The_Mighty_Warrior Reviews

Ra.One (2011)

Technology demonstrater: Bollywood's A-Bomb

[28 October 2011]

The rating I am giving to this film is 6.5/10, but as I cannot give it 6.5 on the IMDb voting system, I will give it a 7 for the importance this film holds for Bollywood, even India as a rising power in the world.

I want to make it very clear at the outset of this review, that I am not really reviewing this film. This is because RA-ONE is not a film, it is a product. As others have already noted about RA-one, it has little semblance of a plot. The film has been manufactured like a product by putting together haphazardly and shamelessly elements which will entertain and thrill for their sheer novelty value and generate maximum profit: song and dance numbers which combine American rap and Booty-popping choreography with South Indian grandiosity; Slapstick comedy which dares to push the envelope of what is acceptable in Indian films. And of course, the centerpiece of the enterprise is the VFX and action.

It is the VFX and action which is really what RA-ONE is all about. The real reason this film has been made is to make the world take Bollywood seriously: to demonstrate that it is no cottage industry, but an international mega entertainment empire that can compete with the current Juggernaut of the world: Hollywood. It has the production infrastructure, the talent and the capital to seriously challenge the hegemony of Hollywood. It is similar to India's first A bomb test, which the Indian policy makers called a 'a technology demonstrater' the real ideological message was that India is now arriving as a global power.

RA-ONE has the best technology that an Indian film has ever had, and the margin(with perhaps the exception of the Tamil ROBOT) between RA-ONE and other Indian VFX vehicles like KRRISH, ALADIN, DRONA is miles wide. This is the first foreign production that is comparable in quality and scale to huge VFX blockbusters like IRON MAN, SPIDERMAN, XMEN, MATRIX, TERMINATOR and TRON. This genre of filmmaking has been dominated by Hollywood for decades, and no other film industry in the world has been able to challenge this hegemony. RA-ONE has changed that forever. Just like Lagaan became an important milestone in modern Bollywood for quality, RA one will become an important milestone for technology. The time will not be far when quality and technology will be married by future Bollywood filmmakers, and we will see the RA- ONE film that we wanted it to be.

Kudos to Shahrukh Khan for having the courage to do this first Bollywood A-bomb test. He will be both praised and condemned the effort, but in the end just like the world finally accepted India as a global power, Bollywood will to be accepted as a global power. The gap between Bollywood and Hollywood has narrowed considerably, it is only a question of time now when not only will the gap disappear, but even the possibility of Bollywood edging ahead.

New York (2009)

Bollywood has taken the "happy ending" too far.

[2/10 · 28 June 2009]

New York is Bollywood's first mainstream film on the 9/11 issue. Fortunately, it is not a rehashed Hollywood 9/11 film, but it treats of issues specific to South Asians post 9/11. However, by the end of the film you wonder whether New York has been sponsored by the American tourism department as a PR campaign to keep Indians coming to America. A reassurance perhaps, that: "It's OK for you to come to America, if you are not a terrorist, we will love you and treat you as our equals, or maybe even better."

Before I go onto discus relatively minor issues of the technical aspects of the film-making of the film, I want to discuss the more major issues that a film on 9/11 requires deliberation on: political ideologies. As many have remarked in earlier reviews New York seem to have a confused political ideology. In the first half, you are exposed to the horrors of the Patriot act, detention centres and torture to which many South Asians, particularly those of Muslim descent were being subjected to, and how this lead to huge alienation and radical sentiments amongst the Muslim population. So you think this is a film made on the plight of these innocent people and will be critical of such policies.

In the second half,these policies are justified by blaming Muslims themselves for alienating themselves from America. Prior to this, America was a benign, secular, free and embracing democracy in which Indian students were actually not just amongst the most popular in American college campuses, but the most popular. Everyone was happy, free loving and enjoying their life. It was the fault of Muslims that all this changed.

By the end of the film, because the Muslims have rectified their ways, America loves Muslims again. So much so that the child of an actual terrorist is the most popular kid in his school. It's all free and loving again. There is even a message in the end-credits on how Obama has closed down the detention centres - now we can all live happily ever after.

