critique

Review - From Hell

2005-09-15T23:34:00.000-07:00

FROM HELL

Directed by the Hughes Brothers; written by Terry Hayes and Rafael Yglesias.

One day men will look back and say I gave birth to the Twentieth Century.
- Jack the Ripper (1888)

The crimson sky over London is forewarning of the deaths to come. Eerie green lanterns light the way for a carriage that roams the streets of the Whitechapel district. The intended victims: five prostitutes who work the squalid and darkened streets of London. They are also victims of economic hardships, street gang extortionists, and the apathy of a puritanical and duplicitous society.

The detective in charge of the infamous Whitechapel murders is Inspector Abberline (Johnny Depp), who uses his powers of precognition to aid the ever increasing demand to bring the identity of the murderer to light. His investigation is hindered by an apathetic bureaucracy who is more interested in finding a scapegoat; and in a country where class differences rule they are more than eager to pick a Jew, an Oriental or a socialist to put the blame on.

As the mystery unfolds it becomes clear that the prostitutes (often referred to as ‘bangtails’ and ‘pinch-pricks’) are not just the hapless victims of some misogynist madman, but also the targets of an elaborate cover-up operation to hide a secret that might bring the entire British Empire crashing down. This cover up included the grandson of Queen Victoria -Prince Albert; the fellowship of the Free Masons – a fraternal order with a rather dubious reputation, as well as the special branch of the London Metropolitan Police.

During its making the Hughes brothers spared no details in the representing the squalor and misery of nineteenth century London. The supporting cast is brilliant. Ian Holm (Sir William Gull) plays the surgeon that the Inspector refers to for the precise nature of the crime. Jason Flemyng (Netley) plays the cabby who drives the Ripper through dark lanes of Whitechapel. Robbie Coltrane (um, Hagrid?) plays the sarcastic Sergeant Godley who provides many poetic insights into the gory crimes. Heather Graham plays the role of the Irishwoman prostitute Mary Kelly, and she does look lovely with the red hair and intense blue eyes. However, she seems untouched by the misery of walking the streets like others of her circle of friends.

The title in question is in reference to a note, amongst several others, that the police received from men claiming to be Jack the Ripper. This particular one, addressed ‘From Hell’ was accompanied by a kidney, one of organs besides others that went missing from one of the victims, and is speculated to be from the actual killer.

The film does not fail to put forward the gross fascination the public has with killing of these 'morally degraded' women. There are always eager spectators at the crime scene, hankering the police to "show us the body!"

To those who don’t know the details of the Whitechapel case, and might think this was another elaborately spun yarn about the identity of the Ripper, there was actually evidence in the direction of the royal family being involved, of a well kept secret as well as the note addressed ‘From Hell’ that the police actually did receive from the Ripper, or a man claiming to be the Ripper, in 1888.

The rest of course is creative license.

From Hell’ is based on the graphic novel by writer Alan Moore and the artist Eddie Campbell.

-Rhea Daniel

War of the Worlds / Batman Begins

2005-07-23T01:38:00.000-07:00

War of the worlds
Steven Spielberg, Tom Cruise

Director Steven Spielberg's agonizing adaptation of H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds. The movie claims to have finished shooting in 72 days – and it shows.

Gaping holes perforate the screenplay, leaving the audience with visible question marks hovering over their heads. Clearly, the bigwigs wanted to pack off the film to the theatres. The result: a harried ending drops the seemingly believable buildup like a hot potato. Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise) is a negligent father, separated from his wife, Mary Ann (Miranda Otto) and children, Rachel and Robbie (Dakota Fanning, Justin Chatwin). Mary Ann and her fiancé leave to Boston, leaving the children in Ray's care. Incidentally, aliens in tripod-looking machines pick this day to surface from the core of the earth and start to feed on earthlings, once they're tired of freezing them.

What results is a whirlwind of (intentionally?) cluttered events. Robbie runs off, swearing to batter them bad aliens, they seek shelter with Harlan Ogilvy (aging Tim Robbins who has forcefully been lodged into the script) and somehow Ray and Rachel make it to Boston. Predictable, you say? Wait till you hear the end. The aliens are defeated. And how? They catch a cold. What takes the cake: Robbie's already at Boston, waiting.

The saving grace would be the editing and the extra effects. Audio effects are good enough to scare. A minor one would be the accuracy of the images of the tripod-looking thingummies and the scenes post-genocide. Meaning, unlike the rest of the movie, these small bundles of joy won't have Wells doing somersaults in his grave. If you really want to be optimistic, you could say Fanning does a great job of being a scared kid. If you aren't busy cowering in your seat owing to Rachel's screaming like a banshee, you'll be pre-occupied with how Robbie manages to get to Boston amidst the freeze-or-feed fest. Remotely interesting trivia: Ray's character and the music score by John Williams are two of director Spielberg's trademarks.

The sole consolation in the story is how clearly Wells emphasizes on the interdependence of all creatures. The moral of conveyed is simple: no matter how small the organism is, the Earth still needs it.

The moral of this movie experience, however: do NOT get swayed by swanky trailers!

- Finch, Scout

(Paranoid. Media student. Avid blogger. Modest writer.
Movie critic wannabe.Movie trasher, currently.
Continued ranting inevitably proves
she needs Psychiatric Help.
blog:http://melchizedek.blogspot.com/)

****

Batman Begins (2005)
Directed by
Christopher Nolan

For Batman fans this particular movie could give some concrete answers to his obscure teens and his batman persona, not to mention the choice of costume, how the bat sky-signal came to be, how he got those splendid moves and—aha--the birth of the batmobile!

Bruce Wayne as a boy falls down a well and is assaulted by bats, after which he is panics at the very thought of them. He also witnesses the death of his parents and grows into a brooding young adult, who has numerous questions about justice, revenge and most of all, fear. So, like all good white people in search of answers, Bruce (Christian Bale) journeys on a spiritual quest towards the East, leaving behind his wealth and fame. After enduring many hardships, he rescued from a prison by Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) who sees some potential in him and becomes his tutor.

When Henri Ducard rescues Bruce and figures he’s on the lookout for something, he gives him the brief, cryptic advice that them gurus are so famous for; go look for that blue flower on that white mountain and you will find what you are looking for. Bruce does as he should and lo!- the path to the Ninja Institute of the sinister Ra’s Al Ghul comes into view. And so begins the Dark Knight’s training with Liam Neeson, who drops words of wisdom like "You never learn. Pay attention to your surroundings!" "Your parents' death was not your fault. It was your father's. He failed to act." But most of all the stupendously enlightening "To conquer fear, you must become fear". A minor adjustment from the usual ‘To conquer your fears you must face them’. So what does Bruce do?

He becomes his worst fear, he becomes----BATMAN….
(Take a whiff of the blue-flower brew and ye too shall attain nirvana!!)

Bruce returns to Gotham. Something fishy and underhanded exposes itself, it is the Ra’s Al Ghul Ninja Insitute itself that wishes to destroy Gotham, for the city has gone ahead of itself with greed and corruption. Infact, the Ra’s Ghul cult lays claim to the burning of London and the fall of Rome, as they have done with any civilisation that is run by corrupt politicians and is a breeding ground for crime. All that stuff you read in the history books is actually crap!!

