infinitelyprolonged
Joined Feb 2004
Welcome to the new profile
We're making some updates, and some features will be temporarily unavailable while we enhance your experience. The previous version will not be accessible after 7/14. Stay tuned for the upcoming relaunch.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews7
infinitelyprolonged's rating
Going into the theatre I was pretty sure I was in for a good time. The last two editions were too good for me not to expect that. Wouldn't have spent a rare free evening (the movie released on Labour Day here at Singapore) cooped up indoors otherwise. But I really hadn't imagined the movie would be this good.
It's very rare that, in a trilogy, movies get better progressively. Spider-man 3 is a great improvement over the last two, and that itself says a lot.
The first mid-air fight sequence, a few minutes into the movie, is breathtaking and a sign of things to come. And every few scenes, at an even pace, we get lots of these out-of-the-world sequences. There are three villains - Sandman and Venom make an appearance here - and each one gets ample screen time. Could have done with a little more of Venom. But what the hell, I won't crib.
Every actor is in top form. The story, even with the slightly slow-moving emotional scenes, moves at exactly the right pace. The action doesn't get overdone. The drama doesn't make you yawn. It's near-perfect. I simply loved the manner in which Raimi gives depth to each character, even the fantastic villains. The CGI is brilliant, but never overshadows the acting - the true test probably of any movie in this genre. And there's really awesome comedy to complete the package.
Go watch this movie the day it releases in your city. Watch out for a short appearance by Stan Lee too.
It's very rare that, in a trilogy, movies get better progressively. Spider-man 3 is a great improvement over the last two, and that itself says a lot.
The first mid-air fight sequence, a few minutes into the movie, is breathtaking and a sign of things to come. And every few scenes, at an even pace, we get lots of these out-of-the-world sequences. There are three villains - Sandman and Venom make an appearance here - and each one gets ample screen time. Could have done with a little more of Venom. But what the hell, I won't crib.
Every actor is in top form. The story, even with the slightly slow-moving emotional scenes, moves at exactly the right pace. The action doesn't get overdone. The drama doesn't make you yawn. It's near-perfect. I simply loved the manner in which Raimi gives depth to each character, even the fantastic villains. The CGI is brilliant, but never overshadows the acting - the true test probably of any movie in this genre. And there's really awesome comedy to complete the package.
Go watch this movie the day it releases in your city. Watch out for a short appearance by Stan Lee too.
I saw Bandit Queen in 2005, over a decade after it was made amidst widespread controversy in India. The language, the stark treatment and the natural acting (by a relatively unknown cast for that time) might have been even more shocking at that time for an Indian populace more familiar with fantasy cinema. The film, the cast, and Shekhar Kapoor, deserve accolades for the breakthrough effort.
The plot is not very different from a typical revenge drama made in various forms in India. In fact, there have been several fictional accounts of this particular story itself. The reason why this stands out is that it's supposed to be a first person account of someone who actually went through all this, and a lot else that doesn't find place on the screen, and survived to tell the tale. Survived long enough to see her story made into a movie at least. Phoolan Devi didn't live very long after being released from prison in 1994.
The film scores on several counts. The cinematography is brilliant. The music is apt. The cast, many of whom became more familiar names later, is very good. But the screenplay is patchy. Things move too fast and in jerks at times. It's understandable though, because there are just too many strands that need to be tied together to make it all cohesive. Or maybe I felt that because I have read Mala Sen's book, which is a more detailed and better, though obviously not as shocking as the visual, account of Phoolan Devi's travails, and which is purported to be one of the main sources for the film.
There are some factual ambiguities too. According to Phoolan Devi, she wasn't present when the Behmai massacre took place, and despite claiming to be the dictated account of Phoolan herself, she is shown to participate, and in fact initiate, the massacre. Then the final scene where Phoolan surrenders shows her touching the feet of the Chief Minister, while in reality she had surrendered to a portrait of Mahatma Gandhi. Symbolic value only, but shows that Phoolan didn't want to show servitude to a living, ordinary person. It would have been nice to show the Chief Minister to have some resemblance to Arjun Singh, who many remember was the CM of Madhya Pradesh then.
But these are small chinks in this eminently well-made movie, a rare gem to come out from the mainstream Indian film industry, made by a man who before this was known best for the ultimate masala movie of the late 80s - Mr India.
The plot is not very different from a typical revenge drama made in various forms in India. In fact, there have been several fictional accounts of this particular story itself. The reason why this stands out is that it's supposed to be a first person account of someone who actually went through all this, and a lot else that doesn't find place on the screen, and survived to tell the tale. Survived long enough to see her story made into a movie at least. Phoolan Devi didn't live very long after being released from prison in 1994.
The film scores on several counts. The cinematography is brilliant. The music is apt. The cast, many of whom became more familiar names later, is very good. But the screenplay is patchy. Things move too fast and in jerks at times. It's understandable though, because there are just too many strands that need to be tied together to make it all cohesive. Or maybe I felt that because I have read Mala Sen's book, which is a more detailed and better, though obviously not as shocking as the visual, account of Phoolan Devi's travails, and which is purported to be one of the main sources for the film.
There are some factual ambiguities too. According to Phoolan Devi, she wasn't present when the Behmai massacre took place, and despite claiming to be the dictated account of Phoolan herself, she is shown to participate, and in fact initiate, the massacre. Then the final scene where Phoolan surrenders shows her touching the feet of the Chief Minister, while in reality she had surrendered to a portrait of Mahatma Gandhi. Symbolic value only, but shows that Phoolan didn't want to show servitude to a living, ordinary person. It would have been nice to show the Chief Minister to have some resemblance to Arjun Singh, who many remember was the CM of Madhya Pradesh then.
But these are small chinks in this eminently well-made movie, a rare gem to come out from the mainstream Indian film industry, made by a man who before this was known best for the ultimate masala movie of the late 80s - Mr India.