potion for any aspiring person, irrespective of nationality. The movie charts the life of Gurukanth Desai, the disowned son of a school headmaster, and his rise to the helm of the Indian business world from frugal and humble beginnings.

The Story
Guru starts off in a small Gujrati village. Young 'GURU' KANT DESAI (played by Abhishek Bachhan) can't pass his exams but he dreams big. He leaves for Turkey against his fathers wishes. There he delivers oil gallons. But this genius is not interested in mundane works; he dreams big and wants to earn for himself rather than work for somebody else. In between Mallika Sherawat sizzles as a belly dancer; delivering her oomph which will sure earn the applause of front rows (I was sitting in back rows). Young Guru gets a promotion in the job, but instead he decides to move back to his village to start his own bijness (that's what he calls business).

He returns to India, but his father criticizes him for even thinking about starting a bijness. Meanwhile Guru is looking for a partner to start his bijness. He finds his childhood friend Jignesh (Arya Babbar) who doesn't have sufficient money because his father is saving money for his daughter's dowry. In turn Guru agrees to marry his sister (for starting a business). But luckily for him the girl turns out to be who else, but Aishwarya (Now, even I don't need any dowry, I am totally against dowry). Guru leaves with Aishwarya and Arya to chase his dreams. But he sees that the system is full of restrictions, which hampers starting of any bijness. He is a lay man who has no information of any taxes, laws etc. All he wants to do is earn money, but License Raj is at its peak. Business is full of heavy import duties, rules and regulations. At this point Guru finds a friend in Mithun Chakorbarty, who owns a newspaper. His newspaper stands for truth and Mithun stands by his values all throughout the movie. Mithun gives a very riveting performance (those who despise him, please see this movie to see a great performance by the dancing prince). He helps Guru to start his textile bijness when he publishes an article about contract system in textile market and exposes the system. This is beginning of building of an empire which will soon have 30 lakh shareholders and will be India's largest company.

Soon Guru moves on to bigger things, instead of trading textile he wants to make textile. His company Shakti floats its IPO (shares) and builds its factory in Gujarat. The Company starts earning huge profits and Guru becomes highly popular. Soon Guru starts manipulating the system. He bribes, evades import duty, manipulates share market and does all other unfair things known to mankind. He only has 1 motive. To earn money. But righteous Mithun gets to know of Guru's deeds and he starts bringing his misdeeds to public. Helping Mithun in this is Madhvan( who also delivers a very good performance). Madhvan tackles Guru with his own weapons. He exposes Guru's every misdeed. In between we see Vidya Balan(looking very pretty), she is crippled from her legs. She is Mithun's granddaughter and shares a daughterly relationship with Guru. Madhvan falls in love with Vidya and they both marry, knowing fully well that Vidya only has about a year to live(she suffers from a deadly disease which has crippled her legs). Madhvan starts publishing articles which completely destroys Guru's reputation and leads to closure of his factories. Guru is dragged to court. And from this moment movie becomes very engrossing. How Guru faces the court and how he deals with a death of a near person comprises the rest of the story.

The Good
First of all let me start by mentioning Abhishek Bachan's role, as this is the role that Guru is built upon. If there ever was a movie where one actor dominated so completely I would only compare Kamal Hassan in Nayakudu/Nayakan. Abhishek should be very proud of what he has accomplished in Guru, it is something that some actors haven't or will not achieve in a life time. He is impeccable for the hardest of critic to comment. His histrionics are brilliant and the way he lost and gained weight during different parts of the movie demonstrate how serious Maniratnam and Abhishek were in making this movie. Keep the awards ready please...Abhishek Bachan has his name stamped on them.

The story is quite simple; it is the narration and the characterisation that makes this movie so unique and interesting. it's about a common mans journey to build India's largest company with the help of its share holders by whatever means possible. In Guru, Guru Kanth Desai is not portrayed as an invincible man rather he is played as a very good business man who can talk and do right things at the right time. The narration of the story is so tight you never flinch. (This applies only to serious movie watchers, not the ones who cannot do without masala and comedy in a film) Maniratnam is one the best story tellers in our country if not the best, and he does that perfectly again.