Of course, many know that none of that is reality. No, America was not a completely benign, secular and free embracing democracy in which Indians enjoyed equal or even better status prior to 9/11. Nor, was it the fault of Muslims that America enacted policies like Patriot act, illegal detention and torture, and instigated wars. These policies were already in the pipelines long before 9/11. One simply has to read the policies of the Bush administration prior to 9/11 to find virtually all the post 9/11 policies contained therein.

And finally no, none of these policies have changed. If one looks at the statistics the alienation of Muslims has not decreased, but increased. The detention centres are still open and fully operational. The wars are still going on and more are being planned. Americans are still losing their civil rights by the day. And as for Obama, let alone closing Guantanamo, he has called for prolonged detention of anybody who COULD be a terrorist in the future without warrant, without trial, without evidence.

It is a given that the Bollywood formula is mostly a fantasy genre of film-making. It is not suppose to be reality, but a hyper-real reality, more vibrant and more idealistic than the real world. However, it is insulting to ones intelligence, when it transposes this formula onto serious issues like 9/11 and human rights issue. Such issues demand realism, deliberate critical and intelligent political commentary and pain streaking research. But, in "New York" we get a New York that is a montage of nothing more than perfect and idyllic shots of modernism; presenting nothing more than escapism for a developing India. We see fun, frolics and perfect relationships which seem be juxtaposed from an episode of friends. It is small wonder why Indians have such rose-tinted expectations of places like America and are in a hurry to leave India for these paradises.

The common man on the streets of New York could not relate to the fantasy New York in this film. Nor could the cultured and educated intellectual. In short to sum up the political critique of this film: the film is an outright sham.

Moving on to the more minor points of film-making. The director, Khan, has a very promising and vivid visual style, and this observation was not lost on me in his debut film, "Kabul express" The production values of this film are superlative, and this is evident from the opening credit sequence itself. It maintains its slickness throughout. However, the slickness is very self-aware and one soon tires of the endless slow motion shots and the really set-up and choreographed lighting.

The screenplay is overlong, meandering and repetitive. After a while one begins to become frustrated with too much of the same.

The first song is incredibly long, that you actually wait for it to end. This is a shame, because this is probably the best song in the film. The others are a bit lacklustre and often unnecessary.

The acting is for the most part embarrassing. While most actors are passable, the acting of Nitin Mukesh is unforgivable. One wonders if he's there just because he is white. As somebody said earlier he fumbles even the simplest scenes. His attempt at acting brings a lot of unintentional comedy in this film, which completely ruins the more sombre mood it tries to establish at times.

All up: A film which is worth missing, if you're not politically and socially illiterate.

Luck by Chance (2009)

The movie is superb: For lovers of intelligent cinema

[10/10 · 1 February 2009]

I was completely taken by surprise by this film. I wasn't planning on watching it, but I am glad I did. It is terrific. This is easily one of the best films I have seen recently. It's Bollywood at its finest. The story is an insider look at the Bollywood film industry and the struggle of actors to get noticed in Bollywood. It deals with a range of issues like casting couch, movie business, actors images, hopes and aspirations and showbiz politics. It does so in a subtle and understated manner, yet is incredibly engaging. The film is very intelligently written and the dialogues are sharp and true to life. The characters are instantly likable. They are complex and seem like they are straight out of life. The acting is brilliant from the entire cast. You will find yourself hanging onto their every word and expression.

The most noticeable aspect of this film is how sincere and understated it is. There is very little use of background music and embellishments. The film completely hinges on the superbly-written drama and acting. It's a delight to watch Farhan Akhtar, Konkona Sen Sharma act and their scenes together exude warmth and innocence.

It is difficult to believe this is Zoya Akhtar's directional debut. Her direction is flawless and technically brilliant. It seems effortless in fact. It's as if direction is natural to her as breathing. I also admire how balanced her portrayal of the Bollywood film industry is. She takes some digs at many Bollywood conventions, but never in a cynical or contemptuous way, more as acknowledging the dynamics of industry life. Giving the outsider a remarkable and clean insight on what goes on behind the scenes.

You really should see this film, especially if you enjoy intelligent cinema. This film is immensely likable for its total sincerity and innocence, personified by Farhan Akhtar's character. I would be surprised if anybody disliked it.

The Legend of Drona (2008)

This years Razzies topper!

