The title is adept to the movie’s post war setting in Berlin, 1945. In the crumbles of war, trauma and hopeful pursuits’ decease the disillusioned lives of survivors while power politics is played between leaders under the garb of peace conferences. And in between falls Lena (suavely played by Cate Blanchett), the beautiful wife of a significantly wanted scientist, Emiel Brandt, who is presumed dead by all blocs. Jacob Geismar (perhaps a little less convincingly played by George Clooney) ,an American captain, journalist and Lena’s old flame, arrives on his second deputation not expecting to find her with his driver, a young and hot blooded corporal (Tobey Mc Guire). As Geismar unabashedly seeks (longs for) her, the corporal’s body is unexpectedly washed in. Only to Geismar’s curiosity, this murder means more than a mere consequence of zonal trespassing that eventually unfolds to his estranged lover, whose only goal is to survive while fulfilling a secret duty with her irresistible aura as the only means to escape.

                                         Stephen Soderbergh cuts a classic 40’s cinematographic piece coupled with the old school background score to the full effect of nostalgic cinema. And although it may take considerable cognitive effort to gather the story together, it’s worth the rental on a lazy day or even for a collector’s piece. 

Originally published in Traffic Life, a former magazine by Twenty Onwards Media Pvt. Ltd.  

Ragini MMS (2011)

An ode to the guy I go to for an update and a better (funnier) insight on the genre of Horror movies, M'hael.

"Despite the repeated jump scares and the less than impressive CGI, this movie does somewhat pull Indian Horror outta the ol' rut" 

Sub-Genre: Horror, Supernatural/Haunted House

Cast Members of Note: Kainaz Motivala (Wake Up Sid), Raj Kumar Yadav (Love, Sex Aur Dhoka) 

What's it About? - A couple go out of town for a 'dirty' weekend (quite presumably) to a lonely, deserted house only to realize their little party will soon be thrashed by the spirit of a Marathi woman (who looked much like the stereotype of a Bombay Bai), accused of witchcraft and killed (assuming years back!) by neighbours (or was it family?) who believed she killed her own children. 

Also, what Ragini doesn't know is that the house is set up with cameras everywhere including the bathrooms (where the cameras would blur her nether regions) and some dingy rooms where only action one can capture is rodents going anal on each other. 

All you get is prolonged first base. Yes, even them rodents do it hotter. Wonder why the Censor Board rated it A?

After a few teasers, jump scares and Ragini's uninvited friends dropping in & also teasing the audience, followed a whole lot more teasers and jump scares. Even as Ragini and deutche bag boyfriend get down to "business" (For the BF, making both 'love' & 'quick cash'), they don't go as far as even groping each other, forget any clothes coming off. And no no, the ghost ain't to be blamed. If you can't get beyond first base in 10 mins and are still playing coy with the camera, well your prude ass deserves to be scared the shit out of. 

Tsk...pussy! The BF i.e.! 

*SPOILER ALERT* 

The Good - Pawan Kripalani didn't do a ham of a job with this one. He kept the audiences on the edge of their seats. Well he kept me on the edge of my palm covering my face. But then again, I scare too easily but get disturbed with that much more difficulty. There were some remarkable moments of creep when BF suddenly and randomly speaks in Marathi saying, "I am not a witch". It wasn't even a moment that was taken very seriously by the gf or the audience but had an insidious effect in setting the platform for the 'scare'. Although, the Marathi rambling of the spirit got a li'l too repetitive and comical eventually, the idea of a spirit rambling in regional language was quite clever and the words were deathly too. The actors have been highly praised for convincingly playing their parts and I wouldn't disagree too much. They were also quite unflinching in the exhibition of their sexual prowess, which is still very rare for Indian actors but for the old farts in the censor board and their 16th century concept of shame in sexuality.

The Bad - Although the movie was a 'thrilling' experience of sorts for me, there were no take aways. There was so much more that the spirit could have done other than ramble Marathi, slap, move stuffs and nonsensically kill people. Indians have a long way to go with special effects amongst many other things. Since the spirit was a old Marathi woman, they could have had make up do more justice to her gory appearance than a CGI blur, which would have worked better if it was the spirit of a younger, well toned woman.
                         Special effects aside Indian writers need to start being a little bit more imaginative than the tried, tested and even loved formula of 'purani haveli', 'chudail' and all such familiar keywords. Granted this movie was a first of its kind and wasn't as terrible as potentially anticipated by me but reinventing the wheel (read, Paranormal Activity, The Blair Witch Project) gets you no brownie points for originality, even though we're just habituated to rehashed stuffs now.

