Let me start off with my view of the film, I've been a fan of Tintin since I first saw the cartoon back in the early 90's, though never read the comics. When I saw the credits of who wrote, produced and directed the film, you think to yourself this film is going to be awesome, there is no way with all that talent they can't possible f**k this up (and they didn't). You have Spielberg directing, Peter Jackson as a producer. Also the writing team great with Steven Moffat, known for Sherlock, Dr who, Coupling and another of my child hood favs, Press Gang. Finally you have Edgar Wright, who wrote and directed Shawn of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

The version of the film i saw was 3d, as it was a preview and i didn't have a choice. Normally i watch all my showing in 2d as i think its personally a fad and a rip off and the films i have seen excluding Avatar, i didn't think the 3d aspect improved the film going enjoyment one bit. This again is my option while the 3d is nice, and the shots going through glass and water was really good, there was nothing else that would have me pulling out another £2 a ticket. I would have been happy with a basic 2d version.

On to the film story, TinTin (voice by Billy Elliott's Jamie Bell) buys a handmade ship in market. As soon as he buys it he gets a number of offers of people willing to buy it from him, which TinTtn rejects. When he gets home Snowy, Tintin dog, breaks the ship and a hidden clue rolls out, which begins Tintin trying to work out what it means. Tintin then gets kidnapped by the evil Ivanovich Sakharine (Daniel Craig), who is after the clue. This where Tintin mets up with Captain Haddock as they set of trying to work out the meaning of Tintin clue.

The film is a really mixture of action and adventure. We see the heroes on board ships, rowing boats, fly airplanes, riding camels, having car\bike chases and crane fights. The time flew past for me and not once did i feel bored, this was probably down to the amount going with the film, the quick pace of the action and the different locations of the characters were always in. It reminded me of the Indiana Jones films a lot, where he is on the hunt for treasure, and he only has half of the clues, and the bad guys have the others half and both sides are trying to get the other half for the themselves. He then needs to go around the globe via different transportation to get the info he needs to find the treasure.

There is also a large amount of humour in the film, seeing as Moffat, who wrote coupling helped write it, this is no big surprise. While i got the jokes neither my nephew (3) nor niece (8) did. So I am assuming that these were aim at the adults watching.

The characters the film makers can't chance much from the original Hergé comics, but Tintin I did find too goody goody, the captain is great character, who is drunk loser, but has a kind heart and wants to do the right thing. The bad guy, Sakharine, is perfect, scary enough to make you believe that he is ruthless killer who is a greedy and after revenge, but on the other had not going over board to make the kids feel scared or afraid of him when he was on screen. There is also the two comic relief characters of inspector Thomson, who are on screen just enough to make you smile at the pratfalls and their stupidness, but not too long for the jokes to wear thin so you're sick of seeing them.

My rating of the film would be 4 out of 5.

On to the kids view of the film. i was watching this movie with a 2 year old big baby.

.

t for 5 years old and up this film and adults included this is a must see.

It's a Wonderful Life (1946)

today i saw this movie after 7 months and its still as fresh.one of my most favourite movies ever.No movie ever made has influenced me more than this classic. had loved it, but I never really knew what it meant. During the course of the production, I suddenly felt alive. I felt that I wasn't having enough fun. I felt that I wasn't doing enough in my life. Crazy things, like kissing my mother or my father. I hadn't really hugged one of them in a while. It makes you think. It's more of a thinking person's film than a mere Christmas film. If you think it's just a Christmas film, I insist you watch it again and again, until you get the message.

Stewart gives the finest performance of his career, in one of the most difficult characters ever portrayed. A character all of us are familiar with...a person looking to find himself/herself. It's the great struggle for finding what it is in life you really want to do. George Bailey teaches us so lessons throughout the film and in the end he teaches us the most important lesson of all, that life, although a long and winding road, truly is (for lack of a better word) wonderful...

Forrest Gump (1994)-A beautiful fable for now and the future

What I find completely ridiculous is why this movie, in my opinion one of the best ever, has such a low rating, so I've tried to figure out what some found against it.I noticed that the haters of this movie who make it have a lower rating than it actually deserves mainly argue that it promotes the government's politics of submission: the idea that "if you're an idiot but you do what you're told then you will be rewarded, but, if you experience life then you're going to die a miserable death." I'm not an American myself so i don't have any intention to defend the government or anyone else, but I think that the political events witnessed by the character in the movie make many miss the whole substance of the film. I think these bits of history only add to the magic of the film, making Forrest part of a fantastic world that seems so incredibly real though.

How can somebody say that Forrest is just an idiot, an ordinary person who does everything that he is told to do? It appears to me that in fact,in his innocence, Forrest does what he feels he has to do,no matter the situations and the people around him, lead only by an inner sense of right. So what actually seems to be special about Forrest is that, regardless of his intelligence, he has the capacity to discover simple truth and life values that all the others around him miss: he tries to save Bubba endangering his own life, he gives Bubba's family money and mainly displays simple goodness in everything he does.

So if you haven't yet seen the movie or you were disappointed by it, try watching it without analyzing things that much and just open your heart towards that world. The brilliant humour, the hilarious yet touching acting, the special effects and the uplifting message are totally rewarding.

Delhi Belly-----2 thumbs up for kunal roy kapoor and 5 thumbs up for this movie,both r awsm

Abhinay Deo's amiable urban comedy thriller "Delhi Belly" has more crossover appeal than many Bollywood productions. It's primarily in English, and it runs just 103 minutes, brief for Indian movies. Akshat Verma's script is imaginative and funny, the film's stars are engaging and "Delhi Belly" adds up to pleasing escapist fare.

