Review: Mississippi Masala

Mississippi Masala (1991):

Synopsis – An India family flees from Uganda to Mississippi, and despite the movie’s title does not open up an Indian/Soul food kitchen. Five years later they are members of the community but still outsiders in every way imaginable.

Starring - Denzel Washington, Sarita Choudhury, Roshan Seth, Sharmila Tagore, tons of great actors. Seriously, the cast is amazing.

Movie #5 in my March blog project, I asked my mom what made Mississippi special to her:

“I just love the characters. Love me some Denzel. I’m a sucker for love conquers all. Dad and I were an unlikely couple 43 years ago and here we are today.”

Mom, you can’t give me quotes that make me tear up like that; it makes it hard to continue my self-image of manliness. Mississippi Masala was a very interesting movie. They packed a lot of story into its two hour run time, and almost all of it was top notch. They could have based a story simply on the father’s struggles after being forced out of Uganda when Idi Amin (you know, the guy from The Last King of Scotland) took over, but because they took the story in many directions, the film is much more significant than a simple riches to rags struggle story. I’m seriously having a difficult time remembering all of the story points that were laid out in this tale, but I don’t feel that that is a negative of the film. Jay (Father) is obsessed with the land he left behind, neither Indian nor Ugandan anymore. Kinnu (Mother) is worried about father, while also being worried about their daughter and where she will end up in life, married to a rich man? Or forced to struggle everyday as they do. Meena (Daughter) is an attractive woman of low standing who still has the eye of some of the rich boys and is a bit rebellious, as her father taught her to be. This all sounds really cheesy when I type it out, but the movie is not like that at all. That only sums up 1/10 of what is going on in this movie. I haven’t begun to get into poor Denzel’s lot in life, having to work hard to support his family, making his way in a place that thinks the second he slacks off he is just another lazy person, not worthy of a business or any financial freedom. And the emotional turmoil everyone is going through constantly! Jeez, it’s just like real life. Celebrities! They’re just like us!

What I Liked:

-The story covers a lot. When it comes to being prejudice, and not just in the south, there is a lot of discrimination that can be thrown around. We have racism, of course. African-Americans shouldn’t be mixing it up with Indians! That’s crazy sauce (intentional masala related pun)! We have sexism. Unmarried ladies shouldn’t be caught canoodling in hotel rooms with men! We got financially driven discrimination. You can’t marry into that family, they aren’t rich! They work for a living! We even got class and racism discrimination amongst the Indian culture, which is difficult for me to touch on because I only have a vague idea of what class discrimination would even be like. A lot of issues in 2 hours, and most of them only slightly touched on, but I am happy to see a story that doesn’t focus solely on race. It could have, and that would have been one kind of a more generic movie, but this movie contains much more substance.

-Why are the very few romantic scenes so, well, romantic? There is a hesitant steaminess even in the scene where Denzel and Sarita Choudhury kiss for the first time. The camera movement in that scene is pretty great. You can see that it is hand held, or on a very movable podium, and the camera moves closer and around the couple as they experience each other’s lips for the first time. The sex scene was brief and had some kind of goofy music, but it worked well in the film. A longer sex scene would have changed the entire tone of the movie; and even though the main couple, Denzel and Sarita, are the focus of the marketing material for the movie, the film is about a lot of characters.

-What we have here is a nice snap shot of the early 90s. It might be specific to Mississippi for all I know, but there were some things that stood out. Clothes and hairstyles, music and dancing, a guy is wearing a clock around his neck at one point for Heaven’s sake. It’s all really goofy now, but I love it and glad I can revisit it on occasion through film.

-Sarita Choudhury, Roshan Seth, you two were amazing. I am going to seek out more of your work.

What I Didn't Like:

-This is a complaint/compliment for the film. When the film ends, there are a lot of questions we cannot answer confidently. Even the main couple’s story-line doesn't have an ending, unless you count the tiny bit during the end credits. Either way, my complaint is I wanted it to keep going, or at least tie up a few of the loose strings so I can feel a little satisfaction about the character’s places. If this became a weekly television show I would be very happy.

