• SUDA MING’S CHANNEL
  • TALKING FILMS
  • Good Night | Good Morning
  • My Talk Show
  • PROFILE

MADRAS INK.

Menu

  • Archives
  • Columns
  • Diary
  • Interviews
  • My Films
  • Reviews
  • Good Night | Good Morning

  • Word thru the bird

    Tweets by SudhishKamath
  • Connect with GNGM

    Connect with GNGM
  • About GNGM

    Reviews

    “A cerebral joyride”
    Karan Johar, filmmaker on REDIFF

    “Among the most charming and creative Indian independent films”
    J Hurtado, TWITCH

    ★★★★✩
    “You don’t really need a big star cast… you don’t even need a big budget to get the techniques of filmmaking bang on…”
    Allen O Brien, TIMES OF INDIA

    ★★★★✩
    “An outstanding experience that doesn’t come by too often out of Indian cinema!”
    Shakti Salgaokar, DNA

    ★★★
    “This film can reach out the young, urban, upwardly mobile, but lonely, disconnected souls living anywhere in the world, not just India.”
    Namrata Joshi, OUTLOOK

    “I was blown away!”
    Aseem Chhabra, MUMBAI MIRROR

    “Good Night Good Morning is brilliant!”
    Rohit Vats, IBN-LIVE

    ★★★✩✩
    “Watch it because it’s a smart film.”
    Shubha Shetty Saha, MIDDAY

    ★★★✩✩
    “A small gem of a movie.”
    Sonia Chopra, SIFY

    ★★★✩✩
    “A charming flirtation to watch.”
    Shalini Langer, INDIAN EXPRESS

    “Interesting, intelligent & innovative”
    Pragya Tiwari, TEHELKA

    “Beyond good. Original, engrossing and entertaining”
    Roshni Mulchandani, BOLLYSPICE

    * * * * *
    Synopsis

    ‘Good Night Good Morning’ is a black and white, split-screen, conversation film about two strangers sharing an all-night phone call on New Year's night.

    Writer-Director Sudhish Kamath attempts to discover good old-fashioned romance in a technology-driven mobile world as the boy Turiya, driving from New York to Philadelphia with buddies, calls the enigmatic girl staying alone in her hotel room, after a brief encounter at the bar earlier in the night.

    The boy has his baggage of an eight-year-old failed relationship and the girl has her own demons to fight. Scarred by unpleasant memories, she prefers to travel on New Year's Eve.

    Anonymity could be comforting and such a situation could lead to an almost romance as two strangers go through the eight stages of a relationship – The Icebreaker, The Honeymoon, The Reality Check, The Break-up, The Patch-up, The Confiding, The Great Friendship, The Killing Confusion - all over one phone conversation.

    As they get closer to each other over the phone, they find themselves miles apart geographically when the film ends and it is time for her to board her flight. Will they just let it be a night they would cherish for the rest of their lives or do they want more?

    Good Night | Good Morning, starring Manu Narayan (Bombay Dreams, The Love Guru, Quarter Life Crisis) and Seema Rahmani (Loins of Punjab, Sins and Missed Call) also features New York based theatre actor Vasanth Santosham (Bhopal: A Prayer for Rain), screenwriter and film critic Raja Sen and adman Abhishek D Shah.

    Shot in black and white as a tribute to the era of talkies of the fifties, the film set to a jazzy score by musicians from UK (Jazz composer Ray Guntrip and singer Tina May collaborated for the song ‘Out of the Blue), the US (Manu Narayan and his creative partner Radovan scored two songs for the film – All That’s Beautiful Must Die and Fire while Gregory Generet provided his versions of two popular jazz standards – Once You’ve Been In Love and Moon Dance) and India (Sudeep and Jerry came up with a new live version of Strangers in the Night) was met with rave reviews from leading film critics.

    The film was released under the PVR Director’s Rare banner on January 20, 2012.

