RottenTomatoes.com
RT Login
  • Home
  • Movies
  • DVD
  • Celebrities
  • News
  • Critics
  • Trailers & Pictures
  • CommunityBeta
  • Existing RT Member?
  • Groups
  • | Forums

    A. Khan Last Login: 5/11/13

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/member/akhan41
    • Summary
    • | Ratings
    • | Reviews
    • | Lists
    • |
    • Blogs
    • | Friends
    • |Quotes
    A. Khan
    • Square
    See All Pictures

    PROFILE STATS

    Total Profile Views:
    6372
    Profile Views Last 7 Days:
    10

    ABOUT

    Member Since
    November 2004
    Current Location
    That's for me to know, and you to find out.
    Hometown
    20,000 Leagues Under The Sea
    Movie Character You Most Identify With
    Gort, The Giant Robot From THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (1951, Robert Wise)
    Favorite Line From A Movie
    "Shit!" - I can't remember which movie that's from.
    Favorite Scene From A Movie
    The end credits to AMADEUS (Milos Forman, 1984)
    Favorite Movie
    Big Wet Titties Vol. 2
    Favorite Actor
    Yoda
    Favorite Director
    Alan Smithee
    Celebrity Crush
    Vern Troyer
    Favorite Genre
    Mexican Wrestling Horror
    Favorite Critic
    My Sister
    Best Movie Seat
    front
    Favorite Movie Watching Snack
    BRAINS!
    Favorite Movie Watching Drink
    Water
    When I'm not watching movies, I'm...
    Playing with myself.
    Fresh or Rotten
    Rotten

    BLOG ENTRIES

    • Create a new blog entry
     
     
    First | Previous | 1 | 2 | Next | Last
    Showing 1 - 10 of 13 Movie Blogs
    Blogs Table
    Good-Bye Roger Ebert

    Posted on 04/05/13 07:57 PM | Last edited on 04/05/13 07:57 PM

    Mood:
    Sad


    It can be said that the five greatest influences on who I am as a person are my mother, my father, my sister, Gene Siskel, and Roger Ebert.



     



    I discovered Siskel and Ebert as a kid, growing up in Chicago, from their television show, which at that time was still called “Sneak Previews”, if memory serves. Since at that point I really had no idea what life was about and where I was going to end up, I just took them as most people did – the fat guy and the old guy who reviewed movies on TV. I didn't know they were from Chicago (like me), that Roger went to the University of Illinois (like I would), or that one day I would grow to love movies as much as they did. At that point, I just liked listening to them talk, as much as I liked listening to my father talk, and as much as I love listening to smart people talk to this day. I didn't know that the vast majority of the American public don't like listening to smart people talk, or smart people in general, and that one day they would dislike me for being smart and talkative too. I just knew that he and Gene Siskel talked about movies on TV.



     



    But I kept watching. Off and on at first, but by the time I was a teenager, I knew exactly when it was on (Sundays at 6:30p on ABC), and listening to those two smart guys talk taught me two things: 1) that I really loved the movies, and that 2) I wanted to move to California to make movies that they might talk about.



     



    Now obviously, I never achieved the second one, though I write this from California now, in a room full of my crap that's being put in storage so I can return to Chicago briefly and then work my butt off to get back here. But the first one never went away, and I've been talking about movies ever since. And as soon as the Internet gave me the ability to, I started reviewing them as well (just like he did). Nobody paid me to, but then, nobody paid me to write anything until I was much older. And while I never reached the heights that Roger Ebert did, I found that by emulating him, and writing about the movies that I saw, I began to enjoy them more and more. And I understood why he did what he did.



     



    See, anybody can like anything. I had a discussion with one of my best friends about music a week ago, in which he declared that most people just like the songs they like or listen to the albums they listen to just because. That there's no explanation, and they're not looking for one either. I can't say there's anything wrong with that. But once I started writing about the movies I saw, first as a student at Roger Ebert's University of Illinois at Urbana-Champain, and then later in my own movie blog, I found that by having to articulate /why/ I liked something, I got much more out of it. I really saw how all of the pieces worked together. I better appreciated how much hard work the people making movies put into them – as much work as I put into writing anything, as much as Michael Jordan put into becoming the greatest basketball player ever; as much as Michael Jackson (another hero of mine) put into being the biggest pop star of all time. Making movies, like doing any creative endeavor, is really hard work, but if you take the time to understand and appreciate that work, and try to figure out where it came from, you get so much more out of it. And if you're lucky, you can do it too.