A word of mention...
Aishwarya Rai has a very strong role in Guru; strong roles are very scarce in Bollywood these days...especially for female artists. Aishwarya stays with Guru throughout the movie and stays on the top of Bollywood by doing that brilliantly. Mithun & Madhavan are the adamant characters that fight for the right, when I say adamant they really are in the movie and you feel their willingness to stay on the right side of things all through the movie. Maniratnam has made a wonderful movie full of strong characters, great screen play, brilliant music and marvellous photography by Rajiv Menon. He needs to be commended for this effort. It is no wonder he takes two years to make out one movie.

The Bad
The predictability of the screenplay.
Everyone knows its a bio pic of Dhirubhai Ambani, still it didn't need to be so predictable. The biggest disappointment was that there was no evolution in the the protagonist as he grows from being a common villager to India's biggest industrialist . Abhishek didn't age at all, physically or otherwise ! The only physical differences on Abhishek and Aishwarya were some coloring in their hair, to depict the passaeg of time, and some dark circles under their eyes. Obviously, one was no expecting the magic and mastery of Nayagan here, but at least there was potential to get somewhere close to that. There was no insight, revelation or the plotting that made Guru the man he was. Lots of instances in the movie is happenstance. Guru bumping into Mithunda on the road, winning the contracts, deciding to make polyester or even meeting Aishwarya for the first time.

Glorification of Guru.
The end glorifies Guru as the messiah ,as the best gift to mankind and the masses. While the film maker has every right to express his opinion on the protagonist, the glorification clearly plays to the galleries and all those who had confronted him for a right reason are totally forgotten ! ( the BIL, Madhavan, Mithun etc )

The relationship with Mithun.
The movie hinges on the relationship between Mithun and Abhishek. Some of the best moments in the movie are their scenes together. It so wonderfully set up leading to the interval and subsequent scenes of Abhisheks aides trying to bash up Mithun and the Aishwarya visiting Mithun at his house, leading you to hope that this is heading somewhere. But Alas! the movie ends with an elaborate court drama and Mithun who is a defacto father figure is conveniently forgotten and sidelined.

The Vidya Balan & Madhavan Track.
It had absolutely no relevance to the movie. Why was Vidya Balan a handicapped person ? What does she really think about Guru ? Her elaborate death scene had no connection with the plot, it only served to drag the movie even further.

The Music.
A.R.Rehman and Mani Ratnam have always created magic. But here, the songs are just plain ordinary. Every one of them. Both Maiya Maiya and Ek lo Ek Muft would feature in the bottom 10 songs of Rehman of all time. Even the background music is pedestrian, and this includes the gung ho "GuruBhai" track.

The works of Mani Ratnam, Rajiv Menon and A.R.Rehman in Tamil are miles ahead and far more better than in Hindi. I don't know why this is so. Overall , Guru is not a bad movie , but I was just disappointed that it didn't deliver what it promised.

The Point is...( Rating | 6/10)
It is most definitely worth a watch, though don't keep your expectations as high as the hype it generated. If you ask me what is the one reason why you should watch "Guru", i would say that Mani Ratnam has made Aishwarya act.

yours truly, Ar'Nath

Read the rest of the story >>

Although, as a film buff myself, having a whole Kill Bill epic in one sitting would've been satisfying, like the first part that was split, Vol. 2 works extraordinarily well.

In terms of storytelling it's direct and (of course) unconventional, in style Tarantino pays homage/borrows (or depending on your point of view steals) from most of the films that stew around in his arsenal.

The Story
What's there to say about the story, except that it picks up where it left off ? Sort of- as usual, the non-linear story aspect kicks in, and two sections of the film derail from the continuing story of revenge on the DIVAs and Bill (the squad members this time being the perfectly paced in tone and presence Michael Madsen as Budd, and Daryl Hannah's most vindictive role as Elle Driver). At first, we get a stark, black and white view of what the "Massacre at Two Pines" was like, and right away we're introduced (finally) to Bill, played by David Carradine, one of the most calm, affecting film villain performances in recent memory. The other derailment is to tell the immensely entertaining story of The Bride's training by the heavy-duty Pai Mei (Gordon Liu, in one of his performances in the whole KB saga). This could be counted as the funnest part of the film, aside from a few key moments, as the camera sweeps from medium to close up happen every thirty seconds or so.

