omfgitsrohit Reviews

Aaranya Kaandam (2010)

Aaranya Kaandam (2011)

[7/10 · 14 June 2011]

A bizarre trailer, a debut director, award-winner of an international film festival, a battle with the censor board and a college dropout- these elements being attached to the film made me hope for nothing short of great. If a person believed so much in his craft, he was probably an anarchist who followed his own set of rules and that kind of a person obviously wouldn't be restricted by the boundaries of Tamil Cinema.

Aaranya Kaandam's director Thiagarajan Kumararaja uses his technical crew in all possible ways. Being the competent crew that they are, they comply. The film is so unconventional that despite the excellent work of the cinematographer (Vinod), editors (Praveen K L and N B Srikanth) and the music director (Yuvan Shankar Raja), none of their individual contributions stand out. It was teamwork and you praise the man who has directed them into completion. Thiagarajan has a clear-cut vision- the characters, their quirks, their looks and their distinct speech styles. Lacing terror with scornful humour, Aaranya Kaandam leaves its viewers with mixed emotions. The gang wars that are shot in stop-motion have classical music playing in the background giving them the poetic touch intended and bring out the beauty of the scenes, even though they're blood lusted. The low-key lighting and the dubious backdrop make Aaranya Kandam the morbid labyrinth it wants to be.

Full review- http://www.nowrunning.com/movie/6425/tamil/aaranya- kandam/3150/review.htm

Yutham Sei (2011)

Terrible.

[1/10 · 21 February 2011]

The general consensus of Yudham Sei: "An edge of the seat thriller." I agree with the choice of words. I was actually on the edge of my seat contemplating on walking out of the theatre. That was thrilling, compared to the film.

Yudham Sei is self-indulgent pretentious garbage that I wouldn't watch even if I was to get paid for it. Homeless beggars would rather sleep on the streets than sleep in an air-conditioned theatre that screens the film. Director Mysskin has tried too hard to make a powerful film by playing with the audience's emotions. With the film he shocks, provokes, inserts twists, milks sentiment as and when he wishes.

The lead character is J.Krishnamoorthy. He runs fast, he takes on eight people with a penknife and wears leather shoes. The man is labeled as a "good" guy. That's how the central character of the film is written. He has hardly any depth. All you know is that he is "the best police officer" and that he wants to find his kidnapped sister. How are we to understand him and his wants? He is glorified by making every other character around him seem insensitive. This is the limit of Mysskin's talent. He might be able to capture and invert beautiful shots of cobwebs, cardboard boxes, watermelons, snakes, skies, lampposts and water, in various colors of light, but a consummation of all that doesn't qualify as a film. It's no more than a power point presentation of google image search results.

You know right from the beginning that it's a talented crew and they could be good at what they do. Unfortunately, they're in the wrong hands. Mysskin uses them in all the wrong ways. He has an eye for detail but not the honesty of an artist. He goes to the extent of making a direct reference to Rashomon by using the film's name. It wasn't a tribute or a token of appreciation; it was a shameless attempt at letting the audience know that he's someone with international exposure to films. As if we've forgotten about him not giving credit to the original material that Nandalala was adapted from. Mysskin has low self esteem, he doesn't have faith in his script and therefore he tries to get the music to drive the film. Newcomer K certainly has talent but it's the truth, everyone has to start at the bottom.

The screenplay is laughable. It's so horribly contrived. Half the story is narrated by a nearly dead man who laughs and drinks despite having two bullets lodged in his intestine. The characters keep doing things that are out of character. Mysskin, the director should never hire Mysskin, the screenwriter again. From Mysskin's films, it's pretty obvious that he's a film-maker only because he wants to be one, not because he enjoys making films. It's shabbily overdone and the visual metaphors just make it worse. Yudham Sei is like eating a burger filled with just mayonnaise. You're going to feel like throwing up. I could write another thousand words about why the film sucks so hard, but I'm going to spare you of that. It's poison. Stay away from it.

Rating – 0/10

Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)

Who would've thought that a trick like this would work a second time?

[2/10 · 25 January 2011]

Paranormal activity 2, the prequel of paranormal activity although released after its sequel initially works. That's as much credit as I can give the film. With each thud you're going to skip a heartbeat. It convinces you that while dying might be bad, living with intense fear is worse. The constant wave like noise gets under your skin and tells your instincts that something terrible is about to happen. I've covered the first half hour of the film. The remaining hour is a spoof of the first half hour. The ghost turns hospitable by opening and closing doors, but when it doesn't receive the "Thank you" that's due, it burns a man's testicles. When the teenage girl tries communicating with the ghost, the ghost starts flirting with her by saying that he wants pussy. And a hat. Since she doesn't respond positively, he wakes her up by whispering her name in her ear. Not very imaginative, is he? From here on, he goes on a series of pranks with locking her outside and triggering a false fire alarm when she's making out with her boyfriend in the pool.

Here's the twist- it's not a ghost, it's a DEMON. The head of the house refuses to acknowledge the demon's existence. Now, the sensitive demon feels insulted. The increasing anger of the demon drives the remaining half hour of the film. From here on, it works neither as a comedy nor as a horror. The film throws sucker punches by banging open every door that could possibly be opened, when you're expecting the frying pan to fall on the wife's head. The characters are not believable. The characters hold on to the camera even when the certainty of their lives is suspended by a thin thread. There's more chemistry between the camera and the people who feel it up than between the husband and the wife. To make up for that, the demon's character is well developed. He suffers from identity crisis. But the people in the house don't know that, do they? So they assume that talking about the demon would just enrage him further. How close it all came to never happening!

From here on, it's hilarious. The dog gets tossed from one corner to the other, you can't be sure if it got humped just before, because the demon's invisible, but it certainly seems so. This scene in particular, is rib crackling especially for PETA activists. Of course, the pets are always killed first. The screenwriters have obviously seen Fatal Attraction and Cape Fear. The film ends like the first one, with everyone dying. The Demon is a wrestling fan; it performs a chokehold on the husband, a choke slam on the wife and walks away with the baby (an allusion to the golden belt). Why the baby? Apparently, some old hag in his ancestral tree hadn't honoured a deal with the demon- to exchange a male infant for riches.

Rating- 2/10

Open Water (2003)

Two actors kicking against water, the sound of it and sharks.

[8/10 · 24 January 2011]

This is a film that attempts to do no more than tell the bloodcurdling story of a couple left in the middle of the sea. It isn't something that'll go down easy. Every cinematic element is used in the barest amounts with the exception of the camera. Not much has gone into developing the characters but that doesn't stop the characters from being real people. The sound of the water induces temporary aquaphobia. Open water is cinematic minimalism at its biting best. Its simplicity is what makes it so effective. It accomplishes what it intends to without attempting to foray beyond and entertains you without requiring your complete attention. Just let yourself into the world and you're in for a treat. Movies like Open Water are rare in the 21st century. The film rests on ideas, less on technology. This little gem of a natural horror based on real events is not to be missed.

Rating- 8/10

Conviction (II) (2010)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[4/10 · 16 January 2011]

Even the excellent performances of Sam Rockwell and Hilary Swank can't save this absolute farce of a film. Conviction is such a drag. There is nothing interesting about the story. But just the fact that it's a real story about a brother and sister, who spent most of their childhood in foster homes, fighting for justice managed to attract a lot of good actors. Once they're on board, director Tony Goldwyn lets them do all the work. He just sits by and watches them work while translating the screenplay in a color by number fashion. The pace is steady only because the director makes no attempt at capturing your attention. Depicting real events hardly matters when what you see on screen isn't the least bit believable. Not worth your time. Just skip it.

Rating - 4/10

Machete (2010)

Machete kills Rodriguez' fan club.

[4/10 · 9 January 2011]

I'd been waiting to see Machete after I saw the fake trailer of it in Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino's Grindhouse. I enjoyed both parts of Grindhouse, Planet Terror and Death Proof. While I liked Death Proof more, I felt Planet Terror deserved more appreciation.

But Machete? I can't find one reason to recommend this film to another person. It's not so much of a misfire or a disappointment. It's too dull to be given even that much of importance. A movie like this isn't one I expect to satisfy my intellectual appetite, so I don't pay much attention. Its entertainment value is supposed to grab my attention. Does it do so? Not one bit. I won't tell you what it's about, there's nothing special about it. There's gore, in amounts that neither entertains nor provokes you. The film's a snooze.

