Please enable javascript to view this site.

Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

The Latest in ShowBiz News

Namreta Kumar

By

2010/06/02 at 12:00am

Raajneeti

06.2.2010 | By |

Raajneeti

Raajneeti is a lengthy and problematic film. Although it tried to read like a modern Mahabharat, it ends up being a poor man’s version of The Great Indian Novel (by Shashi Tharoor).

 

For starters if you have no interest in politics don’t watch the film for the hype of the star-studded performance. No one truly shines with a solid performance, anyway. For the solid list of character actors the film is predicated on, not one character elicits enough sympathy within the audience. This may be because of the base problem in the script itself: everyone seems to either be playing multiple characters from the Mahabharat or the principal motivations have all been skewed bordering on disbelief.

 

Furthermore without a working knowledge of the Mahabharat it is rather difficult to follow the film. And if you have anything greater than a working knowledge you are sure to be disappointed by the bullet point version of the story. In trying to make a modern retelling Rajneeti lost both the original and the modern. Some of the language will definitely be lost on those who are not Hindi scholars and the rest to those who know little English.

 

Don’t look towards the music to be of any help either. Traditionally Bollywood film length and drama has been broken by the musical song and dance, Rajneeti has one ill placed and rather short rendition. Unfortunately the background score doesn’t win this film any favors either, as it is over dramatic and reclaims the scene for itself.

 

Stripped down to its core the film lacks proper development, however it does make the audience think. If it is true that you learn more from mistakes than success, this film forces everyone who watches it to think about story and character as by products of one another. The best thing about Rajneeti is its literary challenge and that isn’t saying much, considering the other films coming out of India today.

Jack Rico

By

2010/06/01 at 12:00am

Alice in Wonderland

06.1.2010 | By |

Rating: 2.5

Rated: Not available.
Release Date: 2010-03-05
Starring: Linda Woolverton
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: www.disney.com/wonderland

 Go to our film page

Tim Burton’s new phantasmagorical Real-3D remake of ‘Alice in Wonderland’ is shockingly a bore, especially now that it’s in DVD. You really won’t get any 3D value whatsoever. All that eye-popping colorful imagery was just eye candy to sidetrack us from focusing on the anemic script adaptation. Even though it is one of Burton’s most beautiful films, it is not his best. This goes to show you that story is everything. The acting performances were vacuous and the entertainment value was surprisingly subpar. Will kids like it? Yeah sure, kids like almost anything that looks like a video game.

Burton’s adaptation centers around Alice (Mia Wasikowska), a young british teenager who falls down a tree hole and rediscovers all the marvels of a surreal place called Wonderland.

There is something to be said about the director’s need to create a movie that has been filmed so many times by so many people in so many countries. Does he think his version will be the definitive one? Disney might argue that. Burton is a remake master and there is a major flaw with that method of filmmaking – you are always going against the original, therefore your version will most likely always be weaker.

Alice in Wonderland is not funny or charming but a bit fatuous and insipid. It drags in various places especially in the beginning. Much of this tediousness is due to the bad acting of the female protagonist Mia Wasikowska. Talk about needing some acting classes. She was neither convincing nor surprised at anything, but rather seemed arrogant and spoiled. Mr. Eccentric himself, Johnny Depp, couldn’t hit the magical and funny strides of his predecessor Captain Jack Sparrow from ‘Pirates of the Caribbean.’ The rest of the cast was mediocre at best, so was the whole movie.

On some high notes, the cinematography is outstanding, kudos to Dariusz Wolski for hitting a home run. The 3D experience was very fun, but any 3D film that comes out after Avatar is going to pale in comparison. Nevertheless, for those of you that rarely see three dimensional movies, it’s a trip and a half. The great moments are few and the yawning moments are plenty. If you think that the 3D scenes and the colorful visuals will be enough to amuse you, think again. The special glasses will start to weigh on you and the english accent will begin to annoy you. That’s what happens when a movie you think is going to be great turns out be a dud!

Jack Rico

By

2010/05/28 at 12:00am

George Romero Deconstructs Zombie Films

05.28.2010 | By |

George Romero Deconstructs Zombie Films

Meeting George A. Romero was among one of my many highlights in this profession. As a fan of the zombie and horror genres, I sat down with the 6’4 man who is arguably the creator of the zombie films. 

In the interview you are about to see, Romero opens up about the origins of his cultural roots (Romero was born in New York City to a Cuban-American father and a Lithuanian-American mother), the things he likes and dislikes of the ‘deadheads’, and what his favorite zombie films are. You’d be surprised to hear it’s not one of his own…

Kick back relax and enjoy 5 minutes with Mr. George A. Romero.

Note: There are Spanish subtitles for those Spanish speaking fans of Romero

His new movie ‘Survival of the Dead‘ takes place in a desperate, nightmarish world where the dead walk the earth, relentlessly attacking the living. It is the story of Plum Island – a beautiful refuge whose isolation allows two powerful families to maintain a semblance of order in the wake of the zombie apocalypse. But as the inhabitants slowly die off, the two clans become sharply divided: The O’Flynns believe that the undead must be destroyed without exception, while the Muldoons insist that afflicted loved ones be kept “alive” until a cure is found. Into this situation wander a small group of National Guard soldiers who, after robbing the protagonists of the previous film, have decided to strike out on their own in an effort to survive.

