booon_tips

I went to see this movie after watching its dashing trailer, and I remained speechless.

What happened to Hollywood? Why they are using so much VFX and making such a childish movie.

The whole movie happens at the single setting. I mean, the movie doesn't include any real life footage, sets, etc. All chroma, and on top of that Bad Acting. No actors are sweating; there is no glean of perspiration on their foreheads. And what to say about other actors, I never saw such unreal acting. Instead, of live-action, they could have made it in Animation, which would be a much better bait.

This movie sucks on many levels. Acting, Directing, Scripting, Art Direction, and VFX.

I don't know why this movie is so hyped? What a fake movie!

Yesterday I saw the movie Proff. Marston and Wonder Women. I am from India and I never read any comics of Wonder Women, but I saw recently released film Wonder Women directed by Patty Jenkins, character played by Gal Gadot then I became aware of Wonder Women.

After few months, I saw this Proff. Marston and Wonder Women, thinking that a new film of Gal Gadot. But to may dismay, this film came out something else, a biography of Proff. Marston who created the comics of Wonder Women.

But after watching this film, I am really thankful to the director Angela Robinson for bringing out the story of Proff. Marston with such a deep understanding of his personal life and roles played by his wife Elizabeth and partner Olive in the creation of Wonder Women.

The film made a profound impact on me, I tried to find out why is it so, then I realized that the director made the use of DISC Theory that Proff. Marston used in all his life and applied it to his comics character of Wonder Women. Really hats off to the director for this.

I am really amazed by the meticulously crafted screenplay that not only captured the deep psyche of all the characters but also of the audience who do not want to miss a single scene or dialogue. Such a profound work! The script is so alive and written with emotion that we can feel the real characters playing the role.

The actors of the film are really praise worthy, whether it is Luke Evans, Rebecca Hall or Bella and others. They actually lived the script on the screen.

Nonetheless, the film's editor Jefferey Werner is the real hero of this film who brought the whole narrative to its life. He is an impeccable craftsman who has deep understanding of the film structure and montage theory. It requires some special skills to understand these complex characters and bringing their story to life without boring the audience.

I liked the camera work of cinematographer Bryce Fortner, there are no camera gimmicks but just simple and effective framing, no unnecessary emotive angles. The director and cinematographer gave all the freedom to the actors to portray deepest emotion that brings out a great dynamics to the screen. I really admire the scene where Bella wears the Amazonian dress; no special lighting but simple chiaroscuro that brings out all the mood and emotion.

The music by Tom Howe and background score is so effective that it keeps us rooted to our emotional journey. And one of the plus point of this film is its Make up, Costume and Art Direction. These areas are very well managed by the respective departments.

I am really moved by the story and life of Proff. Martson the creator of Wonder Woman. Once again my thanks to Angela Robinson for creating such a beautiful film. I wonder why this film is not nominated for Oscers?

This film 'Tanu weds Manu Returns' reaches to its climax when Datto replies Tanu's taunt in a Haryanvi manner when both confronts at the first time. There Tanu has to keep quite. Clearly, Tanu has got someone more tougher than her. Next morning she feels sorry for her behavior and asks for forgiveness and from there the film starts fulfilling the Indian audience's emotional need.

The director and the writer stretched the film, lengthening its plot and maneuvering it towards happy ending for the Indian audience using same melodramatic techniques of justifying Indian culture and proving marriage as sacrosanct.

Had the director ended the film with a successful marriage of Datto and Manu and of Tanu and Raja, the film would have better resolution and also he would have more chances of creating Tanu weds Manu's third part with the stretched plot.

Nevertheless the films ends up as a traditional marriage drama, which tries to boasts as a bold attempt on the questions of marriage but hesitates to show real boldness in resolving critical issues and takes an escapist route to please the audience.

Madhavan has nicely portrayed Manu as a confused NRI doctor. His character appears to create an arc, but remains as it is what we saw him at the beginning.

Similarly Tanu's character shows boldness, free spirited but later on she becomes emotional fool and acts in a very traditional way, leaving any possibility of changing her character and so failing to create a mature parson with a greater character arc.

Instead, Datto's character grows emotionally, becomes a more learned person going through the rapidly changing events (from her first meet with Manu, travel to Punjab and confronting Tanu) and the very same way Raja (Jimmy Shergil) grows up mature, leaving his ego, telling Tanu that he is a simple person and turning himself as a complete different person.

