Water (2005)

The third installment of Deepa Mehta's 'elemental' series, Water is a subtle attempt to highlight an age-old social evil in india. The problem is, its quite boring, unless you have a compulsive obsession with the technical aspects of film-making, in which case, a lot of things would make more sense to you than they did to me. From my perspective, the cast did tremendous justice to their roles, teleporting me to the pre-independence days of ignorance and superstition (not that they're no longer in vogue!). The statistics at the end of the movie speak about the sad state of widows in this country, some of them widowed at ages of 8, 9 years.

If you look at water as a movie which just tells you, "Listen, it is true that plight of widows in india used to be bad. If you don't believe me, let me show you", it does a decent job. you feel for the poor child who's widowed before even coming of age, you feel for the inmates of the widow home who lead a wretched life of neglect. You are also shocked by some revelations about society that was.


Where it goes wrong is where John abraham comes onto the scene and a convenient love ensues between him and lisa ray, a widow as above. I feel, it needed more script space than in actually got. Where also it goes wrong is in the ocassional fleeting references to Gandhi and friendly debates on british rule. they were probably in place to give the viewer a feel of the times..hmm, fine then. but when you look at the statistics in the end, you can't help but feel that, the director is trying hard to justify her efforts.

Simply put, Water is yet another love story gone wrong.

concept 7/10 (not really relevant to the times)
performance 9/10
screenplay 7/10
technical 7/10

Overall 7.5/10

Vivah (2006)

I saw it y'day...beautiful movie...beautiful for its innocence, beautiful for its simplicity, beautiful for the emotions. This movie is a throwback on those days, when love was not all about who's got the biggest attitude or who's got the best moves (on the dance floor, in a fight, in the bed..wherever). Its a refreshing throwback amplified by the great chemistry between shahid kapur and amrita rao. As one would expect, the movie is about the marriage between them, majorly the build up to it.

Why can't movies be all hunky-dory from start to end? while watching Vivah, i was often reminded of Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, by the same director. There too, the movie is all cheer until suddenly something untoward happens and a pall of gloom spreads all over.
Why not avoid that? A similar scene in Vivah towards the end, made a few things clear to me. Triumph over adversity. It is such, a strong emotion, that can fill one's heart with satisfaction and whats time spent, without satisfaction!


Alok Nath does a great job in adding a lot of sensitivity to the role of a loving step-father. He deserves special mention for the wonderful actor that he is.

At times, the movie tends to drag a bit, but makes it up with some beautiful emotions.

concept: 8/10 (for showing the courage to be simple)
performance: 8/10
technical: 8/10 (nothing much to talk about technical, here)
screenplay: 8/10

overall: 8/10

Lord of War (2005)

Narrated movies have a charm of their own. They give the movie an air of importance, a no nonsense personality. The theme then has to essentially be something serious, something that is food for thought. Lord of War is. It is a well researched film on the illegal arms trade and its humanitarian consequences or savagery, whatever u may call it.

Nicholas Cage seems to have created a niche for himself when it comes to the 'cool customer' kind of roles. He fits to a hilt as the polished yet ruthless, gun runner who never loses his temper. He's quite ably supported by Jared Leto who inspite of less screen space, shows lot of presence.

The movie touches upon the relevant political issue of Blood Diamonds but doesn't explore it further. For most parts, the movie tends to engage in hero worshipping, zipping through deal after deal of Yuri Orlov (Nicholas Cage) without showing the details. It kind of makes it look easy, which is not the case. Come to think of it, the whole movie had this 'its so easy' attitude which otherwise, could have made the movie gripping.

Technically, i didn't notice anything jarring and throughout the movie was well absorbed in it. Guess that means, things were pretty fine in that department

Overall, an ok movie

concept: 7/10
performance: 8/10
technical: 7/10
screenplay: 6/10

overall: 7/10

American History X (1998)

"hate is baggage, life's too short to be pissed off all the time. its just not worth it"

we live in turbulent times. there is lot of friction in society; friction because, we're not all the same shape to fit in easily. we need our space. some, however, think they need more space. thats where the problem lies. the solution is in the mind; it is in the above quote; the quote is from the movie...a beautiful movie

American History X ... an insight to racism...an insight to what it is like to hate...an insight to the mind games people play

Edward Norton goes all out in this one as the frustrated nazi skin-head. A dream performance from him, ably supported by Edward Furlong ( John Connor from Terminator). The rest of the cast is blurred away by their combined brilliance. Edward Norton is under-rated, i'm telling you


Technically, its a well put-together film. There is no nonsense in the screenplay which is paced nicely. The camera highlights the flashback scenes beautifully and the use of slow motion enhances the moments in the film.

On the whole, a good movie, but maybe it just falls short of greatness by being a bit vague in its conclusion. The narration could have probably used some more facts to strengthen the case.

I'd like to start rating from hereon. so here goes

concept: 8/10
performance: 9/10 (norton all the way)
technical: 8/10
screenplay: 8/10

overall: 8.2/10