     



    I would never have won a trip to Washington DC for writing an essay when I was a teenager if I didn't listen to Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel talk about stuff. Never. Why? Because I wouldn't have believed that my opinion counted for anything. I never would have gotten letters printed in comic books, sold a comic book story that got published, written articles for magazines, worked for, or even knew or cared who Jim Cameron was if not for Roger Ebert. I wouldn't have a credit on a television show. I wouldn't have graduated with honors from Undergrad. None of the achievements that I am proudest of would have happened if Roger Ebert hadn't taught me that you can have an opinion on something, express it well, and people will care. Do they always? No. Count how many people hated Siskel and Ebert. But enough of them do to make those of us who learn the lesson feel good enough about ourselves to try to express how we feel about the things we care about. And sometimes, it even has a good result.



     



    And it's not just me that Roger affected. My sister is a killer critic too, and a much better writer than I am. She is very successful at her job that has allowed her to travel the world on the government's dime, and make a lot of money. She got there because her first job was writing grant proposals for a not-for- profit, or as she put it, “writing a letter so well that people will just give you money.” Would she have done any of that if she and I weren't constantly talking about things the way Siskel a Ebert talked about them? And would we have talked about them at all without Roger Ebert?



     



    To say I will miss Roger Ebert doesn't even begin to define it. I was constantly pushing him on Twitter to find a way to bring his last show (“Ebert Presents At The Movies” on PBS) back, giving him suggestions on ways he could get it done, feeling confident that he might listen because he taught me that my opinion, or the opinion of any smart person, mattered. Fuck the haters. If you feel strongly about something, say it. Because the more you do, the more people might listen. It takes discretion, it takes practice, but at the end of the day, it matters because you do. And it might change people's minds eventually too.



     



    Good-bye Roger. You affected more people in more ways than you can possibly ever know. I will never forget you.



     

    0 Comments | Send This | Bookmark and Share

    Movies Are In The Crapper, The Music Biz Is Losnig Money, Economy Sucks - Why Is TV So Damn Good?!

    Posted on 11/06/11 08:25 PM | Last edited on 11/06/11 08:25 PM

    Mood:
    Confused


    This fall season, I have liked, no, loved every new show I've seen except "Up All Night".  I've liked the shows that have been /cancelled/.  Whenever I try a new cable show, I love it.  Movies suck, music blows - why is TV so damn good?



    I honestly don't have an answer. And since I don't, I will have to revisit this, or maybe turn this entry into a list of new shows I like and why.  Have to think about this...

    0 Comments | Send This | Bookmark and Share

    THE HARIMAYA BRIDGE (Aaron Woolfolk, 2010)

    Posted on 02/17/10 10:53 PM | Last edited on 02/17/10 10:53 PM

    *sigh* I so wish Hollywood was /capable/ of making movies like this.

    THE HARIMAYA BRIDGE is a sweet little movie in which an older man (Ben Guillory) decides to honor the memory of his late artist son by exhibiting all of his son's paintings. There are only two problems with this plan: 1) he painted all of his pictures while living in Japan, estranged from his father, and it turns out that he even had a Japanese wife, which his father knew nothing about. For dad, this is especially heinous because /his/ father was tortured in a Japanese POW camp during World War II. But now he must journey there to retrieve his son's work if he wants to display it. And so he does.

    He's met in Japan by a representative of the school his son worked for (Misa Shimizu), who becomes his tour guide through a culture he despises, and when this movie set up, I immediately assumed it would be a typical "racist comes to terms with his son's death and his racism via the charm of a journey through a foreign land." And it was. (What? I'm nothing if not honest.) But as I'm sure I've said many times before, there's nothing wrong with genre works or genre cliches if they're done well, and while THE HARIMAYA BRIDGE feels familiar in places, it's unique in that it's a movie about an African American family in Japan, and is handled with such a sweet and moving touch that I couldn't help but get swept up in it. It's a relatively simple story, but the chacaters are well-developed, so you really care about them in spite of language and cultural barriers (this movie has dual subtitles - the Japanese lines are translated into English, and vice versa). There is a twist in the story that's a bit tame, but moving nonetheless. It's like an Ang Lee film, though less visual, although the beautiful depictions of the rural Japanese countryside by its veteran Japanese cinematographer are truly impressive. It's a good looking movie, well acted and well written, and I really dug it.