In trying to recall the film, I remember it ends with nuns, priests, rock n roll stars(who have picked up a trait or two from 50 cent) and Mexican parasites in blood lust mode, all of them spraying away bullets hoping to reach orgasm. It's a blood bath, sadly, not of the holy Christ. The screenplay is laughable with dialogs that are caricatures of already existing catch-phrases. "You Just F*ck-ed With The Wrong Mexican." Woah! That did send a shiver down my spine. Jessica Alba gets on top of a car and screams " We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us." A crucified priest decides to say "God has mercy, I don't. You go to hell." Cool? Smart? Maybe, if you have just reached adolescence.

Danny Trejo is lethally magnetic but nothing that Machete does is even close. Machete's a guy with enough scars to prevent his dead body from being recognized, constipated expressions that'll make you restrain your laughter(Out of, not fear, but pity), a cartoon like raucous voice and a weapon belt with a lot of knives that look like they were stolen from some old lady's kitchen at midnight.

If anything, I'm glad I watched this cheap gimmick because it's been on my hard disk long enough, now I can free 1.22 GB. But you don't have to sit through 100 minutes watching it, just to free your hard disk, you could take my word and delete it right away. I know, there's a lot about the film I haven't talked about. Those aspects just exist, they are not worthy of criticism.

Before the credit rolls, we're asked to look forward to sequels. Machete Kills. Machete Kills again. The missing object in the sentence is Robert Rodriguez' reputation.

Rating - 4/10

Stone (2010)

Some people tell lies. Others live them.

[9/10 · 25 November 2010]

Jack Mabry while appearing to live the life of a 'good' human being is confronted with thoughts that aren't supposed to occur to such a person. He's been married for over forty years, has never broken the law and works as a parole officer trying to reform people. But what does that do to him? There isn't a soul he trusts; he's carved that way. Prison inmates are trying to keep up with him by creating an impression and get him to believe that they've turned over a new leaf. With all the experience he's had, he sees through all of it. Not for long.

Gerald Creeson better known as 'stone' is under the supervision of Jack. Empty and pointless is what he believes his life is as long as he's in prison. There's desperation to break free. He believes he deserves it. Attempting to needle the vulnerable side of Mabry by sending his sexy wife, Lucetta, to meet with him, he hopes to be released. How long could that last?

Lucetta is no femme fatale, as the trailer would have you believe. A buoyant, effusive, middle-aged nymphomaniac is what she is. Stone tells Jack that she's an 'alien'.

Madlyn, Jack's wife is like stone. Jack has threatened her before and the memory of the experience doesn't fade away. She's stuck in a loveless marriage and doesn't have the nerve to raise the issue about her 'soul being kept in a dungeon'.

There're some interesting issues raised by the film, and without being answered or taken a stand for or against, are put in front of us through the characters. Does sin come naturally to human beings? Does being physically imprisoned mean no freedom? Are we all hypocrites after all? Is it foolish to sought after the righteous path? Is there a definite righteous path? Is there a higher power watching over us and our actions?

Jack is the lead character and it's his perspective that is the focal point of the film, which is why we don't know what's happening. Like him, we don't know whether to trust the characters or not because clearly they all have their own motives. The narrative doesn't intend to spoon-feed its viewers. You have to see the film again through the eyes of each character, pay attention to their reactions and understand their motives with which you determine whether they have done what Jack believes they did, or not. This is no ordinary thriller. It's heavy. It's complex. It's an in depth character study. John Curran's real deal is in displaying these characters, how they feel. What's going on inside their heads.