-There were a few scenes where I could feel the director’s hand guiding people as the said their lines. I don’t like it when I can sense that the director has just said “action” and everything starts from there.

What I Hated:

-Jerry curls are gross.

Verdict:

I would, and probably will, watch Mississippi Masala again. I am also now interested in checking out Monsoon Wedding when I get a chance. Very enjoyable, lots to dig through. 

Review (sort of): Sideways

Sideways (2004):

Synopsis – Two men, who are probably not much older than me now but at the time I first saw it they seemed way too old to act the way they do, spend a bachelor weekend getting into trouble and drinking wine.

Starring - Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Virginia Madsen, Sandra Oh, others including Marylouise Burke who is awesome.

I think I saw Sideways in the theater back in the day. Let’s see; I would have been 23, not really into movies yet. My top movie back then would have been Good Will Hunting or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. This was probably the first “dark” comedy that I actually found funny. And Sideways holds up after 10 years. Something scary happened this time though. I found myself relating to Miles, Paul Giamatti’s character a lot. I’m not quite middle aged yet, and I haven’t been through a divorce, but when it comes to certain feelings, like not leaving any mark in the world or wanting to be an artist and being told that I might not be good enough, yeah. It’s pretty depressing, but in the long run I don’t expect to leave a huge hole in this world when I leave it. I just want the people I love to remember me as a good man who loved them. And art, well, art is bullshit anyway. This is my opinion of course.

What I Liked:

-The movie is somehow all about depressing and false subjects, yet is so much fun to watch playing out. Even after multiple viewing I eagerly await every twist and turn in Miles and Jack’s adventures in wine country. It’s a bad situation because those boys are all kinds of shades of gray, and they happen to meet a couple of women who don’t mind walking the line on the dark side. What these assholes do to those women is terrible, but I wouldn’t change this movie for the world. One can practically anticipate each action and consequence right from the beginning, even at a first viewing. You aren’t supposed to be able to judge a book by its cover right? Well, I think with these two dudes, an exception can be made. When it comes to the script, I don’t think it can be improved.

-I finally took notice of the scene that focuses on Virginia Madsen when she begins a monologue about why wine is special to her. That is some Hitchcock level worship there. The way everything goes dark to frame her face, all other noise is gone except maybe a little music, and here we are, gazing at a suddenly stunning Virginia Madsen. That scene is pretty good, but Giamatti’s reaction directly afterwards is what really give the moment its power.

-Sandra Oh is pretty great.

Verdict:

Whoa, wait a minute; aren’t we missing some categories in the breakdown? People, as far as I’m concerned Sideways is a perfect movie. I know it has some flaws and a better critic than I could point them out with ease, but I love this movie through and through. When it comes to comedies this is in my top 5 of all time. So if you haven’t watched it, you really should. And then you can tell me how wrong I am!

March Week 2: Scott Pilgrim vs the Post

A nice and easy paced week for me this time. Writing out the full reviews like I have been has been like a breath of fresh air every time, and I intend to keep it up. But it does slow down my watching. I think the pros vastly outweigh the cons right now. We’ll see down the line. I’m still looking for work. I’ve started rummaging through the retail jobs now, looking for anything that will give me some damn income. Money is money right? Meanwhile I will continue looking for computer jobs.

Films Seen:

City of Ghosts

Forks over Knives

Funny Girl

300: Rise of an Empire

Click the links to see the reviews!

I keep meaning to watch Boxcar Bertha, which is Scorsese’s second film, but my film companions always convince me that there is something else to watch. Next week, it’s going to happen. YOU HEAR THAT JOSE AND SARAH? It’s going to happen. I hope you guys had a good week, and a good coming week. Go see some stuff and tell me about it. I want to know what’s streaming or spinning in your place!

Review: 300: Rise of an Empire!

300: Rise of an Empire:

Synopsis – A prequel, interquel, and sequel to 300, Rise of an Empire sees the Greeks who are left struggle against God King Xerxes and his armies. Also some badass lady who is super smart and cool and EVIL.