    And if I can wax philsophical for a second, seeing this movie so soon after MY NAME IS KHAN (Karan Johar, 2010) really made me feel good about the human condition. I have been aware, for several years now, that we really are living in, as Tavis Smiley would put it, "the must multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial America ever," and it's slowly starting to work out. Not only do we have a Black President, but I see things like Jake's Black girlfriend in "Two And a Half Men" all the time these days. Both this film and KHAN cross cultures - KHAN is an Indian film made in America, distributed by an American distributor (Fox Searchlight), while HARIMAYA is an American movie made in Japan, with a dual American and Japanese release (it starts its run on the art house circuit here on March 26th). Their subject matter, again, is about the crossing of cultures - KHAN is about a Muslim guy who marries a Hindu girl in America, and ends up making his mark on American society by helping out an African American family. HARIMAYA is about a Black man falling in love with a Japanese girl in Japan and being lauded as a great artist and teacher there. I'm not so naive as to say these things could easily happen in real life, I'm saying that the fact that people make films about them like it's no big deal on the regular now is an excellent sign. Remember, you're talking to a person whose whole family is Indian and yet has no Indian traits except his physical appearance and name. I was born and raised here, and have always considered myself American. My last girlfriend was half Black and half white. I was raised Muslim; she was raised Jewish. And for all of our problems, that was never one of them. We never thought twice about it.

    Mainstream media is always the last to reflect major cultural change, but with the proliferation of films like this (SLUM DOG MILLIONAIRE (Danny Boyle, 2009) was also one of the big hits of last year), I feel that things really are changing for the better. I really think we may someday soon have an America that is as good as its promise. And for all of the great filmmaking qualities this movie and films like it have, that may be the greatest one of all.

    0 Comments | Send This | Bookmark and Share

    DON'T YOU FORGET ABOUT ME (Matt Austin, 2009)

    Posted on 01/18/10 04:33 PM | Last edited on 01/18/10 04:33 PM

    This is a pretty bad film about a pretty good filmmaker.

    DON’T YOU FORGET ABOUT ME (2009, Matt Austin) is basically a bunch of talking heads about John Hughes’s teen movies. Not including John Hughes, mind you, because he, like Anthony Michael Hall, Matthew Broderick, Jon Crier, and Molly Ringwald, is conspicuously absent from this film (red flag, people). It’s /supposed/ to be about a bunch of documentary filmmakers’ quest to find and interview John Hughes. But it’s not.

    Okay, first let’s interject my biases into this. I myself have wondered, for years, whatever became of John Hughes and what he thought of his work. ALL of his work – not just his teen pics! Honestly, these people don’t /deserve/ to find John Hughes, because as far as they’re concerned, the man is some God of the teen movie who could do no wrong. Yet I can find fault with all of his teen movies (with the exception of FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF, 1986), including those he didn’t direct himself, which these filmmakers seem either unaware of or not to care about. To them, if it’s a teen movie and John Hughes had anything to do with it, it’s gold, and it’s what Hughes is all about. But he may not have been.

    My all-time favorite John Hughes film is the much-maligned UNCLE BUCK (1989), wherein Hughes finally grows up, and tells a story from the prospective of the adult, a father figure. It’s also a film where he works with John Candy, who IMO is as much a creation of Hughes as Molly Ringwald or Anthony Michael Hall. Roger Ebert participates in this film, and I’m pretty sure that /his/ favorite Hughes film is PLANES, TRAINS, and AUTOMOBILES (1987). And finally, I hate to tell you this, Hughes fanatics, but Hughes’s actual most successful film, bar none, was the vapid HOME ALONE (1990). I’ve always believed that the reason Hughes retired is that he made so much money off that movie that he knew that he wouldn’t be able to top it, commercially, and frankly, didn’t have to. Just as most music fans can’t let an artist go beyond his / her most popular period, it seems that John Hughes’s fans refuse to see the whole John Hughes. I can see how annoying this would be.