My friend Neha, who unlike me, was laughing her head off at the jump scares said, "My only takeaway from Ragini  MMS is to never let a guy handcuff me" 

The Downright Horrendous - Masochist Ms. Kapoor wanted to ensure the script had every opportune moment of a BC/MC expletive. And as parochial and imaginative she is, decided to draw up a character of an abusive and disrespectful boyfriend who, of course, trapped innocent li'l Ragini into his pyaar ka jaal (Now I know how it feels like to write for Delhi Times). Essentially, there isn't much of a difference between her soaps and movies only she gets to release a lot more libido in the latter, which is only as much as a finger bath for me. 

The Gory - Again, so much scope for gore that was wasted because make up artists couldn't have done convincing jobs and a CGI would have just looked shoddy. The part when Ragini slits her wrist to lose free from the cuffs was good but then again she didn't go as far as amputating herself, which could have added gore substance to the movie. Imagine if she had only one hand to carry the cam with the other bleeding out. Yes, I'm sick but apparently that's what it takes to write good horror scripts.

The Naked - If the lack of boink boink in the movie will dissappoint you, you'd probably want to ask for at least half your money back since only as much as bra straps were coyly flashed for 2 seconds and tank top on! Dirty weekend indeed...spent on watching this movie! 

What did we learn ? Again, don't let anyone handcuff you in a creepy ol' house in the middle of nowhere. This can't go the right way even without a supernatural presence. 

Also, if you're a South Bombay/Delhi bred, there are more varieties of bad boys out there than the "West Delhi, 'Jat Boy' sticker on the car shield" kinds. 

Makepeace says: B-

                              The B for trumping over the contemporary history of bad Hindi horror movies like Vaastu Shastra, Hawa, Bhoot or even the competition, Haunted 3D and its attempt to be creepy. The negative marking for still repeating the same ol' mistakes and for the nth time I will say it, the friggin' jump scares. Its not a good horror movie if I didn't see most of the scenes because of my neuro-biological defence mechanism towards loud thuds and 'here and gone' appearances. 

Final Thoughts: (forced by practise and tradition)

Hot?

A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010): What a horrid job of a copy paste work!

Rotten Tomatoes: "Visually faithful but lacking the depth and subversive twists that made the original so memorable, the Nightmare on Elm Street remake lives up to its title in the worst possible way."

The Wrap reports, "there is no script or even a story for the sequel as of yet, according to the folks at New Line. All they know is that you folks really liked the first reboot, and since 3D is the in thing with the kids nowadays, a “Nightmare” sequel in 3D just seemed like a no-brainer."

There seems to be an inverse relationship between the hype created around a movie leading to much eager anticipation and the degree to which it fulfils your expectations. Remakes, especially the ones that take on the tall, almost impossible task of revamping a classic or to the least, living up to its predecessor, very often come down to the bitter truth of the inverse relationship.

The classic series of 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' from the 80's (the ones that i saw) are epic for indulging every ingredient of the horror genre, be it the supernatural, gore, thriller, creepy, skin, stupid (& horny) kids, boobs, hot quickies, bloodshed, special effects, vile humour and the list exhausts within this one awesome movie. I give the makers of the 2010 remake this much slack that a series of movies that already had it all can hardly be made much better. But did you really have to screw it up, altogether?

To begin with, Jackie Earle Haley fails flat as a legend of a character like Freddy Krueger. No one can be blamed for making the mistake of thinking Haley, with his natural disposition of a quiet/creepy kind, pulling it off with much ease yet he doesn't quite live up to it. I would have been fine with his improvisation of the role once he had fully filled his shoes but thats just where he missed out. Haley's impersonation of Krueger is a relative sombre one that didn't manage to entertain like Robert Englund did.

I dearly missed Krueger's sharp burnt features (new one looks like a badly baked quiche) and it is his expressions that actually did the job! Moreover, Krueger is better known for his playful, conniving ways and constantly clever innuendos that makes him a lively character in the league of dumb ghoul figures like Jason or from Scream or My Bloody Valentine. Although, credit still must be given to the only two innuendo lines from the 2010 remake: "Now that's what I call a wet dream"

Krueger: "What do you want to play?"

Last girl standing (or dreaming): "Fuck you!"

Krueger: "Ooh we can play that. Though that is a bit fast for me!"

My memory may be faint but I remember a basic plot line to the movie and how the series successively added to it. Perhaps, this movie was meant to be a 'remake' and not a continuation (of any sort) to the series, thus, it literally stuck to the basic plot line. However, what did the makers really achieve from doing just this much? I mean the old series were ahead enough of its times, in effects and make-up and this one didn't particularly progress beyond the given. Ideally, they should have furthered the plot to a more contemporary feel and had more wise crackers from Freddy, which would have been more typical of him. Apart from everything else that disappointed, the kills did not. Thank God they didn't mess with the gore aspect so i could at least console myself with the fact that i paid, booked in advance and drove in heat to watch some bloody good slits and scratches.

The only excuse for this movie is its tagline, "Every story has a beginning". Well the beginning's been (re)told, how about we hear something good here onwards?

Reviewing 'He's just not that into you'; the book & the motion picture.

Although i'm just not that into reading self-help novels, this was my first exception. The six words that ring along the book which is its driving point has a magical appeal to every self doubting woman. As per the 'Sex & The City' sciptwriters, Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo, who dished out this bestseller, it is THE answer to most (although it contends to say all) of the problems and doubts women encounter in dating and relationships.

A very engaging read yet brace yourself to funnyman Greg's satirical tone and language in learning the reason to why you never heard from that cute guy; would your boyfriend keeptalking about his ex; would your longtime live-in not pop up THE question; would he not divorce the wife your lover's so unhappy with and zillion-like questions we've spent hours ruminating on and convincing ourselves of the excuses they make up or we conveniently devise for them. But for Greg, nothing is any more complex or simpler than, "He's just not that into you". Because if he was, he would find time to call, would want to sleep with you, talk about the future with you...the fairy tale love. However, the co-author begs (literally!) to differ in parts where she more humanely empathizes why it is hard to see it as simply as her 'been-there-done-that' colleague expects. Wherever Greg's rocket science six words sound cold, Liz fills in with a experienced insight to mostly prove the point that the six words saves a lot more time and a lot less heartbreak.

Sensitive scenarios involving marriage and extra-marital affairs were tackeled with more caution and less generalizability (with no reference to moral judgments: a wise decision). Yet the book doesn't and admits to not being able to answer the somewhat dismayed Liz's question, "Then who else is left to date? No one's perfect after all". Greg simply consoles that one shouldn't have to settle for very little, because of an imagined lack of better choices. In his words, "Don't waste the pretty!".

The movie adaptation is surprisingly not as peppy as one would think of a "chick flick", a label that the makers have deliberately denied and evaded. A full fledged STAR cast (notably Jennifer Aniston & Connely, Ben Affleck, Scarlett Johansson, Drew Barrymore &, an adorable Ginnifer Goodwin) make up the network of interconnected lives in variedly complex dating/relationship situations. Rotten Tomatoes rightly reviews that the movie pays so little attention to each character's situation, thus, making them stereotypical. And I couldn't agree more that the lack of fullness in the script exploits the least out of the cast's acting prowess, making the movie bank quite exclusively on the star power (such a cliche' with Bollywood multi-starrers).

However, the movie was a required reformation of the book in putting men equally (less than more) in the same sticky situations. For Greg, guys are just assholes with a bad habit that women had to work around while, in fact, guys as much fall prey to the mixed signs and subjective interpretations. Another parallel I drew between the movie and the book is how it left you feeling. While the book sorta asks you to wait for that one, almost impossibly good chap, the movie ends in the delight one may find in the guy who was meant to be or breaking out of something that never was. I, for one, choose the second.

Yet with all the few disagreements and scrutiny kept aside, the six words have worked like a charm for me and that to me, is the point of the book: to move on! And the book/movie prescribes that the only way it works is to think of yourself as THE rule more than an exception.

Frozen River (2008)

This Oscar and Critics Choice runner is the kind of movie that makes you want to make one. Falling under the category of Independent Movies, this movie has a very personalized touch of a running commentary (that is initially mistaken as subtitles although some of them are) by the makers through every scene and shot on the set up, the racing thoughts, the feelings, characters, sponsors et al. To an unwitting commercial bug, this was a refreshing change and a profound move into a more mature taste in cinematic obsession.

Set in the lives of families in trailer homes in the Mohawk land bordering the United States and Canada, it (al)most inevitably delves into the touchy subjects of race, colour, rights, aliens and immigration. Lila Littlewolf (Misty Upham: for sponsoring Lays Stax :) jk), a border crossing alien (orients, pakis (not my words)) smuggler on probation and separated from her li'l son gets the car trunk of Ray Eddy (Melissa Leo, playing the classic "white trash") in the fate of dire circumstances. Desperate to get the dream mobile home for her broken family, Ray makes one odd trips across the ice border, with the risks consequentially following up.

Melissa Leo deservedly earned the nomination by the academy and in my judgment is second best to Winslet's win. My paradoxical liking to this movie is that the running scipt commentary makes the viewers as involved in the process of the 'making of the movie' yet shifts the focus from actually watching the movie making it a relatively semantic experience rather than a visuo-perceptual one.

Nevertheless, one of the better movies i've watched of late in line with 'Confessions of a Shopaholic' (2009), 'The Weight of Water' (2000), 'I am Sam' (2001) and 'The Reader' (2008).