The Good
"Vol. 2" is way different. It makes sense it's a separate movie; the tone is such a departure from "Vol. 1" in two ways. One is style. Director Tarantino has fun stylistically quoting Sergio Leone and chop-fu cheapos from the late 1960s and early 1970s. Cinematic sampling is something he's good at and enjoys, but in "Vol. 2" he doesn't go as overboard as he does in "Vol. 1." He pulls back and lets the plot breathe, rather than filling every spare second with a homage-cum-parody that maybe a dozen lucky fans will get. Maybe some here wish he'd pile it on a bit more, but they have to make do with the goofy Pei Mai sequence, which is a flashback and hence not jarring in its "Vol. 1"-style comic-book treatment.

Throughout "Vol. 2" the emphasis is on storytelling and character-building, which is where it should be given we are now being asked to deepen our commitment of interest to these people. "Vol. 1" is okay for what it is, but its flash and action are no match for the depth and nuance of "Vol. 2." This gets to the second different tonal difference between the films, which is emotional. It all comes back to the characters. They don't quite become real people here, but they get close enough to get under your skin. Admittedly, the opening part of "Vol. 2" tests the viewer's patience a bit, there's some long bits that show the director hasn't really mastered self-discipline, like with Thurman's graveyard struggle, but the meandering usually has a purpose.

Tarantino is building toward something here that has its payoff when Thurman's character finally has her face-to-face showdown with Carradine's Bill. From that moment forward to the end, this is the best Tarantino has ever been.

Carradine and Thurman dominate the proceedings with two of the finest performances I've seen, certainly the best Tarantino has directed, playing off the mythology we've been taught in "Vol. 1" and developing resonances with the viewer both together and apart which will surprise those expecting a casual butt-kicking affair. We finally find out what Carradine means in the first line of "Vol. 1" where he tells a whimpering victim he is being masochistic, not sadistic, and its a powerful revelation, that this sinister baddie may have a heart buried under that cold exterior. Carradine is perfect in his phrasing, his pauses, the tired glint in his eye, or the way he says "Kiddo." You can't ask for a better veteran performance.For her part, Thurman presents a brilliantly conflicted character who can not stop either hating or loving Bill, and brings us not into a world of cartoon anguish, but real human pain.

Once again the music plays a key factor in this movie, is very well selected and for every single scene the music fits perfectly, especially the grave break-out scene. And of course, the dialogue. In this movie, we get a lot more dialogue than brutal fighting like in Vol.1, this movie is more centered in explaining what led Bill to do what he did, it pretty much focuses in the past, explaining the whole thing. I especially liked the dialogues between Bill (Carradine) and The Bride (Thurman), I thought they were clever and just great, like all Tarantino's dialogues. Also the locations were excellent, I have no idea where they shot the film, but the landscaping was great, I truly liked it.

The Bad
"Kill Bill Vol. 2" is slow-moving, and needs "Vol. 1" in a way few sequels do, since it assumes you know nearly all the characters coming in. That's a weakness. So are some undeniably pointless bits, including the entire sequence with Bill's father figure, Esteban Vihaio, and some business at a bar involving Michael Madsen, who plays a former assassin now gone to seed. Madsen's good, though, and so's Daryl Hannah as another rather mouthy assassin, Gordon Liu as Pei Mei, and especially Perla Haney-Jardine as a girl named B.B. Also, the touted cameo of Samuel L. Jackson does not make any sense. He's not even noticed. The nice thing with Tarantino though, is for every scene that strikes a bum note, there's four or five that hit the right mark, and some manage to do much more. My favorite scene involves the one where the Bride claws her way out of a second hand grave after being buried alive, the background score in that scene is just beautiful. Still, it's the final moments of this film that will stay with you, as Bill and his former pupil work out their "unfinished business" and we are left to ponder the results of their decisions and actions.

The Point is... (Rating | 8.5/10)
You can safely conclude that Vol.1 was the Style, and Vol.2 is the Substance.
"Kill Bill Vol. 2" may not reach the heights of cinema to which it aspires, the level of "The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly" quoted in its score, but it's a fine film that will make most viewers glad they stuck around for the second installment. I am.

Scenes to Watch out for :
1) When Budd buries the Bride alive in a second hand grave after shooting her with rock salt and nailing her in a coffin. This has got to be one of the most suffocating moments in world cinema till now.