[1/10 · 5 October 2008]

Dear Goldie, I know you or one of your agents will read these boards to get feedback on the film. So I am addressing this to you personally.

Let me summarise my personal sentiments for your film: it made me cringe, it embarrassed me, it made me laugh at it's stupidity, not a kind of good laugh, more of a laughing with disgust. I was also very bored and waiting for the film to end. Had I not been watching it with family and friends, I would have walked out.

As I am talking to a director I am going to give you feedback on each aspect your film fails on and and suggestions.

STORY: I read in your interview on how this story was so special to you. Perhaps you should have submitted your script to a script doctor before submitting to your producers. It seemed like it was your first draft It was one of the worst scripts I have had the misfortune of seeing recently and I nominate it personally for the Bollywood Razzie awards. Your whole setting is fake and unconvincing; none of your characters are developed; the story is not thought out. You know I seriously got the impression that what you did was watch a few dozen Hollywood fantasy films, pick and mix whatever you liked and made a collage, not a film.

All you did was lift the common Hollywood quest story for immortal elixir, plastered Indian names on it, and called it Indian. Riz Razada seems like a reject from a c-grade Hollywood film. Everything about him, his look, his mannerisms, his lair, his henchmen are completely foreign.

Your super hero is a moping loser. The first thought that came to my mind was when I saw your superhero was, "No, seriously, this Cinderella-man is the superhero" but I gave you a chance. I figured you were going for the loser realised hes special plot. In actual fact it turned out into the superhero with special needs plot. In the beginning he is looked after by a flower petal! He is saved by a woman who has more testoterone than him; in the later parts he turns into a mommy's boy who gets walked over left, right and centre and in the end he get killed - oh and then saved by a dues-ex-machine with him suddenly coming alive again despite being impaled by a sword.

Your superhero was pathetic. A passive pushover that just grunts and makes ugly faces, and to make matters worse looks absolutely ridiculous in his costume, displaying Mr Bachchan in the most unflattering light. He never actually earns any credit as a hero - let alone a superhero.

DIRECTION: If your screenplay deserves a Razzie, so does your direction. You totally destroyed the film.

The excessive and monotonous use of slow motion. It became so frequent it was predictable. Every time the hero appears, cue slow motion and take several shots from every angle of the hero posing with his sword raised making angry faces(which is what the hero ever did) Tacky costumes and sets rejected from a Hollywood film. I don't think you even thought about how UGLY and fake the sets and the costumes looked. They were also very boring and empty. I wondered where were the people in your film, and when you had people such as Rizada's fans, you made them look ridiculous too. Then we also the ridiculous Gandalf-caricature in the end. I know what you were thinking, because it is a fantasy film you can go all-out with the bizarre, but this just betrays what an amateur you are. A fantasy film is not an excuse to make everything look ridiculous. That only reveals your lack of thought that went into making film.

SPECIAL EFFECTS: The special effects are as crude and underdeveloped as everything else in your film. You should have at least got this right, this was your trump card. At least you could have won the tag, "Great special effects, awful film" instead you win the tag, "tacky special effects, awful film" What is worse that despite having such tacky effects you flaunt them. The beginning with Rizada cloning himself looked like it was from an 80's film. The electricity effects looked laughably out of date. Perhaps you should have consulted the SFX technicians on the other Bollywood turkey Love Story 2050, they at least got the electricity effects to decent standards.

The car-chase scene with some cut-in shots of a CGI car looked like they were from an older racing computer game.

The particle effects looked like they were the test version of The Mummy. The sand storm faces in particular were very crude.

Other graphics look decidedly video-game graphics.

You said the special effects had been in post-production for a year and you hired Hollywood technicians. Then why do you such sub-standard results? Did you lack the budget, the experience, the software? Somebody is going to have to explain why the effects were so substandard. Again, why did you have to lift special effects? What is wrong filmmakers of your ilk?

SONGS: I am not going to say too much, they are like everything in your film, awful and misfits.

ACTING: Well, you might have actually destroyed Abhishek Bachchan and Kay and Kay's acting career

In short Golide, don't be surprised if you are nominated and win for nearly every category at the Bollywood Razzies this year. A really pathetic film that would have been rejected by virtually every Hollywood producer even at the script stage. Bollywood producers are going to have become more discerning. Nobody wants to watch such rubbish. I doubt you will get funds for a sequel, this franchise is not going anywhere.

