If you know Guy Ritchie only as Madonna's husband, then you probably won't have seen Lock,Stock and Smoking Barrels, and Snatch. Guy Ritchie is known for his quirky lines, convoluted plot lines and stylish cinematography. But he went wrong somewhere down the line and ended up with Swept Away which is as low as one could go. But with the new movie Rock'n'Rolla Guy Ritchie is on a comeback. This movie is a definite step in the right direction.

Plot: In London, a real-estate scam puts millions of pounds up for grabs, naturally attraction the attention of some of the city's scrappiest tough guys (Butler, Elba) its more established underworld players (Wilkinson), and others -- all of whom are looking to get rich quick.

Review: You have to be in a certain kind of mood to view a Guy Ritchie movie. I was in that mood the other day and couldn't resist Rock'n'Rolla. This movie is the same kind of frenzied whacked out hyper-plotted adventure through the darker side of London. As usual, the cast of characters is huge. And everyone is screwing everyone else. I won't even try to synopsize the plot. Just know you can expect a lot of twists and shady characters. This was a bit tamer than the previous two movies mentioned above. It was a little more cerebral.

Rock'n'Rolla is pretty much Guy Ritchie showing us all that he hasn't lost it. One thing that's instantly improved to his Swept Away piece is the fact that he's got a flawless casting this time, a plot that is untouchable as is the script and a killer Soundtrack that had me bobbing my head in rhythm to it. His stylish direction (using freeze-frames, voice-over, captions and snappy editing) expertly juggles the different characters and story lines until everything begins to fall into place for the final act. That is exactly what Guy Ritchie is good at and he is at his best in this movie. There's a dance scene between Thandie & Gerard that's one of the coolest segments within the film, using Graphic Novel-esque subtitles as they talk and dance, pure genius.

Rock'n'Rolla is not a film for everyone and forget understanding the movie if you don't have subtitles or you understand the very British accent well. But no harm in trying, you may as well fall in love with Guy Ritchie's movies- I know I did. There may be many instances that you won't get the British argot(some of them are hilarious) but unless you are a really passive viewer you can figure out what they mean in a minute.

The performances are excellent but the ones that standout is Toby Kebbell, who steals the entire film with a terrific turn as Johnny, the Rock'n'Rolla of the title and Mark Strong as Archie. I mean this actor(Archie)seems to have something cheeky about him that always produces a wry smile with me. And he carries himself in that dignified manner but yet radiate an amount of cockiness. The performances are also a testament to Ritchie's direction that he manages to get decent performances out of three of cinema's most irritating actors(Gerard Butler, Tom Hardy and Thandie Newton).

My Verdict: Rock'n'Rolla is a nonstop parade of improbable dastardly characters, assorted incompetent criminals, burned-out rockers, wigged-out junkies, criminal masterminds and dimwitted hoods—and that’s not even taking into account "unkillable" Russians, an ice queen of a duplicitous accountant, gay gangsters and the gangsters they make nervous. Its a joy to find Guy Ritchie at the top of his game and this makes me look forward to "The Real Rock'n'Rolla" the sequel to this movie. It's class, it's violent, it's funny and more importantly it's dark, rich and satisfying.

The Sequel:
The Real Rock'n'Rolla is the sequel to "Rock'n'Rolla", Ritchie has implied it has already been written and it's ready to go as soon as his next project is over with. Also depending on the box office of the first movie it could have many more installments. Without giving too much away from the first film part two will include Johnny Quid, Archie and the Wild Bunch. This may not be as funny as Snatch and Lock Stock but these characters are just as lovable.

I saw "The Fountain" by Darren Aronofsky a couple of days ago and I am still trying to figure the whole movie out, but I know one thing- I Love this movie. From the director who gave us Pi and Requiem for a Dream comes another intelligent, thought provoking, visually stunning movie that will keep us awake at nights thinking about its profound meanings. I was more perplexed by the ending than I was after seeing "Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind".

Plot: There is no sense in explaining the plot for this movie. You just have to see this story of love, death, spirituality, and the fragility of our existence in this world spanning thousands of years(or not) to see what I am saying. I don't think anyone can summarize the plot and still do justice to the movie.

Review: I began to see the movie without knowing this came from the same director that made Requiem for a Dream, or else I would have been prepared for the visually extravagant, thought provoking and intelligent movie "The Fountain" is. To be honest, I saw the trailer and expected some stupid sci-fi story with some mystic elements. But little did I know I was in for an intelligent film that forces us to put on our thinking caps.

(*Spoilers ahead. Spoiler-o-Phobics can skip the next paragraph and come back to read tit after seeing the movie*)

The meaning of the movie is a still debated topic, which is not surprising because the movie allows the audience to interpret the movie the way he/she wants. Some believe the bald Tommy and present day Tommy are the same and some believe that only the scientist Tommy is the real one and the rest are characters in Izzie's Book. I'm with the latter group and believe that scientist Tommy is the real one. A write up by Matt Withers, Brunswick, MD persuaded me to this conclusion and I think I agree with him on many points. I was totally bewildered towards the ending and was trying hard to connect all the plots together and eventually decided to Google for the explanation and this is the one I came to agree.

But apart from the intricacies of the plot, one thing you will undoubtedly realize is the different interpretations of Death. The movie tries to bring through the concept that Death is an Act of Creation, much like the Mayan legend about which the majority of the movie is . There are so many levels to this movie, but I can frankly admit that I miss out on many of them. I can feel the director trying to tell me many things through each shot, through symbols, but most of them escaped me. May be after I mature a little more I may be able to comprehend all those. But for an intelligent audience this is prime food for thought material.

Another thing that struck me was the visual appeal of the film. It was like the Director was creating art on cinema. Every scene was breathtakingly beautiful. The whole movie is shot is a soft gold light which gives it an unnatural atmosphere. Another thing I noticed was the use of light in the movie. The constellation we see at the beginning of the movie is repeated throughout the movie in forms of well placed light in the background. I found it particularly clever bit of Art Direction.

There was many scenes which was pure genius. One was a scene which a car travels through a road with street lights on both sides. The idea was so out of the box, I was like "whoa". I watched it a couple more times to revel in its grandeur. Another one that caught my attention is the one where a painting transitions between different tones. The first shot makes it seem like we are watching a door, and not a painting. As the camera slowly zooms out we hear a door opening, and the picture turns into a old painting with soft golden light. Soon we hear the door closing and the painting returns to its previous state and by this time the camera finishes zooming out and we realize its a painting. One cannot do justice explaining it in words.

Both Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz are absolutely phenomenal in their roles, with Weisz particularly standing out, playing her character with what I can only describe as held-back intensity. It's a performance both of subtlety and of passion at the same time. Extra kudos must be given to Ellen Burstyn who delivers an extremely heartwarming and absolutely brilliant supporting performance.

The Musical score by Clint Mansel was absolutely breathtaking. It never comes to the front but yet it give us the feeling that it is there, always, lingering at the edge of your sense occasionally crossing the border to hit a note here and there. Music has always been an element that can affect me easily, and this one did so emphatically.

My Verdict- This is a movie which requires a thinking brain to enjoy. Do not go in to watch the movie thinking its an easy ride. But for those who love to watch intelligent, thought provoking movie this is a treat. If you have enjoyed Donnie Darko, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, or Dark City you will most certainly love this movie. Darren Aronofsky redefined sci-fi genre with this movie. Its a movie everyone should at least try to watch.

