slow motion - the world of movies

Not always do we come across such wonderfully made emotional pictures. I was actually told very much about the movie by my brothers before I got the opportunity to see it myself. And when I experienced it myself, after all it was as good as they claimed, if not better.

In a happy family with music heritage, Nedumudi Venu is Mohanlal’s brother and guru, and an excellent singer. He reigns in the family and in the society with his music. But because of his addiction with alcohol, he loses his control over the music and people start prefering his sishya and brother Mohanlal. Considering this as an insult, he starts hating his brother and strives hard to recover from alcoholism. Unable to accept his defeat, he sets to get out of his habit by going on a yatra. Parallely Mohanlal, getting to know that Venu is killed in an accident, is forced to conceal this truth because of their vocally disabled sister’s marriage. Mohanlal’s trauma is sure to cast down any viewer as a matter of fact thanks to his performance.

A good choice of actors and crew, with a good plot. Expressive Mohanlal befits the role. Music blends with the movie and Yesudas has given his best, Ramakadha Ghanalayam being the pinnacle. I am sure Yesudas enjoys singing for such movies and the his emotional singing adds value to Mohanlal’s character in the songs. Choice of Balamuralikrishna for Nedumudi Venu and Yesudas for Mohanlal is just perfect.

Indeed one of the best movies I have seen. No let downs.

Rating: 4.0/5.0

An interesting morning with the satisfaction of seeing a pleasant movie that adds life to living. I did not have any expectations when I went to watch the screening of the special show of Dweepa in Satyam cineplex (I want to laud Satyam’s efforts; lets postpone it for fear of deviating from the topic)

< Spoilers herein >

Set in the beautiful interior sparsely inhabited karnataka, the story revolves around Nagi and her tenacity in living and not letting the spirit down despite the impending danger. The scenic village beside the bonny river close in the hilly region is about to be drowned as a dam is constructed. The inhabitants relunctantly start leaving the place taking the compensation for the land and home they own, given by the government. Nagi’s husband and father in law are tribal performers in the local temple who make a living by performing poojas. The father in law is hesitant in moving out from the place and believes that the place is a divine one and can never get submerged.

Stuck to the honour they have had in the past, and without much compensation from the government as they don’t recognize the honor, Nagi and her husband adapt to living despite the pertinent danger. As time passes the place gets virtually deserted, life becoming more difficult by the day. Krishna, a zesty young fellow comes to help, living with them on the request of Nagi’s family. Thats when the story deviates from the core, with Nagi’s husband starting to suspect Nagi’s bond with Krishna.

Crucial scenes such as the death of father in law are handled delicately and artistically. The end evokes pity for Nagi with her husband not recognizing her determination and hardship, but devoting everything to the divine power.

The entire Krishna episode could have been avoided just concentrating on the problem in hand. Maybe the director wanted to show the other facets of the characters and introduced such aberration.

Soundarya as Nagi has done an excellent job, blending naturally as the tribe girl with a passion for life, never letting the spirit down. The father-in-law character is interesting and the actor is commendable for the performance.

The locations are just awe inspiring and the cameraman gives the best portraying nature. The director is rightly awarded Golden Lotus for his excellence in handling the story deftly, patiently and naturally.

Rating: 4.0 / 5.0

Two people. Entirely different. Yet have something in common. Unable to accept the affinity openly. Unable to hide it too. But good relationships are not discriminated by color, race or sex. Point exemplified. Very well indeed.

Morgan Freeman as Hoke, an african-american and the chauffeur for Ms. Daisy (Jessica Tandy), an American Jew who is reluctant to have him as one. Their loneliness and the circumstances lead them to a 25-year long warm relationship. Crafted beautifully, this masterpiece is a drama as well as a melodrama.

Expressing a serious problem (racism) in an intended comedy is not a joke, and Alfred Uhry - the playwright has done it carefully and effectively. Hans Zimmer’s music gives a boost to the film. Inspite of the four academy awards (including Jessica Tandy as Best Actress), I am sure Morgan Freeman also deserved one for his performance.

A must-see if you like dramas.