So it is upto to Bruce to rescue Gotham, and he sets of doing so with a little help from Morgan Freeman, who designs the fantastic gear. Gary Oldman plays one of the good detectives. Katie Holmes is one of the incorruptible lawyers left in the rat infested city of Gotham. Lets not forget Micheal Caine who plays the faithful Wayne Mansion butler Alfred. Ken Watanabe plays Ra’s Al Ghul, though he looked a lot more studlier in The Last Samurai.

Well, in spite of the great Imax-Dome-spondilitis-most vomitus experience, 2 hours of being closer to Christian Bale’s mouth than I would have liked to have been; and also in spite of the guru-shishya enlightenment stereotype, I liked the film. It’s a great visual experience.

Don’t miss this film, and remember "It’s not who you are underneath but what you do that defines you" (in other words, pretty is as pretty does).

And stay away from The Dome!

-movie buff

movie review - ESTHER KAHN

2005-06-09T10:44:00.000-07:00

ESTHER KAHN

Producer: Alain Sarde
Director: Arnaud Desplechin
Writers: Arnaud Desplechin and Emmanuel Bourdieu
Based on a story by Arthur Symons.

The daughter of poor Jewish immigrants in 19th century London, Esther Kahn (Summer Phoenix) walks through life with a seemingly dull exterior. The only thing that brings her to life is the theatre or her attempts at mimicking the people around her. Her dream is to be a stage actress; and after facing some opposition from her hardened and practical family, she gets a small part in a local theatre. Fiercely determined and barely literate, she then moves out on her own, and befriends a mediocre actor Nathan (Ian Holm), who turns out to be an excellent tutor.

Esther memorizes her lines perfectly and performs her parts like clockwork, and doesn’t seem to be able to rise from her small roles mainly due to her characteristic deadness, which shows on stage as it does in her every day life; possibly the after-effects of a much deprived childhood and her need to hide from any pain and sorrow brought by it. A problem, which Nathan suggests could be solved if she finds herself a lover and experience life, as it were.

Methodically, as on stage and as in life, Esther searches out a lover, a playwright named Philip (Fabrice Desplechin) and a womanizer at that, a fact of which she is very much aware. In spite of the affair, the angst, the internal conflict and the tide emotions that she expected to feel still eludes her.

Besides being her lover, Philip educates her on the nuances of stage play-acting, on the difference between being a ‘nice’ actress and actually reaching the audience, in being able to ‘act’ without acting. He, like Nathan, sees potential beneath Esther’s detached surface. She gifts him a copy Henrik Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler as a token of her affection, which he translates into English and grants her the starring role.

Esther is then jilted for an Italian street performer. This woman is flamboyantly sensuous, a complete opposite from Esther’s brooding restraint. Esther begins to feel the pangs of jealousy, pain, everything that had eluded her till then. She sends Philip a note in her shaky, illiterate hand and confronts him. She is heart-broken, angry, but the past years of holding everything back still refuse to let the anger surface. What results is an emotionally charged scene that is ridden with restrained passion. When she accuses him leaving her for a lesser woman, he tells her matter-of-factly that she was no better since she had sold herself the same way, for the sake of her career.

Unfortunately for Esther, the strange new emotions she is experiencing happen on the day before her opening night. She reacts humanly, with escapism and with fear, refusing to perform. Especially when she sees that Philip is going to attend the performance with his new mistress. There is a sequence of self-abuse, of not wanting to enter the theatre, she even chews on glass to evade the performance. Her fellow actors react with patience at first, pleading with her, then try slapping her and finally, physically pushing her onto the stage. What comes then is taken over by the rise of the background score and the narrator describing the feelings of the silent audience. We never really get to see how Esther performs, except a bit towards the end, and the narrator’s assurance that she was doing spectacularly well and had finally ‘struck the chord’ that needed to be struck all this while. This is about the only dissatisfying part. Even Esther doesn’t realise how she did, and with bouts of diarrhea between the acts, asks of her fellow actors’ assurance on her performance. There is a voice over of Esther during the play, a rush of words that describes her inner turmoil and likens her strange new feelings to ‘butchery’. Her personal life and her stage life merge, she is finally ‘acting’ without acting.

The story is less of a girl blossoming into an actress and maturing into a woman, it is more of a rude awakening for Esther, thus depicting a harsh realism that might make the plot seem a bit jerky. You could say the purpose of choosing a period piece would be to adequately dramatize it, embellish it, atleast a little. In that case, when French Director Arnaud Desplechin made Esther Kahn as underplayed as it was, he committed the equivalent of cinematic suicide. The movie fell prey to a lot of bad reviews, mainly due to its somewhat wooden main character. For some viewers though, its well-intentioned realism coupled with its undulating soundtrack that sometimes rises and takes over, makes the film refreshingly different. Summer Phoenix’s soulful looks seem apt for her part, the words seem to come in fits and starts, and fit the personality of the central character. Ian Holm is excellent as the fatherly mentor.

No powerhouse performances here, neither is this easy viewing, but I wouldn’t let this fall into an art-film category. I suppose a lot of people couldn’t fathom the obscurity in this film, other critics took it as a pretty straightforward narrative. Therefore the love-hate reviews.

- movie buff

book review: "Black Narcissus" - Rumer Godden

2005-05-18T23:51:00.000-07:00

book review:

Black Narcissus
Written by Rumer Godden
Pan Books (1994)

The Sisters of Mary are given an old palace by the General of faraway Mopu, near Darjeeling, to form a school and dispensary for the natives of the hilly village. The palace itself had been a harem house of ill repute before it was taken over by the Brothers of St. Peter, who never succeeded in completing their mission. Determined to succeed after the Brothers leave, the sisters are helped by Mr. Dean, and irascible English agent who took care of everything from construction to plumbing.

The road is full of compromises for the Sister Superior, Sister Clodagh, who not only has to put up with Mr. Dean, the Englishman who has turned native, but also take lessons for the General’s young son, Dilip Rai, who desperately wants to study and join Cambridge; and manages to convince her he has every right to be there despite the all girls situation. A voluptuous young village girl called Kanchi is trying to attract the young general’s attention and upsetting the sisters in the attempt. Sister Ruth begins to have an unhealthy attraction for Mr. Dean. Sister Blanche is consumed with the desire to have a child of her own. The nuns are soon heading the way of the brothers, and can’t much hold it together when Sister Blanche is blamed for the death of one of the village babies.

The exchanges between the insufferable Mr.Dean and Sister Clodagh are humourous and touching, despite their differences. On Christmas night he comes to the chapel for Mass with booze on his breath.

“ ‘You’re –‘ she said furiously. ‘You’re – you’re unforgivable.’ Then she said vindictively, between her teeth: ‘You’re objectionable when you’re sober, and abominable when you’re drunk.’

‘I quite agree,’ he said, and taking his pony went down the hill.”

