"Cocktail" (Hindi) Movie Review

"Cocktail" is another experiment that brings back the genre of metrosexual romance with the chemistry of a much publicised starcast - Saif Ali Khan, Deepika Padukone and debutante Diana Penty. Homi Adajania is the director and he ropes in the writer-director Imtiaz Ali and another writer to pen the story. Imtiaz Ali is quite unpredictable in his scripts; most of his movies in the past from "Jab We Met" or "Love Aaj Kal" or "Rock Star" have been fluent opuses on love that remains unrequitted till the very end. In this movie, "Cocktail", Imtiaz Ali harnesses his talent at tweaking emotions of love a bit further, he creates a rapport between two girls - Deepika and Diana - then creates a rift between them later through Saif because both the girls want all of him. All this with some common and some bizarre family extensions for all the three.

The treatment is different and title-apt. Homi Adajania uses the laisse~z fare settings of London to weave the characterisations of the three principal actors the way he moulds the story - Deepika as bold and tempestuous, Diana as cautious and conservative and Saif as the quintessential Don Juan - till they all decide to do a flip-flop, in the interest of a happy ending that comes after 146 minutes of a cocktail of emotions. Pun intended. In between, the roles of Bomman Irani and Dimple Kapadia which could have infused variety and connectivity with elderly audiences had they stayed on course a few more minutes. There is also a constant tussle between the BGM score of the impressive duo Saliem-Sulemaan and the intermixed loud jingles of Pritham - despite one or two sonorous songs by Pritham towards the climax, BGM by SS is defining the key moods and moments of the film.

All the three Deepika, Saif and Diana get their share of hogging the limelight but Diana's character is weakest and inconsistent - it is because she is a looker and not an actor. Deepika shines brightest in the second half and tries to carry the film as if it is hers - with audacious dressing, bikini, uninhibitive acting. But at crucial competitive camera movements, our ageing hero Saif Ali Khan shoots from the hip every line that lingers. What he delivers with his eyes and face make it one of his best - he dominates even the hyperactive Bomman Irani sometimes. On the whole, the movie is a multiplex biopic with fast music, good visuals from London and Cape Town and easy fun that is a little more complicated. Could have been shorter - wonder what the Telugu Editor Sreekar Prasad was doing.

"The Intouchables" (English) Movie Dubbed from French

"The Intouchables" is a remarkable French film that swept the top honors last year at all film awards. The standi outside the screen reminds viewers that this film has collected Rs.2000 crores from 40 million viewers world wide - that means more people than what the entire India pay to watch any movie made in India paying per ticket Rs.18 to Rs.500 on any given day. I went without any idea what it was about except that it is a dubbed film from France. No known actors or crew to kill for. The result was hugely satisfying and worth watching. Its a tale of a bond developing between an aristocratic Parisian Phillipe who is quadraplegic (meaning unable to move hands or legs) and his assistant Driss, an African-origin janitor who is reluctantly pulled into the job.

After the movie rolls on, with English subtitles (whose tenses and verbs sometimes do not tally with the audio version of language), the story-telling is vivacious and infectious - the first joke comes within two minutes, then another and another and before you realise that sparks are flying between the two men, the laughter gets uproarious and roof-top-blowing kind. Don't get me wrong, the sense of friendship between the two men is pretty straightforward - they connect to each other's world and discuss everything under the sun - including women, sex, paraglidiing, modern art, parenting, spending habits, theatre and music. They bat for each other despite huge class, wealth and race inequalities.

Its quite incredulous that this movie should have been made in one of the most racist countries in the world. The hilarity of the film can't be emphasised in few sequences - it hits with a frequency that surprises you. There is a shot in which Driss accompanies Phillipe to an Art Exhibition - and Philippe stares at an artwork that has a splash of red in white background and agrees to buy it for 30,000 Euros (not that the French regard Euros as worthwhile currency). Driss says, as if to make a statement on how arbitrary art valuations abound these days, he could paint the same painting for same amount or more, and give blue additionally. In a twist of poetic justice, Driss indeed works on an abstract painting that Philippe pushes in the art mart for 11000 Euros, more out of affection to cheer up Driss.

