Kaminey - Movie review

Cast: Shahid Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra, Amol Gupte, Tenzing Nima
Director: Vishal Bharadwaj
After "Maqbool" and "Omkara", expectations from Vishal were obviously very high. At first, I thought this would be another Shakespearean adaptation, perhaps of "Tale of two cities" but then it turned out that this is an original script. The point is that Vishal scores and through "Kaminey" a new breed of Bollywood cinema is born...
Let's look at the plot first: the story is about identical twins - Guddu and Charlie (Kapoor). While Guddu sticks to an honest living, Charlie can take up anything - legal or illegal - to earn a quick buck. The brothers are estranged for years when one fateful night their lives intertwine again.
Guddu's girlfriend Sweety (Chopra) is pregnant and suddenly reveals her mysterious past. She is the sister of the dreaded gangster-turn-politician Sunil Bhope (Gupte) and is a runaway. She convinces Guddu to marry her before her brother finds out and suggests that they run off to Katmandu ASAP. Guddu reluctantly agrees. Bhope's men arrive at their impromptu wedding and try to stop it but Guddu and Sweety manage to escape.
At the same time, Charlie loses his life's savings on a supposedly fixed race when the jockey betrays. While trying to settle his account with the people who screwed up the deal, Charlie accidentally bumps into 2 corrupt cops who are trying to secure a guitar case full of cocaine for drug lord Tashi (Nema). Without realising that he is dealing with cops, Charlie steals their van and later picks up the guitarcase as he sees a chance of earning a quick buck.
Bhope, meanwhile, comes to know of Sweety's plans and tries to track down Guddu. Given his connections, people point him to Charlie and tell him that Guddu is Charlie's twin. At the same time, Guddu gets caught in a dragnet the cops lay for Charlie and is questioned by the cocaine-peddling cops. The story takes more complex turns as the twins try to trade each other in for their own interests; finally ending in a finale where all the characters inadvertently face-off...
There were several comparisions with "Pulp Fiction" and Guy Ritchie movies, but I think "Kaminey" stands on its own. Just using parallel strorylines doesn't make it a copy of something else. Vishal took a simple story and added a number of twists and layers of noir. The result is an atomospheric dark thriller that has enough pace to keep one interested. Bombay was never depicted so bleakly ever! I didn't like the trigger happy climax - too distracting and doesn't fit into the rest of the mood of the movie. But everything else is nearly perfect. It's the small touches - the twins' speech impediments, the multilingual druglord, Bhope's Maharastra-for-Maharastrians agenda, his diabetis problem - which make the movie work.
Shahid Kapur does a brilliant job, as does Chopra (for a change). Amole Gupte, the brain behind "Taare Zameen Par", makes his debut as Bhope and is quite impressive. Tassaduq Hussain's cinematography captures the dark, gloomy look the movie needs. In all, it is a good movie.
My rating: 7/10. Hope the rest of Bollywood takes the cue from Vishal now.

The Tipping Point

The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference
Author: Malcolm Gladwell
This is supposedly THE book that answered a lot of questions. And Gladwell is, of course, is THE pop sociologist of our times. But I didn't quite understand the need for this book.
Don't get wrong here: Gladwell does introduce some powerful sociological concepts - how epidemics spread and what controls them. But a whole book dedicated to it is rather useless.
Gladwell basically highlights the epidemic phenomenon due to which certain things sudden grow in popularity (or fall from grace) and no one understands why! Return of Hush Puppies in their hi-fashion avatar, crime wave in NY, smoking among teens in America, suicide fad in Micronesia - there are several instances of such epidemics are very much a part of our lives. Things do not have to ramp up steadily - they sometimes blow out of proportion. Fair enough.
"The Law of the Few" - how a handful of people are enough to trigger an epidemic. Connectors, who are socially active and well connected; Mavens, who are the subject matter experts (the whiz-kind); Salesmen - who convince others to take something up!
"The Context" - how minor things in our upbringing, peer social circle and surroundings prove to be surprising conducive to further spread an epidemic.
"Stickness" and "Contagiousness"- how easy is a particular fad appeal to people and how easily can it be spread.
There are some very interesting concepts discussed in there but all these could have been discussed in a 1500 word blog post. The problem with the book is that Gladwell rambles completely off track and starts discussing things that seem to have nothing to do with the core message. Most examples and anecdotes are overdescribed. What do I care about the behind the screen details of Sesame Street when I can understand the point about stickiness? Plus the author annoyingly spends entire paragraphs pointing to previous content in the book. This seems to be as a page-filling exercise.
I believe the book project originally sprang out of a newspaper article. I am sure that article will be concise enough to enjoy. The book, thankfully, is an easy read and the last "Conclusion" chapter is good. But I do not think I am in a hurry to read more from Gladwell right now. :(
My rate: 5/10.

Magnetic Stylus for Capacitive touch Screen mobiles

A Tech Post after a long, long time.