    Festivals & Screenings

    Mumbai Film Festival (MAMI), Mumbai 2010 World Premiere
    South Asian Intl Film Festival, New York, 2010 Intl Premiere
    Goa Film Alliance-IFFI, Goa, 2010 Spl Screening
    Chennai Intl Film Festival, Chennai, 2010 Official Selection
    Habitat Film Festival, New Delhi, 2011 Official Selection
    Transilvania Intl Film Festival, Cluj, 2011 Official Selection, 3.97/5 Audience Barometer
    International Film Festival, Delhi, 2011 Official Selection
    Noordelijk Film Festival, Netherlands, 2011 Official Selection, 7.11/10 Audience Barometer
    Mumbai Film Mart, Mumbai 2011, Market Screening
    Film Bazaar, IFFI-Goa, 2011, Market Screening
    Saarang Film Festival, IIT-Madras, 2012, Official Selection, 7.7/10 Audience Barometer

    Theatrical Release, January 20, 2012 through PVR

    Mumbai
    Delhi
    Gurgaon
    Ahmedabad
    Bangalore
    Chennai
    Hyderabad (January 27)

    * * * * *

    More information: IMDB | Facebook | Youtube | Wikipedia | Website

  • Browse: Categories

  • December 2025
    M T W T F S S
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    293031  
    « Dec    
  • Recent Posts

    • Simmba: A departure from the formula
    • Zero: The hero who wasn’t
    • Protected: AndhaDhun: What did that end mean?
    • Love and other cliches
    • October: Where is Dan?

Browsing Category Archives

Website under construction.

Sarkar: Varma plays Sehwag style!

July 2, 2005 · by sudhishkamath

Sarkar has Ram Gopal Varma play an innings that remind you of Virender Sehwag.

This recklessly compiled quick-fire century has him despatching the ball beyond the boundary at least a dozen times. But, Sarkar also has an equal number of loose shots and in some places, it does not even connect!

You would have seen Sehwag play such an innings with brilliance and carelessness both written all over it.

There are easily about a dozen scenes in ‘Sarkar’ that stay with you long after the movie is over. I saw it yesterday first day first show. And I still remember some of the lines and scenes. There are moments that totally ROCK!!

The first 20 minutes explode on to the screen with raw power as Varma shows us his desi Don Corleone, a Safed Baal wala Thackeray, as Subhash Nagre, the man much respected by the people.

The first Act of the film is probably it’s best.

Varma gives us the beautiful details — what his characters are, what is their world like, what do they all stand for and what could be the possible conflict. Bachchan Sr. is first rate with a controlled performance that banks on Varma’s choice of close-ups and assorted shots that bring out his body language and non-verbal communication. Jr. has nothing much to do here.

The guy who steals the scene from right below the Bachchan’s nose is the other son sitting at the table. K K who plays Vishnu (Sonny Corleone) lights up the frames with his electric presence, menacing energy and intensity that could only be matched by Bachchan Sr. in his younger days. The verbal exchange at the dinner table and the tension it packs is a high point! That’s a six!

Next over, the baddies surface. And lazy ass screenwriter Manish Gupta begins to show his weakness. The villains are probably the weakest link in the film. There’s Rashid, a Dubai-based smuggler who’s idea of acting is to stare through his glasses. There’s a a golt-villain talking horrible Tamil and there are the usual bad ass politicians. Almost run-out. Of ideas, of course.

Like my friend said after the movie: “It looked like a scene out of one of those MGR movies. All the bad guys get together and do the evil laugh after they plan. For a minute I thought I was watching M.N.Nambiar there.”

Yes, he did have a point. The villains are weak indeed. And screenwriting just makes them look like clowns in a comic book! This is where the middle Act suffers. The conflict in the film is very weak and second rate. Pitting son against father had so much more potential… Malik and Chandu were pitted against each other in Company with greater finesse, so much that your heart went out to them when they split. It made the proceedings in the second half absolutely riveting.

Here, Varma is let down by his scriptwriter Manish Gupta. If the script is weak, no amount of direction and style can elevate it. If the lines are bad, no amount of non-verbal cues can compensate. Not that all lines are bad. Some of the punch lines work! And HOW!! But in most parts of the film, the lines are pretty average, the sub-plots are very under-developed and the secondary characters of the film poorly etched. Luca Brasi and the Consigliori in The Godfather were wonderfully described characters. Here, they are reduced to stereotypes. Caught and dropped.

Also, here there’s absolutely no graphic violence! Godfather was like the baap of violent movies. Here, it’s very subdued. Not too much imagery as such, just a hint of rawness with use of dumb-bells and sledgehammer to break the monotonous nature of gun-shot violence. Clever shots.

Though it is his homage to The Godfather, it is not really an remake. It is only half-adapted from the movie and half inspired by certain incidents from the Shiv Sena leaders life, but the director smartly steers clear of politics and abstains from giving his don any religious colour.

It is in the second act that the movie goes a little downhill as the Varma executes some corny run-of-the-mill scenes that lack plausibility. The sequences of Shankar’s (Abhishek Bachchan’s) escape and his attempt to save his Dad have the film at its lowest and weakest. Varma at his sketchy worst! The mistimed hook, the off-balanced pull and dropped at slip. Embarassing.

The background score, though overdone, heightens the tension and is perfect for the mood of the film. It totally works for me. Another six.

As a result of a messed up middle, the final act, when Shankar takes over, starts on a weak footing. But a couple of good scenes and the finale salvage the film to a level of respectability. The last few scenes when Shankar hunts down the enemies of Sarkar have the stamp of the master blaster of Bollywood. And Varma reaches his century with a six!

The filmmaker mixes fact and fiction, Corleone and Bal Thackeray, slick style and half-baked substance with equal doses of recklessness and brilliance. Certainly not his best, but definitely watchable! Go for it.

I am supposed to review this movie for my paper. So I’ll watch it again. And you guys watch out for the Updated review.

Paheli: Mystery remains!

July 2, 2005 · by sudhishkamath

Why did Amol Palekar choose to turn this short fantastic folktale into a rather longish full-fledged movie with Shah Rukh Khan, Rani Mukherjee and Amitabh Bachchan?

Not that I did not like the movie but I am not sure if one would actually like to pay to watch this movie. It’s a perfect film to watch on TV in between surfing channels or on the DVD so that you could fast forward the songs.

But sitting through the whole film requires just a little patience. If you already love the songs, then you might actually enjoy the movie. Or it does not make sense to sit and watch this rather long and slow movie which entertains, only if you are in the mood for watching offbeat cinema.

I believe that this movie needed more elements to make it engaging.

The film could have taken cinematic liberties to exploit the potential of the fantasy genre. Though Shah Rukh Khan plays a ghost, we really don’t know much about what ghosts cannot do in the film. Are there more such ghosts in the village? We don’t exactly know. All we know is that he’s a ghost who has fallen in love with the lonely bride whose husband has left her alone, as he goes away on business for five years the day after their wedding.

Since he’s a ghost, SRK is able to do pretty much everything from becoming whoever he wants to producing gold coins out of thin air to bringing rain overnight to the desert state to to making his guys win a camel race to getting Lachchi (Rani) pregnant with a baby (!). If everything’s possible and nothing is impossible, there is hardly any conflict or a serious crisis for a ghost. Which is why the film does not really haunt you. It would have been interesting to give the ghost a few limitations and bring these into play as the plot unfolds. It would have been interesting to add more ghost characters to add to the drama or comedy or at least add a sub-plot or two. The only other two ghosts in the movie are puppets who don’t seem to have any other power apart from narrating the tale. Which makes me curious about the world of ghosts and I learn absolutely nothing about them in the film but for the fact that they can do anything they want. At will!

Palekar probably found the tale interesting cuz of its core idea: a women’s conscious decision to choose who she wants to be with, after her newly wed husbands leaves home on business. But this like most of Shyamalan films does not really merit a feature length film. A short or a telefilm with lesser actors could have served the purpose too.

Cinematographer Ravi K Chandran does a damn good job yet again playing with red and orange shades to contrast with the yellow desert scapes of Rajasthan. SRK continues to play himself and seems to have ghost directed the romantic scenes. Rani Mukherjee is ravishing as usual and wears the sexiest cholis ever!

Watch it if you have the time and patience. You might actually like it.

On the whole, a decent effort. But not worth the time it takes to unfold. Personally, I kinda liked it.

June 27, 2005 · by sudhishkamath


Shankar: What the fuck am I thinking? Posted by Hello

Updated: Annoyin — Another Anniyan Review!

June 24, 2005 · by sudhishkamath

This is a very late review, so I’m sure most of you know what the movie is about and how it reminds you so much of Shankar’s earlier works. And I just read the review of the movie in my paper and kinda… er… disagree!

So I’ll just cut to my take on it. I watched the movie this morning. I’ve updated it cuz a lot of people seem to think that I don’t want people to watch the movie! That’s not quite what I meant. Presenting, my three takes on the film!

Take One (written by Psycho Suderman):
I laughed so much that my tummy still hurts.

Thanks to Vikram’s portrayal of Remo, the cool rampwalk model. The scenes are a howler. Sample this, with a fake wannabe ‘wuz’ accent (‘wuz’ if wikipedia forgot to mention, is colloquial for faggot): “We’re supposed in love right, so let’s go some place and do some Yo-Yo.”

It’s the most entertaining movie you can find in the halls, of course after Chandramukhi. But it doesnt quite entertain the way Shankar would have liked it to. The entertainment more is like: “Look at that… 28 crores through Shankar’s special effects appear so funny… It’s a three hour long joke!”

Take Two (from Pseudo-Cool Suderman):
What’s wrong with Vikram? He had scope for not one but three characters here.

His Ambi turns out to be irritatingly innocent … It’s okie for Ambi to be a conformist, but being a loser crybaby isn’t helping things. The plot just requires him to be a meek, timid guy next door who believes in following the rules. He could be frustrated alright but not irritatingly nagging to extent of making the character totally unrelatable.

Indian, Gentlemen and Muthalvan had strong protagonists. Even at their lowest point, they maintained their dignity. What does Anniyan have? Anniyan has Vikram in and as Chickenshit.

As I was saying, Ambi pisses you of being Mr. Loser Tinyballs, Remo cheeses you off being the wannabe from wuz-bekistan and the lesser the said about the psycho serial-killer Anniyan the better. Anniyan has to be corniest of vigilantes. Actually, Citizen comes a close second. Vikram resorts to gimmicks (his eye-ball movement looks like Pandiyarajan’s thiruttu moozhi) and talks like he just swallowed a toad.

Anniyan has to be his worst performance in recent times, the grunting Pithamagan comes a close second.

Shankar had a great premise in there for a worthy sequel to his ‘Gentleman,’ ‘Indian’ and ‘Mudhalvan’ masala-coated message movies, but he totally fucks it up by letting Vikram get totally indulgent. There was a soul to Ambi’s character, that unfortunately does not come out of Vikram’s over-the-top portrayal. Not all of Anniyan’s killings seem all that justified and him leaving a jumble puzzle for a clue to confuse the police makes you believe Shankar’s attempting a spoof of his own vigilante movies.

If you thought Shankar cannot possibly come up with a screenplay which more implausible than his Boys, you thought wrong. The situations seem so thrust in and forced … like Anniyan’s public appearance in Nehru Indoor Stadium to make the ‘Know-what’s-wrong-with-our-country-speech’… Why didn’t he just courier the tape to a TV channel? Cuz it’s been done before in Indian and Muthalvan!

Characterisation is sacrificed for gimmickry, the soul is given up for style, the logic is given up for convenience, the talented Vikram is given up for Chickenshit!

Shankar’s lost it. Like my friend asked at the end of the movie: “What punishment does the Garudapuranam hold for Shankar?”

Maybe we should tie him up and make him watch Anniyan 28 times! Okay, throw in another 28 screenings of Boys for bonus!
(Kenny, I don’t know you anymore!)

