Wall Street (1987)

Wall Street seemed to be perhaps the first movie to take the America of the 80's through the angle of stock exchanges, brokerage and capitalism as whole. I am not sure but it serves as the basis of making cinema on real topics and just not a fiction. The story, co-screen written by Oliver Stone and directed by him, is by far a simple yet complete procedure of getting the viewers into the market realities during its time. The subject, the processes, the characters seems to be thoroughly studied, revised and polished before presenting them to the viewers.

Gordon Gekko, brilliantly portrayed by Michael Douglas is not the protagonist in the movie. Michael Douglas won the Academy Award for the Best Actor in Leading Role in this film. His character shows what kind of people are there in the world. Selfish, opportunists, who justify all their means to be at the top. But the character of Charlie Sheen, Bud Fox represents the millions who get trapped in the dilemma of honesty and success. Perhaps, the beauty of the movie is that in whichever profession you may remain, such a situation might come to your life. Wall Street is just one place where it happens.

I think there are topics and then there are masterpieces of Oliver Stone on those topics. The pace of the movie is terrific. The music and the OSTs are good. Good actors and taut performances by them. I saw it in 2003 for the first time. I could not understand all of it, then. I have seen the movie at least 3-4 times since then. It just looks like a good research work on the screen and I like it every time I see it now.

My rating: 7.3/10

Salvador (1986)

Salvador is written and directed by Oliver Stone. It will be evident from the movie that this is the work of the same screenplay writer who gave us Midnight Express (1978), Scarface (1983) and later improvised his direction by winning Academy Award, thrice. Salvador looks more of an attempt of a screenplay writer into mainstream cinema. Yes, there is some commercial overtone in it such as the love interest of the character Richard Boyle and Maria. But then I think that is what Oliver Stone learned when his directorial venture failed with The Hand (1981). It took him five years and some strong screenplays such as that of Scarface to develop Salvador. And there after, it seems he has not looked back. Not for at least 10 years or so.

The good thing about refined screen writers is that they they can develop the characters on screen, the way they want and it reached to the viewers in the same fashion. Richard Boyle is marvelously played by James Woods who wants to enter into controversial arenas, always hoping to hit big. He is an escapist or perhaps a loser too, who has been going lucky around all these years. But there comes a time when he realizes that whether pushing it too far or not, he is going to do what he is supposed to do. That transition in the character of Richard Boyle is shown swift and eventful.

Photography for Journalism is one of the means in this project of Oliver Stone to show a controversial matter happened most recently during the making of the movie. It takes much of the nerves to pick a country such as El Salvador to portray some reality for the viewers. And I think Salvador paved the way for Platoon (1986) which earned Oliver Stone an Academy Award. Two movies in the same year with the shades of war and battles, that is tough I must say. Still, the best thing about Oliver Stone is that essence of naturalism in his work. You see Salvador and you feel you are there, in that small country in Central America. The sets, the people, the language everything is very real. And same is felt in Platoon, perhaps more refined.

Salvador is perhaps an artistic way of delivering a documentary in a commercial style, for the beginners. It gets more elaborate in Platoon.

My rating: 6.95/10

The Contender (2000)

The Contender is a work of art, a story where the director of the movie is on the driving seat and Rod Lurie, a budding name ten years ago, has shown his hard work in this movie by revealing characters in a layer-by-layer approach. I can't remember watching such a thrilling drama or such a dramatic thriller in recent times. The movie urged me to think, when a movie is described thriller? When there is some fast paced action? When the viewers constantly crave for what happens next?

What happened while watching 'The Contender' was getting that repeated feeling of 'why'? The characters in the beginning are shown just like onions with their skin on. As the movie proceeds, we can see the peeling of their covers and their true identity being revealed. I understood, an intriguing drama is a thriller. In the beginning of the movie, I felt that I have an understanding of the suspense but then that was just a small piece of the pie. Overall, the character development process is remarkable. Most of the human beings, learned, educated and professionals are complex in nature, in terms of their behavior, in terms of how they overall carry themselves. I don't think that we can draw a few lines and then relate them to any human nature. Say, this line represents this person and that line, that person and so on. People are far more diverse on their surface as compared to what they are beneath them. I suppose most of us do reach to a point where we start believing in something and stick to it. Perhaps, the path beyond that point becomes clear, even if not easy to tread upon. But for those who constantly doubt, the future is shaky, risky.

I suppose, the director has tried to show some clear traits on principles, loyalty, hypocrisy and other behavior in this film. Joan Allen, if is shown firm along with Gary Oldman then Jeff Bridges is way vibrant. I have seen three movies out of the six directed by Rod Lurie and I find all of them as a measure to dig deep in the abilities of different people, given a test of time and situation and perhaps not far from common man's perspective, too. Among these three, The Contender is so far, the best.

My rating: 7.2/10

Armored (2009)

It may be easy to generate a concept but it is difficult to develop a good screenplay. And then, how hard you try, you pick veterans among actors and add few thrilling moments but then that's it. You can't create good cinema if the screenplay is not offering something new or something different. Armored has experienced players such as Matt Dillon, Lawrence Fishburne and Jay Reno but it fails to bind the viewers to their seats all the time. It is strange that Nimrod Antal has given us Vacancy (2007) which was one of the best horror-thrillers of 2007 but he fails to deliver in Armored. A fool-proof robbery plan goes awry when one of the team member defects is an old concept. But more than that, there is disappointment over scenes which shows loose direction and implies that those scenes are pushed below the viewers throat. Columbus Short goes in and out of the van without no-one noticing him on two occasions, finds petrol canister so easily and near.

In case you got this movie from someone else collection and have nothing much to do, you can go for it once.

My Rating: 5.5/10

The Andromeda Strain

The Andromeda Strain is a sci-fi thriller. Based on the novel of master storyteller, Michael Crichton, the movie is most enjoyable if you think you are living in those early 70's days. You have not seen movies such as Alien (1979-1997) or Predator (1987-1990). You have seen the space through 2001:A Space Odyssey (1968) but you have not given a thought over a life form available beyond this planet. Under such conditions, this movie can really get your mind boggling and keep you at the edge of your seat. However, after watching so many of alien type movies, I still felt that the external life-form defined in The Andromeda Strain was one of the most logical and explainable concepts based on which the other advanced non-earth life forms were further created. One of the stark resemblance can be observed in the color of these predator/alien blood/fluid and the organism color in The Andromeda Strain.

Overall, a gripping cinema if you like watching sci-fi but with no guns or violence. Its just like flipping through the pages of the novel.

My rating: 7.2/10

A Bittersweet Life (2005)

Dalkomhan Insaeng or A Bittersweet Life (2005) is just another story of revenge. And believe me, it is the Koreans and the Japanese directors who have inspired Quentin Tarantino to make movies such as Kill Bill (2003-2014). Korean director Ji-woon Kim has not done anything exceptional in this cinema but just portrays the abuse of power and the rise of a common guy to the extremities to avenge his wrong-treatment. I think a lot of Bollywood as well and Hollywood movies are made in this fashion. Plus the Korean style of presentation of conversation between a disciple and the master as the background do prevails in A Bittersweet Life, too. Nothing more was required from the actors so one shall not expect exceptional performances, either. The music keeps playing in the background. I think its just to mellow down the mood. Overall, average movie.

My rating: 6.5/10

A Simple Plan (1998)

Ever wondered what the director of The Evil Dead (1981-1992) doing before directing the Spider-Man (2002-2007)? I got it now. He was making A Simple Plan. A Simple Plan is an in-depth study of human psyche by the master director Sam Raimi. How very ordinary people get pushed beyond their limits when the emotions such as greed and desperation creeps in their life. I felt some part to be stretching, especially the actions of the protagonist for its too much for a common family man. But I guess what Sam Raimi has tried here is just a portrayal. Let us not measure the height of crime but considering it just a deed, it definitely makes one think that is it worth doing? There definitely are thrills but the pace is slow. It churns a lot of drama as the movie progresses.

Overall, character of Bill Paxton is naive and gullible, that of Bridget Fonda is desperate. While Billy Bob Thornton's character is confused but deep, Brent Biscou's character is that of opportunist and greedy. A all-in-all play of dark side of human emotions.

My Rating: 7.1

Hostage (2005)

There is Bruce Willis. And then there are some smart dialogues, enough zing-zing, bomb-blasts and those cops and criminal drama. Hostage is no different story. Just some twists in the plot to make it a parallel-lane entertainer. Emilio Siri was a student of Cinema at Sorbonne University in Paris and he has done a good job in creating a thriller. If it does not give you something out of the box then it certainly does not disappoint you, either. Good pastime.

My rating: 6.75/10

Layer Cake (2004)

One good thing about UK directors. They know how to make an entertainer. Layer Cake definitely revolves around gangsters and crimes but this ain't another story about some mob war or an in-and-out job of a wannabe or even any undercover agent. This is a simple story of a wrong-doer average guy who is pushed into circumstances from where he has to pull himself out, every time. You'll love the pace of the cinema. Small-time thrills, some good background score (especially it is awesome to listen Duran Duran's Ordinary World), crisp acting. That's all you need for a crime, thriller, drama to be. Two-thumbs up!
P.S. Watch carefully to find the name of Daniel Craig's character in the film.

My Rating: 7.55/10

Smokin' Aces (2006)

I revisited this movie. I had forgot that I saw this way back in 2006-07 itself. Unfortunately, realized that the reason why I do not remember about it when I saw earlier was because the movie is dud. The plot begins with hope that viewers might see some hot action. Yes, there is bang-bang. But poor plot, weak story line and no thrills make this flick something one can pass.

Surprisingly, loads of talented actors including the lead but the plot and the script murders their scope of performance. I only rate the background score to be smart. If you really have time to kill with action movies, better go for Steven Seagal. ;)
My Rating: 5.25/10

Running Scared (2006)

Sitting home, looking for some adrenaline push, I do more often search for Action/Thrillers. Had no idea about the release of Running Scared (2006) way back then. So, I saw it recently. I agree that the plot is made out of circle. And to some extent, I give plus point to that. It may look that the way the movie begins, it might loose the plot and go wayward but then it comes to ground zero before the climax. Concept wise, there are hundreds of movies on the same line. Chain of events following, creation of confusion, good guy, bad guy, suspicious guys and all those crime/drama plots are there in the movie. To add up the spices, there are child artists and primarily the movie revolves around them. Now, though the movie has a mix of mob and cops but those who are looking for such neck-to-neck dramatic dialogues then this is not the piece for you. For me, yes after watching so many of such movies, the development of plot in the first 15 minutes did give me the hint about the main leads character in the beginning itself. The movie happens during one night only so that may seem strange, for it to be so many things in less than 10 hours. However, this also limits the scope of cinematography. Nothing special was required, so nothing magnificent has been delivered. No background score, as well.

I think there was not much requirement in terms of great acting and thus, I will not make any particular comment about the acting. It is one of those pastime movies which you see, enjoy and forget. Target it for those days when you got nothing to do.

My Rating: 6.4/10

Twelve Monkeys (1995)

Twelve Monkeys is directed by Terry Gilliam. His other masterpieces have been Time Bandits (1981) and Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas (1998). But he has given duds such as Brother's Grimm (2005), too. But leave that aside. I think Terry Gilliam is a the director of the dreams, writer of the influence. Likes portraying fantasy of the real human being. Twelve Monkeys is a Sci-Fi, Drama and a Thriller. Practically speaking, it covers basic development of confusion due to time-travel, draws line between people who know more and then who are ignorant. It is definitely, a good work of fiction. If I draw the parallels, I see that how it becomes difficult for someone who is alert of a disaster eminent in future finds difficult to convince about the same to the people who have less idea about it. We can easily see today that environmental problem of the earth is going to be fatal for human beings, if we do not act now. But is this thing known by everyone? And say, if everyone is working on the same page to tackle it? I felt that one of the take of the Director on this film is about the same situation. Rest, of course is a thrill and humor of the situations, at times.

Good acting by Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt and Madeleine Stowe. I revised this film recently for when I saw it in 1998 for the first time, trust me I had not clue whats all happening on screen! It was just a few days ago when I was wondering, who started all this? The stories of future saviors? My answer is James Cameron's The Terminator (1984). :)
My Rating: 7.3/10

Miller's Crossing (1990)

Whats the rumpus? Yes, I think in comparison to other movies pertaining to the Prohibition-era crimes such as 'Once Upon A Time In America', Miller's Crossing is more close presentation of limited but important characters prevailing during that time. More than that, it is a story of wit and thrill in the daily lives of people. All these wise guys, smart guys, made-up guys, stand-up guys and everything seems to have started from this time-period only.

However, in my opinion there lies difference in presenting gangsters when it comes to the style of Joel Coen, Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino, for example. Where most of the directors use more and more dialogues to develop sequence of drama, it is Joel Coen who keeps someone quiet among the group. Someone who thinks and we don't know what is he or she thinking. That always adds to the thrill and suspense. And this is one style, which I think is similar to that of Francis Ford Coppola. So even at this day when we see 'No Country For Old Men', we do find such characters. On the contrary, Scorsese or Tarantino not only put dialogues but also communicate about the thought of the protagonist to the viewers. I won't go after Sergio Leone since he has made enough Western to make him rely upon not only dialogues but also a story in flash-back to back his characters silence.

Still, one of the most beautiful element about Miller's Crossing is it's music. I was completely mesmerized by the background score. And a whiff of the same music can be heard in 'Fargo', too. Good acting, splendid story development and marvelous drama. Strongly recommended. So, whats the rumpus?
My rating: 7.8/10

The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)

This came after 'Raising Arizona'. Another attempt on making comedy by Ethan and Joel Coen. But they have done it. 'The Hudsucker Proxy' is one of the finest satirical presentations wrapped up in 129 minute show. I felt more like watching some play. In terms of acting, all the lead stars including Paul Newman, Tim Robbins and Jennifer Jason Leigh are marvelous and it is definite that the way script is written, it would have required talented actors such as these to put the screen on fire. There are some moments where you realize that though this is fiction yet this is so similar to the real life situations. Such as the 'double stitch' scene. But yes, this is completely character based cinema. Like you take different people from different walks of life and take their tales from various phases of their working/professional lives, put them together and ask a master storyteller such as Coen Brothers to make into a movie and what you'll receive is 'The Hudsucker Proxy'.
My Rating: 7.25/10

Lost Highway

Hey,anyone has seen this movie,'Lost Highway'?This is one 1997 movie directed by david Lynch and starring Bill Pullman.Well,if you have seen,then kindly POst me what has been tried to show in this movie.this is one most complex movies I have ever seen.And am unable to make out the happenings in the movie.