    But that’s enough about Hughes himself. Let’s talk about this vapid movie. The filmmakers themselves tell us, in the beginning, why it’s doomed to failure: this wasn’t the original film they set out to make. They were writing a comedy that was an homage to John Hughes. Then they decided to turn it into a film about some filmmakers trying to get a teen movie made and get John Hughes to help them (I can already imagine the planned climax of that film, where Hughes himself appears). Finally, they realized what they really wanted to do was a documentary about finding John Hughes and finally asking him everything we’ve always wanted to ask him. So they started on that journey, and guess what? Well, I don’t think I have to tell you the ending because right now FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF is on my Netflix queue because it supposedly has commentary by Hughes, which I myself have been looking for my whole life. But I’m not optimistic. John Hughes disappeared from public life for a reason that we all will probably never know (although if a biographer decided to find out and write a book about it, I’m sure it’d be a bestseller), and that probably has little to nothing to do with filmmaking, ala Marlon Brando or Dean Martin. Discovering that the hard way, these filmmakers chose to interview tons of people who’d known or worked with Hughes because they had nothing else, with the exception, again, of the four people we’d most want to hear from (who have not participated in any other Hughes tribute either, except to give comments after his passing). As a result, this movie, like its ending, is ultimately unsatisfying (I can just hear a friend of mine getting to the end of it and saying, “rank!”). The lack of insight that the filmmakers have about Hughes, and about documentary filmmaking in general, is probably why. This movie is interesting just to hear from all of these people, but as a documentary film, it ain’t much. You’re better off just renting a John Hughes film.

    0 Comments | Send This | Bookmark and Share

    BLADES OF GLORY (Josh Gordon / Will Speck, 2007)

    Posted on 04/02/07 11:03 PM | Last edited on 04/02/07 10:30 PM

    Well, it's not as good as an Adam McKay Will Ferrell movie, but that doesn't really matter.

    In Blades of Glory, Will Ferrell is actually second banana, playing Chazz Michael Michaels, the flamboyant "bad boy" of figure skating who gets stripped of his career when he runs afoul skating prodigy Jimmy MacElroy (John Heder). The two of them fight at the presentation ceremony for an Olympic gold medal and get banned from skating, until Jimmy's stalker (don't ask, Nick Swardson) points out that he's banned from singles competition, but not pairs. Since Jimmy's life went downhill quickly after he stopped skating, he's so desperate to return that he joins forces with his old enemy Chazz to compete. Chazz is an equal loser, and while he doesn't exactly jump at the chance, he's along for the ride. This runs afoul couples skating darlings Stranz and Fairchild Von Waldenberg (Will Arnett and Amy Poehler), so they send their younger sister (Jenna Fischer) to seduce sex-addict Michaels, but she ends up falling for Jimmy. So as the Van Waldenbergs struggle to sabotage Jimmy and Chazz, who struggle to win the Olympics, and Katie (Fischer) and Jimmy struggle with their forbidden love, hilarity, as expected, ensues. And I was entertained.

    I didn't laugh as hard as I've laughed in Anchorman (Adam McKay, 2004) or Talladega Nights (Adam McKay, 2006), but I laughed frequently enough and had enough fun to recommend this movie. I give it a perfect score because I can't really pinpoint that lack of hilarity except to say that the humor was slightly more restrained than it would be in a true Adam McKay Will Ferrell movie. The thing is, despite Ferrell getting top billing, it really is Jimmy's story, so it's not exactly the same kind of film. I don't know what role Ferrell played in its production, but it feels more like he's a character in somebody else's movie, while in McKay's movies, it's the two of them making a movie that Ferrell just happens to star in. It tries to give Ferrell fans that kind of cartoonish-ness, and that's why I liked it so much, but it's not his film, really. He's just the funniest guy in it (like Steve Carrell could be argued as in Anchorman or Sacha Baron Cohen could argue for Talladega Nights).

    And he is really funny, because, as I've said before, Will Ferrell is in his prime right now. He can do no wrong. He could star in a bad movie and probably still make it funny. But he's not the only funny guy here. Amy Pohler and Will Arnett are pretty good too. And while they're not necessarily in comedic roles, Jenna Fischer, Craig T. Nelson, and Romany Malco all give solid performances too. John Heder is adequate, which may be a problemf or him going forward, but it works fairly well in this movie. All in all, a fun film, great, colorful production design, music, etc.