When it comes to 3D nothing beats Pixar, or so I thought. When I saw the promo of Bolt I was not that impressed, and hence deferred watching the movie till now. But since it was Disney's first try at 3D animation without the help of Pixar I was interested to see what they come up with, and I have to say I'm pretty impressed. Bolt won me over right from the opening scene.

Plot: Bolt, an American White Shepherd, has lived his whole life on the set of his action TV show, where he believes he has superpowers and he has to protect his co-star Penny from the villains. When separated from the studio, thus Penny, by accident, he meets a female alley cat named Mittens and a hamster named Rhino. The threesome starts a cross-country journey to find Penny. Along the way, Bolt learns that he doesn't have superpowers but realises one doesn't need superpowers to be a hero.

Before we start a little history(I promise its not boring :D) (Courtesy:411mania)

Everyone knows that for the longest time, Disney “presented” such Pixar classics as Toy Story, Finding Nemo and The Incredibles. That all changed at the onset of 2006 when Disney announced that it was buying the 3D animation powerhouse, doing so in May of the same year to the tune of 7.4 billion dollars. This entire hullabaloo was a result of behind-the-scenes disagreements between upper management at both companies over distribution plans, most famously for the film Toy Story 2 which was originally slated for direct-to-DVD release by Disney, which therefore according to the megalomaniacal mouse did not count towards a three-picture deal between themselves and Pixar even when the decision to go ahead with a full theatrical release was made. After further cat-fighting and bloody noses over issues like these and other creative control concerns, Mickey and company decided to throw a bunch of money at Pixar stockholders and go on with the newly-acquired studio under their umbrella, marching on in the hyphenated form of “Disney-Pixar.” Many Pixar purists probably still decry this merger and even casual fans may smell something a little stank in the air when considering the business venture but the new “Disney-Pixar” did manage to create one of the best 3D computer-animated films ever, which arrived last year with the introduction of a lonely little robot named Wall-E, so it can’t be all bad. Disney, however, does not seem to be content to simply sit back and let their 2006 acquisition pump out the hits for them.

Review: First of all, I saw this movie with mediocre expectations and ended up totally in love with it. We've seen attempts at a "dog movie" for a couple of years now(Air Buddies) and finally one got it absolutely right. Bolt is undoubtedly the Dog movie for this generation( ok .. ok .. This decade). Its been quite sometime since I have seen an absolute feel good animation movie since adorable Wall-E. I have to say Madagascar:Escape to Africa was kind of a letdown.

The movie starts out with the cutest animated puppies I've ever seen playing with a carrot puppet, chasing his tail and doing all kinds of normal doggie stuff. (Can it get any cuter than this?) A small girl, called Penny(Miley Cyrus) comes in and chooses him and says he is her good doggie and plays with him. Now we cut into an intense action scene, which lasted a bit too long in my opinion, but thoroughly enjoyable. It made me wonder about the possibility of such a film, which was instantly snubbed by my brain. But if a such a movie comes out I'll be sure to watch it.

The animation is really good and the level of realism just blew me away(I'm scared to use the word flawless lest some animation expert jump on me). The heartwarming story has a simple enough plot for the kids to understand, but doesn't seem too simple enough to insult the so-called developed adult brain. The movie taps into that part of our mind that wishes the dog sleeping at our foot were as loyal, brave, noble and unrelenting as we think him to be.

My Verdict: I'm not much of a dog person, but still I loved the film. The film got an engagingly dynamic cast and some incredible voice acting. The alley-cat Mittens and the hamster Rhino absolutely rocked the party. There were many points where I actually laughed out loud. I dare say the perfect family entertainment for the holiday season. The movie will be taken to heart by kids as well as adults and that is an achievement in itself. The wit of their lines was sharp and laugh inducing. Go see this movie. Even if you don’t have a kid to make it look like you have to.

I saw this movie yesterday, and quite unlike Bolt, with high expectations. The latest installment of Madagascar didn't impress me at all. One could safely say Disney won this round by a huge margin. This movie has nothing new to offer and tries to pass off tried and tired jokes as enjoyable ones.

Plot: The sequel to 2005's "Madagascar", in which New York Zoo animals, Alex the Lion, Marty the Zebra, Melman the Giraffe and Gloria the Hippo, are still stranded on Madagascar. With military precision, the penguins have repaired an old crashed plane--sort of. Once aloft, this unlikely crew stays airborne just long enough to make it to the wildest place of all--the vast plains of Africa. They meet Alex's long lost family and the rest of the movie is about how they adjust to the new surrounding.

Review: The movie opens with a flashback of Alex in his toddler days being taken away from his parents.(Hmm wonder where I have heard that?). After the wacky scheme of flying to New York fails and they crash land in Africa, Alex is reunited with his family. His Dad is still the alpha male and the leader of the pack and Alex becomes the natural choice for succession. But before that he has to pass some kind of test top get accepted into the herd. Alex's Dad's long standing rival wants his throne and thus use Alex to get them both kicked out of the herd.(Now this definitely founds familiar). Soon a crisis strikes the herd and Alex,inevitably, rises to the occasion and save the day and thus made he and his father accepted into the herd reinstated as the leaders. If you haven't guessed it already, this all sounds strikingly similar to Disney's classic Lion King.

Marty finds himself multiplied by the hundreds and enjoys the running and tricks he shares with his fellow zebras. Melman becomes the witch doctor and begins to care for others, putting his own health worries to rest for the time being, as Gloria begins to search for a fellow hippo to become her mate. The group of zoo animals find themselves loving Africa, but each in their own way. They do find their friendships tested as time goes on.

My Verdict: The animation of the movie was a step up from the first movie, but a letdown in almost every other department. The trio isn't funny enough to make us adults laugh, the plot is "borrowed" and unoriginal and the dialogues and one liners are not hitting the mark. The only good parts come from the supporting characters like King Julien and the Penguins. Once again the Penguins steal the show with their quirky one-liners and Military manner. This is definitely one movie exclusively for the kids and rely solely on the success of the first installment of the movie to get a ground with adults. Take your kids to this movie. They might enjoy this, not you. Or even better take them to Bolt.



The two stars solely for the Penguins, The Chimps and King Julien.

Khaled Hossieni's Kite Runner is a book I read recently and absolutely loved. I went to the library for months in search of this book which inevitably will always be out in circulation. Eventually I lend it from one of my friends and read it- and what an experience it was. The Kite Runner goes way up there with "To Kill a Mockingbird" for me (except on the intellectual part, I meant the emotional one). So you can guess my expectations when I decided to watch the movie based on the same book and also how my expectations were shattered even 30 minutes into the movie.

Plot: ‘The Kite Runner’ is the film of the international bestselling book which tells the story of Amir, a well-to-do boy from the Wazir Akbar Khan district of Kabul, who is haunted by the guilt of betraying his childhood friend Hassan, the son of his father's Hazara servant. It is set against a backdrop of tumultuous events, from the fall of the monarchy in Afghanistan through the Soviet invasion, the mass exodus of refugees to Pakistan and the United States, and the Taliban regime.

Review: This movie just underlined my firm belief that some books are best left untouched by the movie world. Books which deal predominantly in monologues and thought are almost next to impossible to render into a great movie. I never saw "To Kill a Mockingbird" movie cause I had read the book before and I had no idea how a film true to the book can be made. I thought Kite Runner may be different especially in the very able hands of Marc Forster(Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland, Quantum of Solace). But I was rudely shocked back to reality to find a film that lacks both the emotional turmoil of the protagonist and the skewed friendship between the two boys. Anyone who has read the book will almost definitely hate the movie for destroying a beautiful work of art.