At the End the story does not remains of only Tanu and Manu but very subtly shifts its gaze towards Datto and Raja.

Overall, the film veils some critical issues by ending itself at a happy emotional tone, making it as a family entertainer, catering the needs of Indian audience.

But does it really end(?) because on the end credits we see Tanu again getting angry with Manu whereas Datto and Raja finds solace in each other.

I recently saw Baadshaho, an action film by Milan Luthria set in 1975- 77 Emergency period.

I have to admit that it is one of the worst movie made by Milan Luthria who gave us films like Kachche Dhaage, Taxi No 9211, The Dirty Picture etc.

The film doesn't encompass any ethos of 1975-77 emergency period declared by Indira Gandhi. If you take out newspapers headlines, some dialogues of mentioned emergency, and a man writing on blackboard a notice; you will realize that the story could have told without it.

It is a simple story of few thugs trying to loot the gold of a queen. The film has a suggested portrayal of Maharani Gayatri Devi by Ileana D, which is of no use at all in, why she seeks to protect the gold? For whom?

It has some really bad cuts, you see film unfolds in time and space. The editor cuts the film before the space & time could establish the setting. Few cuts are actually a jump in time and space.

Cinematography, it is nothing great. The location has its own aura, its own effects on the dwellers. But the DOP has used it just like a prop in Ad films. Neither the village, nor the Castle is explored in its essence in this film. Besides the full desert where the end part of the film is set up is not utilized by the DOP and the director.

The script has a few very comic moment. When the truck is stopped by Ajay and gang, the police shoots, no one gets hit except when the Ajay and gang shoots back. When Ajay shoots at Vidyut it always hits the ground, why he wants to protect him, only director knows. And at the end they throw the guns and fist fights. What an action film!!! That's where actually the comedy happens.

The ending of film is very lose, it gives no sense of film making. The director, editor, cameraman and the writer leaves the film at its fate and fades out. It is such a badly ended film which needs a solid Script Writing.

In providing entertainment, entertainment and entertainment director forgot it is the script that create entertainment not the prop like actors who doesn't carry a scene, nor an emotion except that old guy Sanjay Mishra who says 'Tere jaise bahut chuitye ban gaye pyar mein..'

After watching the film audience came with the dialogue, 'Director made us chutiya by showing emergency in trailer'.

Here are Indian duo Raj & DK who wants to be Indian Guy Ritchie. Neither the style nor the sense of him they could achieve in this movie. The plot was similar to the James Cameron's True Lies. Our duo couldn't equalize with him either. Why should Indian directors and story writers copy? Where does our ancient wisdom gone? We are a country of story tellers and such a pathetic movies we are making.

Acting is really bad, it seems the actors took the Indian audience as a Brainless, Bidi-chaap, Rickshaw puller moviegoers who just want a relief from their daily business. Emotions are far away from our acting talents.

Dialogue delivery is so pathetic that even a dubbing actor could understand that where the weight of the voice has gone. On the top, the background score is put so high that actor seems to murmur and eating their sentences.

Cinematography? Oh boy, it looks completely digital! People are using these digital cameras and achieving a great cinematic look but here the DOP has just lit up the scene. He must have thought Indians won't understand it.

Sound Design? What could he do when everything are screwed up? Nothing!

Direction? Copy, Copy and Copy but couldn't paste it well! Actors, Money, Time and Efforts are wasted.