Scenes like this make the film a charm. What endears the film to the audience, evidenced by the huge audience count so far worldwide, is the universality of the emotions - fear, tears, laughter, sense of achievement, sacrifice, learning from mistakes, serendipidity, fear of trying something for the first time.

The two lead characters are played dexterously well by Francois Cluzet and Omar Sy. Francois Cluzet is the diffident, depressant patient whose limbs are lifeless, so he can only speak and animate his face - he does it masterfully. Omar Sy as Driss, becomes the arms and legs for Philippe - he steals the thunder often, lights up the screen with occasional wisecracks, experiments with boredom and breaks out of the shackles of the mind more than Philippe. His acting resonates as well as the screen presence of guys like Eddie Murphy, Will Smith.

Music  by Ludovico Einaudi is another asset to the film - you get to hear almost all the classical masterpieces from Vivaldi to Beethoven. In between chatting up at the chateaus, lovely piano music is at play most times when the scenes shift to the picturesque French countryside. On the whole, the movie is fun and inspiring - if you have elders who are of restrictive movements because of whatever reasons and can't do without a daily dose of Prozac and Restil, take them to this movie - it will cheer them as an Indian Masala film. I am told that in 1914, ninety percent of all films distributed worldwide were French Films. By 1928, eight five percent of all films distributed were American films. Thats how Americans killed the heart of Euro cinema. Movies like this will help buck the trend.

"David Billa" (Tamil/Telugu) Movie Review

"David Billa" is supposed to be a prequel to the "Billa" franchise. Directed by Chakri Toleti. Telugu folks should know this guy. He was the smiley kid who waits for Kamal Hassan's perfect "Bhangima" in "Sagara Sangamam". Yes, the sa me guy grew up and made "Eenadu" (Remake of "Wednesday"). And now, "David Billa" with Ajit Sir. To be fair, the movie has got everything on the face of it - a kill...er app franchise, excellent technical team of editors, screenplay writers and cinematographers. And some terrific music by Yuvan Shankar Raja. It has a less obese Ajit who is seen as less conceitful than what the character demanded in "The Gambler". To top it, a bevy of villains from Rahman to Sudanshu Pandey. Sudanshu Pandey is definitely a find - he is suave, intense yet subtle and stylish - combines the looks of Kabir Bedi with Mukesh Rushi. He is one of the reasons to see the film. But Ajit does monotonous acting - there is no improvisation and no new swagger and chutzpah that he usually embellishes his portrayal with.

The story unfolds the usual way a Don emerges - a refugee from Sri Lanka, odd jobs of smuggling, working as a retainer, and then climbing up the ladder. We have seen this movie before, you get the feeling. Chakri Toleti, no doubt, has got the talent for intelligent film-making but his sensibilities are more shaped by Hollywood than by native touches. So, the movie seems like a concise procession of stylish visuals with fancy massage girls, slush money, drug-levelled suitcases, and slick gunshots and neck-stabbings. The biggest drawback is lack of entertainment. Romance is also hugely amiss - atleast one of the two girls is good-looking but apart from giving avuncular glances and dont-mess-with-me looks, Ajith comes a cropper there. There seems to be some problem of re-inventing himself for the masses and plots like that of a Don wont help. Chakri Toleti should attempt varied plots to show his talent. The only redeeming feature for me has been Yuvan Shankar Raja - his BGM music is outstanding. You can give the movie a miss because its all gloss and no substance.