Tashi (Imran Khan), Nitin (Kunaal Roy Kapur) and Arup (Vir Das) are three pals sharing a truly squalid New Delhi flat and struggling to get ahead. Handsome Tashi is a journalist who often works with Nitin, a shaggy, rotund photographer; Arup is a cartoonist whose boss is a pompous numskull.



At the New Delhi airport a smuggler mistakes Soniya (Shenaz Treasurywala), Tashi's airhead nouveau riche fiancée, for his contact, asking her to deliver a package that happens to contain 30 magnificent diamonds. She agrees, then casually asks someone else to do the task. In no time the three friends are targeted by a suitably cold-blooded criminal and his gang.

Although there are moments when Deo might have had a lighter touch, writer-assistant director Verma provides a steady and amusing flow of complications with Nitin's attack of Delhi Belly — food poisoning — proving an earthy running gag. The trio are a pretty amoral group in the face of the harsher realities of New Delhi life, but a subplot involving Nitin's attempt at blackmailing a hapless neighbor has a happy ending.

"Delhi Belly." No MPAA rating. In English and Hindi with English subtitles. Running time: 1 hour, 43 minutes. At selected theaters.

Black Swan--------hattttts off for the director to attempt such a great story

Black Swan is an awsm flick to watch,a great work of art ,coreografy and performance,i have not enough words to describe the beauty of this film,u must watch this once in your lifetime,,,,.

THE WAY(2010)====what a soulfull flick,really ***

Before saying anything i want to salute the location designer and cinematographer of this movie,""camino de santiago"" is beautiful place,whenever i got a chance to go there i would really want to make this possible.

There’s not a whole lot about Emilio Estevez’s The Way that doesn’t ring true. Given the fact that the film tackles some of life’s deepest emotions and largest themes–grief, love, faith, community–that’s quite a compliment.

Martin Sheen plays Tom Avery, an American ophthalmologist who receives word that his son has been killed while walking the Camino de Santiago, a pilgrimage trail in the Pyrenees mountains between France and Spain sometimes referred to as The Way of Saint James. Perhaps impulsively or perhaps in desperation, Tom decides to walk the pilgrims’ trail himself, to finish the journey his son began.

Obviously, such a role calls for an actor of immense talent, both to convey the depth and layers of feeling of a parent mourning his child and to eschew the more melodramatic histrionics that would cause such material to become overly and overtly sentimental. Sheen, one of our national acting treasures, is perfect for such a part, bringing it gravity but also dignity. I love that in introducing a movie about fathers and sons, rituals and traditions, Estevez chose to describe Sheen by borrowing from another famous director, John Huston, talking about his own father. “He never tried to sell you something.” The film needs that kind of iconic confidence at its center, because for long periods Tom, in his grief, goes inside himself, and the film must have the confidence to let him, to allow us to be one of the community with him, each broken in his or her own way, each striving for understanding, light, and hope.

Do you want to know one thing that is true about grief? Movies tend to think that what we remember and treasure in our hearts are the big gestures people make to acknowledge the hugeness of our loss. But that’s not the case. What stays with you are scores of small kindnesses from people that remind you that life is worth living, that in our sadness, our emptiness, and our poverty, most people can be very, very decent. “To be kind,” George MacDonald once wrote, “neither hurts nor compromises.” It may be the only thing that doesn’t.

Estevez talked rather self-effacingly at the Toronto International Film Festival of not directing his father, of surrounding himself with talented people and “getting out of the way.” He did direct, Sheen insisted. It’s easy enough to see how both descriptions are true. In a post-Cahiers film world, we take certain theories of auteurship for granted. Our picture of the director is of someone who, Hitchcock-like, plans and controls every detail of the film in his head. Estevez spoke of making a film about community by making a community, using natural light, shooting in Super 16 and making technical choices appropriate to the thematic content of the film. These are directorial decisions that shape the film and were appropriate, but the creation of a community of like-minded people pursuing a goal should not be underestimated. The care and compassion these people have for each other reaches beyond performance and says something about the material’s and location’s ability to affect actors and not just vice-versa. I wish he hadn’t used the device of having the father occasionally “see” his dead son, but–as one viewer stressed to me–that (hearing/seeing those who are absent) is an experience, hinted at by other characters in the film which is not uncommon to those who are grieving.

In circles in which I sometimes converse, there have been, for as long as I can remember, discussions about Christians in the art, about how to get more films that are faith friendly and about the corrosive moral effects of “Hollywood” or the “Hollywood culture.” Every now and then, though, I’ll run across a song like Leonard Cohen’s “If It Be Your Will” or a film like The Way, that not only puts “Christian” films to shame but that makes me exasperated at the whole notion of “Christian” as an identity politics genre. If you want more great Christian art, go find great artists and support them in their desire to speak, write, and represent the truth. Hollywood is made up of people–many of whom, it turns out, are more complex, interesting, and thoughtful than we might guess based on nothing more than a quick glimpse of their IMDB filmography.

One audience member at the Toronto Film Festival who had done this pilgrimage himself spoke glowingly of how the film’s latter scenes captured perfectly the experience of arriving in Santiago de Compostela. The Way is the first non-documentary film granted permission to film inside the church, and the scenes of the pilgrims arriving, how each responds to the rituals, to each other, and to the dawning realizations that they are neither the first nor the last to walk the path they’ve walked or bear the burdens they’ve borne, is as deeply moving and passionately spiritual a moment as you are likely to get in commercial, narrative film. You know what would be a little miracle that would make me happy? If Christians who wanted to “send Hollywood a message” with their pocketbooks would eschew boycotting the next “R” rated slezefest that gets them all tied up in knots and try the reverse for once. Pick up the phone and call your favorite studio and say, “I’ve got $10 and I really want to see this movie.”