Karen Posada

By

2010/05/27 at 12:00am

Sex and the City 2

05.27.2010 | By |

Sex and the City 2

They weren’t kidding when they said SPARKLE. Sex and the City 2 was completely extravagant and exaggerated, which is what in a way made it fun. This movie does more justice to the series than the original movie did. It is not full of ‘Carrie’ drama, like the last one. Instead we get to go away on a fabulous trip with the girls. It is a Cinderella story, they have to live and enjoy their time quickly before the clock strikes midnight. We travel to a world of fantasy, it is predominantly what we go to the movies for anyway, to dream and live vicariously through others.

It all starts with Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) taking us back in time to when she met each one of her girlfriends; Charlotte York-Goldenblatt (Kristin Davis), Miranda Hobbes (Cynthia Nixon) and Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall). The first main scene reunites them at a fabulous gay wedding. To describe it as a sparkly dream wedding is an understatement. We see how the girls lives have changed, Carrie living the Mr. & Mrs. Married life, which to her is getting boring and she wants to bring the sparkle back in the relationship. Charlotte has 2 little girls, that are driving her crazy and has a super hot nanny that makes her worry her husband might stray. Miranda is still the same workaholic she’s always been, but soon realizes what she’s missing out on. Samantha is fighting off menopause by taking 1.000 natural pills and keeping up with her sexcapades. The only man in the movie that doesn’t have a short appearance is Mr. Big (John James Preston) (Chris Noth); we see how he’s still trying to please Carrie even after they are married. The other men are barely showed in the film at all, it is after all about the girls. The best guest appearance was the one of Liza Minnelli; it was perfect; she does a fun dance performance. Penélope Cruz also does a cameo, she looks gorgeous and sexy more so than in her own movies. 

I think what this movie gives the true fans of the show is a chance to spend more time with the girls, get away with them without all the drama. They go on a trip to a foreign land – Abu Dhabi, where Carrie bumps into her old flame Aidan (John Corbett), Samantha has a new set of hot boys to go crazy after, Charlotte gets a chance to rest from stressful motherhood and Miranda finds her fun self again. This trip brings them closer together and strengthens not only their relationship but the ones with their loved ones as well.  One of the most interesting scenes of the film is when the girls are discussing how they perceive Muslim women as well as themselves. There’s a hint of feminism with a sprinkle of humor, which makes the subject light hearted.

There are several aspects that take away from the movie, there are a lot of ridiculous scenes, which might be meant as just fun, but it makes one laugh out loud sarcastically. The characters have become pretty predictable, which is the reason why there should have been no movies after the show ended; it takes away from the element of surprise. The women have become a parody of themselves, which takes any essence of reality left away from them. Lastly, although there is character growth the sole purpose of this movie is to make money; there was no need for a sequel, there’s nothing new that we learn from the characters.

If you were a fan of the show I recommend you watch it but you can certainly wait for it to come out on DVD, unless you have the time and the money to kill at a movie theater (it is pretty lengthy, maybe a little too lengthy). Samantha is definitely what makes this movie fun; if it wasn’t for her friends restraining her, the movie would be hilarious! Truth is that we all have girlfriends that are like any one of these women, which is what made the show so successful and it is what makes it so fun to watch. Just take the movie for what it is, a world similar to ours except that it is nearly perfect and beautiful but it was created for the sole purpose of entertaining. Ladies my only advice is not to torture your boyfriend with this film, go watch it with your girls.

Jack Rico

By

2010/05/27 at 12:00am

A Man’s Perspective on ‘Sex and the City’

05.27.2010 | By |

A Man’s Perspective on 'Sex and the City'

Note: This article is filled with spoilers. It has in mind the person who saw the sequel. 

I had the chance to see the heavily anticipated screening of ‘Sex and the City 2’ a few days before its release in theaters nationwide. Just so you know, I am a fan of the show since its pilot debut on HBO in the summer of 1998 when the characters used to talk to the camera and men were bashing women. Since then, I’ve been hooked and have followed our four voyagers through the ups and downs of their lives – which is why the two SATC movies have crushed my expectations of what could have been – and am nauseating at a possible third installment.

If you remember, the success of the series was rooted in the most truthful deconstruction of us men to date; from how they REALLY felt about us through love, sex and relationships, to the usage of foul language to describe us. It was truly art imitating life. What about all those Romeo tactics we thought we were getting away with? Those too were microscopically analyzed and ravaged. These truths were so dead on about us guys, that it made me, as well as most men, tune in every week to learn more of us from the most poignant source, the only thing that mattered in the world – women. It was obsessively fascinating, it hit a chord that has had its strings pulled out with these uninventive story lines.