"Eega" (Housefly) Movie Review (Telugu)/"Makkhi" Movie Review

"Eega" means housefly in Telugu. Thats the name of SS Rajamouli's latest and most-ambitious film till date. Its the most common and harmless insect heavily spotted even in concrete jungles and unlike mosquitoes and other blood-sucking pests, it is not carnivorous and usually doesn't harm humans - it is a very fidgety creature and moves at lightning speed, hardly stays anchored at a place beyond few seconds. To make a movie on a housefly is itself audacious and insane, nobody has done it ever in Indian Films. In the west, there have been many superhero films and maybe movies on rats, monkeys, sharks, bears and deadly snakes, but not on an insect so insignificant as a housefly - its amongst the lowliest of the lot but has a picturesque body - an amber red head, two hairline whiskers, two mini hands used to navigate direction, two wings that seem to generate sound an equivalent of a helicopter taking off when in motoring mode, and an identifiable body and legs. It has the most athletic body in insect world and director Rajamouli has studied the world of houseflies to the core, except a few lapses which I will come to later. "Eega" is definitely worth a watch once for the fabulous effort to make a superhero out of an urban pest - the director has spared no effort to finetune the movie - in Special Effects, technical departments of art and cinematography, in performances by the lead starcast in which Kannada actor Sudeep excels himself, and in overall pace of the film.

Rajamouli generally lets the story line out in the pre-release buzz. So the story is well-known before: Boy (Naani) meets girl (Samantha). Both fall in love. Enter Villain (Sudeep) who lusts after the girl, kills the boy. Boy gets reborn as "Eega" and takes revenge. Quite a simple and ordinary story, isn't it? But the execution is grander and the classic three-act structure, which Rajamouli always followed, is present here too. The movie is actually a special effects movie and the effects have a running time of more than 100 minutes - that can sometimes tire the viewer. Most of the action sequences are between the "Eega" and the villain; the director applies good logicality to how a harmless housefly can wreak havoc and throw your world upside down if you mess with its lover - it will attack you at the most unexpected places when you are least prepared, like in a steam bath tub when your face protrudes out of the heat tub and all your limbs are dissembled to atttack the insect crawling on your face. Rajamouli creates more scenes like this - when the villain is driving at high-speed, making a board presentation, trying to woo Samantha, or just sleeping. "Eega" just buzzes around, pricks the sense organs and drives out the peace out of Sudeep's mind. Quite wonderfully captured these stunts with amazing detail and Hollywood-style craft. The director uses the well-known laws of physics and some aspects of biology and chemistry in the friction shown between the two characters - Eega and Sudeep.

Most of the movie, MM Keeravani (MM Kreem as known in Bollywood) has given an outstanding BGM score that heightens the impact of the SFX and the moods. Quite rarely, Keeravani stops himself, seldom seen in our movies, to let the foreground become background - meaning, the score becomes silent when the heroine Samantha tries to communicate with the hero-housefly or when the housefly is plotting the next move against Sudeep. Those moments of silence, and the early part of the movie which builds up the romance between Naani and Samantha are the cutest reels of the film. Very few lapses on the part of Rajamouli - his clarity of thought and execution, screenplay (with extended help), characterisation and pacing of the film are terrific. Where he fails is in the entertainment this time - he cuts the romantic part of the film, which he could have shown more with the "Eega" or Naani in relapse which could have endeared the masses. He cuts the most beautiful, melodious song of the movie (probably, the decade) - "Nene Naanine..." to less than two minutes, and allows just two other songs to flourish. He hasn't inputed any comedy track in the film, that can prove costly to its success. A Telugu film without comedy struggles to get repeat audiences. When you spend Rs.43 crores on eye-popping graphics, you should have atleast 15 minutes of comedy. Another drawback in the basic plot: the villain kills the hero first, but the re-incarnated hero with all his killer antics creates fear in the villain's mind but fails to kindle any sense of remorse or regret. Besides, the heroine, after knowing her lover has come back as the housefly, enjoys the company of the housefly. How does a woman co-habit with a housefly? To pun, how does a housewife co-habit with a housefly? Thats absurd.

Well, enough of hyperventilative analysis of a movie that is breathtaking in effects but falls short on practicality and comedy, excels in performances by Sudeep and Samantha. It is most definitely watchable once, and by all kids. Its a proud addition to the creative power of Tollywood. An experiment that earned its spurs for Rajamouli.

