Showing posts with label best hindi comedy movies all time. Show all posts
Showing posts with label best hindi comedy movies all time. Show all posts

Happythankyoumoreplease (2010)

HappythankyoumorepleaseI'm not going to summarize the story. Plenty of that already out there. My thoughts about the movie are that if you like movies that focus on the characters and their relationships rather than a linear story, this movie is a rare treat. Extremely well thought out. Bad title almost kept me away. Glad I took a chance. I thought it was fantastic in all areas. Interesting relationships with likable people, many life lessons mostly well presented, good production value, score was beautiful, smart character studies, perfectly understated delivery by the actors. Found myself pausing to think about what was presenting at the moment. Clearly the best of the current bunch playing.

I think that it's become my mantra--"quirk is the curse of independent cinema." In an effort to be cutesy and/or clever, films have been systematically stripping away genuine warmth and humor by presenting character types and sitcom contrivances instead of mining what is really funny in our everyday foibles. It becomes a fine balancing act, then, because a good quirky film can be both hysterical and touch your heartstrings. However, one that goes over the top can be painfully unreal and hard to sit through. And, in my opinion, there is very little middle ground. Josh Radnor's (How I Met Your Mother) debut feature "HappyThankYouMorePlease" cues you in right away with its title to its eccentric feel good nature. But after a pretty painful beginning and one incredibly off-putting storyline, Radnor's film overcomes its cliches with a likable cast selling even its most awkward moments.

Radnor, who also wrote and directed the film, stars as a typical commitment-phobic man/child. A New York writer (who supports himself with absolutely no discernable source of income), Radnor engages in an appropriately zany new romance with a very appealing Kate Mara. In addition, he encounters a little boy on the subway that seems to have nowhere to go. While I won't divulge much here, what Radnor does with the boy is so outrageously improbable and illogical--it strains every notion of suspension of disbelief. As a central plot line, you have to give up all reason and just go with it. But it seriously almost completely derails the entire film. Much better are the other two story lines--co-workers Malin Akerman and Tony Hale beginning an unlikely romance and couple Zoe Kazan and Pablo Schreiber entering a new dimension of their life together.

Aside from Radnor, the other main characters seem much more grounded and relatable. As their relationships evolve, there is a tender believability that can be quite engaging. And Mara, despite the script's uneven tone, brings real warmth to her role as a struggling cabaret singer and waitress. But the film still relies on some unnecessary quirks to make it utterly irresistible (but trust me, I resisted!). Radnor is apparently supposed to be so winning that everyone forgives his eccentricities and irresponsibility, but he doesn't come off very well. Akerman's character has alopecia (isn't it wacky that she's bald?), but far worse is the fact that she has a party to lecture all her friends about her condition. What--didn't they notice when she lost her hair? Seems the subject probably would have been dealt with on an individual basis, but it's so much more eccentric to have a party! Of course, the soundtrack is also littered with expected indie artists delivering heartfelt songs that parallel the plot--Radnor really followed the play book. Yet, the film still had a sweet tone and some nice moments. For lighthearted escapism, it works fine. About 3 1/2 stars, I'll round up for the extended cast and two of the three central stories. KGHarris, 5/11.

Buy Happythankyoumoreplease (2010) Now

Customer review from the Amazon Vine Program Sam Wexler is a lonely, struggling writer living in Manhattan. While rushing to make it on time to an interview with a publisher, he rescues a cute orphan boy, Rasheen, who is lost on the subway. The interview is ruined. To complicate matters, Rasheen won't allow Sam to take him to the police. Sam falls in love with Mississippi, a gorgeous waitress who is a struggling singer. Sam's best friend, Annie, has low self esteem because of an autoimmune deficiency that has left her bald; she is attracted to losers like a magnet but has been deflecting the advances of a successful, kind-hearted lawyer, Sam 2, who works in her company. Sam's other friends, Mary-Catherine and Charlie, who live together, are afraid of taking their relationship one step further to the marriage altar.

An evangelist once taught me that Christians should have an attitude of gratitude. In other words, we should always be thankful for what we have been given. When Annie once stepped into a cab, the Indian driver told her she had the potential to be very happy if she always said "Thank you" and followed it with "More please." Charlie once told Mary-Catherine that LA was a blank canvas that reflects one's attitudes. If you believe you're going to love LA, then you'll see it as the best city in the world. From watching "HappyThankYouMorePlease," I've learned that, in order to achieve success, love, happiness, and all the other good things in life, one must believe in oneself and have a positive attitude that one will obtain them. This is a spiritual concept that is prevalent in most religions.

"HappyThankYouMorePlease" is a sweet, quirky, uplifting film that is fun to watch. It will encourage the lovelorn not to lose hope in finding someone special and eventually having a family. I believe that Sam's reluctance to surrender Rasheen to the authorities is the product of his subconscious desire to have a family. He is pushing thirty and his biological clock (men also have them) is probably screaming for him to begin reproducing. As soon as Sam finds the adorable surrogate "son", he finds the adorable surrogate "wife", Mississippi. He barely knows her when he practically begs her to move into his apartment. Mary-Catherine and Charlie are close to the altar but are having commitment issues. Several surprises help spur them onward. I think Annie is extremely attractive (I love her wardrobe); unfortunately, she doesn't. She soon learns after dating the witty, sincere lawyer that true beauty comes from within.

The soundtrack is excellent. Much of the music, provided by singer/songwriter Jaymay, contains lyrics that complement the film's drama. The DVD contains a short featurette that focuses on Jaymay. Also, the DVD has deleted scenes that further explain what is transpiring in the film; they are essential viewing. They include one disturbing scene in which Rasheen kicks and beats on a boy who purposely walked into him. When Sam scolds him, Rasheen asks him if he's going to beat him. This scene hints at the abuse the little boy must've suffered at the hands of his foster parents and why he doesn't want to return to them. Without this scene, the film does not contain any violence. Neither does the film contain graphic depictions of sex. There is only the frequent use of the four-letter "f" word, which gives it an R rating.

Anchor Bay Entertainment has provided an excellent presentation of "HappyThankYouMorePlease" on DVD. As mentioned before, it has a featurette on Jaymay and deleted scenes; it also has a theatrical trailer and audio commentary provided by Producer/Writer/Director/Actor Josh Radnor (star of the hit television series "How I Met Your Mother") and Producer Jesse Hara. The film is presented in its theatrical aspect ratio of 2.35:1 and has English and Spanish subtitles. Thank you Anchor Bay for providing subtitles for those of us who are hearing impaired.

"HappyThankYouMorePlease" is not a raunchy, hormonally driven sex comedy. It is an emotionally uplifting, inspirational, teary-eyed romance that gives people like me, who've been single for a very long time, hope that there is someone out there for them. Though it is not totally realistic, it does, however, provide excellent advice on having a positive attitude towards one's self image and self worth. In order to be loved, one must first love oneself. Remember Whitney Houston's hit song, "Greatest Love of All." The greatest love of all is learning to love oneself. How very true. In conclusion, I must state that this film has made me very Happy. To Josh Radnor, I must say, "Thank You." Furthermore, I beseech him to please make more movies like this one. "More Please."

Joseph B. Hoyos

Read Best Reviews of Happythankyoumoreplease (2010) Here

Customer review from the Amazon Vine Program This movie has a "little engine that could" feel about it: it wants to be better than it is. And it's trying very hard. The actors are talented, the script has potential, but the characters could be more interesting than they are allowed to be, and somehow it never quite pulls together.

A slice of life movie, there is no great plot twist or even much of a character arc-it's just a few days in the lives of young adults finding their way in New York City. Which is part of the problem: too many other (better) films of this genre come to mind. This film adds nothing new to the genre. And the ultimate fate of the characters is just too neat and nice.

Even though parts of the film really made no sense (the main character doesn't seem to have much of an income yet maintains an apartment alone in NYC; he essentially kidnaps a child, but that's somehow OK because he means well-even though he leaves the child alone in his apartment?) there's an overarching sincerity about the production that makes it hard to completely dismiss.

The supporting couples played by Zoe Kazan and Pablo Schreiber, and Malin Akerman and Tony Hale are actually more interesting than the lead couple, Josh Radnor and Kate Mara. The movie would have been better if those characters could have been developed more.

The movie tries hard. I suspect director/writer Josh Radnor learned a lot while making this film, so his next effort will be even better.

Want Happythankyoumoreplease (2010) Discount?

"What if you don't know whats best for you?" After struggling writer Sam Wexler (Radnor) takes in a small child who is left behind on a subway he begins on a course that will change his life. Stuck in a posisition of what's more important between the kid, his book or love life, Sam is left trying to find out who he is. This is the type of movie that I have talked about before, a movie that because of no CGI and small budget gets forgot about by the studios and does not get the advertising it deserves. This is one of the best movies of the year, and will continue to be one of the least scene. Very dissapointing considering more people have seen and will continue to see movies like "Drive Angry". Taking away the fact that Radnor both wrote and directed this, Malin Akerman is a huge surprise in this one. Much like Milla Jovovich in "Stone" she is the definate break out acting star in this one. In a drastic change from her usual choice she far and away steals the movie and proves that she is a joy to watch even with her clothes on. Besides Akerman, the acting all around is excellent, but the fact that the budget is under $100,000 and no comic book hero or a car that becomes a robot this will not be seen by the audience that it deserves. This is the type of movie there needs to be more of, but because of greed the studios refuse to take a chance on interesting movies like this one in favor of the next comic book hero, or the next sequel that doesn't seem necessary. Overall easily one of the top ten best movies of the year so far. I give it an A.

Would I watch it again? Yes, I would.

*Also try Garden State & Jolene

Save 37% Off

Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi (2009)

Rab Ne Bana Di JodiTo most, a Yash Chopra production is synonymous with big doings of storytelling done on a lavish scale, of an extravagant love story, and the brightest talents in Bollywood. RAB NE BANA DI JODI happens to falter on several of these elements. But while it may not be on the same tier as past Yash Chopra classics (Dilwale dulhania le jayenge, Veer-Zaara, Fanaa, etc.), it's still very much worth watching. Bollywood megastar Shahrukh Khan, as expected, carries this romantic comedy.

The opening sequence features two arranged marriages, and both involving the same girl. On her wedding day Taani (Anushka Sharma), young and vivacious, receives the shocking news that the bus carrying her fiance enroute to the wedding had crashed, with her fiance numbered amongst the casualties. Taani's professor father, upon learning the news, suffers a massive and eventually fatal heart attack. On his death bed, her father, not wanting Taani to be alone, talks her into entering a marriage with his favorite student Surinder Sahni (Shahrukh Khan).

Surinder is a nondescript-looking guy, one of those unnoticed types who toil in his cubicle, working as he does for the Punjab Power company, responding to all phone calls with what I think is a pretty neat company motto, "Punjab Power, lighting up your life." Surinder (or Suri) is bespectacled and quiet and kind, and becomes instantly smitten with Taani. But he understands that his marriage to her is only one of conveniece, Taani frankly declaring that she could never fall in love with him, even though she vows to fulfill her wifely obligations. Suri, never expecting someone like Taani to enter his life, professes himself content.

Things go on like this for a time, with Taani continuing to mope and with her and Suri sleeping in separate bedrooms. One day Taani sees a flyer for Dancing Jodi, a dance school competition, and she decides to participate. Suri, longing to see her happy and dancing again, pays for the dance classes and then dons a disguise so that he could be near her, not in a pervo way but so that he could enjoy the sight of her having fun. For the introverted Suri, things are about to get ridiculously out of hand.

It doesn't really make sense, but somehow Suri's best friend is this outgoing, macho salon owner (yes, I said "macho salon owner!") named Bobby Khosla. Bobby does a makeover on Suri and transforms him into this hip, happening cat named Raj Kapoor. Raj wears tight clothes, has poofy hair, and tends to be loud and obnoxious. Thru the luck of the draw, he ends up being Taani's dance partner. Taani dislikes him within moments, but, then again, you know how these movies go. Soon enough, thanks to Raj's antics, Taani is laughing and feeling alive again. And Suri, trapped in a web of his own making, soon finds himself in a fight for his marriage, with his alter ego as his rival. It's all very twisted, but fun.

Fun, because the tone doesn't ever get to that dark place. Shahrukh Khan plays the strutting Raj Kapoor as a caricature, exagerrated and over-the-top. Raj isn't very likeable, but then I don't ever think he was meant to be. It's weird, even keeping in mind that Raj and Suri were the same person, I still could not warm up to Raj. As Shahrukh says in an interview: "The essence of the whole thing is, that you're going to love only one guy and that is Suri." That's one dichotomy in Shahrukh's dual roles. I don't think much of his portrayal of Raj, even if Raj's resulting traits were deliberate on Shahrukh's part (I'm guessing he intended him to be this aggravating). Obversely, Shahrukh's self-sacrificial Suri is sweet and heart-breaking and thoroughly endearing. As Shahrukh also says, "Ninety-nine percent of the people are Suris," and so many of us Average Joes see ourselves in Suri. With due respect to the showstopper number "Phir Milenge Chalte Chalte" in which Shahrukh gets to dance with some of the most famous actresses with whom he's co-starred in the past it's the terrific "Haule Haule" which really captures my attention. "Haule Haule" embodies Suri's gentle spirit and the depth of his feelings for Taani. In the song, when he beams with happiness and does that little dance, one simply cannot help but be won over.

The subplot to all this, of course, is the Dancing Jodi competition. You can probably guess how it ends. RAB NE BANA DI JODI (which I think means "A Couple Made By God") has its flaws but the effervescent tone, the romance, the nifty songs, and the touches of humor should have you overlooking those failings. It certainly made a killing at the Indian box office. This is Anushka Sharma's cinematic debut, but you wouldn't know it by her self-assured performance and her chemistry with Shahrukh, especially when Shahrukh is playing Suri; it's these two characters whose moments together construct the crux and the romance of the story. And Shahrukh Khan is Shahrukh Khan, in Bollywood the star of stars and his Suri having become one of my all-time favorite roles which this actor has ever brought to life.

What I didn't like? Okay, I initially had some trouble buying into Taani's Lois Lane complex, with her just being unable to pierce thru Suri's fairly simple disguise, but I eventually shrugged it off. Because, I guess, since she doesn't spend a lot of time with her husband (only at breakfast and dinner and the occasional movie date) and since the man is habitually so reserved, I can see where it may be difficult for her to put two and two together. In her place, would it occur to you that someone so internal could put on such an audacious act? Another nitpick is that I just found "Raj Kapoor" to be so annoying and not once did I feel that he was a character in his own right. And then there's Taani's late epiphany which, to me, simply smacks of the quick fix resolution.

What I have is the nice two-disc set with the glossy 3D hologram cover, although it's not cool that Disc 1 sits right on top of Disc 2. Disc 1 offers the feature film (which is 2 hours 44 minutes long) with English sub-titles and the typical song selection option. Disc 2, with the sizable special features: the Making Of RAB NE BANA DI JODI featurette (45 minutes long); the Making Of the musical number "Haule Haule"; the Making Of the musical number "Dance Pe Chance"; the Making Of the musical number "Phir Milenge Chalte Chalte," which in addition to featuring five of Shahrukh's past female co-stars is also an homage to different eras of Bollywood (although I think the musical number ""Woh Ladki Hai Kahan" from Dil Chahta Hai did this better); 6 minutes of deleted scenes (no sub-titles); Shahrukh Khan Unplugged 62 minutes of SRK and his ego but with that wit and that twinkle in his eye as a saving grace as he reflects (mostly in English) on sundry topics like this film's director Aditya Chopra, SRK's film preparation, his dual parts Suri and Raj, the importance of getting newcomer Anushka Sharma as his romantic leading lady, his tight relationship with the Chopra family, etc.; Shahrukh and Anushka In Conversation (43 minutes, chunks of it in Hindi), but definitely get around to just before the 32 minute mark to hear an utterly fascinating bit as Shahrukh answers Anushka's question: "Who is Shahrukh?"; and the theatrical trailer and promos.

Despite Raj Kapoor, I ended up really liking RAB NE BANA DI JODI. The ending is very good, even though you do see it coming. The movie has its good share of funny moments, although, as usual with Bollywood, sometimes the humor is forced. But do keep an eye out for the hilarious Dhoom sequence, in which Taani finds umbrage with two fellow dancers on a motorbike and goes tearing off in pursuit thru the tiny streets on Raj's own motorcycle (with Raj on the back). Then there's the funny epilogue to that scene, as Raj fills in his disbelieving but still macho best friend Bobby on that story (and remember that Bobby knows that Suri is Raj):

Bobby: "So your wife was riding the bike?"

Suri: "Yes."

Bobby: "At the speed of 120?"

Suri: "Yes."

Bobby: "And what were you doing?"

Suri: "I was sitting behind."

Bobby: "What were you doing at the back?"

Suri: "I had to hold the handbag, right?"

It's funnier in the movie.

I wish I could give this film more than 5 stars. I'm a big Shah Rukh Khan (SRK) fan after seeing several of his movies, and this one is my favorite by far, due to the HIGH QUALITY ACTING. Shah Rukh plays a dual role in this film and the movie is unforgettable.

Regarding the features: This 2 disk set is excellent quality. The movie is on the first disk, with a great feature of being able to play all of the songs in a row. Most of the time you can play one song, but then the movie continues after the song is over. Not so with this special feature, where it will take you to the next song rather than continue with the movie. There is also an easy to work scene selection for the movie itself so you can jump around as much as you want, from scene to scene.

The second disk contains some very revealing interviews with SRK and Anushka Sharma. I loved that the SRK Unplugged interview is mostly in English and it's lengthy, so it gives the viewer the chance to see Shah Rukh as himself. In the second interview on the disk, when Shah Rukh interviews Anushka, it is mainly in Hindi with no subtitles and only a little bit of English, which is disappointing. HOWEVER, you MUST stick with it until towards the end of the interview, Anushka asks SRK, "Who is Shah Rukh Khan?" That's when you will get a real treasure, in English, of how he truly feels about himself as a person and his acting abilities. It is quite revealing and touching to hear.

Regarding the movie: This is a beautiful love story, and it is beautifully acted by SRK and newcomer Anushka Sharma. I found it a real credit to Anushka's acting abilities that she was able to hold her own so well when acting with such an incredible actor as SRK. Anushka was very believable and portrayed her grief over her losses very well throughout the entire movie. I especially enjoyed her acting in the scene when she suddenly "gets it" -when she finally understands her connection to her husband, Suri, and all that he's done for her. When she sees God in him.

Of course it was very easy to love Suri and root for him right from the start of the movie, because he was the common man, the underdog. Suri constantly revealed his love for Taani in the way he did things for her. He was so loving as he cared for her and did everything he could to make her feel comfortable and happy. Taani, however, was too caught up in her grief and anger towards God for taking her loved ones, that she couldn't see what was in front of her face. When she finally expressed an interest in something, it was natural that Suri would want to share in her happiness, which is what led him to transform into Raj. I found it incredibly brave of mild and meek Suri to be willing to change into a completely different person just so he could spend time with his wife, Taani.

Some reviewers of this movie didn't like Raj, but I did. I could see Suri underneath the surface most of the time, which demonstrates SRK's wonderful skill as an actor. He is absolutely hilarious as Raj, but he also shows his humanity, like in the heart-wrenching scene where Raj is drunk and talking to himself (a dummy with Suri's clothes on it) about his fears. As Raj, Suri gradually revealed his love for Taani to her, which made Taani have to finally face what was really going on in her life. The incredibly tender scene with Taani asking Raj "What do I do?" was just exquisite acting by both.

There are some wonderful musical numbers in this film, including some real show-stoppers. My two favorites were Haule Haule, which is Suri singing about his love for Taani, and Tujh Mein Rab Dikhta Hai, which is Raj/Suri singing to Taani about his love for her. SRK's acting and dancing in the number Tujh Mein Rab Dikhta Hai (loosely translated "I see God in you") is just superb. This is the one song that I play over and over again because it's just so beautiful.

This film is thoroughly entertaining from beginning to end. This is the one movie I will make my adult daughter sit down and watch with me to see if she likes Bollywood. Because if you don't like this movie, you just don't get it.

Buy Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi (2009) Now

So far, the names of Yash Chopra and Aditya Chopra have been behind some of India's most beautiful, romantic movies in the past decade, and this latest production lived up to my expectations, even though it is significantly different from earlier box-office hits like "Mohabbetein", "Veer-Zaara" and "Dil to Pagal Hai", to name a few. The two main aspects which struck me as being most different about this lovely new film, "Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi", are the realistic and traditional Indian settings and the unusual story about an unlikely couple. In most popular romantic movies, the stars are young and attractive, and although Shahrukh Khan, the star of many such popular romantic movies, also plays the lead role in this film, his character is quite different from previous roles. In fact, he plays dual roles in this movie, which he has done to perfection several times already, and Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi is yet another opportunity for Shahrukh to shine and show us even more facets of his limitless talent and abilities. Wearing glasses and a moustache, he is almost unrecognizable as a stiff and boring middle-class working man, but as soon as he speaks, the viewer can look beyond the outer appearance and see the kind, gentle and loving soul within. This is actually the underlying message of this story, and Shahrukh brings it out very skilfully so that the audience follows the plight of this awkward and clumsy geek who is desperate to make an attractive young woman love him for the person he really is. With so many handsome and macho film stars to dazzle the girls, he finds this a daunting task, but is driven by love and faith in God to persist in his quest.

The situation is immediately more intriguing and complex, especially for the Western viewer, because the young woman in question is his bride whom he met only a day before the wedding, according to Indian tradition. The first few scenes are already loaded with deep emotion and drama as we learn that the young woman's happiness over her `marriage of love' a luxury not everyone experiences is shattered on her wedding day when her groom is killed in an accident. This causes her father to suffer a heart attack, and on his deathbed quickly arranges his bereaved daughter to marry an old and trusted friend, Surinder, to take care of her. Already in love with her at first sight, Surinder feels the pain of love for the first time in his life when she tells him she has no love left in her heart for anyone after the tragedy, but will do her best to be a good wife nevertheless. And so begins a charming and delightful story, like a fairytale, yet real enough to tug firmly at your heartstrings, as Shahrukh, playing Surinder the geek, disguises himself as a handsome, carefree and manly dance partner in his wife's evening dance class. Even though Shahrukh looks like his usual self as this attractive young man, his acting moves into new heights and dimensions as he plays Surinder the awkward geek pretending to be Raj, the sophisticated ladies' man. Despite still being awkward and clumsy, she appears to gradually fall for him after all, with never a suspicion that he is in fact her dull husband, which becomes a dilemma for Surinder: does this mean his wife would leave him for Raj because of his outer appearance, or would she eventually see beyond the geek exterior and come to love Surinder's fine qualities?

Newcomer Anushka Sharma plays the role of Taani, the sad and lost young woman, with apparent ease and with a manner pleasantly different from the usual popular female lead. In fact, both lead roles are deliberately different in order to create a story with a special deeper meaning to inspire audiences, even with spiritual concepts such as whether this match was made in Heaven. For the romantically-inclined, this movie will surely be very satisfying, if not inspiring, and for Western viewers it will be an emotion-packed adventure through India and the traditions and mentality of India's people.

Read Best Reviews of Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi (2009) Here

This was the second Bollywood movie I ever saw. The first was Bride and Prejudice, which I call my gateway movie; it suckered me in by my Austen addiction and then delighted me unexpectedly India has had far, far longer to learn to incorporate (rely on!) music and dance to tell a story (rather than interrupt or stretch it) than Hollywood or Broadway. It even proved to my musical-despising husband that not all musicals are poorly-paced, irritatingly interrupted by pointless songs, and boring.