The movie feels rushed, and forced in almost every frame. Every scene was delivered without conviction and I was almost irritated at many points to see beautiful moments(in the book) utterly destroyed, or omitted. Subtlety is not at all present in the movie. The screenplay made the characters say out loud many things that the audience should have made to realise themselves. Somethings loose their beauty when said out loud. The blatant expose of the characters thought irked me. A monologue or narration would have been immensely helpful in dealing with such a book, but somehow the director thought that he will be able to pull off a great movie just because the book was great.

The movie omits many many important and emotional moments all through out the movie but yet it never looses an opportunity to show "Big Bad Russia" in the most derogatory light possible within the framework of the movie. It always amazes me how Americans never looses a single opportunity to establish Russia is a bad guy. In a movie where no emphasis is given to develop the characters, the movie seems so interested in the particular political stance of the protagonists father - obviously Anti Russian, or/and Anti-Communist. Where the book handled the situation trithfully and didn't stress much on the political implications, the movie seems so interestd in showing its political stance at every possible situation.

One of the most touching and shocking scenes in the book, for me, was Hassan's Death. In the book it is written so beautifully that I could almost see the events unravelling. The director, which is so eager to finish the movie and go home I suppose, just mentions the event in passing. A guy says "Hassan is dead" and thats it. I was absolutly stunned at that point. Similarly the ending in the book was so beautifully meloncholic and yet hopeful, whereas the movie emphasizes the CGI Kite flying antics more than any human emotional changes. Even the parts where the Afghanistan of today is shown with its Taliban, the movie falters and falls on its face. The single scene which stood out was the one at the orphanage and the outburst or the Manager there. That single scene was better than the whole movie, and that actor's performance was better than anybody else's in the movie.

The movie is nothing like what I saw when I read the book. Every 10 minutes in the movie something would stand out as jarring or out of place. While the book was about the emotional journey and the unique friendship of the protagonist, the movie is very happy to show off CGI Kite flying techniques and somewhat beautiful landscape. Soraya, the protagonist's wife had an important role in the book, whereas in the movie it is reduced to just a sideshow. If I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have understood the emotional state of the characters at any point of the movie.

My Verdict-I can't seem to stop finding faults with this movie, but I think I'm gonna stop. I have no idea what was going through the director's mind when he made the movie. One may find the movie tolerable if they haven't read the book, but those who have read watch it to see how bad the movie rendition is and gloat over having read the book first. I didn't feel nothing all through the movie except irateness and boredom. The movie quotes lines from the book often, but that doesn't save the movie, not by a long shot. Kite Runner the movie is absolutely a movie that you can pass(I even encourage you to pass).

Ever since I saw a part of this film on HBO I've been wanting to see it completely and yesterday finally that happened. This relatively unknown HBO original movie "The Fever", adapted from actor/writer Wallace Shawn's play of the same name, is a look into the poor of the world, Communism, Marxism, Revolution, Capitalism, Socialism, and many more things. This movie is not every one's cup of tea, but for those who can watch a serious movie, endure a one and a half hour monologue(not at all boring), are in for the treat of their life and may well see life in a totally different way after seeing this movie. You either hate this movie or love it.

Plot
Oscar winner Vanessa Redgrave stars in this HBO Films adaptation of writer/actor Wallace Shawn's deeply personal stage play about the high cost of enlightenment, and the ever-widening gap between those who have and those who have not. Redgrave plays a nameless woman from a privileged world, suffering from a sense of disconnection from her comfortable life, who travels to a country (also nameless) in the throes of civil war. Suddenly deliriously ill, she collapses in a hotel bathroom, and, confronts an internal chorus of conflicting voices: dreams of comfort from her past, images of physical and economic violence, accusations of indifference, and cold-blooded arguments in favor of oppression. The central question: what, if anything, is a morally consistent way to live in the world as it is? Directed by Carlo Nero and featuring Angelina Jolie, Michael Moore, and Rade Serbedzija.

Review
Some say the global population is divided into the haves and the have-nots. Wallace Shawn seems to think so, since one of his recurring themes -- possibly his most insistent -- is the guilt of the haves. In the movie Vanessa Redgraves plays a character who becomes aware that there are people in the world that work just as hard as she had in her lifetime who have less. Far less. The movie is predominantly her monologue and her inner ramblings which provide food for thought. In a foreign country and in the midst of a fever, she examines her upbringing, her circumstances, and her shock that not everyone who works hard attains prosperity.

Capitalism preaches happiness through material purchases. Commodities such as fancy clothes that accentuate one's shallow character, edible underwear, ballet performances, superficial theater performances that exaggerate the life styles of the rich and the wannabe rich flock the markets for those who are made to think their salvation lies in buying more and more. But how many stop to think the background of the "Goods", the commodities? A simple inquiry into what materials mean to us, what ties us to the rest of humanity, the relationships created by the market system will also reveal what kind of people we are made to be.

In the movie Redgraves gets a copy of "Das Capital" by Karl Marx and she admits that most of it goes right past her head but the part about the workers affected her deeply. The capital doesn't care about the workers. It just want to extract the maximum from all the workers not caring about how the workers live or how they survive. We never pause to think of the workers behind all those "Goods" we consume, how they live, how they are exploited. By doing so we are also part of the vastly unjust system of the world in which we thrive on the poor. We are enjoying advantages at the expense of the poor. The movie asks what right does we have to enjoy such privileges. The first answer that comes to many may be cause they work hard. The movie also opens our eyes to the naked truth that the poor people work as hard as or even harder than us but still receive much less than we do. Why is our work more valuable than their work? Why does we get paid enough to spend on unwanted luxuries doing less work when the poor work harder than us and still get not enough to survive every day.

The movie has a piece of animated sequence that shows us how our ancestors oppressed the poor, deprived them of their opportunity to prosper by violent methods and presented those to us right from the moment we were born. This is true in so many levels. The rich has always been oppressing the poor, though its is much less apparent nowadays. The Capitalist has taken over the world and is wrecking havoc among all the nations that it has a hold on by making the rich-poor divide even larger. The money is getting concentrated on a few rich rendering the poor more poor. In any country there may be a few people who earn a thousand times more than hardworking poor people, doing nothing. This is fundamentally unjust and it pains to acknowledge that every one of us is part of that oppression knowingly or unknowingly.

There is a scene with Micheal Moore and the conversation about the delicious ice cream. It is such a powerful scene. After starting to see the Capitalist world from a newly found Socialist eye, Redgraves goes to a country a friend of hers describes as a beautiful country with lovable people. That unnamed country has undergone a recent revolution and the capitalist oppressors were thrown out of power. The people there are happy, if not rich. The particular conversation I'm talking about is one that deals with the dilemma faced by the government over the distribution of milk. On one hand they can give the milk to the children who needs it, and on the other hand it can be given to the tourists and thus make a better impression about the country and thereby better world relations. How will a government decide a trade off between these two?

Redgraves then travels to the neighboring country where revolution is still in its rudimentary stages on the suggestion from Micheal Moore. The stark contrast between the two countries are shown clearly. In the first country Redgraves was greeted with garlands while in the second country she is greeted with Kalashnikovs and beggars. While the people in the first country were happy, in the second country the people were bitter, oppressed and on the verge on armed revolution. There she meets Angelina Jolie a young revolutionary whose sister was raped and killed by the soldiers. Redgraves learns of the oppression the people are facing from the military government from Angelina Jolie.

She tries to return of her old life and forget about all these things but she is unable to do so and eventually she returns to that poor oppressed country once more and that is where in the midst of a fever she has the revelation and decides to dissect her personality. Redgraves is torn between becoming a true honest, respectable human being or accepting the capitalist animal side that will benefit from the grand theft rampant in a market system. All she has to do is either submit to her system created personality, close her eyes to the truth and eat, drink be happy in the face of global looting and rape – the easy choice-, or face torture, misery and even death, just like millions of others are going through every day who have the courage to stand up and resist to the unjust, criminal and illegitimate capitalist system. This dilemma of relationships between two sides of her personality, the truth and the lies of our market driven system is portrayed perfectly in this film.

My Verdict- This is a purely intellectual movie, and can be enjoyed only if you believe in some ideals, or are willing to be introduced to them. May it be Capitalism, or Socialism, both can enjoy the movie from opposite ends of the spectrum- Socialists being on the favorable side. Watch the movie only if you are prepared to question the way of life you have been so accustomed to. Watch the movie is you have something more than sympathy towards the poor. This is not a movie for an average movie goer expecting entertainment, instead watch it as food for thought-cause I promise you, once you watch the movie you will definitely think about it for quite sometime(be it favoring the views expressed or rebuking it). This is a must watch movie for anyone who is concerned with anything other than his/her own little life. An eye opener to a whole new spectrum of thoughts.

I'll come clean right from the start. I saw this movie expecting an all out comedy that gives no respect to story but just fun. I had no idea who were behind this movie, just saw Sean William Scott and John C. Reilly and with their reputation I expected another "Employee of the Month". I was in for a surprise, which I came to know only after finishing the movie, that the movie was written and directed by Steve Conrad(yeah that's right Pursuit of Happyness).

Plot
At 33, Doug Stauber is ready for a promotion. He's married, wants to buy a house, and is assistant manager at a Chicago supermarket that's building a new store in his neighborhood. His boss tells him he's a shoe in to manage the new store, then, a rival appears - Richard Wehlner, transferred from Canada. Richard has a deeper resume than Doug, is really nice, has a wife and daughter, and wants the promotion to manager, too. How should Doug behave toward Richard - as a friend, a colleague, a competitor, or an enemy? Richard, it seems, has demons and a past, but with the help of motivational tapes, he's resolved to succeed. Corporate and personal tests await the two men

Review
Do not watch this movie expecting another "Pursuit of Happyness" but instead go in with no expectations whatsoever and you may well like this movie, as I did. This movie had all the ingredients to make a silly one-upmanship no better than Employee of the Month, but writer/director chooses a totally alternate and much more lovable path. Its a fresh change to see a movie that satires something but still keep in touch with the reality of the world.

In the movie both the characters have their own problems and situations to compete for the new job. Doug(Sean William Scott) with his dream of moving out of their cramped apartment with paper-thin walls and into a new house and Richard(John C. Reilly) a recovering drug addict who has moved from Canada with his wife and daughter to make a living. Both of them are nice guys who are forced into a game of one-upmanship for the sole spot as the full manager at the new store. The writer shows both the character treading on the grey area but still we find ourselves rooting for Doug, who is a painfully nice guy who really needs the promotion.

Sean William Scott, the guy who made Stifler famous, is a totally different character altogether. Ever since American Pie, I've loved this guy though he didn't get many good roles after American Pie(Evolution is one of his better roles). But this is a role in which he could show off his subtle comedic talents and he is great. I can almost say this is his career best outing yet. Scott reins his goofy grin into something slightly rigid and almost panicked. John C. Reilly, whom I absolutely hated after watching Step Brothers, regained some points in my book with a complicated role which he played with subtlety. We feel sorry for both the characters and forgive their antics with a warm hearted nod of the head. Some of the most funny bits come from Jenna Fischer, Doug's incredibly sweet and supportive wife in the movie, with her one line remarks about their neighbor's "banjo" playing

Steve Conrad is definitely a better writer than a Director. The movie's writing and acting was pretty good but the direction was pretty ordinary. There is not one scene that impressed me visually. He stumbles a bit but still doesn't drop the ball delivering a fine ending. If someone other than him directed the movie this would have been a much more enjoyable experience than it is now.

My Verdict- It's been a long time since I've seen a comedy that balances broad farce and actual humanity with such wit, warmth, and weirdness. It's not as raunchy as the (awesome) stuff from the Apatow crew, and it's not as endearingly artsy as Wes Anderson's (also awesome) films, but The Promotion is a supremely satisfying little mixture of festival-flick "smallness" and big-budget "funny". When it comes to comedies about corporate gamesmanship and career assassination, The Promotion doesn't blaze any trails. What makes this film worthwhile is its willingness to display the protagonists as decent human beings despite their dog-eat-dog circumstances. There are enough laughs to justify it being labeled as a comedy but a stronger storyline than one normally associates with this kind of film. It's an enjoyable diversion amidst the big guns of summer.



DVDs are available to buy at Amazon. Get it now

Day 4
By the day four the festival picked up some heat for me. The fourth day I had the chance to watch three great movies- Postcards From Leningrad, Firaaq, and Hafez.

Postcards from Leningrad(Postales de Leningrado)(2007)
The Venezuelan film, Postcards from Leningrad, we see Venezuela during the Leftist uprising in the 1960s through the eyes of two children. The movie starts with a young guerrilla-girl, living in secrecy, giving birth to her first daughter on Mother's Day. Due to that, her photos appear in the newspaper, from that moment they are forced to run away. Hidden places, false disguises and names are part of this young girl's daily life. Alongside with her cousin, they re-live the adventures of their guerrilla parents, building a labyrinth filled with superheroes and strategies, where no one knows where the reality or the madness began. However, this children's game does not hide the deaths, torture, denunciations and treason within the guerrillas.

Wildly stylized and darkly funny, Postcards from Leningrad captures a child's perspective on life in the 1960's with Venezuela's armed revolutionaries. The film's precocious young narrator, the daughter of a subversive forced into hiding, imagines the militants as superheroes, despite the brutal realities of guerrilla life. This heart-wrenching drama beautifully conveys the heavy toll wrought by radical politics.

Rondón wonderfully combines dramatic and comedic narrative storytelling; faux documentary; and comic book style hand-drawn animation over live action to tell this darkly funny, yet serious story of a very volatile time and culture. At first Postcards from Leningrad was confusing; Rondón jumps around in time without warning, and the two children narrate their stories as if they were comic book characters. There is none of the political nuance to explain the whys of the conflict. Gradually however, the story becomes clear, peppered with fabulous sequences of the various characters lives.

Family scenes around the Venezuelan New Year are lively and telling; especially when Teo, one of narrators' parents, returns home and is subsequently captured by the government and imprisoned. A sequence 2/3 of the way through the film, depicting a group of female, revolutionary, college students committing an act or defiance is perfectly executed in groovy, 60s style, bringing together split screens, animation, music and narration sublimely. Rondón is a talented filmmaker whose work deserves broader exposure. Superbly executed the director Rondón deserves the praise and the award for the best director at the festival.

Firaaq(2008)
Firaaq is an Urdu word that means both separation and quest. Firaaq is an ensemble film takes place over a 24-hour period; a month after a horrific communal carnage of the 2002 Gujarat riots, where as many as 2,000 people–mostly Muslim–were killed. The riots were a Hindu backlash to the Godhra train burning where Muslims were accused of burning up a car with 58 Hindu pilgrims inside.