Hey, it’s worth a try. Turns out The Way–here’s the kicker–doesn’t yet have a major distribution deal.

The Way is funny, sad, somber, and, above all, true. It is life-affirming in most of the best senses of the phrase. It’s easily one of my favorite films of the year thus far. If you get an opportunity to see it, seize it. You won’t be sorry. It you don’t, that’s okay, too, just so long as you promise not to complain that there’s nothing but sex and explosions at the multiplex these days.

83rd Annual Academy Awards--winners list

Best Motion Picture of the Year
WINNER
The King's Speech (2010): Iain Canning, Emile Sherman, Gareth Unwin
Other Nominees:
127 Hours (2010): Christian Colson, Danny Boyle, John Smithson
Black Swan (2010): Mike Medavoy, Brian Oliver, Scott Franklin
The Fighter (2010): David Hoberman, Todd Lieberman, Mark Wahlberg
Inception (2010): Christopher Nolan, Emma Thomas
The Kids Are All Right (2010): Gary Gilbert, Jeffrey Levy-Hinte, Celine Rattray
The Social Network (2010): Scott Rudin, Dana Brunetti, Michael De Luca, Ceán Chaffin
Toy Story 3 (2010): Darla K. Anderson
True Grit (2010): Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, Scott Rudin
Winter's Bone (2010): Anne Rosellini, Alix Madigan
Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
WINNER
Colin Firth for The King's Speech (2010)
Other Nominees:
Javier Bardem for Biutiful (2010)
Jeff Bridges for True Grit (2010)
Jesse Eisenberg for The Social Network (2010)
James Franco for 127 Hours (2010)
Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
WINNER
Natalie Portman for Black Swan (2010)
Other Nominees:
Annette Bening for The Kids Are All Right (2010)
Nicole Kidman for Rabbit Hole (2010)
Jennifer Lawrence for Winter's Bone (2010)
Michelle Williams for Blue Valentine (2010)
Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
WINNER
Christian Bale for The Fighter (2010)
Other Nominees:
John Hawkes for Winter's Bone (2010)
Jeremy Renner for The Town (2010)
Mark Ruffalo for The Kids Are All Right (2010)
Geoffrey Rush for The King's Speech (2010)
Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
WINNER
Melissa Leo for The Fighter (2010)
Other Nominees:
Amy Adams for The Fighter (2010)
Helena Bonham Carter for The King's Speech (2010)
Hailee Steinfeld for True Grit (2010)
Jacki Weaver for Animal Kingdom (2010)
Best Achievement in Directing
WINNER
Tom Hooper for The King's Speech (2010)
Other Nominees:
Darren Aronofsky for Black Swan (2010)
Ethan Coen, Joel Coen for True Grit (2010)
David Fincher for The Social Network (2010)
David O. Russell for The Fighter (2010)
Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
WINNER
The King's Speech (2010): David Seidler
Other Nominees:
Another Year (2010): Mike Leigh
The Fighter (2010): Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson, Keith Dorrington
Inception (2010): Christopher Nolan
The Kids Are All Right (2010): Lisa Cholodenko, Stuart Blumberg
Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published
WINNER
The Social Network (2010): Aaron Sorkin
Other Nominees:
127 Hours (2010): Danny Boyle, Simon Beaufoy
Toy Story 3 (2010): Michael Arndt, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich
True Grit (2010): Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Winter's Bone (2010): Debra Granik, Anne Rosellini
Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
WINNER
Toy Story 3 (2010): Lee Unkrich
Other Nominees:
How to Train Your Dragon (2010): Dean DeBlois, Chris Sanders
The Illusionist (2010): Sylvain Chomet
Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
WINNER
In a Better World (2010): Susanne Bier(Denmark)
Other Nominees:
Biutiful (2010): Alejandro González Iñárritu(Mexico)
Dogtooth (2009): Giorgos Lanthimos(Greece)
Incendies (2010): Denis Villeneuve(Canada)
Outside the Law (2010): Rachid Bouchareb(Algeria)
Best Achievement in Cinematography
WINNER
Inception (2010): Wally Pfister
Other Nominees:
Black Swan (2010): Matthew Libatique
The King's Speech (2010): Danny Cohen
The Social Network (2010): Jeff Cronenweth
True Grit (2010): Roger Deakins
Best Achievement in Editing
WINNER
The Social Network (2010): Kirk Baxter, Angus Wall
Other Nominees:
127 Hours (2010): Jon Harris
Black Swan (2010): Andrew Weisblum
The Fighter (2010): Pamela Martin
The King's Speech (2010): Tariq Anwar
Best Achievement in Art Direction
WINNER
Alice in Wonderland (2010): Robert Stromberg, Karen O'Hara
Other Nominees:
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010): Stuart Craig, Stephenie McMillan
Inception (2010): Guy Hendrix Dyas, Larry Dias, Douglas A. Mowat
The King's Speech (2010): Eve Stewart, Judy Farr
True Grit (2010): Jess Gonchor, Nancy Haigh
Best Achievement in Costume Design
WINNER
Alice in Wonderland (2010): Colleen Atwood
Other Nominees:
I Am Love (2009): Antonella Cannarozzi
The King's Speech (2010): Jenny Beavan
The Tempest (2010/II): Sandy Powell
True Grit (2010): Mary Zophres
Best Achievement in Makeup
WINNER
The Wolfman (2010): Rick Baker, Dave Elsey
Other Nominees:
Barney's Version (2010): Adrien Morot
The Way Back (2010): Edouard F. Henriques, Greg Funk, Yolanda Toussieng
Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
WINNER
The Social Network (2010): Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross
Other Nominees:
127 Hours (2010): A.R. Rahman
How to Train Your Dragon (2010): John Powell
Inception (2010): Hans Zimmer
The King's Speech (2010): Alexandre Desplat
Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song
WINNER
Toy Story 3 (2010): Randy Newman("We Belong Together")
Other Nominees:
127 Hours (2010): A.R. Rahman, , Dido("If I Rise")
Country Strong (2010): Tom Douglas, Hillary Lindsey, Troy Verges("Coming Home")
Tangled (2010/I): Alan Menken, Glenn Slater("I See the Light")
Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
WINNER
Inception (2010): Lora Hirschberg, Gary Rizzo, Ed Novick
Other Nominees:
The King's Speech (2010): Paul Hamblin, Martin Jensen, John Midgley
Salt (2010): Jeffrey J. Haboush, William Sarokin, Scott Millan, Greg P. Russell
The Social Network (2010): Ren Klyce, David Parker, Michael Semanick, Mark Weingarten
True Grit (2010): Skip Lievsay, Craig Berkey, Greg Orloff, Peter F. Kurland
Best Achievement in Sound Editing
WINNER
Inception (2010): Richard King
Other Nominees:
Toy Story 3 (2010): Tom Myers, Michael Silvers
TRON: Legacy (2010): Gwendolyn Yates Whittle, Addison Teague
True Grit (2010): Skip Lievsay, Craig Berkey
Unstoppable (2010): Mark P. Stoeckinger
Best Achievement in Visual Effects
WINNER
Inception (2010): Chris Corbould, Andrew Lockley, Pete Bebb, Paul J. Franklin
Other Nominees:
Alice in Wonderland (2010): Ken Ralston, David Schaub, Carey Villegas, Sean Phillips
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010): Tim Burke, John Richardson, Christian Manz, Nicolas Aithadi
Hereafter (2010): Michael Owens, Bryan Grill, Stephan Trojansky, Joe Farrell
Iron Man 2 (2010): Janek Sirrs, Ben Snow, Ged Wright, Daniel Sudick
Best Documentary, Features
WINNER
Inside Job (2010): Charles Ferguson, Audrey Marrs
Other Nominees:
Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010): Banksy, Jaimie D'Cruz
GasLand (2010): Josh Fox, Trish Adlesic
Restrepo (2010): Tim Hetherington, Sebastian Junger
Waste Land (2010): Lucy Walker, Angus Aynsley
Best Documentary, Short Subjects
WINNER
Strangers No More (2010): Karen Goodman, Kirk Simon
Other Nominees:
Killing in the Name (2010): Jed Rothstein
Poster Girl (2010): Sara Nesson, Mitchell Block
Sun Come Up (2010): Jennifer Redfearn, Tim Metzger
The Warriors of Qiugang (2010): Ruby Yang, Thomas Lennon
Best Short Film, Animated
WINNER
The Lost Thing (2010): Shaun Tan, Andrew Ruhemann
Other Nominees:
Day & Night (2010): Teddy Newton
The Gruffalo (2009) (TV): Jakob Schuh, Max Lang
Let's Pollute (2011): Geefwee Boedoe
Madagascar, a Journey Diary (2010): Bastien Dubois
Best Short Film, Live Action
WINNER
God of Love (2010): Luke Matheny
Other Nominees:
The Confession (2010/IV): Tanel Toom
The Crush (2010): Michael Creagh
Na Wewe (2010): Ivan Goldschmidt
Wish 143 (2009): Ian Barnes, Samantha Waite