Acting is first rate. Robert Deniro, a name that echoes unforgettable characters- Jake Lamotta, Travis Bicke, Jimmy Conway, Vito Corleone and a lesser known Rupert Pupkin, has shown that even at this age he's capable of doing much more than what he's been doing for the past ten years- frowning, cursing, head tilting and spastic nodding. Edward Norton, who has proved time and again that he's not merely an actor with expressions but a character artist, delivers a gritty performance. This one's nothing like his other characters. People have complained about this role being similar to Primal fear and American History X particularly because all three of them are prisoners but that's just being myopic. That's like saying Robert Deniro is not versatile because he's played only gangsters and tough guys, or even more abstract- in almost every movie of his, he's malicious. It's not what viewers choose to reduce those complex characters to, with a word or two. It's the way the characters are played. Vito Corleone and Jimmy Conway are both Italian Mafiosos but are their characters similar? Not at all. In spite of all the praise I've given these two actors, it is Milla Jovovich who steals the film. Her performance is something that I'd characterize as a combination of Karen Black in Five easy pieces and Uma Thurman in Pulp fiction. She's the soul of the film. Frances Conroy is spot on with the character. She doesn't have much screen time but when she's on screen, you see her dying within and losing hope, shred by shred.

The director, John Curran and the screenwriter, Angus Maclachlan have made an original film that works only because the actors understand its subtleties. The other elements although unable to atomize themselves on independent merit are all appropriate. The sound design is at a strangely different frequency focusing more on background noises, the score is haunting and the cinematography, I have to point out, would've really enriched the feel of the film had it been shot in black and white with low key lighting- in the realm of film noir. What's left at the end is an incomplete puzzle of a film that you're expected to finish. Stone doesn't go easy on you. It is a film of major distinction that made me feel privileged as a film viewer. For my intelligence was not just respected, but trusted.

Rating-9/10

Paranormal Activity (2007)

o_o

[7/10 · 30 November 2009]

Paranormal activity is not one of those typical horror movies that give you periodic jolts but instead one that keeps you rooted to the spot with your heart clenched. It is only the grasp that tightens when you aren't fully prepared, and loosens when you're at your breaking point, just so that you can sit through it without having a heart attack.

While it awakens memories of another horror movie, it can be interpreted as trying to glimmer in the shadow of "The Blair Witch Project". It was the director's intentions. Nevertheless, it is a shadow that exceedingly towers and then insolently looks down. For its meager budget of $15,000, I personally am glad that it grossed over $100,000,000 at the box office.

Straightforward as it may be, its principal characters are played so effortlessly in the most naturalistic way, subsequently making them comprehensible. Micah and Katie, despite their idiosyncrasies, are both pleasant, likable people. Katie's enthusiasm from the day she moves into her boyfriend, Micah's house, gradually dies down like the hope of a cynic fading away with time. The movie keeps getting more and more "freaky", a term used endlessly to describe any kind of paranormal activity that occurs in the "haunted" house. Without exempting it of its nobility, there is one trivial question I'd like to ask. Why doesn't Katie move over to the other side of the bed? Wouldn't it keep her at a safer distance from the demon? Isn't Micah the adventurous daredevil? I cease to believe that it was a deliberate goof.

This movie isn't just a must watch but must be watched alone with headphones in a dark room. But beware, once you've finished watching it, you're going to be stared at by every inanimate object from every corner in the room including the corners themselves. No, it isn't just me.

Precious (II) (2009)

A PRECIOUS film

[8/10 · 29 November 2009]

Precious is a powerful, audacious film. Although it has an affecting script and appears to have only one perspective, it is deep and insightful.

It is the story about a girl who is black,fat,lived an unhappy childhood and doesn't possess what we call self esteem. It might seem stimulated in the beginning but the entire crew cohesively pull off a good, if not great, movie in arguably the most overtly obvious premise.

Director Lee Daniels' style of direction might have been rather conventional, but what is really commendable is that he manages to hypnotize his cast thereby making them deliver outstanding performances. First timer Gabourey Sidibe might not have had to do much, taking into account her appearance which so perfectly suits her role, but she doesn't slack. A truly remarkable breakthrough performance is what she does give and will no doubt be recognized by The Academy. Comedian Mo'Nique as Precious' monstrous mother is terrifying and gives a solid performance which is far from subtle(or funny) as it should be. Yes,it will be nominated and is the front-runner in her category. Paula Patton on the other hand gives a warm ethereal performance as Precious' English teacher. In my opinion, this is the best and most difficult role of the three convincing performances which will bring about internal competition in the supporting actress category come awards season. The third one is from the pop star Mariah Carey who digs deep into her character as a social worker desperately trying to help Precious. Lee Daniels cast relatively unknown actors and has not only launched their acting careers, but with extravagance.