According to him, Mopu was no place for a bunch of orthodox nuns. Sister Clodagh is determined to fight it out, despite Mr. Dean’s warnings. Time passes, unpleasant memories begin to surface for each sister, the hills and the thin air begin to a toll on the sisters’ sense of reality and the subsequent series of unpleasant events force them to consider turning their mission around, as Mr. Dean predicted in the beginning.

Its been a long time since I read something that touched upon subtlety in such a rare manner, and I didn’t know what I had been missing until I read it, really. You wouldn’t think a story about a bunch of nuns would excite you, but I found myself asking, “Oh, dear, what next?” though I already knew the ending. The movie Black Narcissus (1947), had Deborah Kerr as Sister Clodagh, our very own Sabu as the young general Dilip Rai, Jean Simmons plays the native girl Kanchi. The setting was unmistakably old studio, but it stood loyally by the book, and brought out the dilemma often faced by well-meaning foreign occupants of an ancient country; either to ignore it, or give in to it completely.

- bookworm

Kingdom of Heaven / Boogeyman

2005-05-06T21:29:00.000-07:00

movie review:

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

Directed by Ridley Scott

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;gt;

Taking into account the epic films that have come onto the screen recently:

There is the Battle, The Siege, the brief love interest, and these days there has to be Orlando Bloom.

Watching the trailers of Kingdom of Heaven you’d wonder how a guy built like a matchbox could bear the burden of being the hero of an epic war movie…but here, Orlando just about manages.

Balian of Ibelin (Orlando Bloom), a blacksmith in France, is acknowledged as son and knighted by his dying father Godfrey (Liam Neeson). He makes his way to Jerusalem, the holy city of the title to serve King Baldwin (Edward Norton) and claim his fathers land. He meets the king and the leaders of the knight orders who had known his father. He witnesses the hanging of several knights Templars, punished for killing Arab lords and disturbing the uneasy truce between the Christians and the Moslems. There is also strife within the walls of Jerusalem. The leper king hasn’t much time left. The war-thirsty Templar knights are eagerly awaiting his death so their leader Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas), husband of the kings’ sister, can access the throne and wage war on the Moslems in the name of God and Glory. On the other side is the king’s military advisor, Tiberias (Jeremy Irons), who is trying to avoid the battle that might obliterate their armed forces. On his deathbed King Baldwin proposes Balian marry his sister Sibylla and become king. Balian refuses the offer because it would be a matter of “selling his soul”. If he had accepted the entire mess could have been avoided, but then there would be no story to tell.

So the king does pop off, and the bloodthirsty knights slaughter enough of Saladin’s people to goad him into battle, which they lose miserably. This leaves Balian and a bunch of knights to defend the city of Jerusalem.

Sibylla (Eva Green), is of as much use as were the women in Gladiator, Troy, Alexander..lets face it, that’s about all the presence they’ll ever have in historical dramas. She blames herself for the battle and the siege; even chops off her hair towards the end. Stress I guess. You know she and Balian are going to get together because they’re making eyes at each other in the beginning itself.

For obvious reasons, this movie has run into its own share of trouble. If you might ask anyone with a fair amount of knowledge of the Crusades about a blacksmiths’ role in the middle of all this, you’d probably be greeted with an expression of perplexity. But that’s precisely what is Ridley Scott’s intention, to bring to light the deeds of a man who wanted little to do with fame or glory, and regarded saving the lives of innocents within the walls of the city a greater victory than winning the battle, and hold up an ideal that hadn’t been explored in Crusade renditions before. Orlando is even offered a princess on a plate, but he refuses. Here's to treading the long and narrow.

Some critics have said that the movie shows the Moslems in bad light, which is a load of rubbish. The enemy Saracen leader, Saladin (Ghassan Massoud) is shown as a very reasonable guy. You’ve got enemy leaders sizing each other up and there are shows of mutual respect. Saladin even offers to send King Baldwin his own physicians to treat his leprosy. All in all very politically correct.Zz.

The Crusades is praised as a time of heroic battles (11^th to 13^th century), the most romanticized stories would be of Richard the Lionheart, who makes an appearance towards the end, to establish continuity to the battle. The third crusade was a sincere effort to retrieve Jerusalem from the Moslems, before the excuse for plundering and murder that the crusades eventually became.

The epilogue says that the same area is as strife ridden as it was then, an attempt on Scott’s part to imply that we haven’t learnt from history and the east and west are still fighting tooth and nail over their religious dogmas, besides wealth and power.

The movie is full of philosophical one-liners and rejoinders. The siege scene is quite beautifully done and worth watching the movie for. Too bad Edward Norton had to hide behind a mask. Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons make their presence felt, their brief roles regardless. Orlando, well, his expressionless face at the worst of times could be mistaken for maturity and hardiness, and I believe it’s the one thing that saves him here.

*************

Boogeyman (2005)

Directed by Stephen T. Kay

Produced by Sam Raimi

&amp;amp;lt;br&gt;

Possibly every kid has grown up with a Monster Under the Bed Syndrome. Afraid of being left alone in the night incase a creepy-crawly drags him into the darkest recesses of the room and whisks him off to the hell dimension from whence it came, or may be just chomps him up and spits out his guts; to be seen early next morning by parents who should have known better than to leave their kid in the dark with the door shut.

Well, parents use these irrational fears to encourage good behaviour in their children; except little Timmy took Dads story so seriously that his imagination actually took form and swallowed Dad into the closet, right in front of his eyes.

After years of therapy to convince him that these events never took place, Timmy (Barry Watson) is now a young adult and still afraid of dark enclosed spaces. He has a girlfriend who is trying to convince her family that he’s not the messed up loser he looks like. He spends the night at her place, where he gets the second scare of his life. You would too if you thought the girlfriend who you were going to make out with is actually the corpse of your mom. Anyways, it’s only a nightmare (whew). He then receives a phone call that informs him his mom is actually dead. Apt reason to go back to his hometown and face his childhood fears. He never actually recovered from them, his apartment in town had all the internal doors removed and stacked up. Even his refrigerator door was made of glass.

On the drive to his old home, a raven crashes into Timmy’s windshield, possibly an Omen that predicts Impending Doom. After spending sometime in the house Timmy is haunted by the ghosts of the Boogeyman’s victims, he realizes that the Boogeyman is still out there and out to get those dear to him, his girlfriend Jessica (Tory Mussett), his Uncle Mike (Philip Gordon) and his childhood friend Kate (Emily Deschanel). All of whom would be of as much use to the plot if they were 70’s Bond girls in thongs.

Meanwhile we catch glimpses of the blue-tinged, red-eyed boogeyman. Horror film directors had figured a long time ago the more obscure the monster is the better it inspires fear in the audience. Unfortunately here it is combined with the sort of soundtrack that jolts you out of your seat instead of really getting you to squirm in it and build terror. In the end when the Boogeyman is finally revealed and he looks like a gangrenous, skeletal version of one of the Blue Man Group, combined with whirlwinds and hurling detritus. Did he look like he was capable of tossing around a matchbox and chewing it up?-Yes, definitely.

