Waterworld

March 29, 2011 by

WaterworldLet’s get this out of the way right from the start: Waterworld is not a terrible movie.  Despite its infamous reputation, it’s not nearly as bad as legend would have us believe.  It is a deeply flawed film, but it’s no more or no less horrible than 80% of the other films in its easily-identifiable genre of post apocalyptic action movies.  That being said, any film that opens with the hero peeing into a cup, recycling it through a rusty Rube Goldberg coffee maker, and drinking it again is probably not destined for greatness.  But to understand this movie it’s helpful to step back in time a couple of decades…

The 1990’s were kind of a strange time.  Grunge rock was saturating the airwaves, people were trying to figure out new technologies like cell phones and the internet, and and school kids passed their time by trading cardboard circles on the playground. Along with these strange activities came a healthy dose of fear about the earth either burning up from mysterious holes in the ozone layer or collapsing under the weight of gabillions of tons of cans that schoolkids refused to recycle.  Even PBS got on the bandwagon with an almost-unfathomably cheesy cartoon about purple aliens who battle capitalists, or something like that.  But despite repeated efforts to help people understand the catastrophic consequences of refusing to reduce and reuse, the message just wasn’t getting through.  And as we recently learned from the Gulf Oil Spill, who better to turn to in dire situations than Kevin Costner?

Waterworld

Enola, Helen, and The Mariner, searching for any hint of logic in the screenplay.

Yup, that’s right.  Dances With Wolves himself was going to singlehandedly drive home the message that we all need to stop drinking out of juice boxes and once and for all by making a movie where the entire planet was covered with water because…(wait for it)…the ice caps have melted thanks to humanity’s environmental shortsightedness!  But what’s that, you say? The ice caps melting would only cause the oceans to rise a couple hundred feet?  Bah!  Facts matter not to Hollywood when a buck can be made, and so in 1996 Waterworld was unleashed in theaters across America.  It tells the tale of a nameless man known only as The Mariner (Kevin Costner) who…um…sails a boat a lot.  Sometimes he meets people, but since this fish-eat-fish world is pretty low on resources people aren’t all that friendly anymore.  And the least friendly of all are a scrappy group of metalheads known as Smokers who go around beating people up and shooting things because…well, we’re actually never given any sort of reason why the Smokers do this.  It was probably just to fill in a box on the casting sheet:  “Bad guys?  Check.”

Pretty soon the Mariner comes across an atoll where a couple dozen people are holed up and eking out a living by eating dirt and counting plastic bottle caps.  There’s also a girl named Enola who has a mysterious tattoo on her back that could very well lead to dry land, a crazy scientist, and a community leader who looks just like Al Borland whose sole purpose in the movie is to deliver painfully dull bits of exposition.  The inhabitants sentence the Mariner to die because he’s different from them (because what’s a postapocalyptic thriller without some modern social commentary thrown in for good measure?), but before you know it those darn Smokers show up and start blasting the atoll to bits and running into it with jet-skis.  At this point one might wonder why, in a world where even scraps of paper are regarded as priceless treasures, a group of individuals would be more interested in destroying a floating fortress rather than simply capturing it and taking its resources, thus giving them a strategic advantage and a home base for staging operations.  Because explosions are cool, that’s why!  And what about the fact that blowing the atoll to smithereens might very well kill the tattooed girl they are so interested in finding?  Because explosions are cool!  *sigh*

The late great Dennis Hopper, demonstrating why he was always the best choice for a movie villain.

The Mariner, Enola (“alone” spelled backwards…get it?), and her adoptive mother Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) spend the rest of the movie sailing around on the Mariner’s boat while having domestic disputes about Crayola crayons and taking swimming lessons.  The Smokers show up from time to time to cause headaches and complain about how that darn Mariner keeps getting away from them.  But we all know where this is going and how it’s going to end, and to be honest it doesn’t even matter that much.  And yet, after all this, I maintain that Waterworld is actually not that terrible.