Apne (2007)

BIG it up for the Deols!

[8/10 · 29 June 2007]

Apne is the best boxing film Indian cinema has ever seen. However, as boxing films are rare in Indian cinema -I can only think of the Mithun starrer Boxer and Sohail Khan's Aryan: The unbreakable - that probably doesn't mean much to you. So let me say that Apne is one of the best sports film ever made in India. Still a rare genre in Indian cinema, but it's saying something if we consider the likes of Lagaan, Iqbal and Naya Daur.

But I will not kid you: Apne is definitely not the Lagaan of boxing. Anil Sharmas direction is far too unrestrained and sophomoric to compare to Ashutosh Gowarikers more controlled and sophisticated direction. Its screenplay is too sluggish and overextended to match the fluidic pace of Lagaan, which even at 3 hours 45 min, felt like a breeze. Himesh Reshamiya songs are not even worth the dirt in Lagaan. So what makes this a good film, nay, even near great sometimes? Because there are bursts of brilliance, and when they come, their waves take you in their tide and exhilarate you. Then you come crashing back down again, irritated with the blatant emotional manipulation and the repeating title track, ready to murder the person you came with, because you just cannot bear it anymore --- Then comes another tide and you're riding the high-wave again!

So when do the tides start coming in? After a drawn out first half and a very slow start, with almost endless crying/sentimental scenes, where the characters are not even established yet, but we are expected to emphasise with their deep sorrow, and just for good measure loads of dramatic music and repetition of "Apne, Apne hote hain" to drive the point home; ff there was anyone crying at this point, it was probably because they wanted it to stop! As let up, we have some very contrived comedy, from one of the laughter champion zelebs, which is not far removed from the stand-up routine we see on television. But this ceases as we progress to the second half, into the bread and butter of the film --- BOXING! Pure, unadulterated, BOXING MANIA!

The boxing scenes are so good, that they alone are worth the price of the ticket. If you have seen legendary fights, then expect to see some of the greatest fights ever on the screen. This is not predictable sports film sports scenes, it's full of twists, edge of your seat action, drama, powerful performances and story intrigue. The action is so realistic, that if you are faint hearted, you will flinch and cover your face, otherwise, may cheer loudly. They are going to go wild in India with these scenes. Even here in the UK, some people were loudly cheering in the audience and each blow sent shock-waves throughout the audience.

The credit goes to the stunning choreography, the machine-gun editing, the brilliant visual effects, the bombastic sound effects and the atmosphere the crew have created with mass-crowds chanting and the very authentic ring and auditorium. These are MUST-SEE fights.

And what takes it to a level outside of the stratosphere are the brilliant performances by the Deols. Their performances, especially Dharmendra and Sunny Deol make the audience berserk. And then enter Lucia Garcia in the end, and you are in for a launch into orbit. I think this is the first Bollywood film with a black-person in a substantial role, and kudos to the casting agent for choosing such a fine actor and creating a proper character for him, with some absolutely terrific dialogues. It almost feels like they enlisted a huge Hollywood actor to match acting with the Deols.

What really takes your heart is the inherent patriotism in the film. This is definitely a film made to excite the Indian crowds. The Punjabi flavour and the fragrance of the fields of the India only adds to the patriotic feel. This is a Deol film to the core, but leagues ahead of their other films, and this time with patriotism that you can ride from the beginning to the end. It's this patriotic fervour that makes you want to get up and cheer and scream at the top of your voice. I would be shocked if this film is not a raging success in India. For me, despite the flaws, this is the best film of the year

Krrish (2006)

A critique of the criticisms

[10/10 · 4 July 2006]

I have been lurking on this section for some time now, with a few raised eyebrows at some of the comments that have been passed here. I think some are just wholly unjustified and inaccurate.

I have seen Krrish twice now. It is an unabashed popcorn entertainer. You're typical Hollywood special effects summer blockbuster, only that it has a unique Indian soul and the quintessential Bollywood elements. It is an accomplished blend of Indian popular storytelling , western technology and Asian action and it's historic success in India, proves how successful this fusion is.

