Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
The masterpiece of masterpieces
24 December 2008
As others have noted, Slumdog Millionaire, is a very unconventional film about a young boy who grew up in the slums of Bombay/Mumbai and goes on to become a winner at the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire (Indian series title - Kaun Banega Crorepati). The movie touches on many subjects - the hindu-Muslim religious tension, the living condition in Mumbai slums, the abuse of young kids, child labour, the list goes on. Weaving all these unconnected themes into a movie is in itself a very difficult task, but Boyle seems to have not only woven them together, but he has done so remarkably well ! Jamal, the main character represents the "untouchable" in a typical Indian society. He lives in abject poverty in the dirt and filth of the slum, where life has little value and dwellers have almost no chance of earning a white collar job. When he finally makes it to the seat of the most popular show of India, the quizmaster parodies that a chaiwalla (tea boy) has made it to show like this. He makes fun of Jamal, often making stinging remarks about how a low class slumdog has foolishly aspired to become a millionaire. But, soon, the show takes a more serious turn as Jamal begins to answer the questions successfully.

The story begins with Jamal sitting in the interrogation room, being tortured by police officers who suspect that his feat the night before at the show was attained through deceit. When all methods of torture fails, the head officer demands to know how Jamal knew the answers. To him, it seems impossible that a slum dweller could be so knowledgeable as to outshine the very learned Indian men and women. Jamal then proceeds to explain how he knew the answers, and how living the low life of a slumdog gave him the answers to all the questions. The movie matures with every explanation given by Jamal. This culminates into a wonderful story about love, hope, determination and the real side of life.

I don't write reviews in general, and very few movies have made me sit up and make the effort of writing one. This movie belongs to the genre of Shawshank Redemption, of Crash, of City of God, of Cinema Paradiso, or of It's a beautiful life and it seems that the movie has taken the best of all of these masterpieces and molded the pieces together into a movie called Slumdog Millionaire.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Namesake (2006)
8/10
An enduring story of love, courage and struggles faced by American immigrants
19 March 2007
We arrived early for the movie. The city of Stamford in Connecticut boasts a big Indian population, due partly to the presence of many large firms. It's proximity to NYC makes Stamford a fitting place for immigrant settlements. Surprisingly, contrary to expectations, Americans at the Namesake showing far outnumbered their Indian counterparts. I could not help observing the sombre look on the faces of the visitors as they left, and I convinced myself that this wasn't another ABCD-flick as some reviewers had complained. I grew up in Calcutta, and such movies, although rare, is a chance to revisit a treasured past, a temptation I couldn't resist.

The movie, to some extent portrays an almost autobiographical recollection of Jhumpa Lahiri's experiences as an young adult growing up in Philly. She was born "Nilanjana" (as her good name), but due to a chain of events, her 'pet name', Jhumpa persisted, being both terse and less cryptic than her more Indian-ised first name. Nikhil (or Nick), played wonderfully by Kal Penn, faces a similar dilemma. Named Gogol, by his father in memory of the Russian writer, Nikolai Gogol, Nikhil finds himself estranged by his unusual non-American name in the midst of the American culture. He tries, in vain to convince his parents that he should change his name from Gogol to Nikhil. Gogol's father, played by Irfhan Khan, genuinely believes that there could be a name no more fitting for his son. The name carries a strong emotional value for him, which, understandably the Americanised Gogol cannot relate to.

The story outlines the stark differences between Indians raised in the States trying to embrace parental Indian values whilst also seeking inclusion in the American way of living. As such, this leads to a hybrid of Indian vs American ways of living, oftentimes leaving young adults direction-less in times when their Indian-ness is challenged. The movie is extremely realistic and offers no bollywood style twists or long drawn Hindi pop songs. Instead what you get is raw emotion, real struggles and a frightfully original storyline.

Irfhan Khan, plays a moving role as a parent trying to come to terms with his son's Western outlook. Alas, he's not able to inculcate his ideals into Gogol, and the phrase "In this country, you can do what you like" is oft repeated to pardon Nick's un-Indian disposition. Gogol's mother, Ashima, played again stirringly by Tabu, is the story of a mother adopting to an American lifestyle in Queens with her husband. Although, Tabu is a well known Bollywood star, her acting in this movie bears little semblance to Bollywood-ish pretension.

She is very real in her role of a mother trying to make ends meet, to accept her son's boycott of Indian customs, and his independent lifestyle. In India, where family values are closely guarded, the notion of separation from children is not so commonplace as it is in the Western world. It is even more challenging in America, where Indian parents have their immediate families as their only ties to homeland. In the movie, Tabu echoes the loneliness that families and immigrants feel abroad, made worse by revolting kids who don't understand their point of view, and the hardships they face that are dealt with resolution and immense strength of mind.

The original theme, although Indian, must not detract the viewer into thinking that it is reserved only for immigrants. Albeit, Jhumpa Lahiri, who won the Pulitzer Prize in 2000 for her book, Interpreter of Maladies, layers an otherwise plain story with human emotions and displays of courage and trials that are so honest, one can relate to them effortlessly and draw parallels with one's own experiences.

Last, but not the least, I must mention of Mira Nair. She has spun yet another masterpiece following Monsoon Wedding bordering on the immigrant theme. Mira Nair, who spent her early years in Calcutta was able to depict the Bengali theme effectively. The choice of cast is excellent and not for a moment did I feel that the movie was directed by an "Indian" person, in fact it was just as unbiased and forthcoming as other good Italian or French movies I have seen. There were also scenes of the Victoria Memorial Hall of Calcutta, scenes of Howrah Station, the Howrah Bridge and other locations that are readily identifiable with the city. Indeed, her class is distinct from the rest of Bollywood and Indian wannabes who sport themselves as literary and movie geniuses, the like that are commonly spotted in Westport and Greenwich, CT.

I'm very conservative with my reviews, but this is a movie that deserves an 8/10. When we left the movie theater, the audience was silent and couples walked slowly and grimly out of the theater. It was, to me a testimony to how moving this film was, and I'm sure it will dwell in your memory a long time to come. Cheers to Nair, the cast, and Lahiri for a great collaboration and a timeless movie.
89 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Guru (2007)
5/10
Inspiring movie with some flawed messages
23 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Rag-to-riches is not a phenomenon exclusive to America. Guru is a testimony to the fact that ambition, determination and perseverance can be a winning potion for any aspiring person, irrespective of nationality. The movie charts the life of Gurukanth Desai, the disowned son of a school headmaster, and his rise to the helm of the Indian business world from frugal and humble beginnings. Abhishek, Mithun and Vidya Balan offer excellent screen performances. Vidya Balan is by far the best. Her acting is surprisingly natural and original, unlike many of the well-known Bollywood names. As for Aishwarya, although she portrays the role of Guru's wife well, I believe that her acting is greatly over-hyped by the media and her accompanying stardom.

I won't discuss the movie plot in detail as that has been repeated several times in different tones throughout the forum. Many viewers have related the movie to the life of Ambani, and although, there is a clear correlation between some of the movie ingredients (opening a business with an investment of fifteen thousand rupees, polyester factory, etc), some facts such as Guru's trip to Turkey are not entirely factual of Ambani's career. Overall, the movie has very powerful and inspiring messages for the ambitious. The character played by Guru portrays the image of a gung-ho, determined, resolute individual unwilling to bend under the inequalities of a society driven by greed. He epitomizes a timeless message of where there's a will there's a way.

The reason why I give this movie 5 stars is that, while the first half of the movie is very involved and 'inspiring', in the second half Guru deviates from this image of a righteous role model, into a wealthy businessman symbolizing all the wrongs of the society.

************** POSSIBLE SPOILER HERE ************** As Guru ascends into the echelon society, he inherits societal trends associated with greed and corruption. Mani Ratnam argues through his character that such vices are essential in order to succeed in business, but I cannot agree that it is alright to 'misrepresent the equity value of a firm', 'state fictional statements about foreign investments', etc all in the name of raising market capitalization, thereby increasing stock prices. I'm accustomed to these practices in the business world, and, as such, there are times when one needs to bend rules in order to succeed in an imperfect world. However, the abrupt, unwanted deviation from an ascetic do-good Guru to a capitalist commoner is disappointing. I'm afraid, Ratnam's message and argument that wrongdoings are acceptable as long as it benefits the public in light of a corporate world already wrought in umpteen scandals sends a very confusing message for the young. At that rate, Ken Lay would be still at the helm of Enron, and Arthur Anderson would still remain a distinguished firm. **************************************************

Overall a fine movie, but you must watch it with a discerning and critical eye.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed

 
\n \n \n\n\n