Take Three (written by ThAmbi Sudhish Kamath):
Anniyan has to be seen once, in spite of the annoying performances, ONLY because it tries to say something nice. Something which I really quite appreciate Shankar for. It’s been on my mind ever since I’ve been to Singapore. It’s been in my heart everytime I see yet another motorist jumping the divider, over to the wrong side to beat the traffic jam. It’s been a part of every right-minded Indian’s psyche: “What are WE THE PEOPLE doing, apart from complaining and bitching about the system and the corruption?”

It is a film with its heart in the right place. Just that the face of the film is so unwatchable!

P.S: I thought the art direction was quite cool in the last song ‘Rendakka’… I want an ambassador just like that!!

June 22, 2005 · by sudhishkamath


Join the club! Posted by Hello

June 19, 2005 · by sudhishkamath


The last pic we took together! In February! Posted by Hello

Death of an actress!

June 19, 2005 · by sudhishkamath

I hate the media.

Especially for its disregard to privacy.

My friend Shalini killed herself last week. We’re yet to recover from that shock.

Sun News invented a lover from her. He’s supposed to be absconding.

Deccan Chronicle made her Punjabi, discovered that her surname was actually Singh and said it was some case of sexual harassment and actually carried some sleaze actress photograph in the same story.

Dina Thanthi and the other Tamil papers said she did it because of a failed relationship.

Vijay TV’s journalists thrust a camera on Jyotika’s face when she had come to the crematorium to pay her last respects.

Random photographers waited for her brother to arrive from the airport to get powerful pictures and snapped away as he broke down at the pyre.

I hate these bastards. And I’m ashamed they belong to my tribe!

* * *

Shalini was the greatest example for us on what friends actually are. In fact, we appeared on the cover of a magazine together when it did a special feature on friends.

She has always been there. She was the nerve centre. She would plan the surprises for everybody’s birthday. Like the one she did on my birthday.

The very next day after we meet up, I can be sure to find an email from her with the photographs she had taken the previous night. The picture you guys see above this blog is the last one we took together.

Last August, we got Suriya and Jyotika to surprise her. The couple not just blew balloons, we also lit 22 candles on her bed and a video camera aimed at the door of her room. She walked in to the surprise. She was nearly in tears.

She was always a picture of confidence, the most bubbly warm person you can find.

On June 15, we knew what a fine actress she was!

