The IMDB Tops: 10 thoughts on... The Shawshank Redemption

Dir. Frank Darabont | USA

★ Tim Robbins, Morgan Freeman, Bon Gunton

    

Current IMDB rank - rating - votes

1. Who would have thought that the currently most popular film would be such a softie? I'm not a frequent cineweeper, but the final sequence touched something very deep down - as corny as that sounds.

It was nothing I had expected, not even a few seconds before the tears started falling. It was like somebody had suddenly turned on some magnificent music that you hadn't heard before, but that still sounded familiar (sounds corny again).

2. Speaking of familiar, The Shawshank Redemption is a very good film, but there was something familiar, well-known about each and every scene. It was like all the good "mainstream" films put together, which shouldn't come as a surprise considering its cinematic position. 

Watching this film, I feel, has helped me understand cinema and cinematic taste more, and how hard it is to hit the right notes for the audience in fusion with your own artistic standards... and what an example of that can look like.

Spike Lee feat. Rahman

Recently (maybe a month ago, or so), I have officially become a member of LAMB (The Large Association of Movie Blogs). The idea of communities like that is something I appreciate very much, because that's what the internet really is: a community, society - made of smaller communities and societies. 
There are different "events" in the LAMB, and it says on the site, that they really like, when members participate in those events. I don't think the possibility that one of those events will revolve around Indian cinema is very big, and that's why I'll now publish my first post on a Hollywood movie. If you've read the "About"-page though, you'd know that I watch everything, every genre, every industry - everything that falls into my hands. This event that I'm participating in is "LAMBs in the Director's Chair - Spike Lee". I chose to write about his film "Inside Man" on this occasion... And you may guess, why...

INSIDE MAN (2006)


Director: Spike Lee

Starring: Denzel Washington, Jodie Foster, Clive Owen

Please notice, that this review will be slightly different from "normal" reviews - it's going to be held as an interview with myself. I just thought, this is the first Hollywood review on Lime Reviews, so why not try something else than the usual stuff.

Just for fun, off course.

I hope you like it, if not, think about it as some sort of fancy project.

It is, somehow.


Why did you choose this film, instead of Lee's other known and acclaimed films, while this film is commonly called a Mainstream-production?
Well, I just... thought...

"Chal Chaiyya Chaiyya Chaiyya Chaiyya, Chal Chaiyya Chaiyya Chaiyya Chaiyya..."

And by the way, you should all have a look at the original song, everyone loves it, even non-Bollywood-enthusiastics. A shame it wasn't listed on the soundtrack (at least, wikipedia says so).

 - It's by my favorite composer, A. R. Rahman (just in case you didn't get my post title).

Did the song "Chaiyya Chaiyya" distract you at the beginning?

Yes, it did. I don't remember the start of the film... aside from Clive Owen telling us his name. Or saying, that he told us his name.

What about his (Owen's) performance - impressive?

If you call walking around with a poker-face impressive, then, yes. Personally, I think that only Marlon Brando can pull something like that off. I also didn't like that his character was such a anti-hero, that you're supposed to like - also this can be pulled off better by someone else, namely Hrithik Roshan. Off course, the bank robber had to tell the 8-year-old that he shouldn't play violent video-games. Audience is meant to laugh at that "funny" scene, and then think: "Hey, that guys actually cool.". However, I did like the scene where he tells us that he's told us his name.

So you prefer Denzel Washington?

I do. Well, first of all, I like men wearing hats. But forget about that; Denzel Washington is one of the actors that I'm quite fond of. He brings a impressive (here it is: impressive) realism into his characters, they actually seem to be real people. Many actors try to do this, but never truly success. Just that one scene where he lifts his voice saying "Pina Colada", which just makes you wake up again, because the rest of the dialogues and scenes is so monotone. That's also what I like about the film: When you just start to think it's boring, something changes, an interesting camera angle pops up or... well, Washington lifts his voice. There's also one scene, where he just coughs in the middle of a sentence, and I started thinking: "They don't cough. Most film characters don't cough, excluding they're sick or something. Or in a church.". Just very small details, that make you wonder, and I'm fascinated by that.

How about the flash-back investigations - did you like how they were... blurry?

Nothing against blurriness, but no, those scenes reminded me of the glitter-scene in Twilight - as I confessed already once, I like the Twilight-series, but that scene was too much (not to forget, that it was different in the book). And it's the same in this film - too much. Too cheap-looking.

Now, for the actors: What did you think about Jodie Foster?

Jodie... I've appreciated the way you act ever since "Silence of the Lambs", and you act different every time I see you. Different - but always as qualitative as the first time we met (your accent stays the same as well).

Did you know the "bank robbers" were talking Albanian?

I don't want to spoil anything, so let me just say: No, I did not, and I also didn't know, who it was, but I knew "where" he was talking, if you get me. And that was just too obvious.

Do you think the scene where the officers discuss the substations etc., while there are hostages in the bank, was macabre?

I think that scene was really good. First, I thought it was just what you proposed - macabre. But just for one split second. Then, my thoughts revolved about, how this was being realistic. It was. You need to think about, that there are people doing this every day, and how they just need to be calm, and get out of the situation sometimes. So, that was nicely done.

What was the most exciting part of the film?

The most exciting part was guessing what was going to happen. That's a common "trick" in hostage movies, and off course, it is working, though problem is: 1) it can grow boring very quickly and 2) when the end has come, you don't want to watch more of that movie, because the excitement has gone. Just what happens in this film - at the end, when the hostages have been released, you want to turn it off. Off course, the total solution comes just at the very end, but the time in between is a little boring. 

What did you think about the scene, where the hostages are released?

I thought: "There's a lot of people in blue painting suits here", and "I bet Cameron created the Na'vi after seeing this". 

And finally, what is your opinion?

"Inside Man" is very mainstream, but heading towards the positive corner of that section (so many mainstream movies - some of them have to be good). (Mostly) exciting plot (though well-known), without any big twists, but with two great actors and a fab soundtrack. That would be 2 1/2 stars, but it gets 1/2 more because of "Chaiyya".

Rating: 6.3

Thank you for reading,

Mette M. K.

Review: Dil Toh Baccha Hai Ji [3 Idiots and... Love]

DIL TOH BACCHA HAI JI (2011) दिल तो बच्चा है जी

Title-translation: "The heart is still a child"
Director: Madhur Bhandarkar
Author: Madhur Bhandarkar, Anil Pandey, Neeraj Udhwani, Sanjay Chhel
Starring: Ajay Devgn, Emraan Hashmi, Omi Vaidya

Plot: Naren moves back to his child home - his parents are dead. Because the house is so big, he searches for some tenants and finds them in a shaadi.com employee, who'd like to be a poet - Milind - and the unemployed fitness teacher/ toy boy Abhay. All three of them have problems concerning love: Naren is attracted to a 17-years younger intern, while Milind falls in love with a radio VJane, interviewing him after a poet contest. Meanwhile, Abhay indulges in the luxury of being toy boy an ex-Miss-India, when suddenly he falls in love with her (grown-up) step daughter.



Written the 13th of March 2011
Madhur Bhandarkar is known for experimenting in his films, trying out unusual tactics, and establishing his actors welll (I'm talking about Fashion, Traffic Signal, Page 3 and the only film I'd seen from him until now: Corporate). With DTBHJ, he's jumping into the genre of rom-com for the very first time, this time with two well-known actors plus Omi Vaidya, who could already bring home the bacon in 3 Idiots. Besides, we have three until now rather unknown ladies. The male cast is one of the evident powers of the film, while it's possible to discuss the female part: In a unusual role for him, Ajay Devgn earns sympathy as charming pencil pusher/ male Naina (the one from Kal Ho Naa Ho). He also proves, that his otherwise nice voice isn't exactly adequate for singing.

Take a look at Emraan's trousers... 

Can't have everything. Shazahn Padamsee plays his "Object of Desire" - and here's the first crossroad we have; she's looking sweet, she's charming, her acting is all right, and I might be able to get used to her squeaking voice. Sadly, I also know, that most people won't be able to do that, and also they won't be able to accept her (current) lack of "X-factor". That's why I can already see her undergoing the same destiny as Kim Sharma and Esha Deol . That is, unless people are so attached to her, like for example to Deepika Padukone (and I'd rather see Sharma or Deol instead of her), that she can make it somehow. If that is what'll happen, I hope she takes that chance and get's it right.

Rumour has it, that Madhuri Dixit has been thrilled by Emraan Hashmi's portrayal of the usual Casanova-role, and as always, I agree. It's especially nice that he's able to portray this character in a slightly different filmic level than otherwise, and I think I'm not alone with that thought. Even though the main theme of the film is sex (and not love, though I bet the makers wanted it to be love), the level isn't drowning as much as it uses to in similar films, but stays near Sex & the City (a show/ film that I like, but don't idolize). Only huge minus is caused by the distinct discrimination of homosexual persons, which is much more conspicuous than in Anjaana Anjaani for instance. A "reputable" filmmaker does not need this, especially with a film, that's quite entertaining otherwise. Then there's one sentence at the beginning, about the life of Emraan's character Abhay, which should have been edited away quickly - just like the rest of those "introducing" sentences. Not working here; the audience doesn't like to be treated as if it's totally dumb or stupid.

I also wasn't very fond of Abhay's big love, Nikki: She pitches herself as a big charity-lady, and talks about original Indian qualities - in born-and-bred Hinglish?! Face covered with make-up, wearing an outfit that doesn't even have a touch of traditional Indian clothes? Furthermore, we never get to know her very well, which is why the sudden falling-in-love also lacks a fundamental credibility.

Somehow, I also don't have big problem with the age
difference. Reason: It's mentioned (!).

The "Hinglish-source-of-irritation" shows up in a different situation as well, namely when Milind recites his poems, which seem to be "good" only because they're in Hinglish. Not a patch on Hinglish, I don't see a big problem in using it, but however there are circumstances, under which its usage is rather semi-optimal. Apart from that, Omi Vaidya is adorable and cute - by the way, I was surprised that I liked his "Dream Girl" Gungun, played by Shraddha Das, somehow. She was indeed both honest and fake, and very capricious against him, but she just had something. Perhaps Shraddha Das just comes with a bigger portion of talent than the rest of that female guard, but I'm not able to tell after one film only.

What I liked about the film was, that it never became "uncomfortable", you were (almost) never ashamed, and that despite this... well, not very fancy story. Just one scene at the end got one or two soap-opera-splashes too much. I don't want to tell you to much, but to the makers: a little less dharamdham, when someone tells his/her girl/boy friend, that he/she has fallen in love with someone else. Better let the still piano go on. Apropos music: The soundtrack is okay, nothing special, but nice.

Then what is my conclusion, now... Let's put it this way: You can see this film, but you don't have to. In the field of films-named-after-great-songs, it delivers a much better performance than many others, like for example Aashayein (2010).

Rating: 5.0

Thank you for reading,

Mette M. K.