Surprisingly, unlike most Hollywood film, where technology and action takes precedence, here special effects are minimally and virtuously(often seamlessly) used and most of the emphasis is on the emotional journey of the protagonist, who is reborn as the superhero, only towards the end, shifting to sci-fi action and concluding in a mesmerising ground-air-sea helicopter chase sequence, supported by an awesome and adrenaline-pumping background score.

Now I am going to deal with the common issues made against Krissh:

1. Action and special effects do not compare to Hollywood standards.

You really do need to define what Hollywood standards are. I have seen many big budget Hollywood special effects extravaganzas and the quality of special effects are variable; they range from good to bad; from shot to shot and from film to film.

Krrish is nothing below "Hollywood standards" It has effects work that is on par or better than some Hollywood films, and less than some. What matters most, is do they work on their own terms, and given that masses of people, including international critics have appreciated them, means an emphatic yes.

2. The techniques, effects and stunts are borrowed and/or plagiarised from Hollywood and Asian films; such as Crouching Tiger, House of flying daggers,Paycheck, Matrix.

First of all, it would make sense that special effects techniques have been repeated from Hollywood, because the special effects supervisors - are from Hollywood.

It would make sense that the stunts and martial arts have been repeated from Asian films, because the stunt choreographer - is from Hong Kong.

Secondly, techniques are invented to be reused. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

A filmmaker has at his utility an entire tool-kit of established techniques. It is how he uses them to actualise his vision that creates originality. In that respect, Rakesh Roshan is not a hack, because while he borrows techniques, he tailors them to his unique vision and lends them an originality of their own.

The stunts and action scenes have been designed according to Krrish's character and his own quirks, abilities and idiosyncrasies.

In particular, the final ground-air-sea helicopter chase sequence and the shot where Krrish uses the fountain jet to catapult him(awesome shot) into the air has never been done before. The anime-inspired fight sequence on the island is another spark of creativity. The initial sequence of him running to catch the glider is another very original sequence. Ditto for the Circus fire scene.

3. Krrish is a mundane love story, comedy and drama for most of the film. Not enough superhero elements.

When I watched Krrish the first time, I too echoed the same sentiments. I wanted to see more action scenes and superhero elements, not the usual run of the mill romantic comedy. I was disappointed. Then when I watched it the second time, this time without expecting a superhero film, I realised it's not suppose to be a superhero film; it is the beginning of a superhero

4. Krrish is a hybrid of other superheros films and copies plot elements.

Superhero films are quite a predictable genre and share many similarities. They are the classic tale of good vs evil, where the hero is super-good and the villain is super-evil(often a megalomaniac with designs to take over the world) and the film builds to the final face-off, where good will invariably triumph. Superman follows the exactly the same story arc; so does Batman; so does Spiderman; and yes, so does Krrish.

Another similarity is that the superhero-ego will often be incognito and not reveal their true identity, except to a select few. You see this in Superman; Spiderman and Batman; so, you also see it in Krrish. Again, because the superhero is mysterious, they become the talk of the world and the the press become obsessed with them and in unveiling their identity. You see this in Superman; Spiderman and Batman; so you see it in Krrish.

Krrish is as original and unoriginal as any superhero film. If you can accept that Superman is not a copy of Spiderman and Spiderman is not a copy of Batman. Then you should be able to accept that Krrish is not a copy of either of them and stands as an original work.

5. Krrish is just the usual Bollywood potboiler, with songs and dances, comedy, melodrama and colours.

So are 99.9% of Bollywood films. This is the unique Bollywood identity and film-making heritage and make no mistake about it, Krrish is an all-out Bollywood film, made for mass consumption by Bollywood fans.

Krrish is a very commendable and well-made film, an all out-entertainer, with plenty of cool action and special effects, but with it's heart in it's story of Krishna becoming Krrish(played admirably by Hrithik Roshan) It's also a historic milestone in Indian film-making, and will be to Indian cinema, what Superman was to American cinema. Expect the sequel to even bigger.

An impressive and world-class entry by Bollywood to the fantastic world of sci-fi and fantasy. I look forward to more such films from Bollywood. In fact, as I write , another Bollywood director is in the preproduction phase of a big budget futuristic sci-fi romance set in 2050 India, and not an ordinary love story, it's the love story between a robot and a human!