Batman Begins: Preview & Review

June 18, 2005 · by sudhishkamath

When friendly neighbourhood Spiderman dropped in at a theatre near you a few seasons ago, you could see it. The REAL him, that is.
You met Peter Parker with problems any teenager his age would have. A superhero who realised what a huge responsibility it was to don the role. The film and the sequel turned out to be huge hits and were critically acclaimed too.
Starting June 17, you will, if the creators of ‘Batman Begins’ are to be believed, for the first time ever, meet the REAL Bruce Wayne. For the first time, find out what made Batman. Not in the stylized comic book format, but through a realistic depiction on the transformation of Bruce into Batman.
Barring the Tim Burton versions (Batman and Batman Returns) starring Michael Keaton, none of the other Batman movies really left an impact. But while Burton’s versions were highly stylised with colourful villains stealing the scene from Batman himself, the latest from Warner Bros, ‘Batman Begins’ directed by Christopher Nolan (the thriller specialist who made the path-breaking Memento and Identity) hopes to do justice to the face behind the mask. Viewers can expect to uncover the mystery behind Batman’s past, often limited to voiceovers and quick flashbacks in the previous Batman films.
The latest Batman flick has nothing to do with any of the other films made on the superhero. It’s a whole new beginning, a fresh look at one of the most intriguing superheroes ever. As screenwriter David S.Goyer observes: “You could never be Superman, you could never be The Incredible Hulk, but anybody could conceivably become Batman. If you trained hard enough, if you tried hard enough, maybe, just maybe, you could become Batman.”
Goyer, who had “always dreamed about doing a Batman film,” has said: “It’s absolutely the Batman film that I wish I would’ve seen when I was a kid. It’s everything I always wanted to see in a Batman movie.”
And early reviews seem to indicate that the film does live up to the hype.
“Never has Batman’s origins been so thoroughly fleshed out as it was here… what makes this movie so good is that it totally stays faithful to the comics but at the same time, it makes all the comic elements more plausible and realistic,” writes an online reviewer.
An Internet Movie Database reviewer writes: “I must say that before seeing the film, I felt in my heart this is the ‘Batman’ film we’ve been waiting for. Within ten minutes into the movie, I turned to my date and said to her: This is it! This is the movie.”
That’s probably because the makers clearly wanted to do something refreshingly radical with Batman. They had approached masters like David Fincher, Clint Eastwood and Wolfgang Petersen and even rejected a Frank Miller script to be directed by Darren Aronofsky, before actually zeroing in on Chris Nolan and getting Goyer to fill in the blanks of the Batman story — the part that has never ever been told.
Nolan is surely among the most talented, stylish and most creative filmmakers of our times. The editing style and narrative structure of ‘Memento’ is ample evidence of what he is capable of.
“What’s always been fascinating about Batman is that he is a hero driven by quite negative impulses,” says Christopher Nolan. “Batman is human, he’s flawed. But he’s someone who has taken these very powerful, self-destructive emotions and made something positive from them.”
In an interview to another website, the director adds: “The creative mandate was really to do something fresh and original. And that was coming straight from the studio. And if it wasn’t, I wouldn’t have gotten involved with the project because it is pretty rare to have an iconic figure that’s owned and controlled by a studio that’s asking you to do something different with it… For me, what that became was my desire to do something we hadn’t seen before, a superhero story told in a realistic fashion. And step outside itself and acknowledge the form and the medium it’s coming from, but one in which the audience is just immersed in the reality that’s going on.”
Christian Bale (Patrick Bateman of ‘American Pyscho’ is now Batman), was echoing the director’s thoughts during a press conference in San Francisco: “You had to get to a point where the audience would be drawn in enough to believe that this guy has gone through so much pain and anger, and then we have a really nice backstory about how he creates the Batman. And also, there’s a very nice practical backstory to every gadget, and to the Batsuit… Everything is explained in the movie.”
So the creators actually designed a Batmobile that can cruise zero to sixty miles in six seconds, an elaborate Gotham city modeled as an “exaggeration of New York City” (says Nolan) and Chicago (says Caine) and the slums of Kowloon, Hong Kong with licence plates based on Illinois State plates, to lend it a touch of the real world people are acquainted with.
Tom Cruise seems to have loved the film, according to girlfriend Katie Holmes, who plays Rachel Dawes, Batman’s childhood friend. Rachel, according to the backstory, “grew up with Bruce, she grew up in that house, her Mom was a servant.” “It was fun to think about different experiences Rachel and Bruce had together growing up and how that came into play as they got older, added to their closeness,” she says.
Michael Caine, who plays Alfred Pennyworth, the butler and father figure to Batman, did his own backstory. “I wanted to be the toughest butler you’ve ever seen, not the normal English, suave butler. And so I made him a SAS Sergeant, which is a very, very tough British army unit. He’s wounded, he didn’t want to leave the army. He became the sergeant in charge of the sergeant’s cantina or sergeant’s mess … And he got found by Bruce’s father, who wanted the toughest butler he could find,” Caine said in an interview.
The bad guys? Screenwriter Goyer went in for Ra’s Al Ghul and Scarecrow as the villains for what could be the beginning of a new series of Batman films. “I felt very strongly that we should use characters that hadn’t been depicted in the films before… fortunately, in the case of Scarecrow and Ra’s Al Ghul, they were two really great villains that hadn’t been used.” Cillian Murphy, who had also auditioned for Batman is said to have impressed Chris Nolan so much, that the director cast him as Scarecrow.
With an exciting cast (including Michael Caine as Alfred, Liam Neeson as Henri Ducard, Katie Holmes as Rachel, Gary Oldman as Lt. Gordon, Cillian Murphy as Scarecrow, Tom Wilkinson, Rutger Hauer, Ken Watanabe as Ra’s Al Ghul and Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox), speculations abound on sequels (“They haven’t pulled that set down,” says Caine), an unprecedented marketing spends of 100 million dollars and rave reviews, ‘Batman Begins’ might be the beginning of something big.
The Dark Knight is here. And, it looks like he’s here to stay.