What is sad is that the material was great to begin with, because of the myths that have been lodged inside people’s minds over generations about the mystery and evil that represents the Boogeyman. What is even sadder is, that the movie is produced by Sam Raimi who is the man behind Spiderman 2 (2004), The Hudsucker Proxy (1994) (co-writer) and the Army of Darkness (1993). Sam Raimi as a director has proved to have a wicked sense of humour. Well, the Boogeyman is laughable, but only because of how lame it is. The camera acrobatics was appreciated, though.

-rhea daniel

movie: The Motorcycle Diaries (2004)

2005-04-26T21:28:00.000-07:00

movie review:

The Motorcycle Diaries (2004)
Directed by Walter Salles

Two Argentinian friends, one a 29 year old biochemist and the other a 23 year old medical student go on a long planned tour of South America. The decrepit old bike of the title packs up by the time they reach Chile, after which they make the journey on foot and hitchhike across Chile and Peru.

The two very different personalities of the travelers come into play. The younger, Ernesto (Gael García Bernal), the strain of the second half of the journey showing plainly on his face, is moved and angered by the conditions of the poor, exploited Peruvian peasants. Granado (Rodrigo De la Serna), his biochemist friend, is roguish and more driven by comforts, booze and women.

Their common goals come to light when they stay at a leper’s colony in San Pablo, near the source of the Amazon, where they play football and shake hands with the lepers. Ernesto celebrates his 24th birthday there and makes a small, impassioned speech of his dream of a united America, to an audience of nuns, doctors and nurses, clearly uncomfortable with his obvious idealism. Irrevocably driven by his newfound ideas, Ernesto jumps into the river that separates the lepers from the healthy, in a bid to celebrate his birthday on the other side. He succeeds in crossing it despite his asthmatic condition, to the delight of the cheering onlookers.

It is easy to see this as a 'coming of age’ story but for the fact that a journey undertaken with the multitude of hardships faced by the two boys can have a sobering effect on the best of us. Ernesto records his thoughts in a journal, reflecting on his experiences every step of the way, choosing not to be cowed down by what he sees but to be strengthened by it.

Considering the film as a plain road trip movie would also be doing it injustice. The movie is based on the real life account of the Latin American revolutionary leader Ernesto ‘Che’* Guevara de la Serna (1928-1967) who spent a major part of his life at Fidel Castro’s side, planning and executing the Cuban peasant-based revolution. It is definitely worth the watch, especially when you’re aware of the history that goes with it.

(*The Che Guevara famous black and red picture with the beret, which became a worldwide icon at some point, was recently reinterpreted for Madonna’s American Life album cover. )

-rhea daniel
darkness_box[at]yahoo[dot]com

Lucky

2005-04-11T07:18:00.000-07:00

movie: Lucky
Salman Khan, Sneha Ullal

The movie has generated quite a bit of interest due to the resemblance of leading lady sneha ullal with aishwarya rai (and add to that her pairing with salman khan whose antics with aishwarya is bollywood pop history), but it would be unwise to write of sneha as a aishwarya clone.

While she actually looks a cross between aishwarya and mayuri kango, I think we should do justice to this lady and and say that she is actually quite a beauty and for a debutant she plays the role of a demure, sweet, seventeen year old "Lucky" to perfection. Salman Khan shows off (no...not his muscles) his happy-go-lucky attitude quite well and the clever dialogues sure assist the both of them in their performance.

Having said that, one must accept that there is nothing memorable to the story, no depth to the characters or the movie, no emotions to carry back home for the audience.The story of two strangers meeting in a time of crisis (terrorist strikes) and surviving through it to finally fall in love with each other, held more promise than it actually delivered.

Mithun Chakraborti is totally wasted in a tritely humorous and totally unnecessary role. It's strange that mainstream filmmakers still fail to utilize the potential of this three time natinal award winner!

The songs are pretty hummable and have the adnan sami (who composed the music) signature to them and are shot in wonderful locales across Russia.

One could really watch the movie for the breathtaking landscapes, palaces and even the cemetery and the fresh youthful charm of sneha and of course in the place where I watched it (hyderabad), needless to say, for Salman Khan!

-sumandatta

The Ring 2

2005-04-05T05:27:00.000-07:00

movie: The Ring Two (2005)

"The Ring" (2002) seemed a welcome release from the B-grade teen horror flicks that had flooded the market since the 80’s (with very very few exceptions). Here was genuine, gore-less, spine-chilling horror. It redefined the horror-film genre, mainly by giving its audience the benefit of a thinking faculty.

So with the success of Gore Verbinski’s The Ring, a remake of Hideo Nakata’s Japanese flick Ringu (1998), the horror film genre seemed up and coming.Hideo Nakata directed Ringu and another film, Dark Water (2002) based on the series of novels by writer Kôji Suzuki, both stories centering around the ghosts of abandoned children, both excellent horror flicks without much use of sfx or flashy camera work. The films also manage to be riveting despite the similar central character.

So if Hideo Nakata decides to direct the sequel to Gore Verbinski’s version of Ringu, the result should be awesome, right?

Wrong!

The tape is unfortunately still doing the rounds in teen circles. One such incident falls a little too close to where Rachel (Naomi Watts) is trying to carve out a new life for herself and her son Aidan (David Dorfman). So she goes to investigate, finds the offending tape and destroys it. Which more than annoys Samara. At first Samara just wanted to be ‘heard’, but now she wants a new mommy in place of the one who abandoned her. Ye gads, by this time I was yawning. So she plans to take over Aidan’s body. Yawn. As you pretty can much guess in the beginning, the Ring 2 explores the motherhood angle more than giving its audience the frights. Well, there are frights but its more because the surround system is exploding around you in between naps.

Now if you haven’t seen Dark Water the motherhood twist may seem new to you, but to those who have, this is old news. Dark Water involves the ghost of a tragically abandoned little girl, death by drowning no less, strands of very dark hair floating in clumps in tons of murky water. And guess what, the ghost of the mouldy little girl is looking for a new mommy to replace the one that was never there for her.(Zzz.) Samara tries to take over Aidan’s body while he’s in the bathtub (be wary of bathtubs now folks, the Boogeyman popped out of that one too).

Rachel sacrifices herself to be Samara’s mommy, then cons her out of it at the last minute. So the film reaches its end and all that you’ve been waiting for with bated breath never really comes. The only scary part is Samara (Kelly Stables) climbing after Rachel who is trying to escape from that nasty well yelling after her in a deep, gravelly voice that well, actually can scare the pants off of you.

The first flick already used the thematic elements of the snowy TV screen and the lonely well, the creepy atmosphere made even more creepy with the use of the blue filter, so that failed to instill too much excitement. Samara popping out of the TV, already been done. Flashes of the victims’ distorted faces shown for microseconds were enough to make you jump in the first flick. Here the shots of the silent, screaming, twisted faces of the dead seem to go on for millennia.Too many answers too soon in this film. And almost everybody dies in the same way, so you don't really feel sorry them after a point.

With reference to casting, the appearance of Elizabeth Perkins as a psychiatrist, her face normally seen in romantic comedies and hitherto digestible films like Moonlight and Valentino, just doesn’t fit. The face of actor Simon Baker (The Guardian), is pretty much a prop. And a pretty one at that, even after Samara gets to him.