2) The Scene where the Bride and bill have their last conversation. Bill shoots her with a temporary paralysing agent and begins to explain the mythology behind Superman and its relevance to herself. Really good.

yours truly,
Ar'Nath

Read the rest of the story >>

Uma Thurman is the avenging angel in this long-awaited fourth film from Quentin Tarantino. Intense gory martial arts action rules the roost here.

Crime boss O'Ren-Ishii (Liu) paces the gallery of the House Of Blue Leaves, watching her subordinates take on The Bride (Thurman), a samurai-sword wielding blonde dressed in a natty, blood-stained yellow tracksuit. As The Bride disembowels and decapitates a dozen yakuza flunkies, pausing only to rip out the eye of one assailant to uncork another plume of blood, one wonders: what does all this mean for feminism?

The Story
The Bride is after vengeance. After taking a beating at the hands of her former colleagues from the The Deadly Viper Assassination Squad, the final bullet to her head is delivered by Bill, who also happens to be father of the unborn child. Waking from a four-year long coma, the Bride clutches at her empty womb and unleashes a feral howl. It is a searing moment from Thurman, who showed up to work on the film only two months after giving birth. What does this say? Hard to say, except perhaps that hell hath no fury like a heavily pregnant woman gunned down on her wedding day.

The Good
The first volume of Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill sees women stalk one another as remorselessly as Sergio Leone's nameless gunfighters. Men hardly get a look in. The face of the titular Bill is concealed from us throughout. In place of machismo, we have a ferocious femininity - the snarl of a mother protecting her child. A different strain of aggression drives this action movie, maternal yet predatory. Tarantino riffs on this with his opening fight where the Bride and Vernita Green (Fox) break off from their knife duel when Green's daughter returns from school. A self-conscious interweaving of numerous exploitation genres - in this volume, the influence of Japanese samurai movies and the ultra violence of Takeshi Miike (Ichi The Killer) are particularly strong - unfortunately one also thinks of McG's Charlie's Angels films. Superficially, at least. What with all these kick-ass chicks and Lucy Liu strutting her stuff. In fact, Kill Bill is the anti-Charlie's Angels. It is a deliberate riposte to the cartoon kung fu, lukewarm Matrix leftovers, and shoddy CGI - what Tarantino dismisses as all that "computer game bullshit" - that Hollywood has been dallying with while the director was away.

Where McG's franchise speeds you through its incompetence, Tarantino dawdles to shade in more characterisation, to fill in back story, to embellish every inch of the plot before marking it with a signature flourish. The director of the 90s is back and he might as well have signed the right hand corner of every frame. Tarantino pulls no punches, creating, as one critic put it, `The most violent film ever released by an American film distributor'. Squirting blood and flying limbs abound, but the director does it all with a breathtaking sense of style. We witness one sword-dance in silhouette, one in black and white, one over a beautifully filmed snow-covered Japanese garden, and even a sequence in Anime. `KB's story is minimal, but Tarantino's aim is style: Sergio Leone, Cheh Chang and Bruce Lee are all paid homage, and then gracefully outdone.

The soundtrack, primarily Japanese artists performing American styles, is haunting: Tarantino breaks form by not using well-known American classic rock (who could forget being `Stuck in the Middle' of Mr. Blonde and a helpless cop?), but by doing so sets the perfect mood of the film. They're songs we've never heard before, but feel strangely connected to. `Kill Bill' is a testament to Tarantino's ability to take the craft of his idols and make it his own, mixing classic cult film style and mixing it with his own wicked sense of Cool. Not for the faint of heart or anyone looking for a `feel-good' film, but `Kill Bill' is at the very least an instant classic.

The Bad
Unfortunately, he is so brimming with ideas and ambition that his film had to cut in two to meet the needs of distributors. Miramax took this course of action rather than edit their one-time wunderkind. An unsympathetic studio might have trimmed the extended anime sequence about O'Ren-Ishii's troubled childhood, for example, although this is an intense treat depicting events almost too agonizing and heartbreaking to witness in live action.

One aspect of this movie that puzzles me is the emphasis it's critics make of the gore. For my part the gore was so outlandish it's hard for me to see how anyone could take it seriously, and that was part of the appeal. Buckets of blood spraying 15 feet in the air is so beyond the realm of reality how could you possibly take it seriously? For my part it was borderline comical and really brought out the flavor of the scenes, rather than being their focus. And regardless of what you think of Tarrentino as a director, the man is bar none the best at matching musical scores to a scene in the business.