    And since this is my review, let me have some fun of my own and make some external observations that occurred to me while watching Blades of Glory. First of all, what's great about it is how it serves as a subtle commentary on modern day sports. Like "The Simpsons" episode with "Furious D," it points out that Americans love the flamboyant maverick, whether he belongs in any sport. Venus and Sarena Williams, Florence Griffith-Joyner's leggings, Michael Vick, Dennis Rodman, Andre Agassi, Anna Kournikovic - if they're somehow different from everybody else who plays, they will be popular even if they're average or suck. And as a result, will also be far more successful than they really deserve to be. Chazz Michael Michaels has skills, but wins competitions because of his personality and celebrity. That's what the American culture wants, and the sports industry will feed. That's depicted pretty accurately here.

    What's also pretty accurate, to me, is how much of women's appearance is in presentation - read: clothes, hair, and makeup. The sexpot of this movie is Jenna Fischer, who is a pretty girl, but looks rather plain and ordinary, if cute, on "The Office." One would never watch that show and think of her as an object of desire. But here, with her hair and makeup set just right, she's gorgeous. A ten. Another Angelina Jolie leading lady type. It's not only an amazing transformation, but it's the reason why I encourage all men to look for personality in our mates. For all you know, she could be nothing under all that presentation, so choose somebody you'd want to be with even when she's old and gray.

    And that's pretty much all there is to say about this film. It's good, it's funny, it's Will Ferrell - how could you miss?

    0 Comments | Send This | Bookmark and Share

    OPEN WATER (Chris Kentis, 2003)

    Posted on 04/01/07 10:52 PM | Last edited on 04/01/07 10:33 PM

    I absolutely love the way this film looks.

    Open Water is about a yuppie couple (Blanchard Ryan and Daniel Travis) who get lost at sea on a diving expedition while on vacation. As they drift with no signs of any other life except the animals at sea, they face starvation, predation, and the elements as they struggle to stay alive for as long as possible, in hopes of being rescued somehow. And that's pretty much all of the plot summary you need.

    I've heard it said that this movie is "documentary styled," but I take issue with that. While there are occasional hand held shots here and there, most of the shots are framed correctly, there are musical cues, clearly visual elements (read: shots meant to convey meaning rather than document fact), and scripted lines. It's not a documentary. It's a feature film shot on a digital media, and a damn good one at that. I've always wondered if it were possible to use the grammar of film on something other than film stock and get the same effect. Open Water answers that concern with a resounding "yes!" A good film is a good film, period.

    And Open Water is a very good film. Not only are the visuals and the acting first rate, taking advantage of the pristine digital image and using very talented, natural actors, but the story is remarkably well-written. While it's true it tries to get some documentary-like realism by keeping the dialogue as natural as possible, these are still lines, and they really create three dimensional characters. Moreover, the structure of the story introduces conflicts that are resolved later, and the pacing of the film creates actual suspsense. The challenge here is that the fcharacters are just floating at sea for most of the film. How do you make that interesting? Writer-director Chris Kentis manages to not only heighten the tension but take us realistically through the emotions these two people are going through as time drags on, danger increases, and rescue becomes less and less likely. I myself got so into these two characters that I envied how long it took them to snap at each other, knowing that my father and I would be sniping at our significant others right away (something I really need to work on). I believed this low-budget story completely, became invested in it, and never became bored. It's a remarkable achievement.

    But it's not just a screenwriting achievement, either. As I said, it's a true feature film - Chris Kentis shoots real visuals, edits sound, and brings it all together in a masterful way. Again, the enemy is boredom, and with a limited setting, Kentis finds a way to keep us invested in this story throughout. He's a talented writer and director, and I can't wait to see what he does next.

    Open Water is great. The second best shark movie ever made.

    0 Comments | Send This | Bookmark and Share

    ARE WE THERE YET? (Brian Levant, 2005)

    Posted on 06/01/05 12:00 PM | Last edited on 06/01/05 11:52 AM

    Again, Rotten Tomatoes didn't bother to let you select Are We There Yet?, so let's just say I give it a "2".

    And just to prove a) why I don?t see movies that "look bad" unless forced to, and b) that I?m not just picking on movies randomly, that there is some basis for my judgements of them, we have Are We There Yet?, an example of pretty much every movie criticism I?ve given thus far. Not only is this film bad, but it a) could have been good, and b) proves what I said about American films in the Spanglish (James L. Brooks, 2004) review: whenever American filmmakers decide to make live action cartoons and call them "comedy" instead of actual movies about real people in America, they fail. Are We There Yet? Is a pretty solid failure, in my book, so we might as well talk about why.

