movies, food, digital media, diaspora, directory and more
    Movies, Diaspora, Food & More
    
Home| Directory |  Food |  Bollywood |  B.O | Tamil Movies | Hollywood | Foreign Movies | Digital Media  | Diaspora | About Us | Advertise
 
Share

By Madmax673

I’ve drawn flak on several occasions for not watching “Star Wars”.  The movie from which that Kollywood “genius” Maniratnam stole visuals from. Or was it E.T? Or was it both?

The idea of characters pulling action/adventure shit together in space or in some wonderland excluding the earth with some unimaginable ugly robotic nonsensical machines just doesn’t appeal to me.

Am I not a “sci-fi” guy? No! I’ll come to it by the end of this review.

After hearing favorable reviews about the ‘Star Trek’ reboot (2009), I watched it and was mildly surprised. So that raised my expectation towards this sequel.

Alas, this sequel was a bit disappointing.

Plot

The movie starts with the familiar spacecraft  USS Enterprise exploring the indigenous civilization in a remote planet called “Nibiru”.

Following a volcanic eruption, Captain Kirk gets demoted by his higher officer, Pike for saving a logical Vulcan Spock and in the process exposing the space ship to the alien race, who actually end up worshiping it as a cult.

In the meantime, Starfleet agent John Harrison bombs London and kills Pike during an emergency meeting, thus setting our hero in the quest for capturing and bringing John Harrison to justice.

As the adventure continues, there are a few interesting twists in the form of who actually John Harrison is and where was he from and how was he set up and all that.

Since I don’t consider this movie as hideous compared to a few other movies I watched recently, I choose not to give away much. Continue reading »

Share
 
Share

They’re a rotten crowd…You’re worth the whole damn bunch put together.
- Nick Carraway’s parting words to Jay Gatsby in The Great Gatsby

If you have not read F.Scott Fitzgerald’s so-called masterpiece The Great Gatsby, you’re not likely to be able to make much sense of this movie.

The wild, overflowing parties, the music, the huge mansions, the flashy fast cars and the repeated “old sport” are bound to throw you off and leave you bewildered.

Not Worth It

Considering its exalted position in the pantheon of American literature, I read The Great Gatsby about a year back when news broke of Amitabh Bachchan snagging a bit role in the film.

The 1925 novel has some appeal.

Admittedly, the prose is decent and there’s a certain style that might find favor with some readers . But I found there was not much by way of a plot or character development and concluded the 180-page book was a triumph of exaggerated style over substance.

And the story of Great Gatsby, as the noted essayist and critic H.L.Mencken rightly put it in 1925, is “somewhat trivial.”

In my not so humble opinion, the book does not deserve its current status as a classic. In Fitzgerald’s time, the book was not the success it is today.

This week, I picked up the book again to see if I’d missed something in my first reading. No, my opinion of the book did not change.

Vladimir Nabokov may have exaggerated when he pronounced the book ‘terrible” but the novel is certainly not worth making into a movie five times (four times on the big screen and once on TV).

Disappointment

Given my unfulfilled expectations in Fitzgerald’s novel, I went to the movie with low hopes.

Alas, the movie failed to come up even to the level of the book.

The latest film version of Great Gatsby features Leonardo DiCaprio, Amitabh Bachchan, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton et al.

With the novel, you, at least, have a clear sense of the events, the principal characters and the few oddballs that liven up things a bit.

The movie, on the other hand, is all a chaotic whirl marked by pedestrian performances. Continue reading »

Share
 
Share

Once is enjoyable!

Twice, barely endurable!

Thrice, intolerable!

Help, I can’t take this repetitive Iron Man drivel any longer!

Tiresome Spectacle

How long is Hollywood going to flog this poppycock, of a man in a metallic red suit zipping through the air and dispatching his enemies when he’s not muttering sarcastic asides.

Now how much ever you camouflage it by changing the scenery and shrubbery, at the end of the frame it’s still the same billionaire inventor and savior of mankind, Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr) in the same metallic red suit doing the same bizarre antics and the same hideous gal Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) vainly trying against impossibly heavy odds to look pretty.

The flying, the tinkering in the labs, the heavy gun-fire, the Tony-Pepper romance and the ultimate triumph against a maniacal monster yield not joy a third time but a weary deja vu.

Even the introduction of a 10-year-old Tennessee kid in Iron Man 3 and hooking him up with Iron Man to inject some emotional-connection failed to deliver the adrenaline jolt I so desperately longed for!

This time the villain is ‘Mandarin,’ a shadowy figure who looks like Osama bin Laden’s twin brother and his entourage like the Taliban.

But why make a repetitive plot simple when you can twist it freakishly convoluted. That’s the mantra of Iron Man 3 director Shane Black.

Ergo, we have the Extremis project with the cockamamie DNA upgrade and its Mephistophelian creator Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), who 13 years later is still sore about an appointment that Tony Stark failed to make it to.

And so it goes on, with Presidents kidnapped, Air Force One destroyed, mid-air rescues and Iron Man chained to a bar until it all ends not so spectacularly in a huge ball of fire on an oil rig.

I will admit though that I never saw the twist coming.

Alas, the twist never lifted the movie out of its mundane depths.

Krishna – My Salvation

If there’s anything I liked in this bore, it was our fine ‘Gujarati actor’ Krishna Pandit Bhanji and his portrayal of “Mandarin.”

Krishna Bhanji is one of the great actors of our times and in Iron Man 3 the man excels in an odd, short role.

I won’t give more away other than a hint that there’s more to Krishna’s ‘Mandarin’ than meets the eye.