The film traces the emotional journeys of 'ordinary people'. A middle class housewife closes the door on a victim and struggles to overcome her guilt. The loyalties of two best friends are tested in the times of fear and suspicion. A bunch of young men having suffered the riots seeks revenge to fight their helplessness and anger. A modern-day Hindu-Muslim couple struggles between the instinct to hide their identity and the desire to assert it.

Nanditha Das, the debut director and acclaimed actress, has dealt with the human side of this sensitive issue and pulled off an incredible feat of giving it the depth it needed within a time-frame of 24 hours. Firaaq grew out of Das' persistent social engagements with human rights issues as also her own concerns about the impact of violence on all of us, our lives and our relationships.

I dedicated a whole post for this just because of the political ramifications and relevance of this movie. A more detailed review is here.

Hafez(2008)
In this Iranian cinema, Abollfazl Jalili tells a poetic tale of star-crossed lovers while attempting to balance between age-old traditions and contemporary beliefs. After memorizing the Koran and passing his exams scholar Shams al-Din is elevated to the rank of 'Hafez' - so named after the 700-year old Persian Poet. He is asked to pass on his knowledge to Nabat, the daughter of the great Mufti, but tradition dictates that they must not see each other. Teaching her from a seperate room, Hafez soon falls in love with Nabat's voice and steals a fleeting glimpse on his beautiful pupil; his love for her is pure., but his transgression brings harsh consequences.

Do not watch this movie thinking its an easy romantic film. This is a movie that takes itself seriously and deal with far more issues than Love. I have never in my life so overloaded with symbolisms as I was watching the movie. I have to admit that I didn't understand more than half of the intended symbolisms. A beautifully crafted movie, that is way out of my league. I am not qualified to review this movie, just because its in a whole another level. Here is a review I found in Google. Not much of a review, cause I don't think such a movie can be reviewed. Anyways..here is the review : Variety

Firaaq is an Urdu word that means both separation and quest. Firaaq is an ensemble film takes place over a 24-hour period; a month after a horrific communal carnage of the 2002 Gujarat riots, where as many as 2,000 people–mostly Muslim–were killed. The riots were a Hindu backlash to the Godhra train burning where Muslims were accused of burning up a car with 58 Hindu pilgrims inside.

The film traces the emotional journeys of 'ordinary people'. A middle class housewife closes the door on a victim and struggles to overcome her guilt. The loyalties of two best friends are tested in the times of fear and suspicion. A bunch of young men having suffered the riots seeks revenge to fight their helplessness and anger. A modern-day Hindu-Muslim couple struggles between the instinct to hide their identity and the desire to assert it.

Nanditha Das, the debut director and acclaimed actress, has dealt with the human side of this sensitive issue and pulled off an incredible feat of giving it the depth it needed within a timeframe of 24 hours. Firaaq grew out of Das' persistent social engagements with human rights issues as also her own concerns about the impact of violence on all of us, our lives and our relationships.

A film which portrays the atrocities that were going on in post riot Gujarat- the hunting of Muslims by Hindus as well as Law enforcement agencies, the fear in Muslim minds, the discriminatory social injustice towards Muslims- must be shown to a broader audience, at least, to enlighten the common man about what is going on in Gujarat.

The Hindu-Muslim couple in the movie(which according to me was the most striking story along with the boy Mohsin), especially the Muslim(Samir), is divided on where to stand when it comes to his identity. He is scared to say he is a Muslim, but yet in his heart he wants to assert it. This character shows how the middle-class Muslim in India feels. He says he has to think twice about praising some Pakistani cricket player, lest he is branded as a Pakistani spy. The Hindu Fascists in India have created an atmosphere in which it is impossible for a Muslim to lead a normal undiscriminating life.

The feeling that all Muslims are Pakisthani spies, or terrorists is spreading through the Indian psyche, unconsciously, and its an alarming trend. The Muslims in India are no less Indian than all the rest of them. Just because a minority in the Muslim community resort to Jihadi ways doesn't give us the right to brand the whole Muslim community as Terrorists. The film has brought out the common Indian psyche through the character of a tea shop owner who thought Samir a Hindu. Towards the end of the film, the character decides to assert he is a Muslim. The tea shop owner who was very cordial and friendly to the character turns on his heels and became indifferent to him the moment he learned Samir is a Muslim. This is something that could very well happen in India provided the massive brainwashing going on here.

Of all the characters in the movie, the 8 year old Mohsin was probably the most heart wrenching with his sorrowful eyes which speaks more than anything. The movie brings out clearly how a 8 year old is introduced to the intricacies of religious divide and how he absorbs the calamities around him. He gets taken into a home by a housewife to take care of him and she introduces him as Mohan(a Hindu name) to her mildly Hindu Fascist family. Mohsin soon leaves the house in fear of the husband, and when confronted by some Hindu bullies in the street he tells them his name is Mohan. Can you imagine a state in which even a Muslim name is dangerous? And more importantly, a mere 8 year old knows this. That is the deteriorating condition in India(not the whole, but some parts).

The final act was actually quite chilling, and I felt it could cut either way, depending on your outlook. One, that it is of hope, that with the next generation lies opportunity to bury the past and forge a new future ahead filled with better understanding, and the appreciation that such violence should never occur again. On the other hand, it reminds of how impressionable a young mind is, and through the wandering within a camp, taking in the sights of the aftermath of atrocities committed, that the seeds of revenge could have been innately planted, and being ready for improper indoctrination for further atrocities to be committed, some time in the future.

A little discussed fact of massive violence is that it’s not over when the fighting stops. It’s just smoldering like a volcano returning to dormancy after an eruption. There’s a haze of fear and loathing still thick in the community. It happened with Jews who survived the camps trying to return home after WWII only to find they weren’t anymore wanted then they were during the war. The enduring displacement was maybe the biggest reason for establishing Israel, which shifted the war to a smoldering tension, and occasional eruption, with Palestine. It’s the same five years after the Gujarat riots between Hindu and Muslim Indians. It's extremely difficult, but not impossible, to break the stranglehold that violence begets more violence.

Every once in a blue moon, a movie comes which captures the heart of the common audience as well as get the critics raving about it. Danny Boyle's "Slumdog Millionaire" is just that. From the genre skipping director Danny Boyle, who brought us the hard hitting drama "Shallow Grave" , the exemplary"Train Spotting", the fast moving Zombie thriller "28 days Later", comes another emotional roller coaster which takes us through the highs and lows of Jamal Malik, a kid from a Mumbai slum.

Plot
The slumdog of the title is 18-year-old Jamal (Dev Patel), a survivor from the streets of Mumbai, India, who is starring on the Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? In the course of his fantastic run on the show, he has come under suspicion for cheating. The police begin torturing him to get him to confess. How could a street kid with no formal education know such obscure answers as what American statesman is on the $100 bill? (Plot Courtsey: Lori Hoffman)

Review
And thus starts the journey through Jamal's life and how he came to know the answers to all those questions. The story is laid out before us in three layers- one is the immediate present where police officers are interrogating Jamal for fraud, another is the quiz show that happened the day before, and the third one is Jamal's recalling of his tumultous life. The three threads are woven dexterously revealing just enough to keep the story going. For every question he answers in the show he reveals a little more about his life and how he got to know the answers.

Resisting the temptation to reveal more of the plot, we're moving on to whats good in the film. Simon Beaufoy has done a great job scripting the movie, adapting it from the Vikas Swarup novel "Q&A". I haven't read the novel, and so I don't know how much faithful the movie is to the book; but it doesn't matter cause I don't think I will like the book better since I've seen the movie first. The dialogues were subtle, but yet quite revealing the gamut of emotions the characters are going through.

The direction and camera was admirable. The sheer color and energy of the movie gets you the Indian feel. The movie is 100% Indian, but yet made by an Irish Director. We have to give credit to Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandon(who co-directed the movie) for getting the real feel of India and for not turning this one into a western friendly flick. Like an american lady says in the movie-"real India". The captivating movements of the camera got me riveted to the screen without missing even short periods of silence.

The performances on the acting front just blew me away. The youngest Jamal, played by Ayush Mahesh Khedekar, did really well for a kid his age. Full credits to the directors for extracting such a natural performances from young kids. Dev Patel sizzled the screen with an amazing performance as Jamal. Freida Pinto also does a really good job as Jamal's love interest Lathika. Irfan Khan, who is said to be one of India's best actors, is thoroughly believable as the inspector who interrogates Jamal. Anil Kapoor also did a pretty good job as the charismatic game show host. As I have reviewed the Soundtrack of the movie earlier, I guess there is no need to repeat how great the soundtrack is and what it does to the overall feel of the movie.

Danny Boyle's love for complicated characters is really evident in the movie and the best example for that is Jamal's brother Salim. He is a complex character who harbours love for his brother, and at the same time gets jealous when Lathika gets close to Jamal. With an inherent mean streak in him, Salim inevitably falls into the underworld, but still has some good in his heart. He is a character who is forced by his circumstances into what he is.

The movie is a modern day fairy tale, a rags to riches journey of a boy, a classic love story, and many more. The movie depends on Love and Destiny to carry the story forward and they did that just beautifully. Jamal's undying love for Lathika, right from the day his mother is killed in an anti-Muslim riot by the Hindu fascists, is endearingly lovable. Jamal never once gives up his love for her, not for one moment. They get separated many times in the movie, but Jamal's persistence and love for Lathika brings them together again and again until they are finally free of the obstacles in their way.

There are some "in your face" shocking scenes, such as s*it covered young Jamal, that comes across as endearing. The sheer honesty of the film captivated my attention. Jamal and his brother does not even know what Taj Mahal is and that is very true in most of the real world cases. How will a Slum kid with no formal education, who tries to go through the next day somehow, know what Taj Mahal is. One of the questions asked in the show is the words engraved in front of India's national symbol. The options are so simple that even a 5 year old kid would answer that, but Jamal doesn't. When asked about this he promptly asks a series of questions to the inspector to which he knows the answer, but the inspector doesn't, like the cost of "Pani Puri" in a particular shop.

My Verdict- The movie, simply put, is fantastic. An Indian movie that is worthy of an International stage(Yes, I said Indian movie. Even though the director is Irish, the movie is 100% Indian, but without the songs, dance and cliches). With 4 Golden Globe nominations, 2 Screen Actors Guild nominations, 3 National Board of Review wins, 3 wins and 3 nominations in British Independent Film Awards and an array of other wins Slumdog Millionaire gives us the perfect mix of cinematic aesthetics and public affection.The climax was so tense that I almost fell off the edge of my seat. This is one movie you don't want to miss. The movie is so surreal, that is feels real.



Political Rant (forgive me but I had to)
In this modern day Indian Fairy Tale, Love and Destiny has a very big part to play. But underneath the Love and Destiny plot, there lies a more profound look into the lives of children from slums, how they are exploited, and how they live their lives. The movie honestly brings out the educational and economic divide that is present in India. It shows us there is a whole other section of the society who are well under the poverty line and struggle to get from one day to the next. The thing about the economic development in India( for that matter most of the world) is that the rich keeps getting richer and the poor poorer. The nations which boast of economic development should really look at the growing hunger indices of their countries. Economic policies of the countries should be formulated so that the gap between the poor and the rich should be reduced not increased. I'm so not happy at the way our world is running.

After the heart wrenching drama "Pursuit of Happyness" Gabriele Muccino and Will Smith come together for another drama, Seven Pounds. Is it another "Pursuit of Happyness"? No it is not.

Plot (without spoilers)
Ben(Will Smith) is an IRS agent who is deeply depressed and guilt-ridden for the mistakes from his past. He decides to change the lives of three strangers. Among those he contacts are a blind telemarketer (Woody Harrelson), a battered single mom (Elpidia Carrillo) and, most importantly, Emily Posa (Rosario Dawson), a woman in desperate need of a heart transplant with whom he inevitably fall in love.

Review
It is really hard to write a review of Seven Pounds without spoilers, which are not much anyways(I figured out most of the story half way through the movie). Anyways for all those who are spoiler-phobic I can try to refrain from as many details as I can while still making sense.

The biggest problem with the movie is the script. The writer tried to weave a mystery plot with an emotional one and as a result comes up short at both. The result is neither emotional, nor mysterious. In most of the scenes that are supposed to make us emotional we will be unable to do so because we will have no idea why the character is so emotional. But that would have been acceptable if the plot was truly mysterious. The plot falls short there again. From the supposedly incomprehensible flashbacks, we pretty much figure out the whole story, in the first fifteen minutes. All through the movie I was confused to see the movie as a mystery or an emotional drama. And I was also wondering if the writer takes his audience for fools to expect everybody will be surprised by the climax.

I went in to the theatre expecting another Pursuit of Happyness, but was thoroughly disappointed. Gabriele Muccino did a good job in making such a flimsy script into a passable movie. Though the movie was visually pleasing, the story, and the way it is handles totally ruined it. Will Smith puts on another Oscar worthy performance though I wondered sometimes if he is trying too hard. Unlike in "Pursuit of Happyness" Will Smith's charater is perpetually sad, or moody making it a little hard to like him. His charisma shows through in a couple of scenes by overall he is a moody emotional man.

With a performance that tugs all the strings of your heart, Rosario Dawson captures you as Emily Posa, a girl suffering from congenital heart disease. Quiet, broken and yet so full of yearning for life, Emily is the one bit of heart and soul in this film. And in bringing Emily to life, Dawson gives what can easily be described as a career best performance. She is the subtle balance to Smith’s sap-session, lighting the film up every time she unleashes her infectious smile. Through her performance, we cannot help but to connect with Emily’s pain as she struggles with near-terminal heart failure and celebrate those quiet, happy moments she shares as she begins to fall for the mysterious Ben. But the outstanding performance of Rosario Dawson is not enough to save the movie.

My Verdict - With a premise that is intriguing and unique the writer-director could have done much more. Will Smith teaming up with Gabriele Muccino will make us believe another "Pursuit of Happyness" is on the cards. But you are going to be really disappointed. The only two things that are worthy of a "watch" are the performances by Rosario Dawson and Will Smith. The plot holes will leave you gaping, the ending will leave you confused and the "big surprise" of Seven Pounds is that you get the "big surprise" pushed in your face in the first 15 minutes. Will Smith definitely broke his $100 million streak with this melodramatic, convoluted movie and he is not definitely not getting an Oscar for this one. Grant Nieporte should go back to writing sitcoms, where he belongs.



The soundtrack can be bought at Amazon And for all you Will Smith fans the 11x17 poster for the movie is available at Amazon

Day 2
The second day at the festival was a slow one too with me ending up seeing only one documentary that day- Bob Marley: Exodus 77 .