The two films in question lack the ‘sparkle’ that made men call each other at night and ask, “dude, is that what they really say when we put our pants back on?” In the original movie, the writer/director Michael Patrick King didn’t forget the testosterone, but he left out the fantasy and fun from it. It was depressing. The four characters were supposed to bitch, moan and vent about us all while using pithy humour, harsh irony and unrelenting wit. Instead he had the ladies inhabit a world we had never seen them in – reality. It was too real for them and us. Enter the repairing sequel – forget about reality, welcome the outrageous and the absurdity. King went the other extreme now. He left out the testosterone and brought in an extra truck load of estrogen, literally, just ask Samantha. By creating this female drenched story, he left us, the true fans of the original Sex and the City television series, out to dry. Don’t kid yourselves ladies, the show was a hit because us men were tuning in like they had solved the mystery behind penile enlargement or something. If they ever do a part three… oh no… for the love of us fans, I beg the producers, don’t do it! Don’t you dare do it! Why? Well, you left us straight men out of it and dedicated it to all things gay. A mix of both would’ve been fine. But to be explicitly frank, the magical and honest writing just isn’t there anymore and our protagonists are starting to finally show their graceful age. Even though they are fit and muscular, part of the fantasy is where they stay in their 30s’ and early 40’s forever. Take for instance Liza Minnelli. Her performance cover of Beyonce’s ‘Single Ladies’ was admirable for 64, but nevertheless a bit sad. At some point, you have to call it quits and be elegant on your way out. We’ll all remember you for the great times, never the bad ones.  As an example of uninspired writing, take Sarah Jessica Parker’s character Carrie Bradshaw. She is once again confused about her life and she’s what…48, closing in on 50 in the show? By this time, she, or anyone for that matter, should have a resounding sense of what they want and what kind of partner they want. It baffles me that the writers are still, after 12 years, making her seem naiveté (going to dinner with Aiden fully knowing what he had in mind), ungrateful (never being thankful with what she has with BIG, the moments of simplicity just aren’t good enough for her), mentally fragile (her need to constantly go out to forget she is aging, and almost ruining everyone else’s trip because her New Yorker review on her latest book “I Do or Do I?” was a flop). Carrie, you need to get your sh*t together. You have a great life, stop complaining for everything. You really are a walking representation of the old cliché – you don’t know what you have until you lose it.

For those of you that just want the characters to live forever, I suggest a reboot with a new crop of bevy beauties casted with Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Lindsay Lohan and Isla Fisher. This would make everyone happy and the new younger generation of SATC fans can feel what we all felt when the typed words of ‘Once upon a time…” began this crazy and wonderful ride we call ‘Sex and the City.’

Would love to hear your thoughts. Leave your comments below.

Jack Rico

By

2010/05/25 at 12:00am

The Road

05.25.2010 | By |

Rating: 3.5

Rated: R for some violence, disturbing images and language.
Release Date: 2009-11-25
Starring: Joe Penhall
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.theroad-movie.com/

 Go to our film page

Jack Rico

By

2010/05/25 at 12:00am

Dear John

05.25.2010 | By |

Rating: 3.0

Rated: Not available
Release Date: 2010-02-05
Starring: Jamie Linden
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: Not available

 Go to our film page

The great classic romance movies of history such as Casablanca, An Affair to Remember, even Titanic, have served as a measuring bar for today’s love stories. Lasse Hallstrom’s ‘Dear John’, based on Nicholas Sparks book, should not by any means be compared to the aforementioned, but it also shouldn’t be discarded as syrupy blather. Rather, it is a likable, warm story that manages to rouse a tear and perhaps incite a small swelling in the throat. I would not label it a typical run of the mill ‘tearjerker’, but it has a few moments that garners your emotional attention.

The film revolves around the love letters a soldier (Channing Tatum) and a young woman (Amanda Seyfried) share for a few years. John meets Savannah at the beach near his home and they eventually begin dating, but as soon as 9/11 happens he has to pick between her and the duties of war. How it turns out is for you to see.

‘Dear John’ isn’t going to devastate you or scar you emotionally. It is not Nicholas Sparks best, but it manages to awaken some sentiments of sadness, anger and loss that can be attributed to some descent acting and empathic screenwriting. The best part of the movie is Richard Jenkin’s performance as John’s father. His scene near the end provides perhaps the most compelling and dramatic scene of the movie. If you haven’t seen the wonderful, but small film The Visitor, try and squeeze it into you Netflix queue to see and appreciate Jenkin’s Oscar nominated performance. Just marvelous.

This valentines week’s film options should be an easy romantic choosing – Dear John over Valentine’s Day. The former is a failure in so many levels. Whether it is your other half or just a friend, Dear John is your best watch for eliciting some of those valentines sentiments your looking to draw out.

Jack Rico

By

2010/05/25 at 12:00am

Jack Rico

By

2010/05/25 at 12:00am

Agora

05.25.2010 | By |

Agora
Jack Rico

By

2010/05/25 at 12:00am

Select a Page