Mangal Pandey (2005)

Falls into mediocrity, but good in parts

[6/10 · 14 August 2005]

Mangal Pandey, a tale of one disenchanted sepoy serving in Great Britain's imperial East India company, becomes India's voice of freedom and leads the country into rebellion against their masters, almost bringing them to their knees, surely would make for an epic and thunderous film with universal resonance IF supported by a good script and good direction. However, what does it make, when you have a scriptwriter and director who want to wrap up the entire pathos of Victorian India from philosophy, economics, religion, politics, culture, alongside themes of friendship, love and betrayal with a sprinkling of song and dance in a single two and a half hour film? You get a film that is no longer about Mangal Pandey, in fact, really not about anything at all.

Mangal Pandey suffers a painful death with helmers director Ketan Mehta and screenwriter Farrukh Dhondy; more so Mr Dhondy, who earlier shared writing credits for the also badly written Subhash Ghai's "Kisna the warrior poet" The script has been so badly composed that it belies belief that a big production house would spend so lavishly in getting it shot. Dhondy overloads his story with subplots which cover everything from arguments on capitalism, opium trade, religion and caste system to love stories between the leads Mangal Pandey(Aamir Khan) and Gordon Cooper(Toby Stephens) and everything is hopelessly underdeveloped and brushed over, and worse, the stories are all disconnected and incongruous. There is no transition between scenes and if there is - it's jarring. But nothing can be anymore JARRING than the songs, composed by music maestro A.R.Rehman and amongst his worst soundtracks to date. Bollywood is infamous for forcing songs into a plot and Rising has to be one of the worst offences I've ever seen in a Bollywood production. This really is the quintessential song in Switzerland routine except with period clothing. The songs are placed almost arbitrarily into the story for what seems like nothing more than novelty value. It's almost a case of, "Hey, forget the film for a while, watch this song" and even the songs end very abruptly.

It seems as if Mehta has made three movies (all of them underdeveloped) and intercuts between them: The English movie (Gorden Cooper's moral and ethical struggle with the East India company, it's Opium trade and tyranny) and Indian movie(Mangal Pandey, the villagers - their gossip and customs and struggle for freedom) and finally the Music Video movie(a series of lavishly mounted music videos) Individually, they are well done, some scenes are extraordinary and could give you goose bumps, but without there being any transition and story continuity between them and the glue to marry the scenes together, you are never quite immersed in the film or the characters; you are always kept at a distance.

Technically the pic is good, with just a few technical hangups. The cinematography is good, but there is nothing visually spectacular about the film despite it's epic canvas. The film has largely been composed in static sweeping wide-screen shots that reminisce the tradition of Hollywood classics like Lawrence of Arabia, but they fail to impress and few of the shots are poorly focused. The film also suffers from a few dropped frames on rare occasions that register as flashes on the screen, which is a minor issue, but undermines it's professionalism. There are also a few scenes with special effects which are at best satisfactory as they are too blurry. The film does score on the bombastic sound effects and background scores. It was more of sound feast than a visual feast for myself.

There are a few extraordinary battle scenes that have been very well-done.

Aamir Khan's performance is as his usual brilliant, but Ketan Mehta does not give him ample screen time to truly make an impression like he did in Lagaan. The picture only turns it's focus on Mangal Pandey in the second act. However, the character of Mangal Pandey itself is very sketchy and lacks heoric dimension. Even the actual revolt that closes this film is organizied andlead by another character called Bhakt Khan and Mangal Pandey just plays second fiddle. Toby Stephen, the Die Another Day villain as Gordon Copper provides good support to Aamir. Rani Mukherjee(Heera) and Amisha Patel(Jwala) as the love interests have nothing much to do.

There are some scenes that are brilliantly done, especially the rousing climax. Unfortunately, that cannot save this film from the mediocrity it falls into as a whole due to poor writing and uninspiring direction. It was a colossal disappointment for myself, but it is by no means unwatchable and in parts good. I do recommend watching it, but don't expect a classic, it's anything but.

A Tale of Two Sisters (2003)

Very confusing, boring and not scary at all

[3/10 · 29 July 2005]

I've finally seen my first South Korean movie, and that is "A Tale of Two Sisters" because of the rave reviews it was getting. I was also told it was a very scary movie, and I really enjoy a good horror. To say the least I am disappointed and found it very confusing and very boring.