Despite the hokey premise, the silly cast of characters, and the wandering plot, Waterworld is a pretty stunning action flick with ridiculously gigantic setpieces and one of the coolest villains in recent memory.  The sets are real, and when the enormous atoll is getting ripped to shreds the feeling of danger is pretty darn visceral.  The entire movie strives to belong to that elite pantheon of films who deserve the adjective epic, and even though it doesn’t work it gets some points for trying.  The ending climax aboard a derelict floating tanker is an amazing sight to behold, and Costner displays the type of old-school heroics we don’t often get in wimpy modern protagonists nowadays.  But even more than the go-big-or-go-home scale of the presentation, the real reason to see Waterworld is Dennis Hopper. As the leader of the Smokers, he basically is given free reign to be as mean and despicable as any PG-13 villain in movie history.  And boy, does he go for broke here.  He gleefully romps around tossing insults and sly quips like candy at a parade, offing his enemies with joyful aplomb, and is clearly two shades shy of all-out crazy.  Slinging lines like “You know, he’s like a turd that won’t flush” with what appears to be actual, genuine sincerity is something only Hopper could have pulled off, and his performance is so brazenly ostentatious it’s a sight to behold.

Waterworld is often remembered as one of the biggest bombs in movie history, but it actually turned a healthy profit in total worldwide numbers.  This environmentalist fable-turned-action epic does not reach greatness, but not for lack of trying.  It is no Mad Max, Children of Men, or 12 Monkeys, but it’s no Battlefield Earth either.  It’s definitely worth a look, as long as you know what you’re getting yourself into.

Rating:[Rating:2.5/5]

Filed Under: Action Tagged With: ,

Flyboys

March 20, 2011 by

World War I rocked. It’s not like the population of Europe was actually decimated, or the world thrown into political upheaval that it’s never fully recovered from. Millions of men didn’t really claw through the rest of their lives, battling the scars left by poison gas and shell shock. No, the real story of WWI is one of teenage heartthrobs strutting around in designer-made period costumes, and flying brightly decorated airplanes through dazzling explosions that don’t hurt main characters. Or at least that’s the impression you get from Flyboys.

Actually, if you were to watch films made during WWI, you might think the same thing. WWI fighter pilots were made celebrities and national heroes. In reality, the airplane contributed precious little to the outcome of the war, which was won on the ground. But there’s nothing entertaining about watching a man starve and freeze in a mud-hole until he’s blown to bits by a shell fired by unseen enemies. So let’s crank the propellers and fire up Flyboys!

For all my cynicism, this is a genuinely entertaining movie. The story of Americans who volunteered for the French military, it has every cliché in the book. James Franco stars as Cocky Young Guy who joins up because he thinks it would be fun to fly airplanes. Martin Henderson plays Grizzled Veteran. “Let me guess: you’re here because you thought it’d be fun to fly airplanes.” They have all the standard dialogue.

Veteran: You realize if you die here, your family name dies with you.

Yes, Franco's plane is mostly canvass, and yes, he flew through that blaze, and yes, he's fine.

Young Guy: Psh. I don’t plan on dyin’.

Veteran: None of the guys in the squadron cemetery did either.

Young Guy: Psh.

The two then fly deadly missions together. In between them, Young Guy woos Indigenous Girl (Jennifer Decker) while he should be training. She starts counting the planes every time his squadron flies out and flies back. Eventually, he has to save her from some German foot soldiers. To do this, he steals a plane from the squadron hanger. He is therefore sent up for military discipline, until his French commanding officer (ever notice how there’s never a French guy in a movie that’s not played by Jean Reno?) conveniently looses the paper work and slips him a medal.

Meanwhile, Veteran, an aviation progeny with over 20 kills, is driven to fly extra missions to hunt down the Germans that killed all of his friends. He is haunted by the specter of his last remaining adversary, Smirking Face with no Dialogue (Gunnar Winberg). In their eventual confrontation, the Face kills him, so who goes toe-to-toe with the Face at the climax? I’ll give you three guesses and the first two don’t count.

