Review of 2013 Horror Film The Conjuring By James Wan, Starring Patrick Wilson, Vera Farmiga

Ed and Lorraine Sullivan are a ghost-busting couple who are professionally called 'demonologists'. Their job description: to visit supposedly haunted properties either to a) detect any troublesome supernatural presence and get rid of it or b) debunk the rumors using rational explanations. They record their findings on tapes and video cameras to i) send it to the Vatican as evidence of demonic activity to get sanctioned for conducting exorcisms, and ii) to use it during presentations when they're conducting seminars all over town. And you thought they were making home videos, did you? Those would be some nasty memories to keep! Lorraine is a clairvoyant, so she can see things other can't and visit people's memories and get a feel of their past experiences. It's a gift in case of happy memories, but looking at the nature of her profession, it doesn't seem like she gets many happy things to see.

When the Warrens visit the Perron family, who invite them after being traumatized by a demonic entity in their newly purchased farmhouse, it doesn't take time before Lorraine senses that things are going to get messy. Seriously messy. This time, the spirit isn't camera shy to lurk in the shadows until the very end of the film. It gives Lorraine an eerie welcome, hovering behind Roger Perron, the head of the family, when he opens the main door. The spirit then floats near Roger's children as he and his wife Carolyn introduce their five (yes, five. This actually happened in 1971, according to the Sullivans) girls to Ed and Lorraine. A few moments later, bammm, Lorraine sees a woman hanging from the tree (i.e. the spirit; yes, it's a woman again that haunts) close to the lake nearby. "The spirit has latched on to your family. So it'll follow you wherever you go" she then explains to Roger and Carolyn, thus putting an end to our common doubt: 'Why don't the guys just leave?'. An exorcism needs to be conducted, but the Vatican needs proof before sanctioning an approval. Our demonologists, like the 70s version of Ghosthunters, then begin installing cameras and mics all over the house, recruiting two other guys, Drew and Brad, for this twisted venture. They also have 'UV lights' that track foot-marks etc; I remember this object so well because Brad tells Drew during the film 'I need the UV LIGHTS' with such great emphasis on 'UV Lights' I thought it for a moment it was product placement.

Day one, or rather Night one remains relatively 'unghostly' except for a highly intractable door that'll shut on people's faces without warning. Its night two when things begin to shake up. We've already had a teaser even before Sullivans' entry; one girl is yanked by her legs every night, another sleepwalks to a closet every time while the littlest one (like all littlest ones in horror movies do) keeps talking to an imaginary friend who later turns out to be 'one of them little ghosts'. Now the evil spirit is incensed all the more because of the Christian crosses Ed has placed in all the rooms. She does everything in her powers to destroy the Perrons, and unlike some other spirits who circumscribe themselves to two-to-four tried-and-tested torture tactics, she has free rein here. She possesses the sleepwalking girl and takes her up to a secret area within the closet, she sends another one flying across the room, she drags the third by her hair, she flings objects at everybody etc. Other spirits make guest appearances too: the little ghost Rory, the knife-yielding maid and... yeah, I think that's it. When the evil spirit (a witch when she lived) possesses Carolyn, all hell breaks loose, with louder screaming, birds crashing, stuff flinging, cupboards crashing, Carolyn bleeding, Ed chanting, girls wailing... , and exhaustion sets in. Free rein to ghosts ain't really a good thing, is it?

The weakness of 'putting everything in to impress' hovers over James Wan's The Conjuring throughout, until it becomes an exercise to watch the film. Even when the spirit is introduced, James tries to put in as many 'Spirit Alert!' signs as possible. Repeating a few scare tactics but making them all the more frightening each time they appeared would've done the trick, for example, it was unnerving to know what was in store for the girl who had her leg yanked every-time. But Wan does a lot many other things too, which quickly turn laborious. 'Not scared of leg yanking? How about clocks stopping? Or birds dying? Or things breaking?' is Wan's attitude here, and it doesn't work.