Bottom Line

The visual effects were all right but nothing I haven’t seen before in a gazillion Hollywood films.

Even if they were appealing, there’s still no fun unless you marry visual imagery with a non-repetitive, engaging plot.

SearchIndia.com strongly recommends you skip Iron Man 3 if you’re the sort that likes some originality, some soul and some drama at the core of a film.

If there’s an Iron Man 4, count me out!

Share
 
Share

At the outset, let me warn you that The Impossible is not for Indians.

The Naomi Watts-Ewan McGregor film Impossible is so well made that surely it’ll put off desi movie buffs hostile to anything with the slightest whiff of class.

Nice Drama

Good directors discover high drama in everyday occurrences, like happenings within a family or town, and sometimes in rare events such as the 2004 tsunami that wrought widespread devastation in Asia.

Capable directors don’t engage in the gimmickry of a metallic suited Robert Downey Jr (Iron Man 1, 2 and soon 3) or peddle the meretricious allure of a fancy set-design to mask the absence of a great story (The Great Gatsby is a mediocre work except to those who haven’t read it and rely on the hearsay of a few idiots who pretend to have).

In Impossible, director Juan Antonio Bayona works remarkable drama out of the real-life story of María Belón Alvárez and her family who survived the tsunami in Thailand while vacationing there.

In the course of its translation into the English movie, the Spanish family turns into the British family Maria and Henry Bennet and their children Lucas, Thomas and Simon holidaying in Khao Lak, Thailand.

Post-Tsunami

To describe Impossible as essentially a tsunami film would be inaccurate.

In my view, the movie is more of the immediate post-tsunami survival trauma of an European family vacationing in Thailand. Continue reading »

Share
 
Share

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. Neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Wherefore by their fruit, you shall know them. – Night of the Hunter

Just as there are not many bank robbers running around the U.S., there aren’t many serial killers stalking the dark streets either.

And the rare few dumb or desperate enough to engage in repeated murder and mayhem invariably meet a sorry end.

Still the public has a bizarre fascination for serial killers,  suggesting that beneath the veneer of civilized conduct the blood lust, even if vicariously expressed, remains strong as ever in the hearts of most people.

And Hollywood is ever ready to pander to the public’s fondness for seeing serial killers commit their vile deeds on screen.

A 1950s Era Film

An early Hollywood serial killer movie from the 1950s is The Night of the Hunter, directed by Charles Naughton based on the popular eponymous novel by Davis Grubb.

Both the book and the films are based on the real-life serial killer Harry Powers, who was caught and hanged in 1932.

In The Night of the Hunter, a black and white noir film set in depression era West Virginia, Robert Mitchum plays serial killer Harry Powell masquerading as a preacher.

So many murders has Harry committed, mostly of vulnerable young widows, that he can’t even remember the number of his victims.

Be they 6 victims or 12, it’s all the same to Harry!

During one of his stints in prison (for car theft??), Harry’s cell-mate is Ben Harper, who’s in prison for robbery and murder. Ben has stashed away $10,000, proceeds from the robbery, disclosing the spot only to his two children John and little Pearl.

Despite Harry’s insistent efforts to get Ben to disclose the location of the loot, Ben goes to the hangman with sealed  lips.

Not one to be easily deterred, soon after his release Harry goes to Ben’s widow Willa in the guise of a retired prison chaplain who knew her husband, woos her and, before you can say Jiminy Cricket, marries her.

Now Janus-faced Harry begins his deadly quest for the$10,000 in earnest.

But determined Harry has not reckoned on the strong will of his two young quarries, John and Pearl, who refuse to yield to his threats and escape down-river pursued by the killer on a stolen horse.

Can the youngsters escape the fate of Harry’s earlier victims? Continue reading »

Share
 
Share

By Madmax673

In real life, there are some people who apologize for their sins with real regret.

There are others who use apology merely as an excuse.

This Hollywood bozo Michael Bay makes even Bollywood sinners look like saints by dishing out utterly boring, disgusting drivel.

Seriously, this fellow should be hailed as one of the worst directors of the decade along the lines of community driven directors like Antoine Fuqua.

When someone runs out of taut subjects or ‘high-concept’ comedies what else do you do? Pick out a real tragic story and turn it into an ugly grotesque farce!

More bizarre to me is the fact that this idiot shamelessly apologizes by reminding us through inserting title cards every now and then that this is a true story.

In the beginning, the narrator states “unfortunately…this is a true story”.

By the end, after testing the viewer’s endurance and patience for over 120 minutes, there is a reminder in the form of a title card: “seriously…this is still a true story”.

Every now and then in the middle there is an insertion of date and timings.

Story

Set in Florida, this abomination based on some magazine articles loosely based on true events by Pete Collins, follows three body builders and dimwits who lack even an infinitesimal amount of common sense – Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg), Paul Doyle (Dwayne Johnson) and Adrian Doorbal (Anthony Mackie).

Daniel Lugo is just a transformed man after being in prison but still lands at a so-so job as a gym instructor. He attends a “get rich quick” kinda meeting by Johnny Wu (Ken Jeong) and falls for an idea, conspires with Paul and Adrian to kidnap the rich guy Victor (Tony Shalhoub) and rip his wealth away from him.

The rest of the movie is about how these mutts successfully manage to screw up the entire plot & plan and end up paying their price, thanks to the efforts of Ed DuBois (Ed Harris), the only likeable person in the movie who only appears for a very little time.

If I write anything good about this movie, I’ll surely rot in hell! Continue reading »

Share
© 2013 SearchIndia.com   Privacy Policy Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha