Fanaa (2006) (**1/2)

Genre – Drama /Romance maybe

Fanaa was clearly one of the most awaited films of this year. Director Kunal Kohli was riding on the success of his copied and yet well-written movie Hum Tum, and he had managed a coup of sorts by roping in as his lead pair Aamir Khan and Kajol, possibly 2 of the finest actors of the current lot with loads of experience and versatality. One was tempted to wonder why O why did the two never star opposite each other? The songs were also pretty hummable, and so I was pretty enthusiastic when i watched this movie by paying a royal sum of FIFTY bucks.
Three hours later, i thanked the lord that i didn’t spend even a penny more, ’cause this was another of those movies in the ‘quality inversely proportional to hype’ category. The chemistry between the Aamir and Kajol was minimal. Aamir looked too old and tired in the movie, and was nowhere near his best. Kajol was good as always, rather better- she actually had the innocence and charm of a newcomer, although it is apparent she has given up the battle of the ‘bulge’.
The second half of the movie happens apparently in kashmir, which is hard to believe. The director must surely think the audience is full of morons, with “snow” being enough to indicate “kashmir”- pathetic. (it’s shot in Poland, btw)
The story was new, and Aamir did play his part of the hero with shades of grey and with internal conflict pretty well, but there’s nothing else to crow about really. Kajol emotes with her eyes even when she plays blind, which is an achievement i suppose. The art direction is nice, especially during one song sequence, but that’s more or less about it. The movie just didn’t have an overall impact I was expecting. The very fact that more than moments from the film, i remember better the popcorn i had that day is i suppose saying it all.
Disappointing fare, really.

The Da Vinci Code (2006) (***)

Genre – Action? Adventure? History?

It’s tough not digressing to discussing the original book by Dan Brown while reviewing this movie, so all i would say is this- the book is no doubt a well-written commercial pot-boiler; it’s not a great literary piece by any stretch of imagination, the controversial topic being a major reason for it’s success. Anyway, it’s kind of hard for a non-Christian like me to really understand what the fuss is all about. The church’s entire philosophy revolves essentially around the Bible, which is all said and done a book written by man and so is bound to have doubters/ detractors. The book and the movie simply raise an alternate theory, by probably using the same facts the Church uses to conclude exactly the opposite. It’s a matter of faith isn’t it? Maybe that’s why i couldn’t fully appreciate the movie too- one question which keeps popping up all the time is: SO?
The movie is pretty faithful to the book upto the interval. The departure from the book, especially in the penultimate 20 minutes or so is necessary (maybe) to justify the need to have a 2+ hr film, and to give it enough shock value to sustain it. Ron Howard does an excellent job at recreating the magic of Da Vinci and the Louvre and manages to capture the essence of the book pretty well. Tom Hanks is, well, Tom Hanks, and can’t really do much wrong. His bad hairdo notwithstanding, he does portray a sexed-down Robert Langdon well. Audrey Tautou is an enigma (not exactly in a good sense), with her accent changing in the movie- she has 2 distinct french accents as well as once going on to have an english-french hybrid one! Anyway, she has enough innocence and ability (read ‘cute’) to play her part well. Sir Ian McKellen (of Gandalf and Magneto fame) is clearly the best actor in the movie, he actually made me feel sorry for him going bad. Silas the albino is just not scary enough, probably because i have seen Paul Bettany in other roles- a better choice would had been an unknown person.
Still i didnt like the movie as much as i had hoped i would, especially given the hype Sony pictures and the Indian Government (unintentionally and unnecessarily by the latter) generated. The movie is just too darn long (2+ hrs!). It moves along slowly (just like the book) because it has to stop and keep giving history lessons. Also, the conclusion is as weak as the book’s ending. Still, a movie worth watching once maybe. or maybe not. Wait for the DVD

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (***1/2)

Genre – Animation/ Comedy

Monsters, Inc. is among the very best animation movies i have seen. The dialogues are hilarious, the characters are well-written, the timing of the ‘actors’ is spot on, the voices are amazing- this film is in fact much better than most normal movies to be released so far!
The idea of Monsters generating energy from children’s screams is a cute starting point. The 2 central characters are just perfect- ‘sully’ the champ and ”mike wazowski’ the one-eyed fella (my favourite) are too good. Billy Crystal‘s voiceover injects a lot of life into ‘mike wazowski’ (i just love saying out the name). The show-stealer is of course the the kid ‘Boo’, with voiceover provided by 2 yr old Mary Gibbs- i happened to see this promo on tv where they actually showed her giggling and squealing, with her voice being recorded for the movie! This movie spawned a plethora of animation movies like Shark Tale and even Finding Nemo, but none have been able to quite live up to the mark set by Monster, Inc. Every character is memorable- the yeti (snow-cones, anyone?), roz the accountant lady(i’m watching you!), Celia mike’s girlfriend (googlie-bear), everyone! The attention given to detail is worth appreciating- apparently, the hair on sully’s body were all programmed individually to sway just the right way when sully walks/ runs !! A must watch movie truly.

Sabrina (1954) (***1/2)

Genre – Romance

Audrey Hepburn is hands down the most beautiful person i have ever seen, no doubt about that! her charm, elegance and innocence all end up further enhancing her beauty- a rare case of improving upon perfection. That’s the first thing which strikes you when you watch Sabrina, an out and out mushy-romantic classic. She essays her role with such ease, that she makes Julie Ormond in the 1995 remake seem boring and, well, too plain.
The plot is essentially an ugly-duckling-transformation one, with two heroes thrown in to make matters interesting. Apparently, Humphrey Bogart and Hepburn didn’t get along during filming, but their professionalism manages to completely hide this fact. There’s nothing heavy or deep about this movie- in fact it’s the absolute simplicity which makes it such a wonderful movie! Watch it for Hepburn, watch it to get a taste of the B&W era, basically watch it 😛