The characters in the film are too many. Ed and Lorraine were required obviously, and so were the Perron couple. But five girls plus Drew and Brad? And so many ghosts? We don't know the girls to well nor the ghosts. And the film has a climax that wants us to be emotionally connected with Carolyn and the girls. Are we emotionally connected? Not really. More importantly, is Conjuring scary? Nope! My clairvoyance tells me I've seen far better horror films: Paranormal Activity, The Blair Witch Project, Rosemary's Baby, Drag Me To Hell, to name a few. I went to Conjuring wondering what nightmares shall haunt me, but I guess it's a good night's sleep for me.

Find a guide to this weekend's new theatrical releases, browse the latest movie news, and watch all of the week's new trailers, including new looks at the highly ...

Review of Nasha, a 2013 Bollywood Film Directed by Amit Saxena,Starring Poonam Pandey, Shivam Patil

Nasha gives teachers a bad name. Consider this. Anita is a newly appointed extra-curricular activities in-charge at an apparently urban high school (with probably the most dirty-minded students, whose behavior is supposed to be justified here only because they're 'coming-of-age'). She plans to conduct a romantic play during the academic year and wants her students to rehearse at her home (why? And she gets an enthusiastic approval from the headmistress, who's totally lost it, it seems). Surprisingly, only the protagonist Saahil and his bunch of loafer friends turn up every time, as if there are only ten students in the entire school. The boys are only there to ogle at her, and our 'innocent' Anita never notices their constant staring, like she's got partial vision or what?

Our drama teacher is so liberal-minded she joins them as they all sing a song together on erection. On field i.e. during rehearsals at her lavish home, she wants them to get into character (drama teacher Stanislavski would be rolling and weeping in his grave) and demonstrates to Saahil's girlfriend how a lady should flirt. The character Anita most probably chose to play was a dominatrix, as only that can explain the manner in which she corners Saahil and gets on top of him while his friends gawp open-mouthed (who wouldn't?). Saahil is infatuated with her and masturbates every night in bed fantasizing about her. That's until Anita's beau Samuel turns up and the movie takes a different albeit equally predictable track. What's disturbing, very disturbing here is Anita's conduct as a teacher. She openly smooches and probably even french-kisses Samuel in front of the kids during rehearsals. In one scene, he lifts her in his arms and takes her home in front of the students (since when is that considered professional?). When Saahil flubs during one rehearsal, Samuel tells him "Tere se nahi hoga, chal (You can't do it. Move!" and then waltzes his partner romantically; I'd probably have left that instant and never returned.

Now believe this. The two guys arm-wrestle and later race one another to prove who the better man is. Samuel pushes Saahil to the ground during the race and the kid starts bleeding. While Anita nurses Saahil's wounds, Samuel whispers to him inappropriately that he's finally got Anita's attention. Samuel proceeds to dab whiskey on Saahil's wounds, which irks Anita all the more. To make up, he takes Anita to one side (about two steps away from Saahil) and whispers something to her. They make up immediately and start smooching. Saahil gets up and leaves in a hurry. Once they're done kissing, Anita notices Saahil's absence and says 'Arre, yeh kaha gaya?' (Oh, where did he go?). Next time, why not get a room instead of making out in front of your student, that too one who totally digs you?

After a while, the play is completely forgotten. The major problem in this film is that Anita is not shown as a bad example of a teacher, even though she's setting a very poor one. Those who'd seen Cameron Diaz in the average comedy Bad Teacher would remember how her character took a pleasure in acting obnoxiously with her students and colleagues. There's nothing to hint that Anita's behavior transgresses a teacher's code of conduct; even the background score played for her is a sweet and positive one. What's also surprising is that the headmistress had no reservations or objections regarding her wardrobe, which mostly included revealing tops and mini-skirts (am not being a prude, here. Any Indian middle-aged female headmistress would have outrightly objected).

If teachers are given a bad name, wait till you hear how male relatives are depicted in Nasha. Saahil lives with his dad and uncle; we also get to know that mom is dead and the two men make jams for a living. Now try listening to this without exclaiming "What!!". As Saahil is masturbating one night, his uncle (or dad. It's interchangeable, really) enters the room and tells him something like "Aur kitna karega?" (How much longer will you continue?). Saahil feels embarrassed and stops, of course. Now, why on earth will a person enter the room knowing that his son is masturbating inside? Even if he unknowingly does, wouldn't he stop on realizing and hurry back outside? Why would he embarrass his nephew by telling him that he's caught in the act? In another scene, Saahil's father tells him "Porn dekhne ke bajaaye achi movie dekh" (Why don't you watch some good films instead of porn?" (Saahil is jerking off to porn at that time). What!!!

Nasha is also plagued with three of the most ridiculous songs in memory. What's worse is that we don't get enough of what we had come for i.e. nudity and sex (anyone who says "No. I came for the direction and acting" is a fat liar). Poonam Pandey, known especially to cricket-lovers as the 'girl who posed naked in a magazine after Kolkata Knight Riders won IPL', will surely join the 'Muses of Mahesh Bhatt' brigade alongside Sunny Leone soon. Pandey has long and sexy legs, a bodacious bust, a beautiful back and a bootylicious butt, plus she's certainly more expressive than Leone. She has a wide manly-looking lower jaw, but she looks very flattering nevertheless, especially with appropriate lighting. But Nasha doesn't let her go all the way because of the Censor watchdogs. Whenever the focus is lifted from her body to her acting (not bad considering the ridiculous part she's given to play), the result is a disappointing detumescene. The filmmakers don't know what to focus on in Nasha, the sex or the story. And sadly, both get a bad name.

Review of 2013 Film 'The Ship of Theseus', a 'Hinglish' Film Directed by Anand Gandhi

The Ship of Theseus is a painstakingly dialectical observation of the transient human forms journeying in the sphere of reality. It examines the paradoxes in arguments about human beliefs, values and ideologies, exploring through the cave of space and time to find answers in the arcane light of truth. The film is deep, sometimes dense enough to put you into a storm of confusion, yet its mysterious powers to stimulate your mind into questioning the basis of existence is nevertheless a remarkable feat for writer-director Anand Gandhi. It's all the more astonishing to know that Ship of Theseus is Gandhi's debut feature film, and wait it you hear the biggest shocker - this work comes from the same man who began the incredibly contrived 'evil mother-in-law vs. saintly daughter-in-law' tradition in Indian television soaps such as 'Kyuunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi (Because the mother-in-law was once a daughter-in-law herself)' and 'Kahaani Ghar Ghar Kii (Story of Every Home)' more than a decade ago.

This man has completed his journey, his eight-year pilgrimage at last (he conceived his idea in 2005, after making two short films 'Right Here Right Now' in 2003 and 'Continuum' in 2005) and he has found some answers, which he brings to the world in the form of Ship of Theseus. His search is probably still on, yet this film is as good as it gets.

Deconstructing the mighty body of Ship of Theseus to its bare bones would require considerable expertise (missing Mr. Ebert) and hence pardon me if my attempt falls short. There are three characters embarking on three different journeys, catalyzed by the coaxial theme of organ transplantation. The transplantation acts as the physical manifestation of the Plutarchian paradox, which questions that 'if all the parts of a ship are replaced plank by plank and the same were used to build a new ship, then would the new ship remain the same ship as before?'.

Aliya Kamal, a visually impaired photographer whose perception of beauty and art is developed through touch and sounds in the absence of images, seeks for perfection in her pictures and often rejects photos her boyfriend finds great, leading to arguments between the couple. Her sixth sense of using sound (plus her boyfriend and the always reliable editing software) as her guide to capture delightful visual moments is threatened by her decision to go ahead with a cornea transplant to restore her eyesight. She shall realize that there's no such thing as a 'swan cart', an image she had designed inside her head for God knows what.

Maitreya, the second character, is an English-speaking erudite (and atheist) monk who fights for noble causes such prevention of animal cruelty during cosmetic and medicinal testing. He journeys on foot to fast track court (which is consistently sluggish) and lets his Parsi lawyer fight on his behalf (the defense lawyer meanwhile rubbishes the case as 'a sentimental petition', and door to door begging for alms. When his protégé Chavarka notices him saving a centipede from being squashed under somebody's foot and letting it go on top of a leaf, he jokes that 'the centipede may have been trying to commit suicide and now being saved, would have find his path to nirvana'; there is constant friendly arguments between the two revolving generally around the idea of moksha or enlightenment.

Soon, it is found that Maitreya has liver cirrhosis and the ailing monk, whose staunch refusal to touch any object made at the expense of torturing animals, refuses to undergo a transplant which would also involve taking dozens of such pills. He withdraws into seclusion, and ends up punishing his own body; for someone who believes so much in karma (what goes around comes around), God knows what sin did the saint commit to suffer so much pain.

Navin, the third character, is a money-minded stockbroker who busies himself in the world of shares and stocks even when he is admitted to the hospital. Once released, he goes home where his art-loving grandmother (whom he calls 'ajji', which means grandmother in Marathi) scolds him for showing little interest in art and social matters. When she is admitted to the hospital after fracturing her leg, she arranges a Rajasthani musician to sing folk tunes for her and her friends inside the hospital; Navin meanwhile fidgets around, trying to find a way to escape. The two have an argument later, where Navin accuses her of being intolerant towards his attitude of living, which is to luxuriate in material comfort and yet have basic human compassion. When he learns that a poor man's kidney was stolen a day before he got his own kidney, he fears he might have the man's kidney and searches for the true owner. God knows what drives him all the way to Stockholm in search of the new owner.

Anand Gandhi captains his Titanic Ship along its course, and it remains totally unhampered by any stupid icebergs. The easy way to look at this movie is that it's about organ donation, but on closer look, you'll see the theme of 'reconfiguration of human psyche by external forces' shining through. The film's structure is so massive, it's themes so multitudinous, that you don't feel sure at times whether you are moving in the direction the film intends you to move. My advice for those who can't understand everything would be to leave it to God and just understand what's easier for your mind to comprehend. Subsequent viewings will reveal further answers.

The cinematography by Pankaj Kumar is extremely fluid, and Gandhi allows the camera to remain static over long periods of time. That's where our actors, Aida El-Kashef, Neeraj Kabi and Sohum Shah (also the producer), do all the excellent visual communication, bringing an emotional intensity which gives these philosophical concepts a simpler, human form of expression. There's some powerful imagery here that draws our focus to the grand scheme of things. We begin to question ourselves then, wondering "God knows why... ?". Our journey begins.

Check Out This Article On Online Shopping That Offers Many Great Tips

Are you tempted by the lure of shopping from the comfort of your home while enjoying a cup of coffee and lounging in your pajamas? Have you been wanting to shop online, but are apprehensive about the process? Are you unsure if you're getting the best deal or if a website is trustworthy? Well, you've come to the right place. Keep reading to learn the ins and outs of online shopping.

Shop around when shopping online. You may find that prices for certain items can vary greatly from store to store. To be sure you get the best deal, look at a few different stores to find out their prices, as well as shipping charge. This will allow you to get the best deal you can.

A great way to stay safe when shopping online is to avoid clicking any web addresses that are sent into your email. If you are expecting an email from a company, go to the actual website and do not click any links. Legitimate businesses do not send emails asking for personal information or account information.

When you enjoy the convenience of frequent online shopping, it's very important to keep changing the passwords you use for each account. Every couple of weeks or so, make up a new password for your bank and the shopping sites directly. Use abstract words, combined with numbers and other odd characters for the strongest passwords.

Do not just go to one online merchant to buy a product. Do some price comparison with other retailers. Compare the product costs along with shipping prices and their return policy. When you have this information, you can rest assure that you will purchase from a retailer whom you can count on.

If you notice an item that you like and want to purchase while you're out running errands, see if you can find a better deal for it online! Many things like shoes or video games are cheaper online, so doing a quick internet search could save you some money.