The keyword to use is UNDERSTATED. Less is more. Ring 2 is not. The audience can think without jerky background thunder surround. Well, the writer of The Ring and Dark Water should sue because this movie is The Ring 1 recycled, slapped on with Dark Water, and kneaded very badly into a lame sequel that falls desperately short of the audience’s expectations.

-rhea daniel

Zeher / Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events

2005-03-28T21:08:00.000-08:00

Movie: Zeher
Actors: Emraan Hashmi, Shamita Shetty, Udita Goswami
Director: Mohit Suri

I have no idea why the Bhatt House tries to potray this man called Emraan Hashmi as the seducer high on libido and eager to jump into bed with any female allergic to clothes. Though he does the smooching act with a mad man's frenzy, he is far from being any woman's dream guy.

So this movie is about three non-actors. The police chief Emraan who is adept at breaking bottles, chairs and tables and has neither the wits nor the composure that befits such a designation. His ex-tough-cop ex-wife Shamita Shetty who is too stiff to say a dialogue and the movie doesn't give her a chance to dance. She gives up her career first for a family and then gives up her family for the career. And finally the sexy siren Udita Goswami who lusts for Emraan and/coz has a bad husband who beats her up.

This is supposedly a thriller wherein Emraan and Shamita play the estranged married couple still very much in love with each other but love this alienation phase better. Emraan thinks of Shamita when he climbs into bed with Udita and tries to gain the audience's sympathy as to being loyal in love. And finally a murder with all evidence pointing to Emraan as the culprit who finds himself increasingly falling into a trap. And it is his ex-wife trying to handle the case and untangle the mystery.

Lets not forget to mention the soulful rendering of the song "Woh Lamhe". Newcomer singer Atif does real justice to the melody.

As for the movie, the only good point is that it ends.

-arundhoti

******

Movie:Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events
Actor:Jim Carrey

Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events is the story of three awfully clever children, Violet (Emily Browning), Klaus (Liam Aiken) and Sunny (Kara and Shelby Hoffman) who are orphaned and forced to live with their closest relative Count Olaf (Jim Carrey), who plans to do away with them in order to seize the vast fortune they have inherited subsequent to the tragic death of their parents in a suspicious fire that burnt down their house.

If you get lost in children’s flicks, like me, then go for this one. The plot has all the possible ingredients of the last two centuries of children’s books charmingly mish-mashed together. That includes Dickensian England's set and costumes, the loving family bonding that reminds you of The Railway Children, rich kids who suddenly lose their parents and are subject to the mercy of strangers (A Little Princess).

The Baudelaire children are intelligent, well-read, and like the narrator mentions, reasonably attractive. What might force you to suspend disbelief are the following : (a)The Dickensian setting is juxtaposed with the naughty usage of gadgets like car remotes, possibly a deliberate incongruity (b) the obvious inclusion of contemporary American slang in the script, not to mention the accents (c) Jim Carrey, who did another weird evil-semi-evil character in Dr.Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas movie.

Count Olaf is the ever-present wicked uncle who pursues the children through their search for a trustworthy guardian and a safe haven. Aunt Josephine, played by Meryl Streep, drowning in a lake of Lacramose Leeches was a nice touch, wish they had more of those. Thus they are swept from one unfortunate event to another, from one adult to another, who just never listen to children and are never worthy of their trust. Much like the real world.

Together with the use of common sense and ingenuity, and amazing communication skills, the three Baudelaire children extract themselves from several life-threatening situations. What is particularly cute is the youngest Baudelaire, Sunny, with her garbled baby talk, perpetually dragging along with the skirt of her little dress billowing behind her. The ending is mildly weepworthy when you listen to the narrator (who sounds suspiciously like Jude Law) praise the bravery of the Baudelaire children.

Incidentally, Lemony Snicket is the pseudonym for Daniel Handler, a young American children’s book writer, which would explain the mish-mash of costume, set, and script. This isn’t exactly Jumanji with its SFX and heart-thumping excitement around the corner, but like I said earlier, charming feel-good children’s movie, and not all that tragic as the narrator implies. Plus, personally, Tim Burton is the king of the morbid creepies.

-rhea daniel

karam/socha na tha

2005-03-14T00:20:00.000-08:00

karam: John Abraham
director: Sanjay F. Gupta

Karam is a fairly watchable action flick which would have done better without the elements of romance which destroy the movie's pace and mood with awful sugary dialogues and a pathetic performance by priyanka chopra. Other than those few bits of trash, the movie does shine in its cinematography, action sequences and of course John Abraham as a mentally torn hitman.

You can definitely find traces of Quentin Tarantino especially during the opening shots with a animated sequence (Kill Bill), scenes of three hitmen sharing jokes as they go on a kill (Pulp Fiction) and the ebb and flow of colour. The action sequences too remind us of John Woo's films and John Abraham does a pretty good Tom Cruise from MI2. Despite such obvious inspirations the director has done a good job of putting it all together and tailoring them to Indian settings. Only that he fails to let go of Bollywood mush and hence spoils what would otherwise have been a good movie.

socha na tha: Abhay Deol, Ayesha Takia
director: Imtiaz Ali

After a long long time, a romantic college flick that instead of building a lot of hype actually delivers! A wonderful story of love that enthralls with its simplicity, down-to-earth "today"ish dialogues and performances that everyone of us can relate to, this is one movie you shouldn't miss.

Abhay Deol is good as the confused guy who says no to the bride (Ayesha Takia) that his parents chose for him ( thereby leading to a lot of tension between their families) but slowly finds himself drawn towards her. So he ends up bringing sorrow to his family, his girlfriend and her family and her newfound love (Ayesha) and her family too! But don't you worry, the director Imtiaz Ali sees to it that all's well at the end; and he does a damn good job of it. The songs though not superhit material, gel well with the situations. This movie is as fresh as it gets and a wonderul refreshing experience. Here's looking forward to more of Imtiaz Ali.

-sumandatta

Constantine / Sins

2005-03-07T01:15:00.000-08:00

Constantine : Keanu Reeves

Two hours and 65 bucks I'm never going to get them back. And to think all I expected from this movie was a decent, slightly mind-numbing action flick with a good Heaven vs. Hell plot. The plot's gone all to hell, right enough. God save anyone who tries to sit through this movie, the patience required is worthy of a Zen master.

John Constantine is a man who, due to some quirk of nature, has become a vigilante sending half-breed demons back to hell. He now faces death by lung cancer and the inevitable fate of a cop being sent to sing-sing into the general population. If he dies, he goes to hell and meets many of his deportees, who of course will be mucho happy to rend him limb by limb for all eternity. If he lives, he wants a chance to get back into Heaven. However god wants much more from this wayward sheep than simple demon deportation. He wants a real change of heart, which our angsty Constantine is not capable of. Such is the basic dilemma of our protagonist. On with the plot.