    Nick, the good natured owner of a sports collectibles shop falls in love with a gorgeous woman played by Nia Long and decides to get with her. There?s one problem: she violates his rule of dating in that she has two young children. Nick doesn?t do women with kids, but let?s face it, if she looks like Nia Long, you might as well give it a shot, which leads him firmly into the friend zone. To break out of it, he volunteers to drive her children cross country to see their father, and then I guess back to see her (I?ve already forgotten how the plot works, and I saw this film last night. Sheesh), and in the process, these evil kids try to keep him to keep their mother single. With Bebe?s kids in tow, Nick does what he can to win Nia Long?s character?s affections, and that?s pretty much all you need to know.

    Let?s talk about what?s good about this movie first: 1) the idea that children don?t want their parents to remarry. I?ve been on both ends of this now, with my father after my mother?s death and myself and my girlfriend?s daughter. There is a great movie to be made about this topic, and I?m sure there has been, although I can?t think of it offhand. Either way, we haven?t seen it in a while, and it would have been nice to see it here, 2) starring Black people. Intelligent, character driven stuff tends to be the domain of whites and white filmmakers, and it would have been so nice to see a film about Black people like this. 3) Ice Cube was playing against his star image, which not only diversifies him somewhat, but could have been interesting in and of itself. I mean, how does a guy like Ice Cube?s star image deal with so personal and delicate a problem? That could have been a great film, particularly when Nia Long?s character was clearly intelligent and successful, while Nick was a small business owner, but nonetheless not a professional. Like Spanglish, it wouldn't even have to be a drama either ? you can get a great comedy like this if you really work at it. Albert Brooks would have knocked it out of the park if he was Black. And 4) Ice Cube and Matt Alvarez produced this, so you?d think they would have gone there.

    But they don?t. Instead, you get a movie with all kinds of wild takes, a deer attack, the children doing things that could seriously maim somebody, thousands of dollars worth of damage to a very expensive car, a talking bobble head of Satchel Page, a kid punching an adult in the face, and Nick inexplicably expecting two children to jump off of a moving train. They themselves question that last one, but are such weird kids to begin with, you wonder why they develop sense only in that scene. There are some references to being ghetto and being well off and Black, but nothing substantial is done with it, and for some stupid reason, Nick has a token white friend played by Jay Mohr, in a universe where everybody is Black and everybody everybody knows is Black except the villains. The directorial range consists of an almost fetishization of Nick?s rims, which are spinning in nearly every shot of the car. And it follows one of Siskel & Ebert?s glossary rules about how a beautiful car introduced in the first act of a film will invariably be destroyed. There?s nothing clever or original in here, despite many opportunities for that, and so the movie is ultimately a pointless series of cliches that just ain?t funny. Hard to watch at any age.

    Two movies come to mind in reviewing this film: Attack of the Clones (George Lucas, 2002), and Bebe?s Kids (1992, Bruce W. Smith?! I always thought that was Reggie Hudlin! See, there's a reason why I always put the director's name down! ;). I?m reminded of Attack of the Clones because it?s the worst movie I?ve ever seen by virtue of the fact that it blew many opportunities to be the best. Bebe?s Kids is almost the exact same film as this one, with a character based on Robyn Harris rather than Ice Cube. What?s the difference? Bebe?s Kids is actually funny. Why?

    It?s an animated cartoon musical.

    0 Comments | Send This | Bookmark and Share

    Bawarchi (1972, Hrishikesh Mukherjee)

    Posted on 02/17/05 04:28 PM | Last edited on 02/17/05 04:21 PM

    I have always struggled with my Indian heritage.

    It?s been the bane and boon of my existence. Being born and raised in this country, I?ve always wanted desperately to fit in, to the point of suppressing as much that?s Indian about me that I could. And yet, as I?ve learned time and again in life, no matter how far you run from yourself, there you are. And it is in this spirit that I recently watched Hrishikesh Mukherjee?s Bawarchi.

    Bawarchi comes from the "Golden Age" of Indian cinema, the same late 60?s / early ?70?s period that gave us the New American Cinema. My uncle, Aziz Quaisi, was a well known player of that period. As one of the credited screenwriters of Ankur (Shyam Bengal, 1974; my personal favorite of "his), and other classics of this era, he knew everybody involved in the making of this film. Indeed, this is my family legacy ? I am Aziz Qaisi?s nephew, which means absolutely nothing in terms of box office, but everything and then some in terms of respect. "Tayeba" (as an uncle older than your father is known) never achieved wide commercial success because he had the same nasty temper that every male in my family has. But nobody denied his talent as a writer and poet. He was my father?s hero, and in that way, mine as well.

    So seeing Bawarchi was a real treat for me. So few Indian movies are subtitled that I don?t really known Indian cinema like I feel I should, but this one was, by an outfit in Sacramento, and so I was able to enjoy it. And I did. A lot.

    Rajesh Khanna, a major actor of the period, plays a cook who comes to a family in turmoil. It?s a big house shared by two families, the sons of the patriarch of the family, who still owns the house. He also owns the family fortune, in jewels and cash, which he stubbornly keeps locked up under his bed, waiting for his granddaughter?s wedding and keeping the family solvent. His elder sons are a banker and a teacher, and they?re henpecked. His youngest son wants to be a musician for the film industry, and does so by stealing American songs and adapting them into Hindi (a practice that continues in India to this day). And the neice, now an orphan, is in love with a boy who her family doesn?t approve of, but has such low self esteem, she simply studies with him, takes abuse from her older sister, a beautiful dancer, and does her best. Everyone in this family is unhappy or unfulfilled in some way, so when their cook quits on them, and Raghu (Rajesh Khanna?s character) comes to take his place, they don?t expect much. But they?re wrong.

    As it turns out, Raghu is a miracle worker ? the Mary Poppins of India. He?s supposedly worked for many famous people and speaks like a poet, although there are some suspicious holes in his story. And this creates distrust in the youngest son, for the newspapers are reporting on a con artist who poses as a cook and takes families for a ride. Nonetheless, Raghu turns the family around in short order. His food is divine, and can be made with the meager food they can afford. The father feels respected. He cures the elder sister of her pride. He helps the youngest son write songs and brings everybody together. But the question remains: who is this guy, and why is he here?

    I obviously can?t answer that question for you, but will point out that the
    answer does play into the Socialist allegory that runs throughout the film.
    Hey, I?m an American kid, and a film student at that ? I know that if two families are living in a virtual commune together, everybody helps everybody else, and we hear wall to wall speeches about making the world a better place that this thing is trying to live up to a Gandhi ideal. But I still liked the film, and wanted to use this review to flesh out why.

    While other movies of this mindset are more heavy handed in delivering their Leftist messages, Bawarchi taps into what was once great about India and Indian culture and makes you believe it. This is a pure, simple mindset, of poor people trying to get along as best they can under difficult conditions. This isn?t America ? there is no opportunity for a motivated go-getter who wants to make it. This is just life as it has been given to these people, and the universal message of this film is that the little things, the simple joys one finds in day to day existence, and in the love of friends and family, are what makes that life worth living. Socialism is traditionally presented as a political philosophy, a way of running a government in order to make life better for everybody. This film presents the Communist ideal as not being a way to reform the political system, but for ordinary people to get by. Raghu argues that one person, by being selfless and sharing his / her knowledge and ability, can make life better for everyone else. And when life is measured by the length and quality of one?s lifespan and little else, that means everything. The Indian filmmakers of this period were true artists. Their goal was never to make a lot of money, because the average Indian filmgoer had no disposable income to make that a realistic aim. They just wanted you to step back, enjoy yourself for two hours or so, and maybe think about what you do for the rest of the time you're on this planet. Bawarchi shows a solution ? maybe not the solution ? to poverty and unhappiness in life that worked well in that India. And did so in a way that was joyful, inspiring, and very moving.

    I wish modern India was more like this.

    0 Comments | Send This | Bookmark and Share

    SHALL WE DANCE (Peter Chelsom, 2004)

    Posted on 02/11/05 04:06 PM | Last edited on 02/11/05 04:02 PM

    Shall We Dance is just adorable.

    It's another mid-life crisis movie, but unlike other films in this genre, it doesn't have a bleak, hopeless view of things, or even suggest that a midlife crisis is some great adversity that shows what a loser the person going through the crisis is. Instead, it argues that every once in a while, it's good to shake things up.