Ramchand Pakistani===A film that describes the entities of indian cinema,a beautiful work

A 7 year old Pakistani boy and his father belonging to the untouchable Hindu caste accidentally cross the border and spend years in an Indian jail while the mother on the other side doesn't know what has happened to them.
first time when i watched it on tv,i did't like it too much but next time on my pc i loved it,really a heart touchable story.everyone should watch this film to see the limit of our own cinema.

'The King's Speech'-----MY selection as BEST PICTURE for this year OSCAR

"The King's Speech" reminds us that although everything can go wrong with a film before it gets to the casting stage, and often does, a couple of marvelous performances can elevate solid, well-carpentered material and make it something special.

This juicy, witty historical docudrama stars Colin Firth as Bertie, the future King George VI, and Geoffrey Rush as his "speech defects" consultant, an Australian living in London by the name of Lionel Logue. The actors, predictably, are superb in roles shaped by screenwriter David Seidler, and directed by Tom Hooper. Yet they are unpredictably superb as well. Naturally ebullient and sometimes shamelessly scene-stealing, Rush has never given a more contained or moving screen performance. Partly it's a response to the director's visual strategy: Hooper keeps his slightly distorting fish-eye-lens very close to his subjects, high-born as well as common.

To some this lends the picture a gratifying, un-stuffy immediacy; to others, it'll just seem odd. Either way, from that intimate camera-to-actor perspective the tiniest lift of an eyebrow registers very, very clearly.

Firth, by contrast, is by performance temperament a minimalist, and surely he is comfortable slipping into the skin of a fundamentally shy human being. Because his character labors, mightily, with the burden of a severe stammer, his role entails considerable technical challenges. How much to recreate the stutter? How little? In what ways does an actor suggest not only the moment-to-moment agonies of speech, but the gradual, inspiring improvement under Logue's unconventional tutelage?

Seidler, himself a lifelong stutterer, began "The King's Speech" as a play, and many of the most effective scenes retain a simple theatrical dynamic, one character playing a metaphorical tennis match against the other. Firth is exceptional at capturing the future king's imperious yet melancholy air, the underachiever waiting to be prodded into something more. The surprise, both in the writing and the performing, is how deftly we learn of the factors contributing to the stammer. No clunky flashbacks; little sentimentality.