News is that HTC may have the answer to what has annoyed mobile users who are fed up with using their fingers their capacitive touch screens. If you are wondering what is a capacitive touch screen, it is the screen an iPhone uses and, say, N97 doesn't. The other type of touch screen would be a resistive touch screen. Read more.

Since the capacitive screen need something that can conduct electricity, normal plastic styli won't work. This may work for most technology enthusiasts but for some this may be quite a pain. For example, non-English people find it really difficult to trust the handwriting recognisition for their scripts on such capacitive screen devices - it is really difficult to jot down non-Roman characters with one's thick digits. For some others, using the digits is just plain annoying.
So, HTC's solution is to use a magnetic stylus that can conduct the capacitive current and can be as accurate as a stylus on a resistive touch screen.

Read more:
Engadget
WmPower

A very interesting piece of research that looks deep down into the inner workings of some of the world's foremost companies and tries to find what makes them click.
The authors compare companies that have been in existence for at least 50 years with "comparison companies" that have share nearly the same evolutionary factors and the market space as the visionary companies.
Wal-Mart, Sony, Boeing, CitiCorp, American Express, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, IBM, Motorola, Disney, etc. are the top "visionary companies" studied by the authors. There is a strong bias towards the American business (which the authors openly admit, read the Appendix before the book) but most of the insights and anecdotes in the book are brilliant. The authors try to find the common thread between what makes these companies "visionary" and instead propose that it is the belief of these companies in their core ideology that makes them special. They argue that it doesn't matter what the company's core values are (profit, service, market share, innovation), what is important is that these values come from within the organisation and have universal buy-in from all levels. Several companies cannot make the distinction between the core values and their business aspirations, which invariably causes them to loose their identity.
The authors encourage companies to adopt the "Genius of AND" while giving up the "Tyranny of OR". That is, make critical decisions to pursue short term goals and keep the core values intact at the same time. Most companies seem to think that they have to choose between their core values and the demands of their current business. The authors say that such dilemmas would always been that either the company got their core ideals wrong or are just not visionary enough the embrace the and.
A refreshing book to read if you tired of seeing success being defined purely in terms of sales figures. Read the 10th anniversary edition with a bonus chapter.
My review: 7/10.

Love Aaj Kal

Cast: Saif Ali Khan, Deepika Padukone, Rishi Kapoor, , Rahul Khanna.
Director: Imtiaz Ali
Hmm. I quite liked Imtiaz Ali's last movie, "Jab We Met" and it was fair to have expectations with this one. Ali doesn't disappoint really. Like JWM, LAK is a rom-com with no strong storyline. But Ali delivers the goods through the script and peppy dialogue.
The movie is about 2 story lines - one set in the present day with globe-trotting career-minded people and the other set in the 1960s. The modern-day couple, Jai (Khan) and Meera (Padukone), are based in London and have the usual "practical" relationship that gives enough room for each to pursue their own dreams. Jai wants to go to San Fransisco and Meera wants to fulfill her life-long ambition to go back to India and undertake monument restoration projects. They both agree that long distance relationships won't really work and parts way in a very mature and amicable manner; even celebrate the break-up with friends. Life goes on and they both find their niches (and new partners, of course). A friendly restuarant owner, Veer Panesar (Kapoor) watches their relationship closely and declares to Jai that he can't really understand how couples handle their romances today (the Aaj).
The Kal story line is narrated by Veer who fell for the coy little damsel Harleen () from his Old Delhi mohalla. Veer feels that there are several similarities between his own love story and what Jai and Meera are going through, just that the younger couple handle things differently (use their minds, instead of their hearts).
So that's the essence of the movie - relationships then and now. What really works is the story narrative. Ali took his risk and the results are brilliant - the narrative is not always linear but doesn't leave the masala audience confused either. Khan playing Jai and a young Veer is bang on target. Rishi Kapoor yet again makes a solid impact, he is a pleasure to watch (though this role in Luck By Chance was better). There is enough entertainment in the movie to keep you hooked. However, I feel that it could have been at least 30 minutes shorter; especially the 2nd half drags a little.
Never been a fan of Deepika Padukone (the actress, not the model). I would have expected a more spunkier act here whereas she seems to have problems dialogue delivery. The should not act either, she is pretty as long as she doesn't open her mouth. Rahul Khanna is completely wasted in a bit role (poor guy).
Overall, this movie has its moments. It is about relationships and how they come back to haunt you. How people's perspective change over a period of time. For most part, it is smart, refreshing, mature cinema. Which is saying a lot. I have a lot of respect for Imtiaz Ali and his gang of new breed directors in Bollywood. Due credit to him: Job well done.
My rating: 7/10.

Zodiac

Zodiac
Director: David Fincher
Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo, etc.
This one came out sometime in 2007 but never saw it to the moviehalls here in Bangalore. Being a Fincher movie, I wanted to watch it for a long time now.
The movie is based on a book of the same, published by Robert Graysmith, played by Gyllenhaal in the movie. The plot of the movie is the Zodiac serial killer who haunted the San Fransisco Bay Area for more than a decade. The movie narrates the events from the first reported murder way back in 1968 to the final stages of the investigation in the early 1990s.
Hungry for fame in a weird, morbid way, the Zodiac killer himself used to call up police stations and report in his own crimes. In addition, he used to send puzzles and random clues to newspaper offices asking them to publish it so that the readers can crack his code.
Why this movie turns out to be different from most other slasher flicks is that a lot of research has gone into maintaining the authenticity. The characters are all real, not based on real people. A lot of SFX has gone into recreating the 60s and 70s SFO. Also, the lead character, Robert Graysmith is a cartoonist at the SFO Chronicle; an unlikely hero who stumbles into this case just because he happens to work at a newspaper in some capacity. Eventually, Graysmith dedicated years of his life trying to nail the Zodiac killer. It is not your serial killer mystery. Hell, it is even significantly different from Fincher's own "Se7en" and far less engaging. In all, "Zodiac" plays out as serious drama more than anything else and should be viewed from that angle.
Full points to film-makers on going to great lengths to depict what's true. But the flip side of this is that the movie is over long (runs for nearly 2h30m) and has a very slow pace. It is almost like a documentary. The actors all have done a great job, especially Downey. Gyllenhaal, somehow, has never been my favourite.
My rating: 6.5/10.

X-Men Orgins: Wolverine

Dir: Gavin Hood
Cast: Hugh Jackman, Liev Schrieber, Danny Huston, will.i.am, Ryan Reynolds, etc.
Personally I am partial to DC superheros. Most of the Marvel universe never appealed to me. However, Wolverine (and the Green Lantern perhaps) have been very interesting from that lot. Plus Hugh Jackman played Wolverine brilliantly in the first 2 Brian Singer movies (the third one was a bore, even Jackman couldn't save it). Another interesting bit is that the studios are making a conscious effort to retell the Marvel Superheroes stories - "Ironman" and "The Incredicle Hulk" are classic examples. So there was ample reason to watch this one. After more than a month's delay, they finally started screening it in India.
The movie is loosely based on the X-Men Origins series that came out a few years ago. I think there Wolverine is the X-Man with the most enigmatic past and I found the comicbook to be brilliant. The movie picks up some elements from it plus adds more.
The movie doesn't have Rose, the young Wolverine's (James) childhood friend, and instead of "Dog" Logan, we have Victor Creed - the hero's half brother (and on his way to become Sabretooth). In the book, "Dog" Logan was the half-brother and it remains unclear whether he is indeed Sabretooth or not.
Anyway, the movie starts like the book with both the half-brothers running away from their remote mansion somewhere in Canada after the young James kills their biological father, Thomas Logan. The 2 brothers grow up together and slowly realise they have special powers (healing factor, raw power, slow aging, etc.). They both spend more than a century together, protecting each other, fighting wars. All this is captured brilliantly as the beginning captions roll, brilliantly done. During all this time, while James develops into a reticent individual, Victor (Schrieber, excellent) becomes a violent lawless murderer. When their special powers come to the knowledge of the U.S. Defence, Major Stryker (Huston) invites them to join a "special" defence team, hinting that it is probably an elite assembly of mutants.
Time moves on and James soon realises that this Team X is a just being used by the government to execute covert missions, usually involving killing innocents. While Victor revels in this, James decides to quit. James becomes a lumberjack and retires to some remote log hut of Canada with his girlfriend, Kyla Silverfox.
6 years later, Stryker and Zero find him out and inform him that someone is killing his buddies from the erst-while Team X. They ask him to help. James refuses. It turns out that this someone is Victor who he comes looking for James and kills Kyla instead. James find Victor but Victor beats the hell out of him and walks away. James finally agrees to join hands with Stryker to find Victor. Stryker suggests a plan that will make James invulnerable. This is nothing but the horrifying Weapon X experiment to which James is subjected. Stryker's team reinforces James' skeleton with adamantium, a virtually industrible metal, thus creating the monster, Wolverine.
The rest of the movie is a sequence of fast paced action and not much of a story.
Jackman does justice to his role again, but unfortunately it limited to grunting and growling largely. Liev Schreiber as Victor leaves an impression, he was really good! Brian Cox was more menancing as Stryker in X2, but Danny Huston passes for a younger and more wily version of the character. It is surprising to see Ryan Reynolds in a one-bit role of Wade Wilson, but he makes a comeback as the ultra-mutant, Deadpool. Reynolds will soon appear in a spin-off movie as the Deadpool again, if rumours are to be believed. Not a bad choice.
As the end credits scroll, however, I was left with a feeling that something is terribly amiss. The movie has full paisa-vasool action and most of the actors are well casted but there is hardly any storyline. In fact, this outing fares more poorly than Brett Ratner's X3 in the story department. There are lesser wisecracks and mutant drama plus the original storyline has been severely tampered, not always for the better.
My Rating: 6/10. Watch it for Jackman, Schreiber and the action.