If Bride and Prejudice was the bait, Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi is the hook, and it was weeks before I realized how deeply it sank. I kept watching it as a Netflix Instant Play, but by fifth time, I realized I should probably just buy it outright.

The most basic plot premise: man falls ever more deeply in love with his own wife, tries to win her love in return. Awww!



The details: Attending the wedding of his favorite teacher's daughter, the reserved, almost expressionless Surinder Sahni falls in love at first sight with the ingenuous and carefree laughter of the much younger bride, Taani. The plot takes a couple of sudden turns and she ends up marrying Surinder instead, but is so traumatized that she tells him, "I will never be able to love you. I will be a good wife to you, but my heart is dead and I cannot love again." Surinder tells her he has never known love and feels no need for it in his life. Of course, he has lied; he does know love. He fell in love with Taani the first time he saw her, of course. But, as the song "Haule, Haule" ("Slowly, Slowly") explains, he believes that love should develop "soft, sweet, slow", and is prepared to give Taani all the time and space she needs to heal and recover herself. Surinder's love begins selfless and becomes self-sacrificing, wanting only to see Taani happy and laughing again, asking nothing in return but the possible rebirth of her smile. Meanwhile, her tiniest dutiful actions (packing his lunch, making his breakfast) bring a complicated, sweet, touching smile spreading across Surinder's frequently immobile face -in private, when nobody is around to see. Outwardly, he treats her with expressionless deference and distance, asking very little of her and sacrificing much for her comfort and happiness; he moves himself into the attic (claiming he always sleeps there) to give her the bedroom to herself.

Taani emerges from her state of shock and begins to respond to his gentle, considerate care with "dutiful" actions that make Surinder feel pampered and cared-for in return; even if she does not love him as she had her fiance, he tells her that her small actions are enough love for him, and we witness his understated, reserved glows of happiness in response. He comes home from work and the dusty, cluttered, cobwebbed attic is clean and spacious, decorated, with fresh flowers on his nightstand. This example, and several other developments, happen in a few seconds each during "Haule, Haule" -you have to watch the action during the songs, because plot and character development happen there too, in a manner so condensed and dense with implication I can only compare it to poetry. If you get up for a snack during the song-and-dance bits because you can still *hear* from the kitchen, you will miss much of the depth of the movie. Surinder's love does develop, softly, sweetly, slowly, from crush-at-first-sight to the adoration expressed in "Tujh Mein Rab Dikhta Hai" ("I See My God In You"). Taani's feelings remain locked away, frozen and unchanging. Everything she does, she does dutifully, mechanically, because it is what she owes her husband. (That sense of debt becomes pronounced late in the film, almost wrenching in another brief scene far too easy to miss the significance of.)

Yes, there is the surface plot Taani joins a dance class/competition, and Surinder undergoes a radical makeover and dozens of dubious quick-changes to pose as the brash, loud, and frankly irritating Raj during the evenings, in order to attend the classes with her. "Raj" is able to flatter, flirt, and romance brazenly in a way Surinder never could without the anonymity of disguise. There are faint resonances with Cyrano de Bergerac as Raj tells Taani all the things that meek, awkward, almost shrinking Surinder could never bring himself to say. They are partnered together in their dance lessons, and gradually a ride home on "Raj's" motorcycle becomes after-lesson dinner and a birthday date. Despite spending hours every day dancing, dining, and laughing with Raj, Taani never suspects that her colorful, swaggering dance partner is actually her mousy, quiet husband. Surinder suspects that Taani is falling for Raj, becomes jealous (of himself!), and despite a friend's advice that "Either way, it's you she's loving!" decides to force the issue and find out who Taani *really* loves -the man she laughs for, or the man she cooks and cleans for.

Yes, it's full of holes in the description; it seems questionable that Raj spends so much time with Taani while Surinder puts in a full workday, even if the dance classes are stated to be "in the evening". It strains belief that a woman wouldn't recognize her own husband just because he shaved off his mustache and dresses differently. There's a lot to question here, if you expect the movie to force-feed you each and every explanation, Hollywood-blockbuster style, and it's then only a 2or 3-star movie depending on how badly inconsistency and spasmodic character development grate on your nerves.

But if you're willing to watch closely, follow subtleties of expression, ask yourself how things are changing and why, and put yourself in the characters' shoes, you will see that the "Match Made By God" is in the details, and the movie flows gorgeously. The smallest things, the nuances of Shah Rukh Khan's performance as Surinder (and unguarded moments as Raj), the song sequences, show a rich, mature exploration of different kinds of love, different styles of self-expression, different ways to say "I love you", and ultimately the wealth of emotion and interdependent partnership that can grow between two very different people. Taani believes she loved her fiance so deeply, so passionately she will never feel again; Surinder's love runs so deep it hardly shows at all.



This was also the first Shah Rukh Khan performance I had ever seen; I'm now a thorough addict. His talent shines through brilliantly, even in the (intentionally) shallow characterization of the ridiculous and abrasively over-the-top Raj, and especially comparing that to the restrained, complex, nuanced expressions of Surinder. I was amazed I had never seen or heard of this actor before. I understand entirely now why Wikipedia says "Khan is today considered to be the world's most successful movie star, with a fan following numbering in the billions..." He deserves it, and I am picky about actors. He holds his facial muscles differently for each character, so that their faces have different shapes, and that makes the implausible deception easy to play along with. His dancing is excellent, but borders on divine if you notice how he manages to bring the body language of the two different characters into the dances as well -Surinder's dancing is graceful and precise in contrast to his awkwardness, while Raj is still all broad sweeps and jerking motion -and how it's in dance that Raj and Surinder reconcile and merge as their distinctive movements blend. Just. Seriously. Brilliant.

Or maybe I'm reading too much into it by now, having seen it so many times... no, you know what? There's no such thing. It's there to find. The first time I watched this movie, I found it sweet and touching; as I catch more details, I find it heart-wrenching and buoyant. I can no more resist tearing up at the first few notes of "Haule, Haule" or "Tujh Mein Rab Dikhta Hai" than I can on hearing Leonard Nimoy say "...and will always be... my friend." It's far from all-tragic; I have to laugh in pure joy whenever I hear "Taani-partner!" as much as on hearing Christopher Eccleston say, "Everybody lives, Rose! Just this once, EVERYBODY lives!" (No, Bollywood is not my usual fare, why would you ask?) The more I watch, the more I see, understand, and love in this movie, and that there *is* always more to find, between the sterling direction and outstanding performance, is what turns the plot into an all-time favorite must-own comfort movie instead of a paper-thin slice of Swiss cheese. And if you wish they'd followed the story a little further, make sure to watch the closing credits.

My ONLY complaint, not worth even a quarter of a star, is about the DVD rather than the movie itself: I cannot find any way to get subtitles on the end credits (though the rough meaning comes through regardless) or the special features on the second disc. (Roughly half the interview content is English, mixed into the Hindi, and the deleted scenes are completely Hindi with maybe a loan word or two, and my Hindi is so far limited to "(Ji) haan", "(Ji) nahin", "Kyaa?" and "Namaste".) Oh, well. Maybe I'll find that detail in here too, someday.

If you have any doubts, rent the movie. If a week later, the thought of a man laying a single rose next to his wife's breakfast plate, then reconsidering, deflating, and putting it back in the vase, isn't etched into your mind's eye with a poignant mingling of hope and regret... well, watch it again. Soft, sweet, slow, the implications will unfold.

Want Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi (2009) Discount?

I had never seen a Bollywood movie before, but I was listening to some Bollywood music on You Tube and found Haule Haule. What a great song...it was so good I put it in my Zumba routine! Then I heard Dance de pe Chance and really liked that. Later I found they were from the same movie! Then I heard Tujh mien rab dikhta ha (i don't know if I spelled that right?) what a great song! I was singing it everyday for a week. So I finally saw the movie on Net Flix...and totally fell in love with it. I honestly cannot put my finger on why I love this movie so much. I think that it has something that a lot of Western love stories is missing. I know I do love the characters, especially Suri, I feel I can really relate to his character. The director really shows with visual shots the emotion of the movie from Suri's unrequited love to Taani's feeling of loneliness and uncertainty. One of the best western romance comedies is Love Actually I would have to put this film up there as well, it just touches emotionally the same way. Great movie...one of the all time best romantic comedies!

Save 13% Off

Due Date

Due DateI'm so tired of reading reviews of people saying "it's not as good as The Hangover". It's not the Hangover!!! It's not the sequel to the Hangover, it's not the same storyline as the Hangover, in fact, it's got nothing to do with any kind of Hangover. Due Date may be directed by by Mr. Phillips of Hangover fame and star Galifinakis of the same, but this is a completely different movie with a different plot. If you want to watch another version of the Hangover the sequel comes out this summer, but if you want to enjoy an engrossing comedy starring two great entertainers, watch Due Date. When you watch this, please, I beg of you, don't measure it by The Hangover. Do you measure Field of Dreams by Dances With Wolves? Do you measure Mad Max by Braveheart? This is it's own movie separate from all others.

Robert Downey Jr and Zach have a good chemistry involved with this movie, its theme reminds me of planes, trains and automobiles with Steve Martin and the late John Candy. If you loved that movie you will definately love Due Date, poor Peter's goal is to get home to his pregnant wife and encounters Hollywood (Zach) in an airplane Peter gets shot by an air marshal they both get kicked off the plane put on a no fly list and Hollywood talks Peter into riding along with him and his dog sonny to L.A Peter can't rent a car because his wallet is still on the plane or so he thinks, the trip involves many hilarous moments from a freak car crash which Peter suffers a broken arm to being arrested at the boarder for drugs to getting accidently shot by Hollywood. This is true enjoyment I loved the dog he was great!Due Date

Buy Due Date Now

This is a classic slapstick, tough luck comedy story involving a road trip from East to West coast.

In a nutshell: an expectant father is flying from ATL to LA when he crosses paths with a odd-ball guy who ends up getting them kicked off the airplane for suspicious behavior. In the process, he "loses" his wallet and, by a mixture of circumstances, has to travel across the county with the same nutcase who got him thrown off the plane. During the journey, they get into a mix of trouble.

What I liked: Zach Zach Galifianakis is really funny throughout -great scenes and acting. The obliviousness to societal "norms" is what makes it funny. As you see in the preview, Robert Downey Jr.'s character is telling a sad tale of his father leaving him as a child. After hearing it, Galifianakis starts cracking up laughing and says something about how his father would never do that because he loved him.

Disliked: Some of the craziness is overdone; needed more edgy scenes and clever ideas in some points of the film; the Mexico scene was a bit much.

Overall: VERY GOOD for a mindless comedy. If you liked Hangover, Wedding Crashers, Sex Drive, Road Trip, American Pie, etc., you'll probably enjoy it. Fortunately, it doesn't go as far as Borat or Jackass in terms of shocking and grotesque humor. But, if you are easily offended, dislike raunchy jokes, or just don't enjoy this type of comedy, it's probably not for you.

Read Best Reviews of Due Date Here

Architect Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.) is trying to get home to his pregnant wife who is expecting soon when he comes into contact with Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis) an aspiring actor. After a series of unfortunate event's Peter and Zach get kicked off of their plane and end up carpooling to get home. These two characters confront several obstacles on their way home that seem impossible to recover from.

"Due Date" is oddly low rated and I wonder if some critics saw the same movie I did. While I'm sure this movie isn't the next "The Hangover" it surely doesn't deserve such a low rating. The story isn't too great this is more of a new age of humor that was brought about due to movies like "The Hangover" and "Superbad" which sold like crazy to young audiences who find this more grotesque humor involving masturbation and bodily fluids wildly entertaining. Older audiences aren't going to enjoy it as much.

This is basically the same scenario as "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" where you have two opposite characters who must work together to achieve the goal of getting home. This movie does not quite have the story and moments moments that really provoked strong emotion like in "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" it does provide the laughter with some pretty bizarre scenarios. Robert Downey Jr. and Galifianakis is a weird combo but I believed that this movie really pulled it off.

While it isn't AMAZING it is still a decent movie to go see and provides some good laughs if you are in to that kind of humor.

I give this movie a 6 out of 10

This review and more at

Want Due Date Discount?

Todd Phillips needs to pay residuals to the late John Hughes for a complete theft of his plot for "Planes, Trains and Automobiles." But while that movie was light and funny, and quite often genuinely from the heart, this movie aims below the belt, and is often dark and cruel.

The cool little twist to this movie (at least to me) is that Robert Downey Jr.'s Peter is very much a sarcastic prick. Yeah, he earns it, since Galifianakis' character is so intolerable, but it's nice that Peter has an edge.

I think the problem is that even though the movie is occasionally funny, Galifianakis' behavior is beyond disgusting and repulsive, and yet the movie seemingly looks down at Peter for his reaction to it. Whenever Peter lets loose to tell Galifianakis' Ethan what a slob he is, he either pays for it by being physically hurt or is forced to apologize.

What saves this movie is Downey Jr. -because quite honestly, he's the one who has all the laughs. For all the crazy behavior by Galifianakis, it's actually Downey who gets you laughing. His wrinkle-faced expressions of disbelief are hilarious.

The movie goes into loony-tunes territory later on, when Peter and Ethan get into all sorts of illegal activity, and the movie conveniently fails to mention why they're not put in jail for the rest of their lives at the end of the film.

Michelle Monaghan (reuniting with "Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang" co-star Downey), Jamie Foxx (who almost doesn't seem to know why he's in the movie) and Juliette Lewis are completely forgettable and wasted.

What "Due Date" really is is just a cash-grab by Todd Phillips, who threw together the film with Galifianakis to capitalize on the success of "The Hangover." But the film suffers from a slapdash feel. You can sense them massaging out the script to make it to feature length.

It's not a bad film, and Downey did do a fabulous job, but I think it could have been better than the slightly amusing quickly-made post-"Hangover" paycheck movie it turns out to be.

Save 33% Off

Friends with Kids (2012)

Friends with KidsI never write reviews. But I felt the need to defend this one because it's REALLY REALLY GOOD. Jennifer Westfeldt is wonderful. Adam Scott too. The supporting cast manages to pull off rich, 3-dimensional characters with little screen time because all characters are well-drawn and well-cast.

Think "When Harry Met Sally." There is no fake orgasm scene, but you do drop in and out of these people's lives as they inch closer toward each other and further away. Toward the end, I half expected Billy Crystal to show up and say "I came here tonight because when you realize that you want to spend the rest of your life with someone, you want the rest of your life to start as soon as possible."

It might not be what people are used to in terms of a "romantic comedy" (or what passes for one today). Instead, it's engaging and true-to-life. I smiled more than I laughed, but I smiled a lot.

I really tried to like this movie. It seemed to have the potential to win me over and I thought that in the last 5 minutes it was going to successfully warm my heart. As it turned out, the last 1 minute put such a rotten taste in my mouth that I wish that I could have those entire 108 minutes of my life back.

First off, I must disclaim that I am not a prude. I am a progressive man who understands that we live in modern times and I find validity in all sorts of relationship variants, family structure types, and believe that they all carry currency and have the potential to provide a meaningful, satisfactory life. With all that said, I must admit: this movie really disappointed me.

The entire premise of the film is superficial and the male main character, Jason (Adam Scott), is particularly irritatingly hollow. His world is viewed only through the lens of his sexual conquests. I found it totally uninteresting and certainly not worth the time spent on screen exploring this one-dimensional worldview. Next, the movie does everything in its power to create an awkward tension between Jason and Julie throughout the ENTIRE film, and then we are left to imagine it all working out in the last few moments that this tension magically resolves and they live happily ever after? Great care was taken to paint a realistic picture of parenthood (albeit, quite stereotypical, to be fair), a realistic view of the complexity of long term friendships between couples, and then, in the final moments of the film, we're delivered a COMPLETELY fake and forced resolution. Just when it seems Jason is going to finally "get it" -that meaningful relationships are not merely about sex and that initial passions eventually morph into long term mutual respect and partnership -he offers, as a symbol of his commitment to Julie, to "F" the "S" out of her (insert crude language here). In that situation, would anyone actually ever say that? I don't think so.

There are plenty of great films who succeed at being both 'comedy' and 'drama'. However, in my opinion, this film is simply not one of them.

Buy Friends with Kids (2012) Now

I don't want to put a spoiler here so I won't say anything about the ending. Sends a bad message.

Read Best Reviews of Friends with Kids (2012) Here

I was really excited about this movie because of the cast and was extremely disappointed. The language is terrible throughout the movie. (I am not a prude, but F every other word jars me a bit.)

It was also a bit depressing if you are looking for a comedy. Just be warned.

Want Friends with Kids (2012) Discount?

I would really love to know why a movie that is in fact a drama would advertise itself as a comedy? The moviegoer, in this case, me, settles in to expect to laugh, especially with the cast of Friends with Kids but instead waits......and waits......and waits for the funny. The funny never comes. So the viewer gets disappointed and ends up thinking it's going to end up on her "most hated movies" list when really if they would have advertised it as a drama she would have approached it as such and could have made her determination based on the movie being serious....but, nooooooooo, she just gets to watch a really unfunny comedy.

Save 35% Off

Staten Island (2009)

Staten IslandI picked up this movie to begin with, because Vincent D'Onofrio is in it. I ended up loving it, for the plot and the storyline.

The characters, at times, border on being comical; but not in the usual way. What I mean by that is, that life is ironic and the movie mirrors the ironic way that life comes at you. Sometimes all you can do is laugh about it. The movie is full of twists, with a twist ending.

The characters, go through a series of events; that test thier mettle. How they react to the situations that affect them is what makes this movie special.

The performances are all top notch. Ethan Hawke made me sit up and take notice with the honesty of his performance.

Vincent D'Onofrio was excellent as always. Seymour Cassell was able to make you understand his character, though he didn't utter a word. Just awesome. I definitely recommend this movie. Give it a try. I dont think you will be disappointed.

Bought it because it stars Vincent D'Onofrio. As usual, he entertains. One of the best actors working today. Where are his awards?

The story is interesting although you have to wait for the layers to be peeled away. The writing is excellent and the actors all turn in solid performances. I particularly liked the scenes with Seymour Cassel as a deaf-mute in which the sounds are muffled or muted completely. Can't think of the last time I cheered for an old geezer with a gun, but I still wonder what exactly he does with the meat?

If you like the dumbed down "entertainment" of Adam Sandler or Mike Meyers, this movie isn't for you. If you enjoy an O. Henry type story with well-acted scenes, pick this one up. If you are one of D'Onofrio's crazed fans, you've already bought it and viewed it 15 times complaining about the stupid PTB at USA network the entire time. . . but don't forget to watch the deleted scenes!

Buy Staten Island (2009) Now

Short Attention Span Summary:

This was an "intersecting stories" type of movie a la "Pulp Fiction."

1. We see a mobster who is in the process of plotting to take over the business of his rivals. It is at this point that we learn that he can hold his breath for a long period of time under water. At the beginning of the movie, he is trying to beat some money out of someone that stole it from him (literally). He leaves because he has to go and see after his mother.

2. The mobster's associates try to kill him after a visit with his mother (the reason for which he had to interrupt the beating that started the movie) and his car veers off into a river. He manages to survive this attempt because of his underwater breathing exercises before.

3. There is a man and his wife. He is a septic tank cleaner and they want to have a child. He gets the bright idea to rob this old woman (who happens to be Mr. Mobster's mother) in order to get the funds to finance his wife's fertility treatment. Oops. Mr. Septic Tank is worried that the child will not be intelligent (it is painfully clear that he himself is not intelligent) and so the cost of the insemination also includes some way to ensure the intelligence of the offspring.

4. Later still, we are introduced to a deaf mute who works at the meat shop that takes care of the bodies that Mr. Mobster brings in from his activities. It seems that this person has a friendly relationship with the Septic Tank Cleaner. Later, Deaf Mute Guy wins a horse race for $47,000 (it seems that he lives a lonely life and his only outlet is betting at the race track from time to time). He knows about the bad things that Mr. Mobster does, and wants to kill him to make the world a better place.

5. Eventually, Mr. Mobster finds out that Mr. Septic tank stole his money, and orders his men to get the money back. Mr. Septic borrows the money from Deaf Mute Guy, but Mr. Mobster's workers kill him just the same. Mr. Deaf mute only finds this out because they send the body to him to dispose of-and he finds out that he was not able to help a person whose life he thought he was going to save.

6. Finally, Mr. Deaf Mute goes to visit Mr. Mobster at his mother's house and kills him and all three of the men who killed Mr. Septic tank (who were also going to come to kill Mr. Mobster) for a very nice denoument.

As a post-script, the Deaf Mute man befriends the boy who is later born to Mr. Septic tank's wife (who, it is clear, is very smart).

This was a welcome change after watching "2012" (the updated version of the "Noah's Ark" story in the Bible). A film like that had lots and lots and lots of special effects, but ultimately a very pedestrian/ derivative plot. This film, however, was the polar opposite. They did very good work with a very low budget.

At the outset, the film was a bit slow. And listening to the soundtrack, I wasn't sure whether this was supposed to be a comedy or something more intense (like, say, Goodfellas).

Seymour Cassel ultimately stole the show, with his intense acting. (And this is a testament to the man's acting ability that he managed to do that in a wordless role.) The fact that his role had no words also shows how carefully the movie was written. (For example, Jasper's red socks being used to identify him later in the movie. For another, the buttons that he took from the shirt of the bodies of which he disposed being a way to keep track of the number of times that he had done such disposals.)

This was well worth the 5RMB and 2 hours that it took to watch it. Highly recommended.

Read Best Reviews of Staten Island (2009) Here

Vincent D'Onofrio really does a great job in this movie in his role as the mobster.

But every other member of the cast is first rate too. This movie reminded me of the many b movie crime flicks that I seen that go all the back to the 1950's. A group of men rob a mob boss and it can't go well for them. Not that most armed robbers aren't eventually caught either but if you rob a mobster that's gonna be really a bad deal. However this movie uses a jump around format that you can still follow without being confused, You get the mobsters story , One of theives story and a mute deaf man played by the excellent seymour casel, these stories interact and they are the focal point. This is not a action movie though and the violence is done offscreen mainly except for some shootings.

It's a crime drama that's very much filled with characterization and it does not movie quickly. SO I would say that this movie is overall a good b movie but it's the acting that gives it four for me. Just like those great low budget crime flicks of the 40's-50's the stories were good but the acting was often great. Those movies were often darker than this, but this is a case of a good drama that uses the intertwined method to tell it's story. I liked it and wouldn't compare this to a four star A movie either. But it's a good b movie and the blu ray looks very good which helps alot. It has a few extras too that add to the package.

Want Staten Island (2009) Discount?

Definitely not your standard mob film, but if you can make it to that final scene I think you will feel rewarded. I suppose the main reason for most people to see this will be the landscapes and assorted footage of Staten Island. But if you get through this atypical low-level crime boss story, a single performance will stand out for Seymour Cassel as one of his best.

The story follows a small crew crime boss in Staten Island trying to make it big. Life takes some unexpected turns for him, those he trusts and for those who have stolen from him. Along the way we are gracefully rewarded with several meaningful story lines being retold as they overlap. A convincing performance by Ethan Hawke, D'Onofrio in a sort of cheese mode (he worded in his interview supplement on the BD as it being a comical yet serious role) and Cassel's epiphany character all culminate into a well made narrative about getting what you deserve no matter who you are.