In this documentary, we witness the tumultuous events of 1977 through Bob Marley's songs and archival footage. It explores why Bob Marley and his music have become synonymous with struggle for freedom and resistance to oppression across the globe. The heart was in the right place for the documentary, but the execution was plain right boring and at times incoherent. A series of disjointed visuals are shown with the backdrop of Bob Marley's songs. At times I almost wished the Exodus Album was a bit smaller. After watching this one I didn't have the heart to go for any other movies that day and returned home.

Day 3
With 3 movies, Music Box, Caramel and Listening to silence, Day 3 was pretty satisfactory.

Caramel(Sukkar Banat)(2007) - Caramel is a Lebanese movie directed by Nadine Labaki, who also stars as a lead role, about the lives of five women in Beirut who meet up at a beauty salon where they discuss subjects like sex, man and motherhood. It is a plce to openly discuss their thoughts and confess private sins and pleasures: Layale is in love with a married man. Nisrine is a Muslim and getting married- but she isn't a virgin. Rima finds herself attracted to women. Jamale is not allowing herself to grow old. Rose is looking after her sister instead of herself.

Nadine Labaki, the director, shows us a city with normal people or more appropriately, normal women whose day-to-day existence makes us smile, laugh, cry, sigh or weep. And therein lies the greatness of the film. Nadine has carefully scripted a tale where she succeeds in keeping the viewer hooked from the first shot.

The beauty parlour is a middle-class location where lighting has been used skillfully and the subtle changes in lighting convey moods effectively. Close-ups of hair being snipped and the routine chore of waxing convey the beautician’s mood. Dialogues are minimal, a shrug of the shoulders, discarding a tissue, the sniping of hair every gesture every close-up manages to convey a whole gamut of emotions. No preachiness, no moralising, just a group of women, each one who’s struggling to come to terms with her life.Only two or three men figure in the whole film, Layale’s married boyfriend, Nisrine’s fiancé and Rose’s elderly suitor. They appear briefly on screen and disappear. There is no place for men in this film. It’s a women’s perspective shown by a woman and again revolves around women.

Labaki steals the show in every scene she is in with that natural charm she has and her stricking good looks. The senile and eccentric sister of Rose is, perhaps, the character which provided the most laughs in the movie. Rose breaks our heart with a performance juggling her only chance at love(so late in her life) and finally throwing it away to look after her crazy sister.

My Verdict - To fully understand the undertones of the movie one must know something about the culture in Lebanon, the oppression women there are facing. If you see the movie with a western backdrop this is just another chick-flick(though a pretty good one at that). The struggle of the five women to go through their lives are rendered as a bittersweet ordeal by making us laugh and cry at the same time. The movie takes us through a journey of self discovery and liberation of the five women in their own unique ways. The Lesbianism, extra marital affair, sex before marriage, all of it are against the customs in Lebanon and yet we find them in the movie which rebels against established customs. The movie ends with the love interest of Rima cuts her hair short symbolizing the liberation women in Lebanon are craving. The movie rightly deserves its 92% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

The year is coming to an end and its time for the top ten lists which are bound to pop up in almost every niche. On the risk of being left out, I decided to join the party with a top ten list with a difference(or so I think). This year a lot of really good as well as bad movies released. Some movies with apparently unknown cast and crew turned out to be great and at the same time some movies with a promising crew turned out to be disasters. Here is a list of those movies.

Top 10 Bad Movies with Great Star Power(that I have had the misfortune to see.)

10. What Happens in Vegas (IMDB)
At the number 10 spot its the Cameron Diaz and Ashton Kutcher starrer "What Happened in Las Vegas". A full length sitcom which begs us to take it seriously as a film. Two outrageously stupid and selfish characters whom you can't get to like no matter how hard you try. It does have its moments here and there but no definitely worth a watch in the theaters.Its not a horrible movie but better rent it in a DVD and watch it when you have nothing else to do.

9. 10,000 B.C.(IMDB)
Snatching the number 9 spot is the epic(or supposed to be epic) movie set in 10,000 B.C with woolly mammoths, saber toothed tigers, cavemen, and what nots. The director of Independence Day, Godzilla and The Day After Tomorrow had a lot to live upto and fell flat on his face trying to do so. The plot and screenplay was too silly for a movie of that scale. The visual effects and costumes, one of the plus points of the movie, along with some moments here and there saved the movie from a fatal drop to the forgetful chasm of Hollywood crap.

8. The Happening(IMDB)
The number 8 slot is adorned by M. Night Shyamalan's latest "scary thriller" ,The Happening. A strange, horrible and unprecedented crisis begins in Central Park. A high school science teacher, his wife and a young girl do what they can to survive it and so do we. The tagline for the movie says "We've Sensed It. We've Seen The Signs. Now... It's Happening". That is absolutely spot on about Shyamalan's film-making abilities. We sensed it with "Village", We've seen the signs in "Lady in the Water". And now its Happening. How ironic ?

7. Rambo(IMDB)
Rambo snatched the no. 7 spot with Sylvester Stallone returning as Rambo to bring out the worst movie(to date?) in the series. I am not a big fan of Rambo movies except for First Blood which I loved. After First Blood it became just another American Hero blowing up foreign "terrorists" by hundreds. Rambo only needs a patch of ground where evil men terrorise women, children and hard-working peasants, before his damaged hero blows them away by the truckload. But the new Rambo sunk to even lower levels by making the movie into something that is nothing more than a mindless shoot-fest. Forget the story, forget the character, forget emotions, hell,even forget excitement. This movie got nothing except a couple of moments(one of which is a flashback to First Blood) which gave it a place ahead of Mummy 3. Little more than a cartoon, Rambo caters only for those still smitten by the rat-a-tat of continuous gunfire

6. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor(IMDB)
The latest installment of the Mummy franchise settled for the number 6 spot after fighting with Babylon A.D fiercely. In the Far East, trouble-seeking father-and-son duo Rick and Alex O'Connell unearth the mummy of the first Emperor of Qin - a shape-shifting entity who was cursed by a wizard centuries ago. How many times have we seen that before? Isn't is time fictional character Rick O'Connel learned not to mess around with Mummies? Isn't it time for Brendan Fraser to say no to such movies? Rachel Weiz said no and good for her. The third Mummy entry is a headache-inducing mess that piles on unimpressive special effects to stretch a slight and often incomprehensible storyline. The only good thing in the movie is the performance by Jet-Li who absolutely sizzles the screen playing sinister emperor and saving the movie from a no. 5 spot in my list.

5. Babylon A.D.(IMDB)
The latest sci-fi action thriller from Vin Diesel, Babylon A.D, well deservedly gets the no. 5 spot. Veteran-turned-mercenary Thoorop takes the high-risk job of escorting a woman from Russia to America. Little does he know that she is host to an organism that a cult wants to harvest in order to produce a genetically modified Messiah. I can name a couple of movies that this movie borrows from right off the top of my head- Children of Men, Minority Report. There may be many more. The plot makes absolutely no sense rendering a nihilistic nonsense with no particular plus points. The ending is more incomprehensible than the "meaning of life". I strongly suspect the editing team screwed up and accidentally deleted the last part of the movie. Vin Diesel should really choose better projects if he wants to stay in Hollywood.

4. Righteous Kill(IMDB)
Righteous Kill bags the no. 4 spot with some really uninspiring screenplay, direction, acting, and anything that's left in making a film. Russel Gewirtz, the writer, should be ashamed of himself for bringing out such a work, especially after he has written a brilliant Inside Man. I have just one question for two of the greatest actors of all time- Why oh why did you take this project? Didn't you at least leaf through the screenplay before signing up? The movie tries to inflate itself on the iconic star power of Al Pacino and Robert De Niro but falls flat on its face.