Firth and Rush are surrounded by a first-rate ensemble, chiefly Helena Bonham Carter as a warm-hearted Elizabeth, wife of King George VI; Michael Gambon, fearsome as George V, a man to whom it would never occur that "Get it out, boy!" does not work with stutterers; Guy Pearce, dashing yet slightly pathetic as the king who had the bad luck to fall for a Baltimore divorcee; and Jennifer Ehle, glancingly comic as Logue's wife, who cannot quite fathom why her husband's waiting room is taken up with English royalty.

Some aspects of the film feel routine, or facile, or too heavily underlined. Certain performers ( Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill most glaringly) fly straight past character into caricature. I suppose there's a kind of "Educating Bertie" quality to "The King's Speech." But I refer once again to the actors at the center. Watching Firth, in particular, create a mass of empathetic connections and paradoxes in the service of a fully rounded portrayal…well, this is why "The King's Speech" transcends the ordinary, even the ordinary within its own framework. And it's why Firth will likely add an Academy Award to all the other prizes he's won, and deserved.

mythmohit@gmail.com

THE SEA INSIDE-----oh mama/'''surprise of life

The Sea Inside has Spanish filmmaker Alejandro Amenábar's (Open Your Eyes) auteuristic grip all over it. Besides directing, Amenábar also co-produced, co-wrote (with longtime collaborator, Mateo Gil), scored and edited this saga about a true-life quadriplegic who campaigned for 30 years against Spain's judiciary for the right to end his life. Paralyzed after a diving accident, Ramón Sampedro (Javier Bardem) is reduced to lying supine in a room of his older brother José's farmhouse. Day and night, year after year, Ramón is vigilantly cared for by José (Celso Bugallo), and his small clan. The slow grind of Ramón 's existence, salved only by his family's devotion, eventually wears the patient down to where he feels euthanasia is the only dignified option left.

Ramón's outspokenness wins the interest - and the affections - of a pair of women: Julia (Belén Rueda), the terminally ill lawyer who helps Ramón build his case, and Rosa (Lola Dueñas), a single mother drawn to Ramón out of loneliness and her admiration for his strength. But while the sensuous Julia, herself coping with illness, fully sympathizes with Ramón 's cause, the feisty Rosa sulks and frets whenever Ramón so much as breathes a word of his intentions.

Julia and Ramón 's efforts are aided by a lawyer-activist pair, Gené (Clara Segura) and Marc (Francesc Garrido), both exuding the tireless, unflappable gravitas we all associate with those lawyer-activist types. Meanwhile, on Rosa's side is the curmudgeonly Jose. But, being a boorish farmer, he can only express his moral chagrin through snarls and half-uttered denunciations. More eloquent are the rantings of a paralyzed priest who demands that Ramón drop his case on grounds that his appeal for death oversteps his religious bounds. That particular scene in which Ramón and the priest holler at each other - Ramón from his bed and the priest from his wheelchair downstairs - as they debate the Meaning of Life strains for seriocomic poignancy. But the strain is too great for Amenábar and Gil's prosaic, largely by-the-numbers script, and the scene falls flat.

Indeed, The Sea Inside is a not-so-subtle polemic on the subject of one's moral right to die. Amenábar and Gil's script is content with tracing Ramón's ordeal and his personal relationships in monochromatic shades. Ramón, for example, mentions how humiliating and degrading it is to be living in his condition, but Amenábar never ventures into those dark and private corners of his existence - the lack of personal control and dignity, the yearning for sex and physical adventure, and the very terror of immobility - to show us why his struggle is so crucial to him. The movie, instead, relies on dialogue littered with moral and religious bric-a-brac. But these are just words, after all, batted back and forth between characters, never managing the emotional resonance that a more sensitive, imaginative approach could've yielded.

As a director, Amenábar verges awfully close to the sappy, stilted tactics of any Hollywood hack. His soaring aerial shots, meant to convey Ramón's dreams of flying out his window to freedom (smacking of the cinema of Penny Marshall), his glib handling of Ramón's tender, profound relationship with Julia, and his deploying of his frequently saccharine score all collude to keep this material tediously superficial.

At every turn, the movie wants to wring heartache and tears, but its too contrived to elicit anything like real feelings. The sense of presumptuousness that steeps the movie's script and direction also infects its cast. There is an earnestness in the movie's performances, an over-eagerness to shine in the spotlight, orchestrated from a desire to win acting awards. To be fair, Bardem and the rest of his cast are generally fine, but they're far too comfortable in this material, never giving it the immediacy and edge that it deserves. Bardem is eminently watchable, but the best actor alive might've heard that label once too often. One wonders if he's taking the hype to heart.

In his past projects, Amenábar has proven himself a talented and capable filmmaker. But that's little consolation here. The Sea Inside is but a vanity project that, from top to bottom, proves unequal to the task of unlocking the existential truths at the heart of Ramón Sampedro's story.

VERTIGO- "INCEPTION" of its own era.

Vertigo is the masterwork of a great director at the very peak of his talent. If I could come up with any more superlatives then I would shower them upon this film because it’s one of the most beautiful, moving, provocative and emotionally insightful works that the cinema has ever produced. Needless to say, it flopped on release and then vanished from sight for the best part of twenty five years, leading some to claim that its reputation was based more upon its unavailability than any superior intrinsic quality. That this is not the case has become clear since its re-release in 1983 and is even more obvious now that the film has been painstakingly restored to its original visual splendour by Robert Harris and James Katz. When he made it, Alfred Hitchcock was 59 years old and everything he had learned about cinema in his 38 years in the business is poured into Vertigo with a painful emotional intensity and visual passion that is unlike anything else he ever directed. Fans may argue about their favourite Hitchcock. Indeed, I often think that the Hitchcock movie I like best is either Notorious or North By Northwest. But the one I keep coming back to, in the certain knowledge that I will find something new while experiencing the same thrill of cinematic discovery that I felt on first seeing it, is Vertigo.