Kill Bill arrives at a moment in mainstream movies - between the second and third Matrix films, before the final part of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy, ahead of another bloated Harry Potter installment - where Hollywood is willing to test the bladder strength and patience of its audience like never before. Whether it is the fashion for director's cuts or DVD deleted scenes, it is a contemporary truism that art is best served if the excised portions are restored. With this spirit in mind, the dividing of Tarantino's epic into two volumes may be seen as a victory for integrity. However, cynics may suggest that numerous installments mean punters shelling out more times for the same film, both in the cinemas and again for the various extended DVD editions. Whichever way you want to slice it, this is only half a film. Though it contains many pleasures - and it's great to see such an influential director returning with such a stylistically exuberant work - it is missing the classic satisfying element of any story: an ending.

The Point is... (Rating | 8/10)
A blood-stained love letter to exploitation movies that seems to be missing a few pages.

However, you must watch the movie at least for the following scenes :

1) The scene where Oren and the Crazy 88 enter the House of the Blue Leaves. Absolutely magical. The score, the pacing, the atmosphere....simply magnificent. The slow motion pull away and the obvious hierarchy of characters, Lucy Liu was absolutely made for that part and that part was made for that scene. The beautiful and menacing Gogo Yubari and the goofy 88s trailing behind. You can also feel the tension the owners feel at having such esteemed guests but one's who admittedly exude as much fear as they do respect. Add to this the nameless, faceless people dancing who are oblivious to the regality (and lethality) of Oren's entourage.

2) Oren is called out by Kiddo who subsequently whacks off Sophie's arm in a highly symbolic gesture. Words can't describe how moving that scene is. The score is superb and the timing is nothing short of perfect. I especially love the way the crowd pauses after the arm slicing...like they're all stunned or still convincing themselves it really happened...then all rush out screaming. Kiddo makes a slow, deliberate plod through the panicked crowd, a march to destiny filmed from several perspectives that combine holistically to give the segment a life of it's own.

yours truly,
Ar'Nath

Read the rest of the story >>

Definitely one of the better movies of 2006......I think.

Pursuit of Happiness, is directed by Gabriele Muccino, written by Steve Conrad and starring Will Smith. I was touched at the range of emotion, entirely engrossed by the story and completely drained by the end of the film.

The Story
Set in the 1980's in San Francisco, Will Smith portrays Chris Gardner, a father struggling to sell a doubtful medical machine, with dreams of giving his family a better life. On what would seem like a whim, he decides to try to be a stock broker. In order to get the job he has to take an unpaid internship that has little promise of panning out to a job at all. He is months behind on the rent, he hasn't made a sale in a long time but he decides to do the internship anyways. During the internship he and his son can no longer pay the rent and they become homeless.

Gardner is a conflicted character. He wants to improve his family's life but in order to do so he has to risk everything and make their lives harder for a while. There is also no promise of a job if he takes the risk. His wife eventually tires of working double shifts and perceives his aspirations as a fool hardy pipe-dream. Linda, played by Thandie Newton, is tired, frazzled and hopeless. She can no longer see the light at the end of the tunnel. Gardner's last scheme had eaten up their entire life's savings. In a fit of selfish anger she leaves for New York and abandons both Gardner and their son, Christopher.

The Good
The story reminds me of Erin Brockovich and is just as touching. Writer Steve Conrad quilts a story of pain, doubt and fear but lines it with a radiant hope. An actor can only be as good as his script and Conrad gives each actor an opportunity to shine.

My hat off to Gabriele Muccino for taking the risk of a light internal narration and making it truly work for this film.

Will Smith's painful scenes are exhaustively powerful. This film required a girth of emotion unrivaled by any of his previous films and Smith does not disappoint. In one scene the script requires an emotional gamut that runs from hopeful, hopeless, silly, tired, exhausted, and eventually to depression. He holds together this scene that could have easily fallen into melodrama with delicate precision. I felt the weight of his physical burdens throughout the movie. A scene that takes place in the Subway station's toilets, is particularly moving. Smith's transformation to "A" list actor is complete.