The cast of war movie cut-outs is rounded out by Philip Winchester as War Hero’s Son Who Can’t Fill the Shoes (from Lincoln Nebraska, I might add), Abdul Salis as Angry Black Guy, Tyler Labine as Racist Guy, and Michael Jibson as Religious Guy. Together they fly through all the standard scenarios, involving daring dogfights, civilians in need of rescue, and eeeeevil Germans. The fuselage of this movie is riddled with clichés from nose to tail, but it’s one of those movies that show you why the clichés exist – because they work! It’s easy to thrill to the dogfights and lose yourself in this one until you forget your troubles. Yes, you’ll predict everything that happens in the movie, but you’ll still care about the characters (even if you forget their names). I could say that this film is an insult to the millions who suffered and sacrificed during the Great War, but that would be a cliché in itself. Rent it tonight, make some pop corn, and see what you’ve been missing out on.

 

 

[Rating:3/5]

Filed Under: Action, Drama, Movies, War Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Battle: Los Angeles

March 12, 2011 by

When will Hollywood filmmakers learn how to design an engaging extra-terrestrial?  I sat through the entirety of Battle: Los Angeles wondering why the movie was even made if the creatures the film is to be about seemed as though they were cobbled together on the last day of post-production.  Even good science-fiction films feature hokey creatures, such as Signs and War of the Worlds, but with practically limitless technology these days, why resort to such lacking creativity?  And why start out a film critique bashing alien designs?  Because the sheer laziness and lack of imagination brought to the table when considering the science-fiction elements on display here ruined Battle: Los Angeles.

I’m sad to report that Jonathan Liebsman’s stab at the alien invasion epic is an otherwise interesting (although one-note) piece of filmmaking.  Blending Black Hawk Down and War of the Worlds, Liebsman drops us into Ground Zero with a group of confused marines sent into the battleground of Los Angeles following a barely announced invasion circling the globe.  I call it Call of Duty: Worlds at War.  Aaron Eckhart, featuring a full face once again, leads his platoon of one-note soldiers into a combat zone that would have Michael Bay and Sylvester Stallone drowning in envy.  There’s a handful of characters here, but the film has precious little time for back story.  Minutes into this thing the audience is dodging shrapnel and ducking under the smoke clouds.  This is a combat film, through and through, filmed via handheld and edited to make your head spin.

So what’s the mission?  Honestly, there isn’t much of one.  The marines are choppered to the L.A. police station to rescue a group of civilians trapped inside.  From there on out, it’s moving from point A to point B avoiding deadly fire from the outer-space hostiles.  Never mind why the aliens are invading with violence.  We hear a few news clips claiming they are harvesting our planet for water.  Also never mind that their biological composition makes little to no sense.  Part machine, part creature of some sort, they look cheap and biologically improbable to function.  In a head-scratching scene, Eckhart’s character and a veterinarian dissect one of their captured enemies to figure out how to kill it.  To their surprise, the alien has a heart in its chest.  “Aim for the heart!” he cries.  It seemed to me the marines were blowing them in half from the get-go, but maybe that’s just me.  Don’t ask me about the aliens’ spacecrafts either.  From what I can tell, the filmmakers haven’t any more of a clue than I do.  The ships seem like C.G.I. whirlwinds of car parts that can disassemble into smaller aerial drone planes.  There’s no sensible design or calculations to these vehicles.  I’m guessing the artists behind them saw Transformers one too many times and decided to dumb down the concept there.

Battle: Los Angeles clearly left storytelling and imagination out of the greenlighting contract as well.  Cliches abound in the premise and reign supreme throughout.  We have a gruff leader in Eckhart, whose character battles his haunting past amidst the haunting present.  He’s retiring early on in the film after losing his entire unit of men during his last mission.  For his final day on the job, he is supposed to play second-in-command to another officer for a training simulation.  Turns out aliens invade and he’ll have to take on the greatest threat of his career.  Weird.  The plan to thwart the aliens involves taking out their system core that holds their entire power source.  Also original.  Even the minimal dialogue appears to be peeled away from other films.  At least the pyrotechnics are sound, and to be honest, that’s what the film is all about—getting in-your-face visceral.

For a quick action-fix, Battle: Los Angeles will in no way compare to a classic like Aliens (a far-superior clashing of alien creatures and marines—made 25 years ago…), but it will likely tide over young men who have no problem putting down their X-Box controllers to witness some more first-person shooter mayhem.  Complaints regarding the film playing like a kaboom-heavy videogame aren’t far from the truth.  Battle: Los Angeles isn’t striving for good sci-fi.  It’s striving for gritty target practice.  I actually dug the concept of a military action-thriller as the forefront of an alien invasion film.  Unfortunately, while all the technical aspects and extended action sequences of Battle: LA prevail, the aliens and plot do not.  I can shoot second-rate animated robot slugs at home.  For those needing a break from that sort of time-wasting, Jonathan Liebsman’s bone-crunching, ear-drum pounding, brain-thumping epic will do.  And you don’t even need a controller, unless you wait for it on DVD of course.
[Rating:2/5]

Filed Under: Action, Science Fiction, War Tagged With: , , ,

Mars Attacks!

March 10, 2011 by

Mars Attacks!Tim Burton practically defines the word eccentric. His movies run the gamut from goofy (Ed Wood) to contemplative (Big Fish) to freaky (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) to downright odd and well-nigh unclassifiable (Edward Scissorhands). Mars Attacks falls more in the latter category, even though it is first and foremost a pretty spot-on good-old-fashioned parody. The subject of Burton’s lens in this film is 1950’s sci-fi, with its themes of paranoia, alien invasions, American superiority, and national wonder at what awaits us in the great unknown of outer space. Mars Attacks! begins with several vignettes introducing a wide swath of caricatures characters ranging from the President of the United States to a self-absorbed TV fashion reporter to a washed-up prizefighter waiting tables in Vegas. But before you can say “baby needs a new pair of space boots,” giant flying saucers from Mars have landed on the planet with aliens who have seemingly come in peace. As you might expect, though, things are not what they seem and pretty soon the aliens are blasting everyone in sight with their ray guns that turn people into red and green skeletons. No explanation is given, nor is one really needed, and for the next hour and a half it’s basically humans vs. aliens in an all-out global battle for survival.

Every character is an overwrought cartoon, which is part of the fun, and anyone who tries to take this movie seriously is missing the point.  The idea of a martian invasion is just a canvas for Burton to weave some seriously weird yet downright heartwarming tales of idealism, heroism, and big-headed aliens with ray guns that turn people into green skeletons.  Mars Attacks! has all the subtlety of a cinder block, and flaunts it proudly:  Martians land on earth in giant flying saucers and start shooting ray guns at everyone.  The military wants to nuke ’em.  The academic elite wants to study them. The hippies want to make peace with them. And the reporters want to interview them.  Characters are as dispensable as their accents, and the special effects would be laughably cheesy if that wasn’t how they were supposed to be.

Professor Donald Kessler

Pierce Brosnan playing (what else?) a brilliant British scientist.

Perhaps it’s a coincidence that this movie was released in 1996, the same year as another alien invasion movie you might have heard of called Independence Day.  But where Emmerich’s bombastic blockbuster was about two sizes too big for its britches, and took itself a little too seriously, Mars Attacks! gets everything just about right. Even the aliens, with gigantic heads and a language that consists solely of barking out the words “Ack! Ack!” are a pitch-perfect sendup of the oh so realistic extra terrestrial creatures in Independence Day, Close Encounters, E.T., and so many other science fiction films.  Of course the best reason to see Mars Attacks! is Jack Nicholson as the President (as well as a seedy Las Vegas businessman) and easily one of the funniest roles of his career.  Hamming it up at every turn, chewing the scenery like it was freeze-dried ice cream, and flashing his signature condescending grin every chance he gets, it’s a role only he could have pulled off with such overwrought tongue-in-cheek delivery.  It’s a sight to behold.

Mars Attacks! is blisteringly funny and bitingly sarcastic, but it does have its share of flaws too.  The lack of any coherent storyline is a bit of a drag, and it is somewhat frustrating that we never really find out why the martians have attacked in the first place.  But any movie in which Sarah Jessica Parker’s head is glued to a chihuahua is OK by me.

Rating:[Rating:4/5]

Filed Under: Action, Comedy Tagged With: ,

Battlestar Galactica: Season 2

March 1, 2011 by

Battlestar Galactica Season 2.0A few weeks ago I reviewed Season 1 of Syfy network’s re-imagining of the 1970’s cult TV show Battlestar Galactica, and came to the conclusion that the show had a great deal of promise but was weighed down with a bit too much style instead of substance.  Thankfully Season 2.0 improves on many of the first season’s shortcomings, and while it still seems like a guest at Thanksgiving dinner relegated to the kid’s table, while desperately wanting a seat with the grown–ups, it is showing definite signs of maturity. Battlestar Galactica is built on the premise of eschewing convention and devying expectation. Many science fiction tropes are turned on their heads (doctors are no more able to cure diseases or repair limbs than their 20th century counterparts, communication happens via analog telephone, and people cannot be magically whisked from one location to another via magical teleportation beams), and difficult situations are not given easy answers followed by pithy platitudes in the closing minutes of an episode.  Characters make tough choices, and often not the ones we might expect.  Season 2.0 continues this tone admirably, but injects some much-needed characterization and humanity into things as well. It’s not perfect, but it’s a well done and very respectable sophomore effort.

My biggest criticism of Season 1 was that the show was light on characterization but heavy on explosions, and from the first episode of Season 2 this problem is addressed, though not exactly how I would have liked.  Commander Adama, arguably the best character on the show, is effectively out of commission for the first four episodes, which leaves the slightly-more-than-somewhat incompetent Saul Tigh in command of the entire fleet.  I appreciate the shift in focus here, as it allows viewers to get to know Tigh in a more meaningful and personal way and also see how difficult the responsibilities of commanding a ship can be.  Tigh is put into some really tough scrapes and has to make some difficult choices, and it is somewhat refreshing watching a less-than-stellar individual take command for a while.  There is also a healthy dose of politics injected into the series too, as the fleet begins to splinter with some ships following President Roslin on her quest to find Earth and the rest sticking with the military.

Battlestar Galactica Chief Tyrol

Chief Tyrol, who could give MacGyver a run for his money any day of the week.

The absence of Adama’s leadership is painfully felt in these early episodes, it speaks to the quality of the writing that the frustrations felt by the crew at Tigh’s lack of leadership are keenly felt by the viewers too.  The theme of Season 2.0 is that of divergence, as the fleet is split physically and ideologically, Starbuck goes back to Caprica to retrieve a talisman which is supposed to guide the fleet to Earth, and the crew of the Galactica struggles to adapt to changing leadership.  Lee Adama is forced to choose alliances that damage his relationship with his father, and I’m eager for the day when he will finally be given the chance to stretch his wings and take command.  It’s more about politics and relationships in Season 2.0, and thankfully, less about shocking viewers with gratuitous violence and sexuality.  Though these elements do show up from time to time, they are less overt and slightly more warranted in terms of the storyline.  There is also more in terms of creativity, like the episode Final Cut which strikes a markedly different tone from the rest of the series as it essentially follows a TV reporter who is given total access to the Galactica for one day. It’s an interesting concept and I appreciate the show’s willingness to take a risk with it.