Trivia:

Created for DC Comics by artist Bob Kane and writer Bill Finger, Batman made his debut in Detective Comics #27 (May, 1939 issue). The superhero’s 66-year history represents an unprecedented cultural phenomenon spanning radio serials, live action and animated television series, feature films, interactive games, and legions of comic books.

Bob Kane initially had called the character Birdman, Bill finger suggested Batman. In fact, Finger is said to have written the first Batman story but Kane was officially credited as the creator of the series.

Batman is referred to as: Dark Knight, Caped Crusader, Masked Manhunter and the World’s Greatest Detective.

Batman films include Batman (1966) starring Adam West, Batman (1989) and Batman Returns (1992) starring Michael Keaton, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993), Batman Forever (1995) starring Val Kilmer, Batman and Robin (1997) starring George Clooney and now Batman Begins starring Christian Bale.

Guy Pearce, Ashton Kutcher, John Cusack, David Duchovny, Billy Crudup, Cillian Murphy were all considered for the cowl that went to Christian Bale in ‘Batman Begins.’

The Batmobile in ‘Batman Begins’ is equipped with a 5.7 liter, 350 cubic inch, 340-horsepower engine with approximately 400 pounds of torque. 9 feet, 4 inches at its widest point, the vehicle is 15 feet long and weighs 2.5 tons. It accelerates from 0-60 in under 5 seconds and can jump 4-6 feet in height, up to a distance of 60 feet, and then peel off as soon as it hits the ground. One of the most distinctive design features of the Batmobile is that it has no front axel, which enables the vehicle to make extremely tight turns.

A total of eight Batmobiles were created for the production. In addition to the five fully operational, gas-powered models, there was an electric version that featured a sliding top to enable Batman and his passengers to easily enter and exit the car.

Batman Begins contains 400 visual effects shots.

Updated (after watching the movie):
Pretty decent but disappointing given the hype!
Batman fans might like Tim Burton versions better. But this could be the beginning of a refreshingly different series that tries to demystify Batman.
Biggest drawbacks: Too much talking, very little action.
Strongest point: Logic, realism, human touch.
Bale: Damn good.
Holmes: Thums down!
The rest of the star cast: Wasted!

D Disappoints! My man Shah Rukh quits!

June 8, 2005 · by sudhishkamath

Shah Rukh Khan quit as my secretary. He was assigned the task of letting me know every time my phone rang. But today, I had to give it away in exchange of a new phone. And with it I lost Shah Rukh Khan. True, he has embarassed me by shouting at all the wrong moments — many times inside a movie hall, some times during a press conference and once during an Abhishek Bachchan interview. “Interesting,” Abhishek noted, trying to hide a smile.
Shah Rukh Khan has amused and entertained all those who knew me and my phone for the last few years.
Long sigh!
Adios, Shah Rukh!
(In case you didn’t know, Shah Rukh Khan’s stammering ‘Aiiii… Kkkkaun Hai..huhahahuh’ was my notorious ringtone.

* * *
Company was Act 2 and Act 3.
D is Act 1 of the same story. So the question is: Why would anyone want to spend two hours of Act 1?

