Change Your Image
bhargavbbdoublebannigeri
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Now You See Me (2013)
So disappointing...
Okay, this movie has such a great setup. Magicians and crime is like peanut butter and jelly. And it's also nice to see illusionists in a more modern, down-to-earth story than those 18th century fantasy movies of which I'm getting a little tired at this point. So this movie builds anticipation. Even better, an enjoyable cast (Jesse Eisenberg and Woody Harrelson vs. Mark Ruffalo, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman? That's forcing us to give them our money) pretty much does what they can to save this movie, but it's not enough. This movie has two main problems.
First off, Mélanie Laurent's character. It's kind of underdeveloped and doesn't really lend much to the movie. I guess they just needed to throw romance in there somewhere. But she's annoying! She just ticked me off throughout the whole movie. I just waited the whole time to see where she fit in, but the movie never really absorbed her.
Secondly, the ending. Holy cow, the ending. This is one of the worst movie endings I have ever seen. Yes, I did not see it coming... oh wait, I kind of did. It's such a formulaic resolution that you can't help but ponder during some of the draggy parts of the second act over how they're going to end the movie. From a logical standpoint, yes, it's kind of weak. I mean, he put all of his life's work into getting revenge on these guys, some of whom didn't really have much to do with his father's death, in such a shady way... it's just... beyond logical. Don't think about it, that's the logic of this movie. It's also just lazy writing. They took a premise they knew would make money and just threw in a pretty girl, maybe an Oscar winner or two (three if you include Common's Oscar win for Selma), and a lame plot twist to boot.
Maybe watch this movie if you want to. It's not unwatchable, but it will frustrate you.
The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)
Immaculate
Just a note, this isn't exactly full of spoilers, but I put that spoiler warning because it may confuse readers who haven't seen the movie.
Not only one of my favorites of 2014, but quite possibly one of my favorite films of all time. It is pretty much my favorite screenplay of all time. The way Wes Anderson and Hugo Guinness precisely craft a story so inherently beautiful just blows me away.
There are many facets of this movie to enjoy. Firstly, it is a comedy, and this is quite a prevalent and enjoyable aspect of the film. It's not normal comedy, however. Somehow, Anderson is able to write scenes that he knows will be funny. They don't seem to be comedic on the page, but in his direction, in the exceptional performances he gets out of his actors, he builds it, effortlessly, it seems. But The Grand Budapest Hotel stands tall and mighty because of its melancholy, buried somewhere in its aesthetic. It is a beautiful story. I had to watch it about three times and read the screenplay to fully grasp the raw poignancy of the screenplay, a longing for a better time. Watch the film again, and you might discover the tragic exterior surrounding the laughs. It is absolutely beautiful. Another level of this movie is the high-class veneer of the story, but when you think about it, you realize how lowbrow and brutish the plot really is. That doesn't make it any less brilliant, though.
The film would just be a really good movie with an outstanding screenplay at this point. But three factors push it to transcend expectations. Firstly, the cast of characters. Anderson and Guinness write interesting characters like Tony Bennett can croon: effortlessly. Such a wonderful set of characters, each more interesting and intriguing than the last. This is further enriched by the solid cast, with great performances all around. I can't say who was best, but Ralph Fiennes, in the lead role, certainly makes the best of his character. The cast is masterful, a group of artists who collaborate to unfurl fascinating tapestries.
Additionally, there is the technical feel of the film. Every shot, every intent breathed onto the screen is exposed by the intricacy and complex intertwining of cinematography and production design. Every single shot is particular. Every single blemish on an actor's face? Intentional. Who can forget the beautiful exterior shots of the environments, of the hotel itself? It is truly masterwork.
Finally, the movie is pushed into a whole new level, and creates a completely fascinating and enrapturing world with one final jigsaw piece: Alexandre Desplat's score. Desplat has previously scored The King's Speech, Argo, and many other films. But he has, in fact, nobody really has ever made anything like this. His score creates an entirely new environment. NPR did a story on the score, and it is fascinating. They hit the nail on the head. It discusses how the score is playful and whimsical, and perfectly matches the tone of the film, while also maintaining suspense and carrying the story. Also interesting are the character themes, like Moustafa's and especially Jopling's. Jopling's character plays on screen with a simple, playful, yet overtly tense theme which conveys exactly who his character is precisely.
The movie is thrilling during the viewing, but also captivating in its analysis. How does one analyze such a simple movie like The Grand Budapest Hotel? I read an article which explained why the film was so powerful because of allusions to the Holocaust. At this point I stopped reading the article because I felt it was pure bologna. However, I thought about it. I re-read the screenplay with a new frame of mind, and it makes perfect sense. But it was a different logic, a different conclusion. Why was it logical in multiple senses? The fact is, The Grand Budapest Hotel appears to be a simple movie, but it unfolds into the greatest complexity of all: it is a people's film. The movie may not make sense, so it implores you to ponder about it. It encourages you to understand it in your own way.