Battlestar Galactica remains, if nothing else, a refreshing change of pace from the usual TV fare, though it’s still obviously trying to find its footing while stretching its legs creatively at the same time.  The characters are given more time to just be themselves in Season 2.0, such as the episode in which Chief Tyrol takes it upon himself to construct a stealth ship just to keep himself and his crew busy. Edward James Olmos remains a force to be reckoned with, while Starbuck continues to be the one we are supposed to like but doesn’t quite cut it.  Even though the Cylons are basically on coffee break for much of Season 2.0, the fear of their attacks is enough to keep things moving at a brisk enough pace overall.  And so while there is still room for improvement, Season 2.0 is an impressive sophomore effort and one that should be near the top of the list for any fan of science fiction.

Rating:[Rating:4.0/5]

 

Filed Under: Battlestar Galactica Tagged With: , , ,

2011 Academy Awards Live Coverage

February 27, 2011 by

Join us on Sunday, 7pm Central, as TacoGrande hosts a liveblog of the 2011 Academy Awards!

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Unknown

February 20, 2011 by

You would think it a general rule of thumb not to steal from Liam Neeson, whether it be his daughter or his identity—he will find you and he will kill you.  Europe ain’t getting the message, because Neeson is hunting down its baddies again.

He plays Dr. Martin Harris en route to a biotechnology conference with his wife Liz (January Jones).  After arriving in Berlin, he and his wife take a taxi to their hotel and an important briefcase is left behind.  Martin realizes he’s forgotten it upon arriving at the hotel and decides to grab another cab and head back to retrieve it without so much as a word to his wife.  Bad choice, Doc.  A major car wreck sends Harris’ cab flying into a river and leaving him with a serious head injury.  He wakes up four days later in a hospital without anyone looking for him.  He hurriedly returns to the hotel to reunite with his wife, but there’s a problem: she doesn’t recognize him.  No one knows him.  In fact, there is another man with his wife who claims to be ‘Dr. Martin Harris.’  Is the Doc crazy?  Only the woman who drove his cab (Diane Kruger) and saved his life may be able to help him as he races against his own sanity (and a horde of assassins) to prove his identity.

Here is the short review for those who want a summation before I delve into spoilers: Unknown is a good movie that turns sour—a smart concept and an engaging thriller that takes a turn for Stupidville and never recovers.  Neeson is a commanding lead regurgitating his role from Taken, and the action sequences and mystery thrills deliver most of the time, but none of it helps the dopey turns of the plot.  Readers planning to see this film SHOULD NOT READ ANY FURTHER.

Here’s a film that demands its twists and conclusion to be discussed and examined—not because they’re good, but because they are not good.  If Taken didn’t contain enough similarities to The Bourne Identity, then Unknown makes sure both films are represented in full.  Liam Neeson’s character spends a lot of time chasing loose ends.  After his accident, he has no formal identification, photos, or a cell phone that proves he is himself.  A screenwriter can only conjure up a handful of scenarios to explain the situation.  And in hindering the plot, the screenwriters become desperate to reveal an orchestrated assassination attempt at the middle of everything.  You see, Neeson is an assassin with a severe case of amnesia and when undergoing his head trauma, he wakes from his coma having taken on the identity of his cover ‘Dr. Martin Harris.’  He actually believes he is this fictional person.  The trauma also transforms his personality.  He has now become a warm-blooded humanitarian as opposed to the cold-blooded killer he once was.  His agency sent in a replacement assassin to take over for him, and instead of swiftly killing ‘Harris,’ they try to poison him, capture him, and even go so far as to explain to him his obscure condition.  If that isn’t enough, Neeson’s character returns to the scene at the film’s climax to admit he is an assassin who planted a bomb that could take out an important political figure and he decides to lay waste to his former team members.  Oh, and then he escapes the disaster and takes on a new identity.  I was hoping they would show his face on every news program in the country.  Alas, not to be.

Further developments make the film’s conclusion even more laughable, but I’ll stop here.  Unknown is worth a redbox rental and might as well be a follow-up to Taken, even if it’s not as good.  The big reveal simply makes the plot too large of a grab-bag of holes that can not be explained away in any logical sense.  But, hey, I could watch Neeson, the latest unlikely action star (in his mid-50s!), in this type of role 100 times over before I tired of it.  Take that as you will.