Starring - Sullivan Stapleton, Eva Green, Lena Headey, Rodrigo Santoro, a bunch of ripped dudes and topless ladies and… children... yeah.

How can a movie be so entertaining and yet so incredibly mediocre? I liked 300, but not enough to ever watch it a second time. Now, after seeing the sequel, I am kind of jonesing to see it again only so I can compare it to what I just saw. Rise of Cobra an Empire had me doubled over with laughter sometimes. The ridiculousness of the violence and plotting and acting is so bat shit crazy that I could not help but enjoy myself. But let me put this up front: This is not a movie I will watch again. I mean, yeah, if some friends are getting together and they want to watch it I’m not going to run out of the room screaming, I just mean it isn’t joining my DVD collection. It is like a summer blockbuster without the PG-13 friendliness but just as much dumbitude. Does that sound like a movie you would like? You probably will. Breakdown:

What I Liked:

-Everything effect-wise was glorious to look at. I know a lot of people hate the over use of CGI blood movies like this are known for, but it doesn’t bother me. Everything is of course overdone, from the slow-mo fighting to the slow-mo walking to the slow-mo swimming. The effects and over-the-topness is the only real reason to see the movie.

-Death by horse. ‘Nuff said.

What I Didn’t Like:

-The story features A LOT of time jumping. Like I said in the synopsis, this is a prequel interquel sequel, so the film keeps moving all over time, spending the most of it in the interquel position. It’s confusing, and I can only assume it was an attempt on the film makers to stay true to the material it was based on. I mean, they weren’t trying to smart it up were they? Don’t they know their audience (people like me)?

-Holy shite there are some ridiculous story bits in this movie. I found almost all of them hilarious, therefore entertaining, but it wasn’t good. Bad film makers! I don’t want to go into too much detail here, I will just mention one bit: A sex scene so stupid it makes the one in Watchmen seem practically sane.

What I Hated:

-The attempt of the film makers to keep this movie directly connected to the first movie was understandable, but if anything dragged down the movie it was those moments. Bringing back the hunchback? Bad idea, he’s ugly and dumb. Showing the messenger from the first movie in a role that makes him seem really disproportionately important to the plot? WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? Was this all in the Xerxes book? I guess I’ll never know because I don’t want Frank Miller to get any of my money for comics.

-Maybe this is just me but, and I can’t believe I’m saying this; Sullivan Stapleton has zero charisma compared to Gerard Butler. Gerard Butler and charisma… what is wrong with the world!?!?

Verdict:

This movie is stupid, but it still managed to entertain the hell out of me. My suggestion is that if you think you are going to enjoy 300: Rise of an Empire, go see it now while it is in theaters and be overwhelmed by the effects. At home, I doubt very much this movie will have any impact.

Alternate Titles:

300 2 (deuce)

301 Spartans (inaccurate)

300: Oh, so the Greeks could fight even though you made fun of them in the first movie?

300: Eva Green shouldn’t wear makeup that accentuates her eyes so much

300: Has two women main characters, but still fails the Bechdel test

Review: Funny GIrl

Funny Girl (1968):

Synopsis – She wants to be a star, so she does that. And apparently she’s ugly? I mean, she’s not conventionally beautiful, but ugly? C’mon. Well, anyway, she gets by on her self-deprecating sense of humor and her denial of rejection in all its forms.

Starring - Barbra Streisand, Omar Sharif, others

Movie #4 in the March movie project, I asked my mom what makes Funny Girl special to her:

“I love the ugly duckling makes good story. I memorized every song. Barbra Streisand became a hero to me.”

“I hated her in Hello Dolly though.”