Thandie Newton plays Linda, Gardner's wife. Newton portrays Linda's justifiable anger with passion and control. She makes Linda more than just a selfish wife who runs off but rather a character so exhausted by being let down that she doesn't want to take it anymore. I felt for Linda because Newton was so exhausted looking and maxed out feeling. Newton is an amazing actress who proves again that her acting is a reason to see a movie.

Jaden Christopher Syer Smith plays Christopher, Gardner and Linda's son.

Often you have to rate a child actor on the "child actor" scale but Jaden can be judged on the traditional actor's scale. He did an exceptional job in this roll. This movie was demanding emotionally on all the characters but Jaden captures the instability so damaging to children in these situations. He also does an incredible job of giving hope to the film. I can't wait to see how he matures as an actor. Numerous movies have been made about women who struggled to get by. I was impressed that this film could touch me and that I could relate to a father's struggle as well.

In Pursuit of Happiness is a powerfully written and acted film. Every scene has an emotional subtlety and expressiveness that touches the audience in a personal and intimate way. I might just see this one again.

The Bad
My only problem is this. Will Smith had a son. He had a responsibility to his son and appeared to be a good father in the film that would do anything for him and so was prepared to sacrifice everything for him, including living in a homeless shelter. I cannot understand, if this story is indeed true, how can any father risk everything including his son for the sake of his dreams? Surely he could have left his son with his wife whilst doing the unpaid internship and if everything succeeded as it did then he could get his family back. And it was America, the land of opportunities. He could have gotten a part time job, at least.....a job to do after his internship hours, something like the way that his wife seemed to be doing. If he really wanted to pay for the rent and food, there were a thousand possible ways to do that while still pursuing his "Dream Job". That is how people get by in the real world. I just fail to see how the message of risk everything can be a good one when you have responsibilities to your children. One should never put one's own ambitions above the need's of one's family.

But then, this is Hollywood. An Hollywood Drama, "Real-life" or not, will always find ways to exaggerate the struggles of the lead characters, when there are, right before their eyes, any number of means to lessen their burden. That is because, all that drama is needed to maintain the effectiveness of the movie. Lets face it, this movie was made clearly for that golden statue, the Oscar. Whatever the fate of the movie, Will Smith truly deserves at least a nomination.

The Point is... (Rating | 6 out of 10)
Watch the movie, definitely worth your time. Though somewhat overtly dramatic, a truly moving essay.

Yours truly,
Ar'Nath

Read the rest of the story >>

This is about the latest Hollywood blockbuster named quite to the point, as "300". It is based on a stupendous comic book series by the same name, the creator of which , is the absolutely brilliant Frank Miller. Now, you may have seen another recent movie which based on one of Frank Miller's creations - "V for Vendetta". This movie "300", is being criticized mercilessly for the sheer amount of historical facts being changed at will. But, if you ask me, i just don't care. When you experience the brilliance that is this film, any argument against the movie will just be a moot point. I have never seen anything like this before - the colors, the characters, the music, everything takes you to a whole new level of film making. Ladies, you may not like this movie very much, but the Men, will simply love it. The sheer aggression that is shown in the movie, the action, SFX, the fantastic one-liners, and not to mention- the amount of blood that spills, will surely overwhelm your senses. Now, it will soon be released in India, but i wouldn't recommend watching it in the theatres. Thanks to the Indian Censor board, the movie will be so censored and filtered that, by the time it finally makes it to the big screen on the Indian multiplexes, it would look like you were watching a kiddie movie. Then again, since the entire movie is like one big bloodbath, it probably wouldn't make it past our sappy censor board.

The USP of the movie "300" lies in its aggression, its grisliness. If that is edited out, then it is not worth watching at all. You would do better to get hold of the unedited version of the DVD. Now watch the trailer, i will not say anything more.

Watch the trailer


The Story
At the pass of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., 300 Spartan soldiers under King Leonidas held off the huge Persian army under Xerxes for a couple of days -- just long enough for the rest of the Greek city states to assemble an army to match the Persians. The Spartans died to a man, but their resistance kept the Greek Peninsula from being overwhelmed by the invaders. Frank Miller based his graphic novel on this famous last stand.

-----------------------
yours truly,
Ar'Nath

Read the rest of the story >>