Toady I saw the film 'As good as it Gets'. It's a strange film. It tells a story of a unlikely man who struggles with his lonely life, closing him self in a world of imagination and words that fills his 62nd book. Melvin, Jack Nicholson, a troubled writer who has some disorder, some misconception, some dis-beliefs about the world around him and he behave true to his beliefs. There is a man who is living in his neighborhood, Simon, who loves his dog and the men; yes he is a gay. And there is a friend of this gay man Frank, played by Mr. Gooding. Now the character of Jack named Melvin hates his neighbors so much that he can't just avoid to see the Simon's dog. But still he has to tolerate it. When he gets outside, he walks carefully to avoid contact of men walking on the streets and also the crossing tiles or road lines; that he considers as a bad luck. Jack Nicholson played this disordered character so wonderfully that, anyone can feel a pity for him. Besides he visits a usual shop where he takes the breakfast.There he finds a waitress Carol played by Helen Hunt who only sustain his (Melvin's) over the top behavior. That make Melvin takes interest in her. Now this Carol, who is a single mother of a son Simpson and living with her mother; who is trying to get into a relationship that really works for her and the family. She tried to date with a man, who lands up in her bed but because of homely presence they couldn't make it. That really frustrates Carol. The portrayal of a single, workaholic and a needy woman who really wants the companionship of a man, that she not able to get, may be because of her job status or her way of expressing herself right on the face or whatever and feeling sad for her mistake makes her a really beautiful character. Oh how lovely the scene is when she confesses to her mother that what she feels about a man that she want in her life. When Melvin, Carol and Simon goes on a trip; Melvin could not express truly to her as he has a doubt that Carol likes Simon; that makes Carol angry and she spends a night with Simon while he sketches her nude portraits that he haven't sketched for so long. In fact, while drawing her sketches he gives a lots of compliment to her and that really makes her forget about Melvin's mistake and she and he both enjoys the process. Ultimately, after the trip, when Melvin helps Simon to shift into his apartment, there Simon asks Melvin if he really loves Carol; Melvin struggles, Simon tells him then he need to show it to her though he finds it difficult. Simon encourages him and Melvin gets that night to Carol's home and takes her for a morning walk where they both kiss and goes to a shop for a warm bread roll in the morning. The films is so emotionally charged, and that is of varying emotions; love, jealousy, fear, anger, hope, guilt, confidence and many more. That makes this film a complete watchable experience. Over all, the acting, dialogues, cinematography, editing, music and the direction is all added advantage; a bonus!

I saw this movie yesterday, this movie is really strange. Like other horror films there is a ghost but no trickery. I liked this aspect of the film very much. Whatever it is, is as it is. No special sound effects or graphic effects. No shocks or sudden burst out. This movie goes on unfolding different complex characters in a very lucid manner. The police officer itself is a mysterious character, he doesn't arrest the person who keeps all the photographs of the dead people and the objects of sorcery. Another strange character is the Shaman who comes to protect the Police officer's daughter. At the end he also takes the pictures and have a large collection of photographs in his box. The director leaves many questions unanswered but the film grips as there is something goes on happening around the plot. The plot is simple, a stranger comes to a village and the people in the village gets killed, affected by skin disease. There comes a woman who is supposed to be a ghost that scares the stranger and he runs away. But she also wants to save the Police officer's daughter and she holds his hand (it was the strangest part). There is chaos and confusion at the end. But still this movie hits your mind because it is packed with human element that makes evil good and good evil.

If there is a 1/2 star rating then I would have preferred it over 1 star. When would bollywood grow up? First of all the film has a very bad script. The writer don't have guts to exactly copy the original film Knight and Day, had he copied it exactly and had the director shot it frame by frame the film would have really been better. But our writers/directors do not want to get caught by copyright policy though they can get inspired by Hollywood movies, and even after that do not show any courtesy to name the original inspiration in the credit list! Why to write such a scene where actor achieves a difficult task without showing how does he actually achieved it. Then why should one tell the story if one could not write about HOW, its better show the Title of the film and then The End and ask the audience to wander in their thought and see the film in their dreams. Actually the director made a very intellectual film and he wants the audience to grow up!

I have seen this film long back, at first I found it funny, experimental and surrealist. After such a long period I am writing a review for this film because something I found funny in film is a reality in Indian Culture. Especially the scene at dining table where all guests are sitting on the toilet and having a discussion whereas when a guest is hungry he goes to a secluded chamber. I found it funny, especially the first part. In India, people go together for emptying their bowls early in the morning, they chat together while sitting for latrine which is a communal thing. No one is ashamed of whereas 'Eating' is also a communal habit; dining together and going out for latrine is a culture still existing in India. It is not a taboo. But slowly due to awareness in public that one should not sit outside in open for latrine, so people are becoming aware and this practice is fading away. The government is taking initiative to build common toilets in villages. Over all the movie symbolizes many things which might be a practice in other part of the world. But in the current society when the film was made by Luis Bunuel, he might be braking a social & cultural tradition in his own country.