Rating 8/10

Brüno (2009)

Some comedies DO disappoint.

[5/10 · 27 November 2009]

After the success of Borat, I was really looking forward to Bruno. But as it turns out, it is a disappointment. Bruno is the kind of guy who can easily make you get irascible, so unlike Borat who looked funny and was funny right from the very first second on screen. Bruno's entrance is silly, a guy(you might not guess) dressed in the most outrageous outfit exposing his hairy thighs(too loud for adults to laugh at)who laughs that reminds me of a horse neighing. It just keeps getting MORE and MORE stupid from here. Using guys for chairs and plates... Had it been an animated movie for the kids then yes, it would've worked.

Despite the movie being just an hour and seventeen minutes I was consciously aware that it was really slow, except for the last half an hour which was hilarious in the most ridiculous way. It drove me nuts. Only when the movie got over, did I realize that I was looking for more. Had they interchanged the first half an hour and the last half an hour, maybe this would've been a positive review. It doesn't make much sense as a whole anyway.

Sacha baron Cohen may or may not suit such a role but my imagination doesn't stretch beyond- him being anything other than Borat. "Bruno" is to blame for that.

3 stars for evoking a few laughs and another 2 stars for the effort.

Public Enemies (2009)

THE average summer commercial -.-

[6/10 · 24 November 2009]

The director of Public Enemies had directed Heat and The Insider? Unbelievable. Oh wait, on second thought there were quite a few similarities between public enemies and heat. So perhaps, Michael Mann is an auteur? No. I don't think so. Similarities are merely- attractive costumes,guns and cars. Visually, the movie is inviting. But it stops with that. A few good shots do exist but the rest of them simply increase the rate at which your eyes blink.

A grand opening and a memorable ending indicates that the writer had only them in mind and just wrote bullshit in between to finish the script.

There're so many parts in the movie that are preposterous and unacceptable. John Dillinger walking into the police headquarters made me wanna "ALT+F4" but I decided to stay on considering that there were just a couple of minutes left to get done with it.

Johnny Depp and Christian Bale are both woody as wood. John Dilinger doesn't scare me one bit. Marion Cotillard actually does a little bit of observable acting.

A few things were left unexplained and had been poorly dealt with. The romance between John and Billie was built up poorly. I felt as though I had missed a prequel to the movie. What does John do with all the money he robs from similar looking banks? There is hardly any insight given into the character.

If there're any nominations it can possibly get in the coming awards season, it would be for the art direction. Yes, Michael Mann does triumphantly manage to simulate the prohibition era.

If your aim is to get entertained you might as well go ahead and watch it. It isn't the most entertaining movie but Well. If you're looking for some real art,please do me a favour and skip it.

25th Hour (2002)

Even Pablo Escobar would think twice.

[10/10 · 6 July 2009]

There're movies which make it look like drug dealers are the coolest guys alive. But this is one which doesn't have a message but rather one which shows the life of simply one drug dealer who wasn't rough and nasty enough to kill his humanity in order to flourish in the business. As a cold blooded person I'm gonna have to admit that this movie did make me weak. The only movie that DID get me to shed a tear or two. The "make me ugly" scene was powerful. Powerful. I've seen the movie twenty times over and I'm gonna have to say, its without a doubt the best movie I've seen. Believe me I've seen a lot. I don't think it can or will ever be replaced. Spike lee and Norton at their best. Each time I notice something new that I fail to notice the previous time because of my state of being in awe of the film. Norton's performance is subtle and I just can't believe the academy missed out on this film . The score, the direction, the cinematography, Norton, Seymour Hoffman and Rosario Dawson. Although Barry pepper appears to have stolen the show, it isn't so. His performance is on par with Norton. When I watched it the first time I didn't even feel like "Man, this is a good movie" because it never seemed like a movie at that time. Seemed like I had been standing right there and watching it all happen. When the film ended I felt like "Life was too beautiful to F*** up." A real shame that it isn't on the IMDb top 250 and hadn't got recognition it deserved. I just console myself by saying it was too intelligent a film for the judges or critics to see beyond what they could see.