    It begins when attorney John Clark, played by Richard Gere, catches a glimpse of Paulina, Jennifer Lopez's character, looking wistfully out the window of a dance studio. He does this as he takes the train home, as he feels like he has, every day, day in and day out, for what seems like forever. And the image of this beautiful woman inspires him to find her, and find out who she is. She's a dance instructor, and John promptly joins her class.

    What starts out as an excuse to meet this beautiful woman turns out to be the best decision John ever made, as he finds that he really enjoys dancing. It gives him the new lease on life that he was hoping for, but his wife gets suspicious, wondering where he disappears to every night, and endeavors to find out. And then it goes down (or up, depending on how you look at it) hill from there.

    What's great about this film is that nobody - even people who would be in lesser films - is a bad guy. Gere's character initially strikes us as a philanderer. We find that isn't necessarily the case. There's a detective in this film who we assume is going to be a sleaze. That's not quite so either. There's a teenage daughter who isn't a brat. An effeminate guy who isn't gay. And so on. Seriously, what I liked about Shall We Dance is that it has a lot of opportunities to be negative and never goes there, instead redeeming all of its characters, who come off negatively at first, which I think is the theme of the film. Again, this movie is not even about how a midlife crisis means you were a loser in life - it has an optimistic outlook toward everything that happens, and gives you that "warm and fuzzy" thing that people look for in "feel good" films. But instead of doing it with schmalz, or cliches, or any of that other crap that makes "the feel good movie of the year" so unbearable, this movie just tells its simple story nicely, with a true sense of fun and positivity. In our cynical times, it's rare to find a movie like this about this subject matter, even rarer to find a good Jennifer Lopez movie since the "Benifer" fiasco, making this a pleasant surprise. Shall We Dance is sweet, and I liked that.

    0 Comments | Send This | Bookmark and Share

    FARENHYPE 911 (Alan Peterson, 2004)

    Posted on 02/10/05 01:48 PM | Last edited on 02/10/05 01:45 PM

    AGAIN: Not in "Rotten Tomatoes", so my separate rating is 4.

    As I saw it, Farenheit 911 (Michael Moore, 2004) was a movie arguing that the War in Iraq is just about validating George W. Bush's Presidency. The film makes this case by showing evidence that we undertook the war for dubious reasons.

    Farenhype 911 argues that Michael Moore hates America, and does this by arguing that the War in Iraq was justified.

    See the difference?

    That's why I didn't care for it.

    This movie is just a rebuttal to Farenheit 911. It doesn't stand alone as a documentary, and for that reason, I found it pointless.

    The worst thing, to me, about Farenheit was that it started this whole "dueling ideologies" approach to documentary filmmaking. Documentaries have always had a point of view, but now they're used specifically for political argument. I remember a magazine cover describing Farenheit as "a new kind of political weapon." And I found that sad, because I thought it was supposed to be a movie. This whole mindset throws that whole documentary form out the window and focuses on nothing but content. CROSSFIRE or THE MCGLAUGHLIN GROUP: THE MOVIE.

    But let's try to talk about Farenhype 911 itself. It starts where Farenheit starts, with the election, saying this time that it was certified - get over it. Then it goes to September 11th, again like Farenheit, and says that Bush was at the school for five minutes, not seven (ooh!), and has the principal saying how great Bush is. Then it continues jumping from scene to scene in Farenheit, showing how Moore doctored footage and used things out of context to make his point. My question? WHO CARES?

    Nobody in their right mind would see Farenheit 911 as objective fact - Michael Moore, notorious Liberal, is IN the damn film! So why do we need another film to refute it?

    I can see the other side wanting to get their voice heard. That's why we have talk radio and shows like the aforementioned "Crossfire" or "Hannity & Combs". Why bring this into filmmaking?

    The final message of Farenhype 911? Bush is great; Moore stinks.

    Did I really need to watch a film to tell me that?

    0 Comments | Send This | Bookmark and Share

    First | Previous | 1 | 2 | Next | Last
    Showing 1 - 10 of 13 Movie Blogs
     
     
    2500 characters left.
     
     
    About| Site Map| Help| RT To Go| Contact Us| Press| Critics Submission| Linking to RT| Licensing| Newsletter
    Copyright © 2010 Flixster, Inc. All rights reserved. | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
    Certain product data © 1995-present Muze, Inc. For personal use only. All rights reserved.
    /user/user.blogs.jsp - web26.flixster.com (us)