Searching is the key to saving money with online shopping. Do a search for whatever it is you want to buy. You can use a traditional search engine like Google, or a shopping-specific engine like Shopping.com so you can more easily see who has the item in stock and what their price is.

Sign up on online communities that focus on finding bargains online. Forum members post their best bargain finds and daily deals for other members to enjoy. This is a great way to stay posted on the bargains that pop up everyday. You just never know if something that you want goes on sale.

Beware of phishing scams. No online retailer will send an email requesting you to send them any personal information in an email. If you receive an email like this, contact your credit card company using the number on the back of your credit card. This will ensure that the email is legit.

Look for clues that the small online shopping site you've chosen is reputable. Is there online store powered by Amazon? That's an obvious sign that it's legit. Is it a secure website (look for https instead of http)? If so, it's another great sign. Do they show customer feedback? Another excellent sign. If you see none of these, you should do more research prior to making the decision to buy through them.

In conclusion, there are many things to know and understand about online shopping before you start clicking away. After reading this article, you are well aware of these ideas and are ready to enjoy shopping from the comfort of your home. So, grab a cup of coffee and put on your pajamas and shop 'til you drop!

Review of BA Pass, A 2013 Ajay Bahl Film Starring Shilpa Shukla and Shadab Kamal

When characters in a film have unclear motives, there audience feels disconnected. Mukesh, the protagonist of B.A. Pass is a naïve middle-class college-going guy who shifts to his aunt's house in Central Delhi along with his younger sisters after the death of both his parents. He is made to perform all the household chores such as sweeping the floor and serving drinks to guests. Basically, his life's quite similar to Harry Potter's at the Dursley's home, albeit slightly better - at least he gets to sit on the dining table. He has a cousin who is just as big (although not in physique) a prick as Dudley Dursley was with Harry; not one day goes without his cousin browbeating him for not getting a job and contributing to the family income. Mukesh meets a Sarika, a mysterious lady in her thirties, at one of the kitty parties hosted by his aunt. The next morning, she calls him home for some work.

The two quickly jump into action. She trains him how to control, he learns obediently. And all along we wonder what's running through Mukesh's head but never get an answer. Is he doing it purely for sex? Does he love her? What happens after in between their love making - do they talk? Does he grow protective of her? Is he so stupid he doesn't suspect even once that she might be using him? Or that she may be involved with other men like him? Our penetrating questions get no satisfactory response.

B A Pass isn't a place to look for character study. The movie takes the maxim 'Desperation drives the poor and deprived to commit dishonorable acts' is literally taken without adding any layer of psychological complexity that makes us empathatize with those committing such acts. There's a complacency, a 'just go with it' attitude we see in Mukesh that disturbs us quite a bit. Sarika drops too many hints along the way which clearly suggest that she intends to make him a gigolo, and yet he stays ignorant. He doesn't seem to have blind or unconditional love for her either, so what is it he seeks from her? He can't be such a tubelight to fall into her traps so quickly, so easily; he reads Kasparov and aces at chess (he plays chess with Johnny, a guy he befriends at the graveyard), and anybody who's good at chess is expected to have minimal intelligence. And it doesn't help that Shadab Kamal, the actor who plays him, dutifully plays his role without trying to redeem the poor characterization through his performace. When Mukesh is forced to turn to gay prostitution after getting into trouble and losing all his female clients, Shadab doesn't convey the hesitation, the humiliation which any straight man would face in such a situation. He just goes with it, and I find that perplexing.

Mukesh's partner-in-sex Sarita wears a different colored brassiere every time, but her character doesn't reveal any colors to her personality except black. So it surprises me that the costume designer thought it would suit to change the color of her underclothes each time when using black throughout would've functioned better in defining the character she actually is. There is no good side to Sarita, no grey shade, only black. In an earlier scene, she mentions 'she travelled a lot with her father and saw many things at a very young age'. We wish she had revealed what she had seen exactly, and what made her the kind such a woman. The director doesn't explore this aspect, and chooses to keep it all implied. "Oh she must've seen bad stuff! Naughty stuff!" is what we're supposed to understand by her remark and just go with it. Again, no help from Shilpa Shukla, who plays her rule dutifully yet blandly.

Whenever there's a sex scene in the film, there's a large object to hide the no-nos and in one case, the scene goes out of focus. The large objects strategically placed in front to cover the entire pelvic area makes the sex scenes look rehearsed because the movements are just too rhythmic. A smarter thing would've been to cut to close ups shots of the characters getting pleasure as Censors can't object a face, can they?

The good thing about B. A. Pass is that it's mercifully short, clocking in at 95 minutes. It could've ended one scene, one fade out early and made a better impact. There are funny parts in the film, like Sarita's biji warning Mukesh about Sarita's character, calling her a 'nagan, a kanjari (derogatory word used for a lower caste associated with activities like prostitution)' before Sarita can shut her in the bedroom, or the female client who narrates episodes of her favorite serials as she's having sex with Mukesh. The part involving a client whose husband is in comma (a special appearance made by actress Deepti Naval) remains underutilized.

The biggest mistake B. A. Pass makes is that it highlights all the film festivals where it won awards or was screened, even before the movie begins. This elevates expectations, and you go in anticipating a film that doesn't choose the easy route of 'just going with it'. Unfortunately, it is into this very trap that B A Pass trips and isn't able to escape.

Review of Thalaivaa/Leader (Rather Talai-Vali/ Headache), a 2013 Tamil Movie Starring Vijay

Tamil A.L. Vijay's Thalaivaa has courted controversy after theatres in Chennai which originally intended to play the film received bomb threats, thus leading to a no-show on the first week of its release. It has however reached a cinema hall in the quaint but economically mushrooming city of Vadodara, my home-town. And my brothers, or rather bros, in Chennai, consider yourself saved (except for that poor fan-boy who committed suicide after his idol Vijay 's ( i.e. the lead actor and not A.L. Vijay,the director) film didn't see a release in Chennai. Bro, a word of advice: there are better things worth giving up your life for)! For the film is such a god-damn ridiculous piece of trash it should be kept out of human reach. Here's another word of advice, this time for Tamil Nadu's chief minister Jayalalitha, whom actor Vijay has approached for approving his film for Chennai theatres: don't listen to him! Instead do this: set up gas chambers just like the ones used in WW2 concentration camps and get about a million people killed. Set up a nuclear plant in the hub of the city and leak it. You'd probably see your name taken alongside Hitler's, but if you make the gravest mistake of releasing this film in the city you lead, consider your precious C.M. seat taken! In the first case, you'd be a dictator and yet not lose your precious 'kursi' (seat)...

I believe one S R K Karnan has filed petition with the Chennai High Court alleging that the film portrays the lives of his father and grand-father, two social leaders in Mumbai's slum-ridden area of Dharavi, in a highly unflattering light by distorting facts and depicting the two men as dons and thugs. His petition would probably be rejected, but if he does make another one claiming his lineage is portrayed as boneheaded idiots, he'd probably win the claim. Thalaivaa is hardly a biopic. Neither is it about "the people" as the protagonists in the film often claim. It isn't about Anna, who if Karnan's claim is true has been based on his granddad. Neither is it about Karnan's father. It's all about the idiotic hero Vijay. His screen-time and close-up shots confirm this. He dances, he romances, he sings, he jokes, he does dollops of dishum-dishum (fight) and some poor imitation of Robert Di Nero in Godfather and Abhishek Bachchan in Ram Gopal Varma's Sarkar/Sarkar Raj, whenever he gets a free time from all the dancing, romancing and dishum-dishuming.

He's a wannabe dada/don. The film itself is a wannabe Godfather, a wannabe Sarkar, a wannabe typical-Indian-romance (but with twist) and at times even a wannabe ABCD (Prabhudeva's film on dance). It spends much of its time worshipping its hero Vijay, to an extent that it kills of Anna's character (played competently by Sathyaraj) pretty quickly. It wastes little time to reveal its true intentions of becoming another in the endless list of forgettable kitschy 'romance-drama-action' money-spinners that are dumped on mass audiences by Kollywood and Bollywood. Sathyaraj, playing Anna, is a former coolie who eventually becomes the protector of honest slum-dwellers of Dharavi by delivering justice through violence and force. But the film relegates him to a shadow, one appearing occasionally to tell his son how busy he is, as soon as Vijay enters. He plays Anna's NRI son-settled-in-Melbourne Vishwa, and the film abruptly switches gear from dead-serious drama to hokey-jokey comedy. Comedian Santharam joins in as Vishwa's buddy Logu to fuel the film's path of self-destruction, and for a while we get an unappetizing feel of watching 'Sarkar + Comedy'.

Enter love interest Meera (played by dusky beauty Amala Paul) and the film enters 'romance mode', spending almost an hour till we exclaim "Oh my goodness! What happened to the original plot?!!" (that comes right before the interval, so you can be bold enough and try to ask whether you can come in after interval and pay half the ticket price. I wouldn't recommend that either as things get even worse post-interval). Vishwa and Meera participate in a dance contest and win, overcoming hurdles like being attacked by their competitors. But why are these things important in a film about Dharavi, its people and its self-proclaimed leaders? Why on earth would he think including a series of comedy sketches, one involving a cook who cannot cook, another about a bunch of single-men in Melbourne pining for Meera and the third involving Meera lying about her marriage with a sleazy-looking B-grade movie star, would be a good idea? Because they absolutely do nothing to further the plot, and they last as long as durex condoms. And how ridiculous is it for a film to forget itself, and jump from drama to comedy to romance and return only to kill of the character of Anna, poor Anna in a car blast? And to listen to Vishwa and Logu call each other 'Bro' every single time because, you know, they're in Melbourne and all, is borderline painful. Just imagine hearing something like: A- 'Bro... ' B- 'No, bro... ' A- 'Of course, bro' B- 'Bro!', (10x).

Twists before the second half - Meera and her dad turning out to be undercover police after they visit Mumbai along-with Vishwa under the pretext of discussing with Anna about Vishwa's marriage with Meera, and a guy named Bhima claiming responsibility for killing Anna to avenge his father's murder (Anna had killed a hate-monger named Varadarajan Mudaliar in the past). Bhima is really a weirdo - he meditates chanting Anna's name (then Vishwa's; actually the words chanted during meditation help in relaxation so it's hard to understand how chanting one's villain's name will increase animosity towards that subject: weird spirituality) and he sounds like an evil cyborg, credit awful dubbing (he's played by Abhimanyu Singh, a pucca Punjabi puttar). Vishwa meanwhile spends his time either channeling his inner Sylvester Stallone/Salman Khan, pounding men after men with brute energy, or drinking bhaang and doing masti (fun). The condition of this film post-interval turns from rubbish to muck to sheer atrocity. A song in the film goes 'Thalapathy Thalapathy'; meanwhile you'd be experiencing a great deal of talai-vali (headache). I recommend a CT scan after watching this film.

If Thalaivaa is the film of 2013, then its a clear indication its the Dark Ages for Tamil cinema. This film doesn't deserve the controversy it's getting (controversy = publicity = ka-ching!).T he multiplex I visited usually plays a little too many ads. This time I wanted some more. The movie, however, takes ages to get to a point, and still doesn't make any impact.

Review of Metropolis, a 1927 German Expressionist Science Fiction Film By Fritz Lang

I am a preacher of logic and rationality. Metropolis defies logic. This Fritz Lanz film is the definition of absurdity, a characteristic I normally dislike. It offers a half-hearted resolution to the maxim 'the heart is the mediator between the mind and the hand', elaborating it wonkily, like a student science project that uses quantum physics and shit to make candyfloss for extra marks (students of science, forgive me for my ignorance here, as I have no clue about quantum physics. Its one word I keep hearing often on the web, though!).

The 'experiment' ultimately turns disappointing because the process is unnecessarily and inexplicably complicated. It ends up looking absurd, a characteristic, I repeat, I normally denounce. The major complaint I had with Fritz Lanz's 1927 science-fiction epic Metropolis, considered by contemporary critics as one of the most important films ever made, is quite similar to sci-fi author H.G. Wells' own reservations about the movie. I agree with H.G. Wells when he attacks the film for favoring message over logic, although I wouldn't be as vehemently hostile as he is (his review basically rips apart the film to shreds, and not just through any shredder but one that shreds it to nano-bits). There are two things I fail to understand:

1) The film talks about workers living in the underworld who toil for a reasonable ten hours at a factory, controlled by a magnate by the name of Joh Fredersen. A whistle billowing from a pipe-like machine marks the end of their shift. The only sign of their oppression is their style of walking, a rhymic march with slightly stooped backs. An elevator takes the workers to their homes, which aren't all that shabby. To me they looked like card-board boxes with cut-outs for windows, but they appeared quite roomy, at least from the outside.

One day, there's an accident at the workplace. Quite a number perish, and the film's protagonist Fred, Joh Fredersen's son, bears witness to the unfortunate sight. He informs his father, who until then is clueless about the mishap. There is nothing suspect about this accident. Accidents happen, shit happens. Frankly, I wanted to ask those workers 'What are you fighting for?!' because there seemed no strong motive behind their rebellion. It's also funny that we know absolutely 'nichts' (nothing) about what those machines produce? Because, you know, they are supposed to 'run the whole damn place' and that's why Joh is a monopolist turned autocrat. They run a city teeming with motorcars and planes, so these machines make automobiles and aircraft?

When there is a breakdown later in the film, the whole city comes to a standstill. There is no power, so are we to assume these machines generate power? And what do the civilians living in between the underworld of workers and the 'Club of the Sons' (where the rich, including Joh and Fred, reside) do for a living? And why is it a compulsion that if a person is fired by Joh, he goes straight to the underworld, as shown in the film.

2) Fred is smitten by Maria, the messenger of peace and equality among the workers of the underworld, and touched by the plight of the poor workers' children whom she brings along to the Club of the Sons one day to damn the wealthy (albeit tactfully) for the excesses and negligence. He follows her to the underworld, is haunted by the condition of the workers and decides to support Maria's cause for uplifting their living standards. He becomes a worker himself, and a mediator between the two world.

On hearing a word about Maria's secret meeting with the workers, Fred's father schemes with a mad scientist named Rotwang by creating a robotic clone of Maria using the robot invented by Rowtang which he originally built to replace his lost love Hel, the dead wife of Joh. Maria is kidnapped, bound in Rowtang's laboratory to clone her face onto the robot's, and then kept in captivity at Rowtang's isolated home. The clone Maria is instructed to instigate workers to riot. She also sets tongues waggling in the world above with her seductive performances. In one dance, she pops out of an oval-shaped object, which I assume was a source of inspiration for Lady Gaga's bizarre entry at 2011 Grammy awards. Also for Madonna's Super Bowl performance, where her head-gear was definitely inspired by Maria's. I wonder which diva was inspired by the good Maria? Maybe Janelle Monae, but she too became channeled as a robot in her wonderful album ArchAndroid. Okay, I digress too much.

The work force, incited by evil Maria, revolt against Joh's regime and proceed to dismantle the heart machine, which in turn results in a deluge in the underworld. The machines too are damaged extensively in the process. Now, why in the name of Metropolis would Joh, the creator of Metropolis, destroy his own city? Of course he intended to subdue these workers by force at some point but perhaps he was too late. Way too late. Sergei Eisenstein had an entire army take quick action against revolting civilians in Battleship Potemkin. Mr. Joh simply waits.

The score by Gottfried Huppertz isn't distinctive either. I bet some of Janelle Monae's Metropolis inspired musical compositions, especially Suite iii Overture, would've done magic to some scenes in this film. The Gottfried Huppertz score and 119 min runtime indicate I have the 2002 DVD edition of Metropolis. There is a 2010 restored version with 25 minutes of additional footage. Would I buy it as a lover of films? Maybe. And as a preacher of rationality? Nien.