Do Dooni Chaar -----really a film dedicated for middle class of delhi

Rating: ****/*****

Alfred Hitchcock once said ‘To make a great film you need three things – the script, the script and the script.’ ‘Do Dooni Chaar’ drives this point straight home, demonstrating that one doesn’t need a fancy superstar or a monstrous budget to make a good film. Garnished with moments that seem straight out of real life and played out earnestly, writer-director Habib Faisal seems to have found his recipe for success.

Santosh Duggal (Rishi Kapoor) is a simple schoolteacher, who like most teachers in our country is underpaid, undervalued and over worked. Even after putting in twenty years of sincere service, the math’s teacher, who rides a rickety old scooter, struggles to make ends meet. His good-humored better half, Kusum (Neetu Singh), is a typical middle-class Delhi housewife, who capably runs the house on a shoestring budget. Living off Duggal’s frail income are a teenage tomboy daughter Payal (Aditi Vasudev) and a son Sandy (Archit Krishna), who through a secret betting habit, lives beyond his means.

Like most middle class families that are lured into higher aspirations via slick advertizing, the Duggal’s too find themselves running the race for consumer goods. It all begins when the family is forced to arrange a car to attend a family wedding. The hilarious events that follow, cement the fact that to have respect in society, Mr.Duggal has to buy his own car.

The usual--advance salary, down payment–EMI route to buy his car fails as he learns that a poor schoolteacher is not a good candidate for a bank loan. Desperate to win his families (and his neighbors’) respect, will Duggal take an unethical & immoral route to fulfill his family’s aspirations?

Debutant director Habib Faisal deftly portrays the life of a middle class family and its challenges. Although the film is a comedy, there is a strong undercurrent of emotions that help you sympathize with its endearing characters. The scene where the Duggals buy several cartons of washing powder to win a lucky draw with a new car as its first prize is particularly well executed. Banking on Duggal’s ‘theory of probability’, the four eager hopefuls spend the entire night cutting open packets, but win zilch! The scene is both funny and heartbreaking and brilliantly exposes a futile consumer culture.

Rishi Kapoor delivers a stellar performance as Santosh Duggal. He sinks his teeth deep into the soul of the character and doesn’t let go till the very end. With superb body language and an amusing Punjabi accent, Kapoor is extremely believable as the devoted family man. The scene where he discovers his sons gambling habit and instead of berating him, uses a clever and loving approach to teach his son a lesson, is sure to bring a tear to the eye.

Incredibly, the twenty-odd year gap in her career has left no rust on Neetu Singh’s talent. She switches from being brittle and tender to being tough and protective, and wonderfully holds her family together. She sulks to get what she wants and when she gets it, a mischievous smile emerges on her face.

Rishi Kapoor and Neetu Singh light up the cinema screen like dynamite, playing extremely grounded characters. Archit Krishna as Sandy is excellent as is Akhilendra Mishra who plays the neighbor Mr. Farookhi who grudgingly lends the Duggals his beloved car.

In fact, the film is a lesson in good casting as it delivers great performances from the entire (relatively unknown) supporting cast. Also worth mention is the realistic production design that takes us into a lower middle class world which some of us left behind years ago, and some of us aspire to get out of today.



Pre-Climax though, the script reveals its weak spot. Right in the middle of facing his moral dilemma, Duggal chances upon a doting ex student, who reminds him of how he always stood for good values, helping make up Duggals mind; a little sudden & manipulative for a sincere & organic script.

Also, this film deserved a tighter pace, especially in its second half and also had scope for better music, like its Delhi middle-class predecessor ‘Khosla Ka Ghosla’. Yet, the cast & crew manage to hold together this unusual cinematic enterprise. The end result is an effective, yet understated comment on the strength of a united family, surviving in a competitive consumer-driven world.

‘Do Dooni Chaar’ is a highly recommended family outing.

UDAAN------Unwelcome at School, and at Home, Too

A coming-of-age story, “Udaan” is an impressive debut feature by Vikramaditya Motwane that covers familiar first-film ground with emotional conviction and freshness. A kind of Indian cousin to Truffaut’s “400 Blows,” “Udaan” follows the fortunes of Rohan (the sweet-faced Rajat Barmecha), an aspiring writer whose horizons shrink when he’s kicked out of prep school. He is sent home to Jamshedpur, an industrial town in northeast India, to live with a father he hasn’t seen in years and a 6-year-old half brother, Arjun, he didn’t know he had.
More About This Movie

Rohan immediately squares off with his father (Ronit Roy), a petty tyrant who demands to be called Sir (as in, “Sir is waiting”) and thinks nothing of stomping on Rohan’s dreams or using him as a punching bag.

“Udaan,” the first Indian movie in seven years to be an official selection at Cannes (in this year’s Certain Regard category), is at its best in loose, picaresque scenes showing the restless bravado of Rohan and his going-nowhere pals as they drink, brawl and joy ride. (The opening prep-school sequence is a classic of the boys-will-be-misbehaving-boys type.)