"The Amazing Spiderman" Movie Review (138 Minutes)

“The Amazing Spiderman” comes back with an unfamiliar bang and unhurried charm. Andrew Garfield (remember the skinny guy who played the CFO in Facebook “The Social Network”?) replaces the effable Tobey Maguire, and Emmy Stone replaces Kirsten Dunst. Director Mark Webb seems to love his surname so much that he ought to make a webby film out of it. He has done a pretty decent job of building a credible first take on the Spiderman. It delves on the improbable origins of Peter Parker in the annals of cross-genetics and how Peter’s father helps Dr. Curtis Connors in his research using complicated calculus formulae that go into making alogirithms that alter biologically.

A good deal of time gets spent in establishing how Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) goes on to investigate his roots from adopted father Martin Sheen (always good to see him back in any cameo), meets Dr Curtis Connors, gets bitten by a genetically altered spider and shoots webs at will and walks on walls and jumps from one skyscraper to another in union-jack-red-and-black attire that still looks like an urbane swimming trunk. What can get a spider? A Lizard. And so, the villain Dr.Connors becomes a giant mutant lizard that stomps the streets of New York and pulverizes people and caravans of cars like a Godzilla – most of the stunts between the Spiderman and the giant lizard are nightly in nature. I wonder if this is deliberately done to counter the ensuing next big release of the Summer is Batman’s “The Dark Knight rises”. Nevertheless, the plot moves on to more complex matters – the lizard-man becomes more menacing and engulfing for mankind and our friendly Spiderman gets help from New York Police just in time to thwart Dr.Connor’s dangerous tricks. In between, a decent romance between Andrew Garfield and Emmy Stone that is more prolonged than seen in Spidey movies (without a love triangle).

How Good is the characterization and the performances? To be fair, Andrew Garfield gives a towering performance that will appeal well to the fans of the Marvel Comic character. Early versions of Spiderman starring Tobey Maguire had a genuine likeability about him so it kind of grew on you with an earthy and credulous touch. Present version takes off on the same path of first part of Spiderman released in 2002, takes a long time to establish the family background, the upbringing, and then the accidental transformation of a boy-next-door into discovering the webby instincts. The scenes showing the adhesive nature of the superhero’s hands and feet, and the commanding horsepower of his routine actions resulting in weird consequences like glass-shattering, basket-ball goal-post smashing are eye-popping and well-picturised. Even a simple act of googling his own spidey behavior results in the unraveling of the keyboard letters which is intense and believable. The origins of a superhero and the coming of his age were never shown so fluently in any movie before. Those sequences bind you more the friendliness and acuteness of this character. Most humor is embedded in these initial sequences, afterwards the plot gets thicker and serious with the unbearable tightness of being Spiderman getting to Peter Parker’s head. Character-wise, Martin Sheen, Sally Field and Rhys Ifans (who plays Dr.Connors) play their parts flawlessly. Dr.Connors character lacks texture and depth and definitely comes nowhere close to the swagger of the villain seen in first three Spidey movies. That is the major flaw in this movie – the villain’s characterization lacks substance and enough justification and as if there’s a late realization of this, Director Mark Webb shows him just after the movie’s primary title credits in conversation with another invincible power as to how to betray Spiderman yet again.

How Good is the 3-D Effect? Not that good. Except in one of the final stunts where the giant lizard leaps out of nowhere to browbeat the Spiderman, I could not perceive the third dimension with any telling effect. These days, the camera work in 2-D is so exceptional that one need not wear 3-D glasses to feel you are walking in the air with Spiderman over the nightly skyscrapers of the Manhattan, or “touch” that totempole of an Empire State Building or puke a web on the villain’s face. That’s a bit disappointing. Andrew Garfield, as I said before, has worked his lanky frame to give a unique tilt to the character, almost as incredibly as Tobey Maguire does. I am sure the shutterbags will soon report how Andrew has also done gymnastics, martial arts, weights and high-end cardio to stand out as an agile Spiderman – who needs to move at top velocity, in non-linear fashion, at tangent to gravity, within vertical limits. The effort shows - like one pose where he literally does a Shirshasana.

Is there anything else to rave about? Yes, there is. James Horner- that majestic Music composer – the only stalwart who scored award-winning music on a par with John Williams – has scored memorable BGM. Its on Sony Classical and I am going to own one.

I went with low expectations, having watched all of the three Spidey films. This one was quite watchable with few guffaws and one or two Indian tricks. One is Irrfan Khan – it is quite a forgettable role, I wonder if it can be even called a cameo as memorable as what he did in “Slumdog Millionaire”.

Of course, we Indians cannot match Hollywood in SFX or scripting or storyboarding or marketing of a franchise. The spiderman and other comic heroes will continue to make money. The First Spiderman walked away with $400 million at the Box-Office. In India, it collected Rs.26.2 crs. The second, Rs.33.4 crs and the third, Rs.68 crs. All this, when the Income Tax Officers didn’t adjust the Cost Inflation Index for the four years very high between 2002-2007. And we Indians, we will continue to make films that please us not what the world watches. If they make about Spiders, we will make about houseflies. So be it. As far as “The Amazing Spiderman” goes, the Rupee depreciation is going to assure that with 1000 screens hit with the movie (762 screens for “Avatar”), Hollywood is going to rake it even more. Well done, Mark Webb.

Book Review: The Bilderberg Conspiracy-Inside the World's Most Powerful Secret Society by H.Paul Jeffers

When it comes to conspiracy theories, nobody brings out better books than American Writers be it Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, John Perkins ("The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"). There is a voyeur in me that seeks out more such books. My latest find and I must recommend this whole-heartedly is a book by H Paul Jeffers - "The Bilderberg Conspiracy". The Bilderberg is today considered the world's most secret society and also its most powerful comprising the most well-known and famous politicians, businessmen and businesswomen, media owners, celebrities, heads of state, His and Her Holinesses and other Royalty.

As the theory goes, this group called the Bilderberg group has been growing in membership (albeit restrictive to accomodate only the most powerful clique on the planet) ever since the group first met in 1954. The book explains, in spine-chilling detail almost all the major meetings ever convened by the group, at the hotel(s) during the two day retreats at select frequency (annual). What does the group want? Secrecy and Access by its members to the world's resources, permits, and corridors of decision-making to push the group's common and indwividual interests- both political, social and economical. Much of the headline-making events after the World War-II - the Bretton Woods agreement, the UN and the Security Council composition, the Cuban Missile crisis, the Vietnam war, the rumblings of currrency regimes changing from sterling pound to Gold standard, gold standard to dollar, the creation of the "Euro", the oil crisis of the 1970s, the battering of the pound in 1997 and the over-throwing of the Margaret Thatcher government, the list goes on...all these are engineered by the Bilderberg Group. This has had its toll on the stability of world governments, the banking system and the overall functioning of the world capital markets as we see now.


Who are the current members of this group? Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Melinda Gates (wife of Bill Gates), David Rockfeller (yes son of John D Rockfeller), Paul Wolfowitz (thats right, World Bank), Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair...You will be surprised the list now includes me and more influential men and women - Ben Bernanke, (Fed Chairman) Thomas Friedman (world's richest journalist? and also the most idiotic!), Paul Volcker (Ex-Fed Chairman), George Soros (quite believable, because he treks the entire world on specious lecture tours which benefit him more than his society), Walter Wriston (Citigroup Ex-Chairman). So, you see, the elite Bilderberg group virtually leaves out few men and women who move the world and this group, according to well-documented research by the author has met 56 times after 1954 almost every year. The last time they met was in June 2008 - in the aftermath of the banking crisis and the decisions taken are well-noted by now. The author has brought out the pulsating sense of what usually goes on in most meetings and the expanse of the stuff that gets discussed which is itself an agenda that topples governments, eases out presidents, and rankles cabinets of sovereign republics.


To be fair, this is breath-takingly revealing and damning of what goes on in world and foreign affairs today and you get the feeling its all true and happening. You will definitely feel there's more you like to know and get informed about this secretive society which is not ritualistic like Freemasons or racisti like Klux Klux Klan. Paul Jeffers has done painstaking research, scenting the trails left by legendary trackers of Bilderberg group like Daniel Estulin, Jim Tucker, Conrad Black, and Tony Gosling. Your world view changes after reading this book and the iconic society because the decisions taken seem to be pushing the personal agenda of this group of all-powerful people under the veils of democracy, open society, free trade and free press, and a vigilant judciary. Seventreen chapters, two hundred and thirty two pages long, racy details pop out per page that is both intense and credible, this book will not allow you to sleep well because the details unearthed are both disturbing and annoying. Would you like to hear that The Economist survey is borne out of a Bilderberg activist? That Richard Nixon was sacked as President not by Watergate Scandal but because the Bilderberg club wanted Nixon out so that "their" man - Gerald Ford can be in. That Berlin Wall was broken down out of this club's resolve. That the agenda of media is aligned to few elite members' interests - US News, Washington Post, etc. That the idea of joining Greece and Portugal and Spain into European Union was "on" since 1957. That Margaret Thatcher was overthrown because she didn't allow UK to join the European Union.


As per the author, the main goal of this group is to create a new world government controlled by a wealthy elite and officials of global corporations (like BP) - to have a world bank, a global currency, centralized political control, world wide free trade and so on. Reading this book so finely investigated and penned will make you read more into the actions of the "elite" who make headlines. For example, why did Hillary Clinton go to Myanmar? What is the real agenda of Melinda Gates who administers free vaccines through Bill Gates and Melinda Foundation? Why does Henry Kissinger who is so anti-India waxing so eloquently on China nowadays? My point is, if Bilderberg conspiracy is true, then there should be more transparency to the group's meetings and its proceedings because it concerns all of us. I now know most answers to why some events really happened - and you will also find out why - even if you don't agree fully, if you read this book.

The Bilderberg Conspiracy by H.Paul Jeffers published by Citadel Press Kensington, pp.234.

Book Review: "Bureaucrazy Gets Crazier: IAS Unmasked" by M.K.Kaw

IAS or the Indian Administrative Service is not just the biggest national pastime (as a combined number of more than a half million seekers write the Prelims every year), it is also the most entertaining and epicentric nucleus of policy-making in India. Even if there's no vertical accountability to "We, the People of India", these Babus have a world of their own - they read The Economist, play golf, attend AMP courses at Harvard, take study sabbaticals at INSEAD and take a ransom to do just do their job. They are easily the most-wide read amongst India's intellectuals and share a world almost like a Bilderberg or a Freemason society.

M.K.Kaw is a retired IAS officer who has been there, done that. He gives a promising preview that entertains as much as it informs in this cheeky book that is sure to be lapped up by all bureaucracy members. M.K.Kaw worked in Himachal Pradesh as well as New Delhi in various postings from Finance Secretary to the Central Pay Commission. The present book is a sequel to an earlier book "Bureaucrazy" published in 1993. It is more elegant, presentable, and full of wit in Wodehousean fashion. Divided into seven parts, and populated with 47 chapters. There is one chapter almost on every conceivable facet of bureaucracy - the ways and means of wives of IAS officers, from egoistic officers like Seshan to diffident members, the need to have Godfathers, to "sir" your officers, the anatomy of corruption, etc. There is only one flaw: while profusely witty and analytical, there's a lot of "bharichaara" and fraternity on the whimsical ways in which the Babus have been ruling our country long after the British Babus have left. Easy read.

Bureaucrazy Gets Crazier: IAS Unmasked by M.K.Kaw, pp.196, pub: Konark publishers, price: Rs.250/-.