The movie is slowly leaching out of my mind as I write. I have a wonderful defense mechanism against such experiences, I forget them instanter. Let's see. We have the spear which pierced Christ found somewhere in Mexico, we have a beautiful cop who's also a psychic in denial, we have a family conflict in hell. The Son of Satan wants control of earth, unbeknownst to papa Lucifer; God has other ideas, the Archangel Gabriel is planning to turn into a conscientious objector. I don’t blame the esteemed reader for his current expression. But I warn you, I am actually putting the plot forward in a more coherent manner than the movie does. The movie meanders aimlessly around trying to make itself understood, unveiling bits and pieces that are supposed to shock and awe. Vain, vain attempts. You get the feeling there's something there, something the director's trying to say, and you keep hoping that the key is hiding behind the next frame. I strongly advise against holding your breath. The effects are quite all right, not really earth shattering. The dialogue is stinted. Keanu Reeves is incapable of saving his character. The rest of the cast is not worth much mention.

Don’t watch, please don’t watch Constantine. I hate to do this. I'm mauling a Keanu Reeves action film with a Heaven-Hell theme. I never thought I would have to. There is so much one can do with such a combo. But I have no choice. John Constantine may never repent enough to get into heaven, but after watching this movie, repentance comes naturally enough to me.

-suraj kamath
(http://http://surajkamath.blogspot.com/)

**************

Sins: director- Vinod Pande

Priest takes fancy to girl. Priest and girl enter clandestine relationship. Priest becomes jealously possessive of girl, doesn’t want to leave the priesthood so he marries her off to some poor fool
while he continues to have his way with her. Girl and husband try to get away as the priest becomes
progressively nuerotic and murderous. - that's Sins in a nutshell for you.

The subject of a priest breaking his vows and fornicating has been explored time and again by filmmakers. Vinod Pande doesn’t exactly take the plunge here; Indian cinema’s favourite subject usually is forbidden relationships, only in this case the protagonist is a priest. Something different you would think...and then you actually see the movie, which follows every possible Hindi movie stereotype. Their might be a sincere effort here to show the hypocrisy of the Church like the affair between the priest and the girl is commonly talked about, the Church congratulates the priest with a promotion, every reason for the Catholic Church to protest against that one. (They have got an image to maintain too, right?) They needn’t worry though, Shiney seems to be the only ‘Father’ to be seen for miles, makes the clergy he belongs to even less believable. Besides, the Malayali community are a conservative lot and wouldn’t have ‘you may now kiss the bride’ as a part of its wedding ceremony when Father Williams marries Graham (Nitesh Pandey) and Rosemary (Seema Rahmani).

Rosemary’s mother stands by and does nothing as her daughter sells herself to the priest, however her
newfound concern for her daughter's welfare in the second half of the movie makes the weepy goodbye scene between them altogether unconvincing. The couple manages to flee the the clutches of the neurotic priest. She is cleansed from her sinful past, clad in a white sari and coyly telling her husband that she is pregnant, which brings to mind how Indian women normally dress after fornicating or being assaulted in the movies.

Also annoying are the attempts to authenticate the Malayali culture, the Malayali accents are confused, Seema Rahmani’s American "r" s slip out in the emotionally charged scenes, the actors themselves don’t seem too comfortable with the English language. Nitesh Pandey blusters unintelligibly through most of his part. Shiney’s raging tantrums are jerky and earsplitting.

The protagonist herself is a weak character and masochistically drawn to the priest's violent nature. She takes a quite a beating which makes you feel sorry for her. She is swung this way and that, first by the priest, then by her family, and does nothing to improve her situation until her husband comes to the rescue and shows her the way out.

The movie itself is marketed typically, the cross hanging in the poster is glaringly obvious but hey,
Sins, Jurm, Rog...all pretty much the same marketing. ‘Forbidden love’ is supposed to make it all the more alluring. So you walk into the theatre and see only half a dozen guys who probably mistook it for porn. They must have been disappointed because Seema Rahmani is leggy and thin, inpite of the blouse ripping scenes, of which there are plenty, there ain’t much to see. The soundtrack is all surprise-thriller oriented, the choir reaching crescendos during the love-making scenes.

This movie does nothing for women, has annoyed the Christian community for the ‘sensitive' portrayal of ‘forbidden love’(honestly what did the director expect?), and most certainly has done nothing for New Age Indian Cinema. If for nothing, go and see how badly it’s made.

- Sarah Bernhardt

movie review: Amu

2005-02-25T00:15:00.000-08:00

There aren’t too many words to describe Shonali Bose's first attempt at being a producer, but powerful, insightful and moving are all quite accurate. 'Amu' is an English-Hindi-Bengali polyglot film, with the protagonist 'Kaju' (Konkana Sen in an earthy, dusky avatar ) coming back to India to search for her roots. Adopted by her single mother Keya, Kaju has lived in LA since she was three, protected and sheltered from a past long forgotten. As history catches up with her, Kaju stumbles unsuspectingly on dark secrets, skeletons lovingly hidden by her adoptive family; Kaju has to face the truth of the past, the truth of the 1984 riots in which over 5000 Sikhs died.

The movie paces itself well, but the more action and thrills-inclined may find the understated drama and slow buildup a little tedious. The romantically inclined may not appreciate the minimal detailing of the affection between Kabir and Kaju. In a bold move, the film leaves these done-to-death issues sketchy, yet poignant, while concentrating on Kaju's search into her own history among the carnage of 1984. The police apathy, the political intrigue, the subsequent cover-up, all these are detailed in hard-hitting scenes and dialogue, shaking our apathetic minds into an outraged cry of "How could this be allowed to happen?" The censor board was incensed enough to force five dialogue cuts, supposedly politically incendiary comments.

Konkana Sen's performance is absolutely spellbinding, with her rendition of the bubbly young American desi coming back to find her roots appearing not only completely believable, but also highly endearing. She shimmers through the film effortlessly taking you through the emotions of a young girl coming to terms with a horrible past. Ankur Khanna as Kabir plays the angsty young man with a tender heart quite well. In fact, I cant remember a single wooden performance in this splendidly directed film, and the cinematography is crisp and fresh. The language is refreshing, flowing from English to Hindi to subtitled Bengali. I have always loved Bengali, never found a language so completely endearing, and this was a linguistic feast for me.

Amu is not advertised much, and isn’t playing at many theatres. It depends on word of mouth to survive. I don’t know how long this strangely honest movie will last among the bare-all, say-nothing offerings dominating mainstream cinema; it would be wise to catch it asap. This is one movie worth seeing on the big screen, and its definitely one you don’t want to miss.

- suraj kamath
(http://surajkamath.blogspot.com)

What The CEO Wants You To Know - Ram Charan

2005-02-19T03:37:00.000-08:00

Reading this book is like learning the ( business ) alphabets all over again and finding out how they work together to create a literary masterpiece or, as in this case, a succesful business. This book like no other leads you through the fundamentals of any business- cash generation, profitable and sustainable growth and customer satisfaction. For a mind weighed down by HBR articles and in-depth books on branding, marketing, innovation and stuff, Ram Charan's writing brings in a welcome change in this book by focussing on the oft-forgotten fundamentals.