The Grand Budapest Hotel is my favorite movie of 2014. I highly recommend you watch it, the film has something for everybody.
Bhajarangi (2013)
An ounce of potential winnowed away by horrible direction
Don't worry about spoilers, because I didn't care enough about this pile of crap to sit it out. First off, know that I made an effort to watch this. I really tried. However, this movie is simply not good. It's quite bad, in fact. Terrible.
Let me start with the acting. I'm not insinuating that the actors in this film are not talented. In fact, I feel like with the right roles, they could really make waves. That being said, this movie is horrendously overacted, with no room for subtlety or wit of any kind. No, it's as if they didn't respect the audience enough to let us figure out what was happening, and just exaggerated everything they did to drive it in further. I'm not going to blame the actors on this too much, because I feel this is also a consequence of the direction.
The film has an even more fundamental problem than the acting. The story, while compelling, and perhaps watchable in some other, vastly different form, is just poorly executed in nearly every aspect. The dialogue is clunky, every scene is written poorly, and the movie is just badly written.
But these are all maybe forgivable. What is absolutely unforgivable is the unsteady, awful, nauseating, and horrendous cinematography. Every single shot, and I mean every shot, is ruined by distracting sweeps and random zooming. It's as if either the cinematographer learned some tricks and decided to play with them while shooting instead of doing his job, or he just spent the whole movie trying to find the right zoom. Either way, it is awful. I will admit that in terms of the quality of the image, as in hue, saturation, all that, it looks pretty decent. But this is all ruined by the impatience of the camera-work. Maybe the director saw one shot he liked, and he thought that he could do it again. I wouldn't mind if he did it periodically. He literally does the same sweep and zoom in on a character at least 8 times in a row in the same scene. It is the most distracting, annoying, and disappointing technical work I have ever laid my eyes on.
I am not as much angry about this movie as I am flummoxed, as to how such a horrendous movie ever got passed into production, how it got through multiple people, how at least one person besides the director said, "Yeah, that looks good." If this movie was directed by somebody else, maybe I would enjoy it. If the cinematographer took a more straightforward, narrative approach to using the camera, maybe I would enjoy it. If the screenplay wasn't so distracted and irrelevant to itself, maybe I would enjoy it. Throughout watching the movie, one can't help but think that the filmmakers sacrificed integrity and the artistic prospects of the film to create easy drama and cheap thrills.
This is one of the arising problems in movies these days. People think that they can get away with anything, as long as they show enough action and include the components of a 'thriller'. The story, which, as I mentioned before, could be compelling in other hands, is oftentimes tangential to the plot itself. They tried to throw everything they wanted to do into this movie, to get an easy, profitable result, instead of being noble and taking the challenge of creating a work of art. I don't wish to hurt the filmmakers personally, but I implore them and others to really work hard on their next movie. I hope they don't take the easy route and do basically everything wrong like it was in Bhajarangi. I really hope they try. Unfortunately, it is more likely that they'll ignore art in favor of money.
In the Line of Fire (1993)
So close to making a perfect movie
What a brilliant film. Seriously, I commend everyone involved in the production of this movie. Great performances and overall hard work all around. This movie has everything going for it. An awesome screenplay, a captivating, stunning performance from John Malkovich, and a creepy yet thrilling aura surrounding every scene. This movie could have easily catapulted into one of my favorites ever. It is a very entertaining movie.
Of course, it does have its flaws. The biggest flaw to this movie is Rene Russo's character. Now I recognize the need for strong female characters. But she's not exactly a strong character at all. In fact, her character is never really significant throughout the entire film. I respect Russo as an actress, and I'm sure if the screenplay was further refined, her character could have been developed further.
Still, I recommend it. It makes for a fun movie night, and it's ever enjoyable despite some flaws, which you can easily get over by paying attention to how awesome Eastwood and Malkovich's battle of wits really is.
Reservoir Dogs (1992)
Perfectly executed and masterfully crafted
This movie may take some time to grow on you. It may also instantaneously bloom into your top movies. Personally, it took me about a month for the movie to fully sink in. It's screenplay is streamlined; optimal, efficient, yet fully effective. The performances from the likes of Buscemi and Roth are of the highest quality. Don't watch this film expecting to see a heist movie. It unfolds into so much more: a character study, mainly. This is easily one of my top 10 screenplays, and definitely my favorite Tarantino work, over his slightly overrated, in my opinion, 1994 work, Pulp Fiction, which arguably was quite nuanced and well executed, but it lacks the simple nuance and smartness of Reservoir Dogs, which is blunt, pure and clever storytelling. I'd recommend this movie to anybody who loves the craft of telling a story, whether it be writing a novel, a song, or a screenplay. Tarantino knows how to do it, and well.