I just added that last part in on a whim, I don’t know if she wanted me to. My mom is a funny lady, which happens to be the sequel to Funny Girl, but also a fact. I really doubt she was ever the ugly duckling. I’m biased, I know, but my mom has always been a beautiful woman, and she was even in some musical productions (not to mention a band or two). I can’t imagine her ever comparing herself to Fanny Brice from this movie, but perhaps that’s something everyone does. Funny Girl is the most completely acceptable musical I have seen on film in a long time. By which I mean I didn’t have an issue with any part of the story or music. And you know why it works for me? The sense of humor, it gets me every time. I like self-deprecating humor, I use it a lot myself, so with Streisand throwing out all the “who me?” type jokes, I was bound to enjoy everything she said. I can understand why it would be a turn off for some people though. It gets tiresome when you know someone like that in real life. And Streisand now has a reputation as a diva so maybe the jokes would come off false to the average viewer. But she was a practically a nobody when this movie was made. There is an innocence of character that is right there on the screen, and I appreciate that.

What I Liked:

-Barbra Streisand is funny. I know at this point of pop culture history Streisand is considered a joke or not all most of the time, but she shows some serious chops in this movie. Every joke she throws out lands smoothly and her expressions are all perfect for each situation. I don’t know if she was just reading from a script, but it felt perfectly natural for her.

-It was good to hear these songs in context to the movies. I think I had heard most of them before, once again usually poking fun at Barbra Streisand, and until now they hadn’t really had in impact on me. Don’t Rain on My Parade always seemed like a weird and defensive song, but in the context of this film it is quite good.

-It looks like this was an adaptation of the stage production of the same name. If that is the case, then this is how you do that. One of my complaints about My Fair Lady was how stagnant all the environments felt because they seem to have built a bunch of sets directly based off of the play, making it feel unnatural, unlived in. Funny Girl doesn’t have that problem at all. Everything feels real and lived in and still manages to work in a musical.

What I Didn’t Like:

-Well, since this story is semi-based on someone’s real life, I guess faulting the story feels a little hollow. But that ending is really against the tone of the rest of the movie.

What I Hated:

-Nothing

Verdict:

A good and funny musical with a downer ending, this is now another movie I long to see projected. A nice way to spend a few hours.

Review: Forks over Knives

Synopsis – Stop eating meat and dairy. Seriously, you’ll live longer.

Here is the full cast. Since it’s a documentary there are no celebrities to speak of other than clips of news casts and Bill Maher.

Sometimes a documentary is so inspirational one cannot help but be driven into action. This was the next film in my March film project, one that my mother had asked me on more than one occasion to watch. Being the terrible son that I am, I chose to watch several seasons of USA shows (Characters Welcome) instead. Today I broke that chain and sat down and watched the movie. After it was over I promptly put on my walking shoes and took a walk over to a Blenders in the Grass that is not too far away, but far enough to justify it as an exercise expenditure. There I got 2 ounces of wheat grass juice, drank it down, and then walked back to the apartment. Sitting at my computer, stirring the movie around in my head, I suddenly found something else stirring unexpectedly. The wheat grass juice soon left my body the same way it came in, and I now have that terrible taste doubled up in my mouth. This was totally my fault. Walking as fast as I was combined with a sudden consumption of something I don’t normally drink and then more walking was a recipe for disaster.

 The movie didn't tell me to do all this by the way. I’m the one who decided it was time to take a step in the right direction health-wise. This film simply presents evidence that suggests that our mostly meat and dairy diet is probably killing us. I think those of us who have at least a passing interest in health probably already know that. How the film assists that knowledge is by showing a few people who change their diet and get results that don’t seem possible otherwise.  Along the lines of Morgan Spurlock’s doc Super Size Me, the writer and director of this movie submits himself to a diet regimen to see the effect it will have on his well-being. This is after he talks about how he just got done drinking 2 Redbulls and a 12 oz Coke (I don’t about you, but that sounds like insanity to me). Anyway, that particular thread is mostly ignored until the very end of the movie, because unlike Spurlock the documentarian decided not to make the film about him. There are others who are also put on a new diet regimen and we get to see the results of their journeys. The film also tells the story of two doctors and their work when pertaining to healthcare. They both figure out that diet is a huge part of what determines our quality of life and the documentary names a lot of studies that back up their findings. Forks over Knives is good that way, not trying to dumb down the information too much as opposed to another documentary, Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead, which is full of cartoons and pop music, therefore more entertaining but less informative in the long run. It seems to be a well thought out, if sometimes slow, information delivery system, and it definitely has me thinking which should be the goal of any documentary. I only gave it 3 stars out of 5 on Letterboxd because while it is a good documentary, it isn’t necessarily special as a film.