The very first thing that strikes you is the simplicity of Ram Charan's writing, you can safely give this book to a high-school kid; in fact all of us "mature" business professionals do need this "back-to-basics" course to put things back into perspective. Drawing rich examples from companies like GE and Ford, Ram Charan goes on to explain in absolute basic terms all the different aspects of managing (and working for ) a business from a holistic viewpoint.

In fact the back cover of the book proclaims "How different is it to run a big company than to sell fruit from a cart or run a small shop in a village? In essence, not very, according to Ram Charan. From his childhood in India, where he worked in his family's shoe shop, to his education at Harvard Business School and his daily work advising many of the world's best CEOs, Ram understands business as few can." - and the book sure delivers what it promises.

A must read for anyone who works for a living whether you are managing a business or working for one.

-the bookBUG

about schmidt \ fahrenheit 9/11

2005-02-14T04:31:00.000-08:00

The movies on offer at the theatres were so uninviting that I decided to spend the weekend watching movies at home; and I watched two wonderful movies.

fahrenheit 9/11: director- michael moore

I never felt the urge to see this one before, feeling it was just another documentary - don't we get enough of them on the news channels!

Nonetheless, having nothing else to do this weekend, I decided to give it a try - and boy was I in for a treat!

Moore's film rivets your attention from the very first frames. Displaying footage of Bush's controversial year 2000 win of the US presidential elections, the movie sets the mood for what is to come - september 11,2001. The opening credits are cleverly juxtaposed with the protagonists (Bush, Condoleeza Rice and others) putting on make-up for different television appearances, as the stage is set for the movie.

Then the screen goes blank - and in the darkness we hear the familiar voices of newscasters shouting out news of the september 11 terrorist strikes on the WTC. And in the absence of visuals, your mind recreates whatever you were doing when the news came...and it's more effective than any images! Then the film lays bare all the secret dealings/relations between Bush and the Bin-laden family and stuff. Every single frame drips with sarcasm and the voice-over remarks are real witty and caustic. The tale winds its way onto the war on Iraq and the futility of it all. It is a great commentary not only on Bush's questionable policies but also on society itself which sends to war people from the lower echelons who lead a deprived life and then lay down their lives for us.

A wonderful film, Moore must be given all the credits for bringing to life what would otherwise have been a plain documentary; a must-watch for everyone.

************

About schmidt: Jack Nicholson

This simple tale of a quiet person called Schmidt; who loses his wife just days after his retirement and finds his daughter engaged to a person he doesn't approve.

Accidentally he comes across a sponsor-a-child advertisement and decides to sign up for 22 dollars a month. He receives an answering letter with the photograph of a child named Ndugu, the one he is sponsoring, and is requested to write a letter of introduction to the child. Schmidt writes, and it is thorugh his writings that we come to know of the man and how he copes with his depression over the next few days. He takes of on a visit to his place of birth, tries to convince his daughter against marrying the guy she loves, meets lots of interesting people but finally comes back home as sad and dissatisfied as ever.

Schmidt feels that he has spent a futile life, that after he dies, and all those who know him die, it would be like he never existed - he never made any difference to the world. And then he gets a mail from Ndugu; the little guy has sent him a picture he has drawn - of a child and a man holding hands happily in the sun, and Schmidt's eyes moisten with happiness - he finally finds peace.

Jack Nicholson is brilliant as the quiet, sad and troubled old man, judiciously understated; a great movie to watch over a lazy afternoon.

-moviebuff

movie:Page 3 - director: Madhur Bhandarkar

2005-02-03T05:31:00.000-08:00

In a month of unfulfilled "vaada"s, pointless "elaan"s and a kitsch "kisna", when I sat down to watch Page 3, I was ready to take on anything; I was in for a surprise.

The movie starts of with a series of parties thrown by mumbai socialites and we get the usual dope on their hypocritical lifestyle devoid of all meaning and plenty of socialite "bash"ing with a good enough dash of tongue-in-cheek humour. In fact for the first forty-five minutes, you find the movie mimic Page-3 itself - blatantly pointless and yet bearable - and then, slowly but surely, it gets a life of its own.

In the next hour and half, madhavi, the journalist and we move from the casting couch to a suicide and a funeral gathering, to a bomb blast, to drug-peddling,police encounters and child abuse, in a emotional roller-coaster ride as the director tears down every facade and rips open mumbai's underbelly. She will be betrayed by the editor she respects, the friend she trusts and the guy she falls in love with; she will learn that nothing is what it seems and finally she will learn to take all of it in her stride, savour the satire in all this with a smile and wait...for that one chance to bring out the truth- in the right fashion.

Sandhya Mridul is brilliant as Pearl, Boman Irani as the editor and Konkona Sen the protagonist slip into their characters with characteristic ease; combined with the soulful rendering of "kitne ajeeb rishtey" by asha bhonsle and finally a commnedable execution of a good concept, this is surely a movie you cannot miss. Kudos to Madhur Bhandarkar!

- moviebuff

movie/television reviews

2005-01-08T04:45:00.000-08:00

1-liner movie reviews:

alexander:
Director Oliver Stone dumps the American myth of "going to war to
'free' other countries from tyranny and to 'unite' the world" on the great greek
warrior( thank god he doesn't rename him Alex!) - not much of a story; not much
of a movie either.

dil mange more:
You can get an estimate of the immense energy that Shahid Kapoor
exudes in the way he forms the saving grace of the movie despite dismal,
disinterested performances from the three heroines.

swades:
Wholesome food (for thought) but in a drab un"filmi" pack.

raincoat:
A O'Henry'ish story with great performances that would have been
better served in half the original length of the movie.

*************************************

television review:

kabhi haan kabhi naa :
(zee t.v.-Mon-Thu 10:30 p.m)

Finally an indian soap that packs a nice punch! The story of three young men
caught in the tragicomic mire of life unfolds much like an extended "Dil Chahta
Hai" but I would say it's more an indianised "Sex and the City"(HBO) with the
female protagonists replaced by men.

Adi is in search of an ideal life partner while his elder brother, sister-in-law
("bhabs") and personal secretary Sam try to bring some order into his slovenly
life. Chetan is the playboy with a string of girlfriends whose cool dude
attitude backfires quite often. Finally there's Dipankar(a.k.a Poltu!), a timid
Bong who's fighting a losing battle to free his life from the clutches of an
overcaring sister("didi") who insists on getting him married at the earliest.

The three of them are great friends who meet every evening at the beer bar to
try straighten out the mess in their lives and relationships.

This soap is definitely worth a try. So tune in to Zee t.v. at 10:30 p.m. and
join in the pandemonium that is "kabhi haan kabhi naa".

-sumandatta

"THE ART OF SEDUCTION" : Robert Greene

2004-11-24T04:12:00.000-08:00

In this book, Greene looks at seduction as a power play devoid of emotions, referring to the person being seduced as "the victim". While this may sound repulsive to a more romantic mind, the key is to understand that seduction is all about "power" and not "love". If you get that straight then this book will prove to be an excellent read.

Greene systematically enumerates the different types of personalities of an individual and analyses how those traits contribute to the process of seduction which he breaks down into several steps. While there is nothing novel in the contents of the book - anyone who's had a brush with the opposite sex knows all the standard practices of "showering compliments", "weaving a mysterious atmosphere around oneself" and stuff - it is really helpful to gather all the thoughts and expertise into a ordered form.