[Rating:2.5/5]

Filed Under: Action, Drama, Mystery Tagged With: , , ,

3 Idiots

February 18, 2011 by

3 Idiots Trailer (in Hindi, not English)In many ways, 3 Idiots is a story we’ve all heard before with a message ingrained into our subconscious by years of storybooks, after-school specials, and hopefully, good parents.  It is the story of one man (cue ominous trailer music) who dares to rebel, go against the grain, buck the trend, stand up to the man…you get the point. It is also a story about the importance of friendship, pursuing one’s dreams, and the power of true love.

Sound interesting? I didn’t think so.  We’ve all heard this tale before.  Right?

Wrong.  While the themes of 3 Idiots tread familiar ground, the presentation here is unlike anything I have seen before. Set at a prestigious engineering school in India, the film focuses on a brilliant student named Rancho Chanchad (Aamir Khan) who is endlessly curious about the world around him and attends classes simply because he loves studying and learning.  But this is India, not America, and in at the Imperial College of Engineering grades are everything. Good grades bring job opportunities, which bring wealth, success, and the chance to lift one’s family out of poverty.  In terms of sheer academic competitiveness, students The competition at ICE makes American law schools look like kindergarten playgrounds. And yet, Rancho will have none of it. He finds joy in the simple things around him, while questioning his professors and pulling pranks on the older students. In the meantime, he becomes good friends with Farhan Qureshi (R. Madhavan) and Raju Rastogi (Sharman Joshi), his roomates who have a much more practical view of society. Thrown into the mix is Pia (Kareena Kapoor), a brilliant medical student who catches Rancho’s eye and also happens to be the daughter of the school dean Viru Sahastrabudhhe (Boman Irani). As you can imagine, Virus (as the students call him) is not very pleased with Rancho’s rather unorthodox attitude.

Three Idiots

Yes this is a Bollywood movie. And yes there are musical numbers. Oh yeah.

Like I said, this isn’t exactly groundbreaking storytelling here.  I’ll give you three guesses as to how things turn out…and the first two don’t count.

It’s also cleverly told in flashback form, as the movie opens on Farhan, Raju, and another schoolmate Chatur (Omi Vaidya) who are reunited ten years after graduating from school.  Farhan and Raju have been unable to locate Rancho, who seems to have disappeared in the last five years, and together the three of them set out to find him while for Chatur is bent on proving, with photos of his mansion and Lamborghini, that he has found greater success in life than Rancho by adhering to the cultural norms of cutthroat competition.

It’s refreshing to see a film that is so brazenly positive and optimistic  without the cynical edge and sociopolitical agenda of so many movies that come out these days.  Certainly 3 Idiots does not shy away from the less glamorous aspects of cutthroat schools like ICE, and early on one student decides to take his own life after the dean refuses to grant him a short extension on a project deadline which would have allowed him to graduate.  And much of what is presented here is caricature: professors aren’t really that strict, and cruising through life on good vibes alone isn’t exactly a recipe for success. But the brilliance of 3 Idiots lies in the whip-smart pacing and impeccable acting–most notably from Khan, who so thoroughly embodies the freewheeling spirit of his character.  He is utterly lost in Rancho’s persona, and displays a charming wide-eyed wonder and joie de vivre I haven’t seen in a movie since Lucy first entered Narnia. The friendship between the three buddies is real and believable, and Irani’s portrayal of the dean is so thoroughly convincing he could stand toe-to-toe with some of the sleaziest villains in movie history.

I’m no connoisseur of foreign films, though I do enjoy anime (but only when it’s subtitled–English voice actors never do justice to the source material) and I have a copy of Amélie sitting around on VHS somewhere.  And as such, 3 Idiots is, as near as I can tell, the first full-length Bollywood movie I have ever seen.  But like all good stories, its message is universal and, in this case, extraordinary well told. As Rancho would say, all is well.

Rating:[Rating:4.5/5]

Filed Under: Comedy Tagged With:
« Previous Page
Next Page »