The Blu quality is solid throughout with only a few grainy shortcomings, the DTS gets both subtle and varying usages (the deaf/mute character scenes have the sound muffled in a way to try and represent his world) and the main supplement provided some excellent insight from two unlikely sources; the extras include:

* D'Onofrio interview, 2:19 minutes. He has always been about letting the work speak for itself and shunning interviews, so this was the usual brief narrative about character and that's it.

* Deleted scenes, 2:36 minutes. Glad they were cut.

* Commentary by Hawke, D'Onofrio and director DeMonaco. I had a new respect for Hawke due to his performance in the film, but his wit/intellect were even more interesting to listen to as he recorded this. And for D'Onofrio to finally talk extensively about anything to do with a movie and film making in general was great. A worthy commentary if you are fans of either of these guys.

Region coded A/B/C, listed as 1080i with English and Spanish subs. Give it a fair shot and I think you might get a good feeling from that last denouement.

Save 28% Off

Lost in Translation (2003)

Lost in TranslationBill Murray is Bob Harris, a once popular American actor who now, in his middle-age, has found more acceptance and money from the people of Japan than from his own country. He arrives at a prestigious hotel in Tokyo and is given a royal treatment by his greeters and hosts. He is by himself in the land of the rising sun, his wife and kids having stayed behing in the US while he travels across the globe to do some liquor commercials. This Tokyo excursion will take about a week, and the monetary reward will be quite handsome. Contrast this with Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson), who is at the same hotel tagging along with her photographer husband, John (Giovanni Ribisi), as he does a multiple-day photo shoot. John is at work most of the time, and so Charlotte is by herself at the hotel, her attempts to keep from being bored proving fruitless. Both Bob and Charlotte are married people, but they are also very lonely people, and that is what "Lost In Translation" is all about.

Bob and Charlotte catch glimpses of one another at different places in the hotel, and finally decide to converse in earnest at the hotel bar. The entire plot of the film is about these two people getting to know each other. The story revolves around them. In fact, the story *is* them. Bob, in his early-fifties, is old enough to be Charlotte's dad, but that doesn't matter here. It's not about age. It's about the place, and the points that each of these people are at in their lives. Bob loves his children very much, but we do not sense he feels the same for his wife. We hear her on the phone when she calls him, and the same weary sentiment seems to flow from her voice. They are becoming a couple in name only. Then there's Charlotte & John. Both are young, and both are self-possessed. John is into his photography to the point of neglecting Charlotte. But we get the idea that even if gave her more attention, Charlotte might not really warm up to him. She has issues of her own. If Bob is going through a mid-life crisis, then Charlotte seems to be going through a young-life crisis.

"Lost In Translation" is about being alone. Loneliness doesn't always mean that someone is physically separated from loved ones or from people in general. One can be alone in the middle of a crowded room. Such is the case with Bob & Charlotte. They're in Japan for a week. They don't really speak the language. Bob's wife is in the US, and Charlotte's husband is always at a photo shoot. The two lost souls find each other at the hotel, spend time with one another, and even sleep in the same bed together. But we know that while this is providing a small comfort for the time being, it is not a lasting solution to their problems. And we also understand that both Bob and Charlotte -even if Bob's wife were in Tokyo with him, and John was by Charlotte's side all the time -would still be lonely. Their life struggles lie deeper than what one person can provide, especially the persons they have chosen to settle down with.

This is probably Bill Murray's most understated performance, and it works brilliantly. He lets you in on Bob's emotions without betraying too much sentimentality. He conveys so much with just a smile, a frown, his body language, or simply the look in his eyes. He should get an Oscar nomination for this. Scarlett Johansson, who left me unimpressed in the movie "Ghost World" a few years ago, is excellent in her role here. She portrays Charlotte as a deep, troubled, yet intelligent young woman and, like her co-star, does it without overstating it. She spends much of her screen time walking around a hotel room in her pink panties, and does it so simply and matter-of-factly that it becomes both vulnerable and sexy at the same time. Johansson is definitely an actress to watch for in the coming years.

Sofia Coppola has succeeded in creating a sliver of time & place with "Lost In Translation". It creates two of the most realistic characters to ever grace the cinema. You forget this is a movie, and start to really care for these people as though they really exist. And you get the feeling that this is a single, solitary moment that will be over with and then fondly remembered by the characters for a long time to come. This sweeps over you before the film is even over, much like when you are in the middle of a special occurence or event in your own life, and you stop and think about the fact that at one point very soon it will cease to be the present, and will instead become only a nostalgic memory.

And there you have "Lost In Translation"

This movie is slow paced. However I didn't find it boring at all. I loved the scenery and the small glimpses into everyday Japanese life, all meshed together with this love story of two people brought together by loneliness and uncertainty, with a musical soundtrack that brings out the best in all of it.

After watching this film, the first thing that sprang to my mind was that I'm so glad I don't rely on Amazon reviewers to make a decision about whether I am going to see a film or not. That's almost as dumb as asking a fifteen year old to sit through it and not go crazy or pass out. This film is too mature, dealing with grown-up questions, situations and problems that the kiddies here have yet to grasp.

Bill Murray's character is going through a midlife crisis; Scarlet Johansen's is tormented that she cannot seem to discover her purpose in life. Both are trapped in a place where they know no one, and understand nothing. They gravitate to one another and fall into a kind of love that is very unique, but also not at all uncommon under the circumstances. They don't pursue it physically, because they live in a real world with real consequences and have to respect the promises they made to people they both still love.

No kid fresh out of tenth grade will ever be able to comprehend these emotions... no wonder most of these reviews are from people who were bored stiff. "No sex? No violence? This movie SUCKS", seems to be the way it works with these Amazon reviews.

Too bad. Maybe when they all grow up they'll get it. I recommend this movie to grown ups who like minimalist dramas and romantic comedies. If you're expecting a samurai to jump out with a sword, pass this movie up. This film is about human emotions.

Buy Lost in Translation (2003) Now

I saw Translation for the first time and liked it, but didn't really know what they saw in the movie that was so beyond-belief spectacular. But alas, I believe that every movie deserves a second chance, so recently I sat down and experienced director Sophia Coppola's Lost In Translation again.

Lost in Translation tells the story of Bob Harris (Bill Murray in a role tailor-made, if not even Heaven-sent for him), an American movie star that comes to Tokyo to film a whiskey commerical for which he will be paid 2 million bucks. Staying in the same Tokyo hotel is Charlotte (Scarlett Johanssen, radiant and mature at only 18), a newlywed tagging along with her rock photographer husband, John (a typically awkward Giovanni Ribisi). Along the way, Charlotte and Bob run into each other and begin a 'brief encounter' that profoundly affects them both.

When the movie hits you right, it's a pure pleasure from its unassuming start (a beautifully lit shot up Johanssen's underwear-clothed behind) to its ambiguous but meaningful ending. It begins as a comedy of culture clash, Harris sarcastic and confused at the Japanese when entering his hotel, and even more befuddled in a hilarious scene where he shoots the whiskey commercial. Coppola delivers Bob into her movie with the impression that it'll be all about him, but Charlotte enters the story, and we're never quite the same. Scarlett Johanssen plays Charlotte with just the right amount of emotion that her initially morose and soul-searching character doesn't seem silly. At one point, she tearfully admits over the phone, "I don't know who I married." Bob, on the other hand, seems to have it made, but Murray lets a current of loneliness run across that memorable face. He gets comical faxes from his wife about bookshelves and carpet samples, but he gives off the impression that he's come to the point where he doesn't even care anymore. Bob is certainly alone for a time in Tokyo, but Murray alludes that things at home aren't too hot either.

For the first third of the movie, director Coppola displays her first brave choice in filmmaking by keeping Bob and Charlotte apart. Upon my first viewing of Translation, I wasn't convinced of Coppola's choice to keep the movie so predominantly low-key, but I've realized that there's a reason for it. The movie sustains this amazing vibe that doesn't stunt its progress, but propels it with a driving fluidity. A few times, though, Bob and Charlotte do see each other without officially meeting. One time in particular occurs in a crowded elevator the two glance at each other, faintly smile, and possibility is born. The first section of the film doesn't just serve to show its two characters completely apart it makes you think of how many life-changing connections you've missed in the past by just being passive and solitary.

The two meet and begin voyages out into the hustle and bustle of Tokyo, and the film takes on a perspective that differs from its earlier view. Before, we saw Bob Harris and Charlotte, respectively, at their most private and vulnerable. While out on the town, the film seems to sit back and just let them have fun. Thank God, for Bill Murray's rousing rendition of Elvis Costello's "(What's So Funny 'Bout) Peace, Love, and Understanding" is a blast. During this time, it seems that Bob and Charlotte have forgotten their insomnia and loneliness, but it's not gone forever. Even during their night on the town, we see moments where they sit silently, pensive and confused. The movie is a comedy in some sense, but it escalates into a pervading tragic feel. At one point, Charlotte says to Bob: "Let's never come back here again, because it will never be as much fun." They had fun, but only in the sense of putting off more loneliness.

It takes a while, but the motivations of each character become fully-realized in a marvelous scene where Bob and Charlottelay fully-clothed in bed together. Here, they handle the 'big' questions in life, and not "Where did you go to college?" or "What did you want to be when you were little?" but "What is my purpose?" and "Does marraige get easier?" I was amazed at the honesty of the character's responses. Bob relates to Charlotte the experience of having children and the ongoing struggles of marraige, but a tinge of fear and apprehension runs through his speech. Charlotte hasn't really figured things out for herself yet she says she's tried just about everything but hasn't found that niche. Coppola's screenplay makes the statement that both are in the same exact emotional limbo. Charlotte is confused and worried, but Bob is regretful and washed-up. In a way, these two are some form of deeply odd soul-mates. That is the heart and soul of Coppola's amazing work.

Translation has great comedic flair with Murray's wonderful work, but it's also perhaps one of the saddest and most moving films I've seen in a long time. It's some form of a romance, too, but it's not about when they'll kiss or when they'll hit the sheets. It also has that Affair to Remember vibe too, where the journey of two souls that find comfort will eventually have to come to an end. Its end, though, defies classification, as does the rest of the film. Coppola simply lets her two amazing leads do the work. When the film does arrive at its final, ambiguous moment, it all just seems perfect. The catchy Japan-pop soundtrack that runs brilliantly throughout the film begins to play, and I find myself with a huge regret: that I won't be able to savor the subtle chemistry of Bob and Charlotte, and that a flat-out masterpiece in American film is at its end.

Read Best Reviews of Lost in Translation (2003) Here

.

One of the most interesting aspects of LIT is the market's reaction to it: most of those who caught it in a theater loved it, and a great many who've seen it first on DVD are angry with it.

Why?

1) Well, the grouches are quite right--it's not much of a comedy, there's very little story, and the characters aren't going through giant transformations across the course of the film. If you're sitting at home with your significant other or a bunch of friends, if you're talking, if the sound of crunching snacks in your head is louder than the soundtrack, if the lights are on or the phone rings, forget it, you're done--it's like visiting a zen rock garden with a GameBoy, and your only shot at liking this film is personally relating to what the characters have experienced, or if you've been to Tokyo.

2) The rabid fans are quite right too--LIT is an "experience" film that is mismarketed as a Bill Murray comedy; it's all about sights and sounds, not story. It lets you know this from the very first shot, a long, wordless look at, um, Scarlett Johansson, with a quietly rising and subsiding sound clip from Kevin Shields, the songwriter of the greatest lost band of last twenty years, My Bloody Valentine (if you don't know, YOU BETTER ASK SOMEBODY). There's every chance this bombs at home, but in a theater, in the dark, with great sound and everybody shutting up, it works.

That first shot sets the tone for LIT. There's not a single jump cut or sudden burst of sound in the entire film--it's supposed to be a slow, alluring, engulfing experience; again, this is terrific in a theater, but it's a fragile spell, and it's easy to see why it might not work at home.

3) The grouches are also right when they criticize the dialogue. In literal terms, not a lot is being said. If you don't attach to the characters at all, it isn't hard to start hating a young, pretty, apathetic whiner and a rich middle-aged whiner, both given the luxury of fretting full-time over existential problems, which, if you don't like the leads, seem pretty trivial. It's not hard to see why that doesn't make for a fun movie night.

4) The rabid fans can argue this one--LIT is very much about what's NOT said.

Think about the most verbal characters in the film: they're babbling. The sweetly inattentive husband is wildly inarticulate--he's perpetually distracted, and constantly interrupting his own train of thought. The starlet (a snarky sendup of Cameron Diaz) grows more vapid by the sentence. Bill Murray's wife is nothing but a telephone voice, transfixed by carpet swatches and bored by everything else. And from the dead-serious commercial director to the ebulliently idiotic talk show host, there's no clear translation of the spoken Japanese. For God's sake, when she over-emotes her way through Scarborough Fair, the lounge singer is a self-parody, unintentionally echoing Bill Murray's famous SNL parody of a lounge singer pouring out Scarborough Fair. Every one of them is lost in translation.

In a different way, so are Bob and Charlotte. The reason LIT doesn't have a story is that the entire film is an interlude--two people who suddenly find themselves together, sharing a break from their lives.

And they both seem to really need it--they're sick of the meaningless conversations and logistics that drive their worlds. It's a classic use of the medium, to show the huge gap between what's said and what's seen. Bob and Charlotte are wonderfully quiet and accepting of each other from the get go--they don't have talk much to connect. If you watch for it, there's a silent shift in the film: before she meets Bob, Charlotte is rattled by how numb she feels when she visits a temple and retreats to her hotel room, surrounding herself with junk media. Before Bob meets Charlotte, he sleepwalks through his workday, producing junk media. After they meet, when they spend time on their own, they wander wordlessly and beautifully alone: Bob golfs by himself with Mt. Fuji in the distance, and Mt. Fuji floats by Charlotte on a Kyoto bullet train, as she heads off to visit another temple. They're discovering a less bewildering, more personal Japan, and retrieving themselves as they do it. And all this is shown, not spoken.

5) The grouches have a point: nothing freaking happens in LIT.

6) The fans answer: yeah, exactly. The key to the film is what doesn't happen between the characters. It's no accident that LIT takes place in bustling, frenetic Tokyo, or that the main characters are hopelessly jetlagged and out of sync with everything except each other. If that doesn't sink in early, then you'll miss the many charms of LIT, from the long, lovely shots, the sweet, spare exchanges between Bob and Charlotte, the gorgeously slow shoegazer/trip-hop/dream pop soundtrack (the best since Trainspotting, High Art,and Ms. Coppola's last film, the Virgin Suicides), and the electrifyingly silent ending.

So, sorry if you hated this film. Have a drink, maybe two, turn the off lights, don't talk, watch it again, and you might change your mind.

(Oh, and if you take into account EVERY image of Japanese people in this film--the businesspmen and women, the artists, the florists, the crowds in the street, the surfers, the strippers, the monks, the bride and groom, the elderly patient, the doctor, etc.--it's harder to argue that LIT is an anti-Japanese film, and easier to see it for what it is: an outsider's POV of a few silly and sublime experiences in an unfamiliar culture).

Want Lost in Translation (2003) Discount?

I'm reviewing the disc itself here, not the movie. If you're unfamiliar with the movie, you can take your pick from hundreds of reviews online.

This disc is terrible:

1. Universal's decision to bundle ten minutes of ads at the beginning, which cannot be skipped, is classless and grubbing.

2. The mastering is poor -compression artifacts are evident in dark scenes, and the overall image feels slightly blurred.

3. The audio is poorly mastered, too, abruptly changing levels several times. Did anyone even supervise this transfer?

4. An insert of some kind would have been nice, even just a photo card. Opening the sleeve to just the disc is a mild letdown, and left me wondering if only my copy is like this.

It's a shame a movie this enjoyable was pushed through such a shoddy production process. Let's hope another distributor gets their hands on this soon and does it right.

Save 60% Off