Moreover, there are times when we, as the seduced, are blinded by the seducer's calculated actions. This book offers those of us a wonderful reality check. Citations from history, quotations from classical literature (Ovid etc. ) on the subject and parallels drawn with the way politicians and celebrities seduce the public, provide additional value to this book.

While this is no "Learn to be a Don Juan in ten days", it is an intricate exploration of seduction as an art, the seducer as the performer who puts together a magical act for the both himself and the seduced.

-sumandatta

"THE DA VINCI CODE" : Dan Brown

2004-11-23T05:34:00.000-08:00

This is one wild book that leads you on a thrilling adventure through the annals of Christian history as a cryptologist (Sophie Neveu) and a famed symbologist (Robert Langdon) set out to solve the mystery of the murder of Sophie's grandfather, a curator at the Louvre, and end up chasing the secret behind the Holy Grail.

The book is rife with puzzles and snippets of western history wherein the dark areas have been filled in with a vivid imagination (and some thorough research too, though I guess there is not much proof for many of the issues raised either ways ). The tone of the book is a bit childish however, like one of them "famous five" mysteries, but the story carries you on with such force that you take notice of the imperfections only in afterthought.

Of course it's difficult to maintain a balance between historical discourses and a thrilling mystery, and Dan Brown has done a wonderful job of it. The reader is led into dark alleys of Christian history from where he can start off his own exploration; in fact there is a book released lately which discusses on the issues raised by "The Da Vinci Code" and in Europe, tourists are explicitly asking to be shown around the places mentioned in the book!

As for the story, it is no doubt a page-turner but it does let you down at the end with an awkward conclusion. Even the final puzzle at the climax, which one expected to be the toughest, turns out to be a sitter and the reader solves it even before the protagonists. While that might give some a childlike pleasure it did irritate me to find the protagonists fighting it out for such an obvious solution. The characterisation is weak too (but then as I said it is difficult to balance things when you are creating a potpourri of history, murder and romance) and the chemistry between Sophie and Langdon, although holding much promise, has been ill-developed.

All in all, a wonderful read, this book does open up our minds to new queries regarding Jesus Christ and The Holy Grail, besides of course being a thrilling murder mystery.

suman datta

"MISTER GOD, THIS IS ANNA" : Fynn

2004-11-23T05:33:00.000-08:00

All cute things come in small packages. And so does this book with a cute introductory style title and a school calendar / diary like layout.

In the entire book, the author Fynn talks about the impact a small girl called Anna made on his life. He narrates to us Anna's observations and perceptions about real life. Just to get a glimpse of the thought process of the six year old Anna, the opening statement in the book goes like this:
" the difference from a person and an angel is easy. Most of an angel is in the inside and most of a person is on the outside."

Anna shows us how we can relate to God with each and every action of ours. Put in other words, she feels that God wants all of us to live our lives like Him. Her tiny mind tries to figure out answers for "squillions" of questions like "Does Mister God truly love us ?" , "Where is Mister God in us ?" . Her thought on the harmony underlying the diverse things in the universe goes like this :
"...All diverse things must have something in common. Some common factor, unnoticed and unattended to. ..... Things have shadows; .....If you held the shadow perpendicular to the screen, and then all shadows become straigh lines. The fact that all these straight lines were of different lengths was something else you didn't want.... Simply make all the straight lines cast shadows and there you are. What all these diverse things had in common,....,was the shadow of a shadow of a shadow, which was a dot ."
To Anna that dot represents God because you cannot reduce it further and it reflects the ends of an infinite series of dimensions.

Putting forth such thoughts and questions she brings about a major transition in author (and also in the reader). The book doesn't throw at us any hard-to-digest philosophy on life, God and religion. All the talk in the book is from a six year old's mouth. So you can imagine how simple her thoughts would be. Go ahead, devour it(as Anna would put it).

priya varadan som

Veer-Zaara music: Late Madan Mohan lyrics: Javed Akhtar

2004-11-23T05:32:00.000-08:00

This is an album that has engendered high expectations because of several reasons... (apart from the strange title of the movie!)

First, "Veer-Zaara" is a Yash Chopra film(statistics give us every reason to expect good music!)...and secondly(most importantly!) the film uses the unutilised compositions of the late Madan Mohan,the legend.

"Wouldn't Madan Mohan's tunes be a misfit in today's scenario ?" was the doubt that lingered on my otherwise trusting mind(guess I could be pardoned for my misgivings!) but all doubts got dispelled once i heard the music;its indubitably a great homage to a great legend!

SIDE A(****)

SIDE B(*)

'Tere liye'

This one's a classic which doesn't impress much on first hearing but gradually grows on you.

'Yeh hawa'

The most beautiful part of this song is the commentary By Yash Chopra.Sadly though, it is the only nice thing about this song.

'Main yahan hoon'

The song with interludes of the Punjabi folk 'Laung Gavacha'is undoubtedly the best number and Udit Narayan does full justice to its rendition.

'Hum to bhai jaise hain'

passable!Lata's voice ,for once ,doesn't suit the song.

'Aisa Des hai mera'

passable!

'Aaye tere dar pe'

sufi stuff.

'Yeh hum aa gaye hain kahan'

exceptional music!the majesty of Madan Mohan's tunes goes straight to your heart.

'Lodhi aaye ve'

typical punjabi folk.

'Do Pal'

Javed Akhtar has done a commendable job and so has Sonu Nigam.The lyrics are easily the best amongst those penned in recent times.

Side B caters to the tastes of those specifically interested in folk songs and sufi stuff while side A will appeal to just anyone!in all the album offers a nice diversion from the techno and bhangra beats that dominate today's music scene. The juxtaposition of the traditional and modern style of music is the USP of this album which proves to be another welcome addition to the previous "Yash Chopra" classics.

nishant garg

"THE ALCHEMIST" : Paulo Coelho

2004-11-23T04:41:00.000-08:00

If there's only one book you will ever read in your life, make this it. Featured in The BBC Big Read Top 100 ,the book's back cover declares "Every few decades a book is published that changes the lives of its readers forever.The Alchemist is such a book.", and there can be no two opinions about it.

Incidentally, I had lent out my first copy of the book to the teenaged messenger-boy at my office, and two days later he simply vanished! Unfortunate though it was, for I had to get myself another copy, I like to believe that he went in pursuit of his dreams; for Brazilian author Paulo Coelho's The Alchemist traces the curious adventures of a shepherd boy as he travels from his homeland in Spain to distant Egypt in search of a treasure that appears in his dreams.On the way he comes across numerous difficulties and temptations but moves on undeterred to fulfill his dreams.This simple fable which reads like a bedtime story on the surface hides within itself a gem of a thought: "when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it".

The book makes for a pleasant read that transports you from the stifling maze of everyday life to a world of dreams where you are awakened to your heart's dormant desires and instills in you the courage to make those dreams come true. I still dig into this book now and then,each time discovering a new facet to the simple tale and find it to be a constant source of inspiration and strength.

- sumandatta