The father-son plot — the story’s motor — is stickier, occasionally relying on contrivance to move ahead. Part of the problem is that the father is too much a fairy-tale ogre. Mr. Roy gives him a military bearing and an unbending self-righteousness (even as he drinks himself silly). But while the movie wants to suggest he’s something more than a monster, it can’t say what that might be. (Why, for example, does sentimental music run under a scene in which the father, drunk, threatens Rohan and calls him a girl?)

Still, Mr. Motwane has an ability to present melodramatic material without the Bollywood-style melodrama. He shrewdly has his actors underplay, especially Aayan Boradia, the adorable little boy who portrays Arjun. This way, Mr. Motwane knows, tears lie.

“Udaan” means “to take flight.” That’s what you wish for Rohan and Arjun. And with this film Mr. Motwane gives himself a leg up.

Armadillo-A Great movie on war

This is a documentary. As such it tries to show the reality of camp armadillo in the Afghan Helmand province. Armadillo is the most forward of the allied camps, and as such the one with the most fighting, and the least civilian work. Taleban territory is 800 meter from the camp - and peace is not something that the locals dare hope for.

Some people seam to think this movie is an argument against the war. I beg to differ. This movie simply shows us what war sometimes is: Young men, without a clue about why, leaving their tearladen family to fight in a country far away. AT great personal cost. Sometimes the greatest. Maybe - something good will come out of it, even though it can seem hopeless.

The movie shows us the different coping strategies the soldiers uses. The sense of brotherhood, the porn, the adrenalin, the dark sarcastic humor. It shows us how the soldiers doesn't always have time to ask before shooting. And it shows us how different the soldiers are.

It's a sober movie. Filmed at the front line, with images never before seen from the actual war in Afgahnistan. Beautiful camera work, sublime editing makes this a very good documentary.

EDIT: What I miss - and why I don't give it a 10: I am actually a bit surprised by what the soldiers do not say. In these circumstances I would expect a much more racist tone/humor. But there is hardly any of that. The few soldiers I have met in real life, have all had very complicated/nuanced/many faceted feelings towards the local culture: Admiration and disgust at the same time. I get the feeling that this movie have actually edited the worst lingo out of the movie. I think it would serve everyone good to know, that if a returned soldiers refer to someone as a camel-f***er - this is not always because that same soldier cant feel a deep respect for said camel-******* culture, customs, language and persona.

Also: A soldier 'snitches', and talks to his relatives back home, about a certain incident. Since everybody is talking about brotherhood in this movie, I would suspect that having a "snitch" in the brotherhood, has led to some interesting frustrations, misgivings and suspicions. This is not shown, which is disappointing.

But still: fantastic camera-work, and very sober war movie. 8/10

El laberinto del fauno(Pan's labyrinth)-

This is a movie with a simple and straightforward plot which contains layers and layers of intelligent writing, metaphors and message.

This is no small feat, interpreting fantasy as something of a product of a real world, cross-referencing how the child acts to her real surroundings and the "other world", metaphors that describe the accelerated state of growing up some of us are put through... Incredible. Simple, straightforward yet there is so much to be appreciated.

Those who are saying how it's predictable and thus not enjoyable, I ask of you, which movie nowadays aren't predictable? Hell, even 21 grams was predictable but so damned good. It's not about how it ends, you can always predict how a movie would end if you've ever taken a half-decent script writing class or have some common sense. It's always about how well you tell a story.

I'm grateful there are still directors who aren't tied down to this new epidemic of including a plot twist simply because they need a plot twist.

Pan's Labyrinth features some of the best storytelling and attention to detail without being affected by the now ever-popular opinion of cameras having to be put through several technical difficulties to make the shots eligible to be called a brilliant shot.

I am also grateful for them not dubbing it. Watching it in its' original language is much, much more rewarding even if I had to rely on the subtitles for most of the time.

This is a brilliant movie. Watch it.

127 hours-A completely cathartic life-or-death experience,Boyle and Franco turn a true survival story into a powerful statement about living

ometimes (even oftentimes) in the world of film criticism, the word "triumphant" is thrown around. It's often used to describe a film, perhaps more often a performance. I've certainly used it; it's a term I like to pull out when a film seems to go beyond the call of duty. When it's more than art, entertainment, or a combination of both. When the story, images, and characters pop off the screen and go with you, and the lasting impression left on you means something more than having killed a couple hours in a big, dark room with a bunch of strangers. Now, after watching 127 Hours, I feel I've never used "triumphant" in the correct critical context before.

James Franco's performance is simply astounding. He, as an actor, is triumphant because his character is, and because he delves into what it means to be bringing this incredible story to life on the big screen for mass consumption. This is a tough role - Franco is basically putting on a one-man show, and he does so elegantly. We feel Aron Ralston's pain because Franco feels his pain and shows it in every line of his face, verbalizes it with every sigh, and lets it control him even as he battles to take control back and find a way out of his dire situation.

It's pure, masterful art. Franco is simply flawless. Trapped by the boulder, much of his performance lies in his facial expressions, and he is able to deftly switch from desperation to comedy to a brutal will to survive, all while being barely able to move. I've rarely been so impressed by an actor's work; Franco is wholly deserving of the Oscar.

Danny Boyle's kinetic, energetic direction is a perfect match for Franco's easy-going goofiness, and even when the film becomes grounded in the narrow canyon where Ralston was trapped, Boyle always keeps things interesting. He and co-writer Simon Beaufoy weave flashbacks and hallucinations into Ralston's dilemma to great, heart-breaking effect, and the premonition that drives Ralston to finally dive whole-heartedly into amputating his own arm is breath-taking in its tenderness.