I don’t intend to do my regular breakdown here. I will say that I think watching this doc while be beneficial to almost anyone. I am very glad I watched it.

Review: City of Ghosts

City of Ghosts (2002):

Synopsis - Jimmy is a con artist who finds himself in a pickle after his boss disappears when their business comes under scrutiny. Jimmy decides to track him down, taking him on a sleazy journey to Thailand and Cambodia, where everyone is working an angle and monkeys occasionally steal your glasses.

Starring- Matt Dillon, James Caan, Natascha McElhone, Gerard Depardieu, Kem Sereyvuth, Stellan Skarsgård

City of Ghosts. Never heard of it? Me neither. I was just surfing the options of my friend’s HBO account and there I saw a picture of internet dreamboat Stellan Skarsgard. There is something special about that man with his mummified yet still good looks, wispy hair, and strange accent. Based on the actual plot description, I thought it might be worth a watch. Like Sci-Fi movies, I am constantly looking good thrillers but more than often find myself disappointed. This was… lukewarm at best. Break down:

What I Liked:

-Although the story spent a lot of time being purposely mysterious and annoying because of its vagueness, I did find myself interested in following it to its conclusion. Matt Damon plays out of his league/element pretty well, and with people like Gerard Depardieu and Stellan Skarsgard doing their best to be cagey and somewhat still likable, there is a lot that could have gone a lot worse. So, props, I guess?

-I like James Caan. He didn’t have to do much in this movie, but I liked everything I saw. I don’t know when the last time I said that about a James Caan performance, at least after the 80’s.

-Cambodia and Thailand are fascinating to me. The hot climates along with a people who seem shady and innocent at the same time are a strange mixture that often makes for a most interesting setting. I am sure all I am seeing are stereotypes; I don’t really have anything to base that on though. Impoverished and unsound buildings in a sprawling maze of a city, dirt roads that leads to the swamplands or fields, or take you to ancient structures with huge amounts of spiritual and historical significance. I find it all simultaneously repelling and enchanting.

What I Didn’t Like:

-Although I did like the characters when it came to their actions, other than the surface level motivations I’m not sure there is much depth in there. Is Matt Dillon’s character a good man? And if so, why was he caught up with these con artists scams? In the beginning of the movie, we find out that the insurance company he is helping to run is not going to be able to pay any of the victims of a recent hurricane. It really doesn’t seem as if he is concerned for the lives of those people who will now be homeless, but when he is in Cambodia looking for his boss and mentor, he appears to be turning over a new leaf. But there just isn’t enough going on to motivate someone toward the altruistic actions that end up happening in the movie.

-I found myself at a strange place when it came to the end of the movie. While I won’t go into too many details, I will say that it ends on a high note. I am both happy and sad it ended this way. Happy because it could have gone extremely dark, which is certainly where I thought it would end and would have been appropriate for the movie’s tone. So when it surprised me by not being a total downer, it earned several points in the happiness column. Even with that said, I also thought the ending felt a little like a cheat. For most of the time, the movie is pretty dark and you might feel as if none of the characters deserve any sort of redemption. So when redemption is received, I could not help but think there was some revision to the script after someone noted it was a bit too much on the negative side. It reminds of the way The Killing Fields has a “happy” ending when it was just darkness all the way up until then.

What I Hated:

-Once again I don’t have any sort of anger worked up at any part of this movie. On a personal note, I could always use more Stellan Skargard. You know, in general.

Verdict:

While I am not in any sort of rush to watch City of Ghosts again, I certainly wouldn’t mind having it in my DVD collection. It was an ok thriller, sometimes confusing, mostly dark with an ending that will please my dad (he only likes movies with happy endings, this was close enough). Not a terrible way to spend an hour and a half. I watched it on HBOgo.