I'm afraid I will have to disagree with most people here calling this film a masterpiece; I wouldn't even call it a good film. This was my first time watching a South Korean movie. I generally don't have a problem with subtitles, but seeing as most of of this film is based on visuals, I don't think the subtitles were a hindrance to my understanding the film. What was a hindrance to understanding the film, was the meandering screenplay, which could not quite decide what it wanted to be; a horror; thriller; psychological drama or mystery? The story is very difficult to follow because of the numerous inconsistencies in plot, especially after the big reveal near the end. It's a lot like those films that suddenly become a dream of some character by the end, and all inconsistencies and illogicality's are therefore okay - because it's a DREAM.

As with with quite a few people here, I too had to log on here immediately after watching the film, just to understand what it was all about. That is not a hallmark of good cinema, if people have to seek external sources outside of a film to understand it, or watch it again more attentively.

I watched this very long and dragged out film, only to come out not knowing what it was about. The director, Ji-woon Kim knows how to create tension but does not know how to relieve tension, and does not know that tension should be punctuated periodically by non-tension, or viewers concentration begins to diminish and it becomes monotonous. Throughout this very long film the movie has the semblance of sadness, resent, darkness, impending doom and an emotional arc is in-absentia. From the very beginning the dark and gloomy atmosphere, obviously designed to unsettle the viewers, begins, for something as trivial as the young girl walking into her bedroom. Nothing happens, of course. So why the build up of tension? It would seem the director is trying to create an atmospheric horror, and horror, like comedy, is quite a difficult genre to do, because it's requires precise timing and a firm handle on creating tension and manipulating fear. There is only one scene in the entire film that was successful in doing that, and was just about the only scare I got and it was simply a hand appearing underneath a cupboard. If done properly, even something this small can scare. Otherwise, Ji-woon invariably fails in every scene.

Ji-Woon's direction style generally lacks imagination and vision. He seems to have a very limited vocabulary of shots and over-uses them. There are too many lingering long and shallow focus shots and the camera is static most of the times. This just adds to the monotony of watching the film. The photography is perhaps one of the weakest aspects of this film(as opposed to those saying it's beautiful) it just doesn't enthral, excite or impress and seems pedestrian. Having said that the lighting during the family dinner scenes is exquisite; seems somewhat inspired by American beauty(also framed similarly)

As my first ever South Korean movie this has been quite a disappointment. Hopefully, someone can recommend a good South Korean film that is idiosyncratic of Korean culture. A Tale Of Two sisters generally felt like an average good quality television horror movie, only in a different language.

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

Powerful and visually arresting filmaking

[10/10 · 15 July 2005]

A shocking, brutal, grim and harrowing account of the horrors of drug addiction, told through the parallel stories of four main characters: Sarah, A lonely, widowed, overweight and TV obsessed mother, ruing her present, takes to overdosing on prescription weight loss pills to fit in her old red dress she wants to wear when she appears on her favourite television show, she expects to be on. Her son, Harry and his girlfriend, Marion, along with their friend Tyrone get involved in underground narcotic dealings to make money and start their own business, take to use of cocaine themselves. While, Marion prostitutes her body and sells her soul to get Harry the money he needs to start up so she can ultimately settle down with him and live a dignified life. Each take to drugs as a means to fulfilling their dreams, but their dreams quickly turn into nightmares as their addictions spiral out of control and destroy them in the most electrifying climax ever seen on celluloid.

The performances are brilliant from all of the actors, with a special mention to Ellen Burstyn's(Sarah) absolutely phenomenal performance, her story is the most riveting. The cinematography is stunning and the background score is brilliant. The real star of the show is the director, Darren Aronofsky, who gives this movie a very unique, gritty, surreal and kinetic style. He's up there with Tarantino in terms of editing.

I do have a minor criticism, mainly being that some of the shot were a little too repetitive and the first half was not very engrossing for me. It is the climax that really takes this movie to another level. It left me completely breathless and on the edge of my seat and I could feel surges of energy travelling up my body. Yes, it was that powerful! I strongly recommend this film, particularly to film students, and especially to those who do drugs themselves. The realism of the horrific fates that befall the characters in this movie, might get you to think of the real and life-harming possibilities of drug abuse.