Also impressive is Enrique Chediak and Anthony Dod Mantle's cinematography. Instead of letting the confined space limit their camera techniques, they tackle every possible angle, often bringing the audience uncomfortably close to the action. Shots through the bottom of Ralston's water bottle mark time and heighten the sense of urgency. The addition of home movie-style footage brings Ralston even closer to the audience; when he expresses his delayed gratitude to his family, you'll likely find yourself thinking about the last time you told your parents how much you love them. It's a great device, and is put to best use in one of the film's funniest scenes, when Ralston interviews himself Gollum-style. The combination of the dark humor, varied cinematography, and Franco's impressive facial dexterity pitch the scene perfectly; it's a lighter moment that is nevertheless grounded in the gravity of the situation.

Complementing and combining Chediak and Mantle's beautiful shots is Jon Harris's dynamic editing. The use of split-screen is particularly brilliant, put to use in innovative ways throughout the film: the bookend sequences mark Ralston's departure from and return to society, and the technique in general represents the multiple facets of a seemingly simple tale. Yes, when it comes down to it, 127 Hours is a film about a mountain climber who gets stuck under a boulder and has to cut off his own arm. But it's so much more than that. It's about a man overcoming the physical, emotional, and intellectual strains of an unthinkable situation. It's about responsibility, love, and the will to live. Above all, it's about the triumph of the human spirit, show more clearly and beautifully here than in any other film I can think of.

DHOBI GHAT-review- A must watch flick,very mature and sensible cinema

The city of Mumbai, still called Bombay by many of its denizens, has sat for any number of memorable literary portraits, from Vikram Chandra’s Sacred Games to David Gregory Russell’s Shantaram. But Kiran Rao’s Mumbai Diaries is easily one of the most dynamic cinematic portraits of that decaying, vibrant, impossible city ever made; it treats the city itself as a character. Diaries is all the more remarkable because it’s a first feature by Rao, who has worked in the Hindi film industry but had never written or directed a film.

OK, so she has an advantage being married to Aamir Khan, one of Bollywood’s biggest stars, who is her star and co-producer here. (American audiences might remember him from the Oscar-nominated Lagaan, which he starred in and produced.) But Diaries is no vanity project; it is a fully realized art film with European sensibilities.

The story begins with a woman pointing her video camera out of a taxi into a gray city pelted with rain — we later learn she is a young Muslim bride, Yasmin (Kriti Malhotra) — and then shifts attention to introduce Hindu artist Arun (Khan), a U.S.-born Indian investment banker, Shai (Monica Dogra), on sabbatical to pursue photography; and Munna (Prateik Babbar), a poor boy with dreams of Bollywood stardom who asks Shai to shoot his head shots.

In the intersection of these four people and one city, Rao locates a host of dreams, desires, fears and tragedies with stories touching on art, photography, poverty, crime and Mumbai’s indelible sense of mystery.

Khan sensibly underplays his role, allowing his noncelebrity cast members to shine: The two female stars, each in her movie debut, are outstanding, delivering nuanced takes on class and worldview. Babbar, with charisma and chiseled looks, is a star in the making.

Cinematographer Tushar Kanti Ray uses formats ranging from Super 16mm to mini DV cam to penetrate Mumbai’s shadows, and Oscar winner Gustavo Santaolalla’s guitar-heavy score is non-Indian but a perfect fit for capturing the sad-happy mood of this tumultuous city.               

rating:4/5
Cast: Aamir Khan, Monica Dogra, Prateik Babbar, Kriti Malhotra
Writer-director: Kiran Rao
Producers: Aamir Khan, Kiran Rao

TOKYO STORY-A beautiful experience to watch

A fantastic film that belies the simplicity of its plot, Tokyo Story is the tale of a vacation gone sadly awry, with an elderly man and woman visiting from the countryside pushed to the sidelines by their busy children in the city. The younger generation (and by extension the "new" Japan) turns its back on the family from which it arose- because of selfishness, because of necessity, or because it's simply the way of the world. The movie provides no easy answers- its melancholy ambiguity is part of its charm. Whatever the case, Ozu delights in portraying the details of everyday life. The emotional resonances of this movie are extraordinary, and some shots (a child picking flowers, an old couple framed by the sea, a woman sitting forlornly at her work desk) are enough to give a sensitive film-goer the shivers. Despite the testimony of some critics, the film is not totally devoid of melodramatic elements (some stock characters and cloying musical motifs spring readily to mind), but the film is founded upon such an obvious love and respect for the importance of real-world interactions that it's hard not to be anything other than enthralled by it.

An appreciation of this movie may demand some understanding of Japanese culture. The Japanese are rather reserved, and were even more reserved back in the early 1950's, when this film is set. No embracing, even of parents, children, siblings; no dramatic histrionics; even a death scene in this movie is much quieter than a Westerner might expect.

Consequently I can't really blame several reviewers here for calling this movie boring and slow-paced. But it is not at all slow-paced from a different cultural perspective. It just depends on what you're used to.

If you do take the time to watch and try to understand it, you'll find an engrossing analysis of the dynamic of a middle-class family, the rift that grows up between generations, and of the many excuses we find ourselves making to justify our neglect for others, even those dearest to us. These themes are universal, but are couched in a postwar Japanese idiom, and so probably less accessible to the average Western viewer.

I have wondered awhile about a speech at the end by Noriko, the widowed daughter-in-law, in which she denies that she's such a good person (though her actions in the movie indicate otherwise). I'm still not sure I understand her motives in saying this. Really everone should watch this beautiful memorizing story.

DHOBI GHAT-let start this year with a great one movie

As i know,my favourite kiron, i love her dressing sense,and now she is here to present a delicate flavour,this movie has been shot in some of very congested places of mumbai,its promos are very magnetic,i m wating to that  date of january when the movie will reveal all its secrets.hope for a good surprise