But having said that, D was almost Decent.
But it’s unfair to compare this prequel in spirit with the original Company.
Company was a classic, made by the master himself. It had an explosive star cast, excellent performances, rocking background score, a tight script and a riveting plot. And, it had a budget.
D’s made by a Debutant director, it had a semi-decent cast, half-baked characters, pale imitations for songs (except for ‘Ek Pal Ki Zindagi’… my friend sang it!) and hardly a budget.
The script itself was paralysed by the fact that there were no good men in the film. Thus the film without a conscience got sucked into the vortex of underworld and it’s monotonous machinery of crime. Without a Commissioner like Srinivasan (Mohanlal) in the original or even a Chandu (the don with a little conscience left in him), the only conflict in D is between an aging don’s emotionally charged power crazy sons and a coldly clinical power hungry Deshu (Hooda is a good, but not quite Devgan).
So if you view D in isolation, it is a weak film.
But if you watch it in the context of Company, it emerges as a pretty decent film which stayed faithful to the characters it is based on (both fictionally… to Malik and factually… to Dawood). It shows us how a constable’s son rises in almost the same situations and circumstances as Chandu later does. Deshu and Chandu’s journeys into crime are almost similar. The only differentiating trait being Chandu’s essentially human trait of caring for friends and a conscience that does not allow him to kill innocent children!
When you watch D and then Company, you feel the story coming a full circle with Chandu’s rise in the gang being very similar to Deshu’s. Which is when you see Ramu’s point of making D in the first place — to show what it took one man to make an empire. A clinically cold approach, a belief that went ‘Dost dushman hote hai’ (‘Friends are enemies’ ) and the hunger for power and profit. We don’t actually enjoy people chasing success on these terms. Which is why we don’t enjoy D, even if it’s a decent effort!!

* * *

Feeling "Special"!

June 5, 2005 · by sudhishkamath

Yay!!

I got promoted. My newspaper has officially recognised me as a “Special Correspondent” now! And has also given be a 8K raise!

It’s probably the happiest day for me in my career as a journalist.

To be honest, I’ve never really thought or seen myself as a journalist. It’s too serious a word to describe me. I just write. Like I would do in a diary. But because a lot of people read it, I write it a little differently while trying to get the grammar and spellings rite.

So, I’ve surprised myself reaching here and being a “journalist” for ten years now. I started for this tabloid called Metro Ads after my first year of college. I used to write film reviews back then and also had a humour column, apart from doing serious reporting. Then, I wrote for another tabloid called A.m. Plus, the Saturday supplement to Morning Times in Manipal, during my M.S. days there. It was a compulsory thing and we couldn’t say No it, for two years. The serious nature of A.M.Plus haunted us week after week, so much that we were frustrated enough to launch a spoof called P.M.Minus, a raunchy underground version (even if it was just for two issues).

By the time I had joined The Hindu, I already had four years of experience writing features. That sort of helped me to do some quick light writing. I had taken up the job only as a stop gap arrangement till I finished my film. In my sixth year in the paper, today I’ve grown to realise that I’ve become addicted to the paper, so much that I wouldn’t want to stop writing for it, even if I do have to quit it some day.

I’m addicted almost to the extent of being obsessed about my space there. I want to keep seeing myself in Metro Plus, I want to see myself in Education Plus, I want to write for Sunday Magazine, I want to keep doing my reviews on Friday, even when if they get butchered and even if it means working on off days (watching movies, that is! 😛 he he!) and I just want to see myself in every section of the paper.

Why don’t you shift into a lucrative job that actually pays, asked my fresh-out-of-college friends who started off their first job with twice the pay that I was getting after five years of work here. But I used to reason it out saying that I get paid to maintain my brand in the most circulated paper in town and the second largest selling newspaper in the country. “It’s like getting paid to release your ad everyday.”

As a filmmaker, I realise the importance of branding and how much it would help me in getting a larger audience for my films. As a journalist, this filmmaker also had the perfect platform to meet people from different walks of life, get to know what concerns them, what touches them, what affects them and what really makes a difference to their lives. This filmmaker also soon got unique access into the mind of a film critic, while getting to watch movies before anybody else gets to. I do know that one day, I’m gonna be at the receiving end of strong words of criticism, be rubbished around mercilessly so badly that I won’t even be able to hide behind a newspaper cuz the biting words free flowing from some smart ass critic’s keyboard will meet me there, point blank at my face! The same people who liked my work as a writer might want to catch my collar asking for refund of ticket, petrol and popcorn! ha ha! There will be no escape.

But that’s another day. Today is a day to feel Special!
And to bask in the glory of a career that I hardly bargained for. One which has made me ‘Special’ indeed.

Page 69 of 88 « Previous 1 … 67 68 69 70 71 … 88 Next »
  • Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • MADRAS INK.
    • Join 480 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • MADRAS INK.
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar