andy_roy
Lifetime Total
25+
Lifetime Filmo
5+
Lifetime Plot
1+
Lifetime Trivia
5+
IMDb Member
18 years
Reviews
Shikhar (2005)
very disappointing
Its a waste of time even reviewing such an amateurish, forgettable piece of work but I thought I would do it for two reasons: 1. John Mathew Matthan is a powerful director and we have waited patiently for over 5 years since Sarfarosh, wondering what he was up to and therefore there should be at least a reasonable curiosity value to his second venture to merit more than just one review 2. I found the film has received a rating of 8, which I believe is way too high and probably a result of a very small sample size of voters and I wanted to correct this a bit The film meanders along predictably and painfully, through a done-to-death Bollywood formula and JMM does not even attempt to be subtle about it.
The good are extremely good and the bad are absolutely bad; the hero has a golden heart but is rustic and naive enough to get sucked into the glitzy and glamorous nexus of corrupt builders-politicians; his eyes suddenly open up and he immediately unearths this nexus before you could bat your eyelids; the village belle wins her "phoren returned" fiancé back, the baddies go to jail, the father forgives the son and everyone lives happily ever after.
Haven't we seen all this before?
There are no twists, no suspense and, in fact, not even an iota of earnestness or intensity that had made Sarfarosh so memorable. The corrupt politicians and businessmen here are almost comic - a far cry from the spine chilling characters in Sarfarosh. Scenes like the hero's mother's death (her hands trying to touch her husband's) are so clichéd that they evoke more of a chuckle than any other emotion.
Non-actors Shahid and Bipasha lend nothing more than 'face value', Viju Shah's creativity is not at his best and the screenplay, dialogs and cinematography are all absolutely average.
Looks like JMM might head towards becoming a one-film wonder unless he comes up with something seriously different next time which is...2011?
The good are extremely good and the bad are absolutely bad; the hero has a golden heart but is rustic and naive enough to get sucked into the glitzy and glamorous nexus of corrupt builders-politicians; his eyes suddenly open up and he immediately unearths this nexus before you could bat your eyelids; the village belle wins her "phoren returned" fiancé back, the baddies go to jail, the father forgives the son and everyone lives happily ever after.
Haven't we seen all this before?
There are no twists, no suspense and, in fact, not even an iota of earnestness or intensity that had made Sarfarosh so memorable. The corrupt politicians and businessmen here are almost comic - a far cry from the spine chilling characters in Sarfarosh. Scenes like the hero's mother's death (her hands trying to touch her husband's) are so clichéd that they evoke more of a chuckle than any other emotion.
Non-actors Shahid and Bipasha lend nothing more than 'face value', Viju Shah's creativity is not at his best and the screenplay, dialogs and cinematography are all absolutely average.
Looks like JMM might head towards becoming a one-film wonder unless he comes up with something seriously different next time which is...2011?
Stanley & Iris (1990)
Confused, many glitches, but it still works
Just finished watching this movie, and it has left me quite confused. At one level, I enjoyed the movie immensely, for its powerful performances (OK - I have this terrible bias. No matter how much I try, I cannot completely dislike a De Niro movie) and the director's willingness to tread off the beaten path and look at issues that are real and disturbing, but which do not necessarily make the cash registers tingle. At another level, throughout watching the movie, I could not contain my disappointment at the inept treatment that is meted out by the script and the sketchy storyline.
Was the director trying to document an epic human struggle, crafting out a modern day fairy tale, commenting on disturbing social issues or telling a plain love story? And this is where, I think, the movie fails. John Ford, Frank Capra and a host of others have made epic movies about human struggle; Bergman, Woody Allen and a host of art-house directors have delved on various social issues and several film makers from William Wyler to Stephen Spielberg have had their versions of modern day fairy tales. But none of them wanted to be everything in one movie.
The first fifteen minutes of the movie make you think you are about to watch an intense, off-beat social document about burning issues like illiteracy, widowhood, old age, loneliness, teenage motherhood, poverty, mother-daughter relationship etc.
In fact they are all hurled at you one after the other in the first reel itself. It's like the director saying - OK, this is CNN. First the headlines....now, let me see, have I missed anything. Oh of course, teenage motherhood. OK...here you go! OK, guys, now I'm done with the social issues bit, let's get to the love story part.
OK, now - guys - how about some real fairy tale stuff. A rags-to-riches story that's so improbable. Guys, I have only ten minutes of shoot time left - quick, get him rich...hurry! It's here that I feel intellectually cheated.
At one point in the movie, Robert De Niro asks Jane Fonda: why does it have to be all or nothing for you?
That's the same question I'd like to ask the director.
I started by saying it's an intriguing movie. Intriguing because, despite all this, despite the predictable ending and the lack of character-building (the waster brother-in-law shows up once and then disappears forever, for instance) and general lack of depth - you cannot really dislike it. The sheer poignancy and the earnestness of the lead characters (they were battling a sorry script along with poverty, loneliness etc. - full marks to them!) makes you forget your cinematic senses for a while and keep on watching.
If I get a chance, I'll probably watch this movie again, and it's not because of Mr De Niro alone.
Drawing a somewhat (though very different in theme and treatment) parallel - a much more powerful film about middle-aged post-marital flirtations starring De Niro in a similar 'soft' role was 'Falling in love' with Merryl Streep. However, while FIL delivers perfectly, on every count and remains a mini-classic (IMHO), this one comes nowhere close.
It could easily have. Pity.
Was the director trying to document an epic human struggle, crafting out a modern day fairy tale, commenting on disturbing social issues or telling a plain love story? And this is where, I think, the movie fails. John Ford, Frank Capra and a host of others have made epic movies about human struggle; Bergman, Woody Allen and a host of art-house directors have delved on various social issues and several film makers from William Wyler to Stephen Spielberg have had their versions of modern day fairy tales. But none of them wanted to be everything in one movie.
The first fifteen minutes of the movie make you think you are about to watch an intense, off-beat social document about burning issues like illiteracy, widowhood, old age, loneliness, teenage motherhood, poverty, mother-daughter relationship etc.
In fact they are all hurled at you one after the other in the first reel itself. It's like the director saying - OK, this is CNN. First the headlines....now, let me see, have I missed anything. Oh of course, teenage motherhood. OK...here you go! OK, guys, now I'm done with the social issues bit, let's get to the love story part.
OK, now - guys - how about some real fairy tale stuff. A rags-to-riches story that's so improbable. Guys, I have only ten minutes of shoot time left - quick, get him rich...hurry! It's here that I feel intellectually cheated.
At one point in the movie, Robert De Niro asks Jane Fonda: why does it have to be all or nothing for you?
That's the same question I'd like to ask the director.
I started by saying it's an intriguing movie. Intriguing because, despite all this, despite the predictable ending and the lack of character-building (the waster brother-in-law shows up once and then disappears forever, for instance) and general lack of depth - you cannot really dislike it. The sheer poignancy and the earnestness of the lead characters (they were battling a sorry script along with poverty, loneliness etc. - full marks to them!) makes you forget your cinematic senses for a while and keep on watching.
If I get a chance, I'll probably watch this movie again, and it's not because of Mr De Niro alone.
Drawing a somewhat (though very different in theme and treatment) parallel - a much more powerful film about middle-aged post-marital flirtations starring De Niro in a similar 'soft' role was 'Falling in love' with Merryl Streep. However, while FIL delivers perfectly, on every count and remains a mini-classic (IMHO), this one comes nowhere close.
It could easily have. Pity.