3. You Don't Mess With the Zohan(IMDB)
Adam Sandler with his latest juvenile comedy "You Don't mess with Zohan" bags the no. 3 spot. I've never really liked him nor hated him. This movie has given me a really strong motivation to hate him.A comment at Rotten Tomatoes says it all-"The ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine isn’t exactly the obvious choice of topic for a comedy – which is perhaps why this film is about as funny as a suicide bombing". I saw Judd Apatow's name was on the writers list and I was like- What is a guy who has written 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and Pineapple Express doing in this film?You don't mess with Zohan, You don't even mess with the film. Just leave it alone.

2. The Love Guru(IMDB)
Mike Myers, the voice behind Shrek, the irresistibly funny Austin Powers, brings out Love Guru which quite easily grabbed the no. 2 spot. Mr. Myers, a writer and producer as well as the star, seems to have lost his touch, his jokes not funny anymore some bordering on obnoxious. It did get a couple of laughs at the first but soon it became a pain that I endured only cause I was with a friend and we were making fun of the movie. There is a part where Pitka(Myers) and his arch rival is shown to be in a fight with urine soaked mops, and that too as part of some Indian spiritual teaching lesson. If you find that funny, be my guest. I found the movie as a whole un-funny, and even offensive to my Indian psyche.

and finally... the movie that topped the list
1. Step Brothers(IMDB)
At the no. 1 spot we find "Step Brothers" lying on the gross and repulsive shoulders of Will Ferrel and John C. Reilly with all its disgusting glory. One cannot consider Will Ferrel to be star power, but the hype it got and the popularity surely counts for something. I can't understand what made critics give this piece of (for lack of a better word) crap a 55% on Rotten Tomatoes. Who really wants to see the unbearably repulsive antics of two 40 year old adolescents who are given a leash-free romp in the movie? This is not anything remotely like 40 year old Virgin, which was a movie I enjoyed. I cannot find even one reason why anyone would enjoy the film, but still many do. If you can somehow overlook the disgusting antics of the lead characters, then comes an unimaginative plot that is so predictable that you will slap yourselves for even thinking something different can be expected.

If you have any more movies that should have been introduced in the list feel free to post a comment about it.

After a seven day cinematic extravaganza the International Film Festival of Kerala, 2008 draws to a close with the Closing Ceremony yesterday. The delectable treat of cinema was more than enough to satisfy any movie lover's tastes.With renowned Film makers from around the world, like Idrissa Ouedraogo, Lucia Murat, Sitora Alieva, Samira Makhmalbaf, Uberto Pasilini and many more, gracing the festival as a jury member or in “Meet the Directors” segment, the festival became a well organized event.

Day 1
The festival started out really slow for me with only one documentary under my belt at the end of the first day but that single documentary made my day.

Chevolution(2008)
Not many people in the world doesn't know who Che Guevara is. For most he is a revolutionary hero, for some a masterful guerrilla tactician, for some a mass murderer and yet for some others the guy on T-shirts. Such is the impact made by a single man on World History. A large part of that impact and the widely spread recognition of his face is a single photograph.

Chevolution, a Cuban documentary by Luis Lopez and Trish Ziff, is a thorough and compelling investigation of the Che mythology and the essential malleability of the Che icon. Why did the image became so prevalent after 1967, and how has it meant so many things to so many different people? Chevolution asks all the right questions and gracefully allows us to answer them ourselves. In the documentary, producer/director Trisha Ziff and director Luis Lopez explore the Che phenomenon from all angles, including the revolutionary's early life, his fateful encounter with Castro, the Cuban revolution he helped make happen, to his life trying to foment revolutions in other countries. But it also examines how he crossed paths with photographer Alberto Korda, the fashion photographer/photojournalist who took the famous picture of Guevara that was the basis for the icon we know today.

The photograph taken by Alberto Korda was immortalised in World History and took up many meanings from Revolution to Rebellion to just a “fad”. The symbolic photograph was taken on March 5, 1960, in Havana, Cuba, at a memorial service for victims of the La Coubre explosion(which is believed to be the work of CIA but not solved to this date). This was an information that was new to me and made me see the photograph in a new light. I saw the meaning behind Che's eyes which shouts out his sadness, fury, determination, disappointment and action. Passed out to the occasional friend and published in a few small Cuban publications, Che’s image remained relatively unknown for 7 years. The photograph was then acquired by wealthy Italian publisher and intellectual Giangiacomo Feltrinelli in 1967. As Guevara's eventual capture or death appeared to be imminent with the CIA closing in on his whereabouts, Feltrinelli acquired the rights to publish Che's captured Bolivian Diary. Upon his return to Italy, Feltrinelli disseminated thousands of copies of the poster to raise awareness of Che's precarious situation and impending demise. Later in 1968 after his October 9, 1967 execution, Che's Bolivian Diary with Korda's photo on the cover was released worldwide. Feltrinelli also created posters to promote the book, which sold over 1 million copies. By this time, Korda's image had officially entered the public consciousness.

In 1967, Irish artist Jim Fitzpatrick was also using Korda's image as a basis for creating his own stylized posters which is the start of the graphic Che image's origin.

“The first image I did of Che was psychedelic, it looks like he is in seaweed. His hair was not hair, it was shapes that I felt gave it an extra dimension. That was the image I produced for the magazine and that was done before he died and that is the important thing about that image. At first it did not print. It was considered far too strong and revolutionary. I was very inspired by Che's trip to Bolivia. He went there with the intent to overthrow the intensely corrupt government, helped by the Americans at the time, and that's where he died. I thought he was one of the greatest men who ever lived and I still do in many ways. And when he was murdered, I decided I wanted to do something about it, so I created the poster. I felt this image had to come out, or he would not be commemorated otherwise, he would go where heroes go, which is usually into anonymity.” —Jim Fitzpatrick, 2005

Soon Che became the face of every revolution across the world. His posters became kind of an inspiration to all those who were oppressed. He became the hero of the oppressed. Since in Cuba they didn't believe in copyrights on images this image became a public domain image and thus spurred thousand and millions of copies around the world. Every artist brought out their own version of the graphic. But somewhere down the line the photograph turned icon lost its initial means or rather the meaning was watered down. The iconic image of revolution was watered down to rebellion, and eventually to pop culture.

Pop culture welcomed Che with open hands and made it one of his minions and eventually lead to the hands of the capitalists who used the image shamelessly for their own profit. Those very people against whom Che fought began to use his image as a means to increase their profit. Che's image started to appear on all sorts of products including Liquor and Tobacco. It is despicable to see its derogatory use for all sorts of things Che stood up against.

But nonetheless the image doesn't loose its iconic meaning all together. The image is still seen an a symbol of revolution, a symbol of protest against the oppressors, of socialist ideologies. I have been always a little bit slanted to left ideologies for a long time and consequently I have considerable knowledge on who Che is and what he did for the people. One doesn't have to be a communist or even socialist to see what Che did was nothing short of greatness. To Throw away a life of aristocracy and to enter the revolutionary movement for the betterment of the people is a feat in itself. Most of us think about the atrocities in this world, shake our head and carry on with our daily routine. But he saw the oppression in people and dedicated his life to the cause. He did something about it. That's what makes him a hero.

A rating is really not in place here as the level of enjoyment depends on many factors like, you like documentary, you have a impartial perspective on Che, wants to know about how images travel etc. But still for the sake of it.


To be continued.......Stay tuned for Day 2...