Rating: 4.0 / 5.0

To watch a film, a viewer could possibly enter the theater in 2 modes: with a lot of expectations or with no expectations. And with Shankar’s movies, you are made to enter with lots and lots of expectations. Success comes to him as he stands up to the set expectations and with Boys, he doesn’t falter either.

Before we get into the wrangles created in Chennai by politicians and feminists claiming that the movie debased the sanctity of the society, Let us review the film with an open mind.

The movie starts flamboyantly, portraying the life of five typical juvenile sophomores and goes on to showing the mischievousness they are up to. At that age, a full-time job for any boy is thinking about girls and these boys are no exception. They do it and do it without inhibitions. With Sidharth falling in love with Harini (as expected), and parents staunchly opposing the love of the couple and the habits of the boys, they all elope from their homes.

In the second-half of the movie, in a polar shift to real life’s problems, the boys and the girl find hardships, with life testing them incessantly. Problems compound as the girl Harini leaves the boy Sid and Secret of Success concludes the movie with a happy ending.

A simple story dramatically presented by Shankar. Shankar has shined in coloring the film and making it technically sound. Time-freezing in the lavender garden song (Ale Ale) unfortunately fails to make an impact, though nice to watch. Usual Shankar’s grandiose in Break the Rules and Secret of Success and impressive graphics in Girlfriend and Boom Boom songs. Realistic difficulties faced by the boys before upping to success, instead of the usual instant victories through a single song as in the stoic Indian movies.

A R Rahman’s music is astounding especially in Girlfriend and Secret of Success. Vivek shines, whenever possible, even in his God-father role. Sujatha’s dialogues are down-to-earth. Sidharth and Harini naturally fit into the roles and Harini looks sweet especially with faddish dress ups. Sabu Syril’s art and Ravi K. Chandran’s cinematography are notable. Emotions run to high extremes at times. And the movie seems a little long, dragging at times.

Let’s talk about the critics the movie has received so far.

First off, the movie is about teenagers. Not about mature people. Considering this, the picture exactly portrays the typical life of today’s young men, their typical acts, their thoughts and their approach to life. And in showing this, to give the true picture, one has to show their strangeness and curiosity towards in the opposite sex. And coarseness is an integral part of it. A cold-blooded murder, for example, can’t be shown without blood. And so is the life of teenagers dealt without opposite sex. Shankar has done it, and it might be difficult to digest, for truth is difficult to handle.

Can you show any person in the world who in their teens not get attracted to the opposite sex (forget gays)? [If one is not, then he has some psychological problem.] And is there anyone who is not curious to see adult material or curious to touch a girl?

If you are among those who claim that the movie has ruined the so-called culture, then you are not realistic. That is how the society is today and I find three problems with why some people staunchly oppose the movie:

1. What is shown is crude reality of the teenage life. People criticizing the movie are probably guilty that they have created such society and anxiously cover-up the viewpoint, by vehemently opposing the film.

2. They get reminded of their youth and would be guilty if they talk frankly about it. [Courtesy: Writer Sujatha, in his column. And I agree]

3. They try to get the 15-minute cheap publicity, by opposing what seems hot in town.

4. They are trying to make money and publicity out of it, if they are in the magazine business.

I heard someone saying that they can’t watch the movie with the entire family. My answer is: DON’T. It’s not meant for watching with your family, if you are not open with your family members. If people sincerely have to make movies for all the family members, only cartoon can be made. By the way, these are people who can watch some girl like Kiran or Mumtaj dancing in two piece attire making erotic movements. And the magazines criticizing the crudeness of the movie are the ones who hold seductive pictures in their pages, selling soft sex.

Shall I call it Hypocrisy?

Well, the real problem with Indian movie ratings is that there are only 3 classes: A, U or A/U, which is useless. There is a desperate need for fine grain classification like the ones in the developed countries.

Altogether, you literally live in the young world of boys for a couple of hours. And the strong points trivialize the occasional crassness or realism or whatever you call it. If you still want only the real-crass Mumtaj eroticism or are happy with prabhu or Vijaykanth dancing, I hope the Indian viewers improve one day!

Rating: 4.0 / 5.0