Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated 3 Idiots (2009) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
So, I am writing a coffee table book that selects the 200 top films of 2000 – 2019. Called, predictably, 21st Century Cinema: 200 Unmissable films. It uses a system of rating I devised called The Decinemal, which takes the ten categories by which a film can be rated (Direction, Script, Design, Lead Acting, Support Acting, Music, Photography, Critical Acclaim, Watchability and X-Factor) and scores them out of 10, to give an overall score out of 100. Whilst not foolproof, it does give a remarkable working basis for comparing movies of different genres, and the ratings often bear a striking relation to the democratic system used by IMDb – a film scoring 7.2 on that website might be a 75 decinemal, for example, and that feels like that validates its use.
It has been a very fun, if time consuming, project. The difficulty is keeping up with new releases every year, and trying to catch some of the more obscure foreign language films out there that get high scores on IMDb. One such film was 3 Idiots, to date the highest rated Bollywood film on that website, with a score of 8.5; which is high! Very high! So I have to watch it and find out for myself.
Now, Bollywood is not me for, barring the odd amusement of how bizarre they can be. I find the musical interludes often grating and incongruous, and the melodramatic acting styles something that the cinema of most other countries outgrew decades ago. So it is hard for me to be objective about it. On the whole they just don’t compete on any level with American, European or, well, any other country’s output. In short, I would never normally watch one at all.
Surprisingly, I found 3 Idiots, although clownish and OTT, quite entertaining from the start. I even found one or two of the obligatory musical numbers very catchy and a lot of fun! Also, lead actor Aamir Khan, one of India’s biggest stars, was very charming and watchable. Of course, it is colourful, loud and has a childish sensibility, but some moments made me genuinely laugh. The main problem actually came from it being padded out to almost 2 and 1/2 hours, which was far too long for comfort. If it had been more economical I may have even been able to say it was worth watching.
Sadly, it is the moments of cultural difference and pure silliness that dragged it down. Despite its positive points, ultimately it is a mess, and to compare it on the standard I judge all films I see I have to be fair and not patronise it. Certainly in terms of the Bollywood fare I have seen bits of over the years, I can see why it is so well thought of. I can also see how films like this gain such a high rating, because it is the native audience it was made for that cast the votes. Which is fair enough, but does give it an unreasonably high score.
I think if more people watched it and rated it, it would balance out at a 6.5, and it probably deserves that for sheer entertainment value. I have certainly seen many worse films! Applying The Decinemal objectively, however, it comes out like this: Direction 4, Script 5, Design 6, Lead Acting 6, Support acting 4, Music 5, Photography 6, Critical Acclaim 7, Wachability 5, x-Factor 6. Added up that gives it a Decinemal of 54 – a far cry from the 74 it would have needed to make my top 200. And I stand by that score, as the level of likelihood of everyone’s enjoyment of it.
To an extent it discourages me from watching anything from this part of the world again, but I can’t say I didn’t appreciate why it was such a big hit. Interesting.
It has been a very fun, if time consuming, project. The difficulty is keeping up with new releases every year, and trying to catch some of the more obscure foreign language films out there that get high scores on IMDb. One such film was 3 Idiots, to date the highest rated Bollywood film on that website, with a score of 8.5; which is high! Very high! So I have to watch it and find out for myself.
Now, Bollywood is not me for, barring the odd amusement of how bizarre they can be. I find the musical interludes often grating and incongruous, and the melodramatic acting styles something that the cinema of most other countries outgrew decades ago. So it is hard for me to be objective about it. On the whole they just don’t compete on any level with American, European or, well, any other country’s output. In short, I would never normally watch one at all.
Surprisingly, I found 3 Idiots, although clownish and OTT, quite entertaining from the start. I even found one or two of the obligatory musical numbers very catchy and a lot of fun! Also, lead actor Aamir Khan, one of India’s biggest stars, was very charming and watchable. Of course, it is colourful, loud and has a childish sensibility, but some moments made me genuinely laugh. The main problem actually came from it being padded out to almost 2 and 1/2 hours, which was far too long for comfort. If it had been more economical I may have even been able to say it was worth watching.
Sadly, it is the moments of cultural difference and pure silliness that dragged it down. Despite its positive points, ultimately it is a mess, and to compare it on the standard I judge all films I see I have to be fair and not patronise it. Certainly in terms of the Bollywood fare I have seen bits of over the years, I can see why it is so well thought of. I can also see how films like this gain such a high rating, because it is the native audience it was made for that cast the votes. Which is fair enough, but does give it an unreasonably high score.
I think if more people watched it and rated it, it would balance out at a 6.5, and it probably deserves that for sheer entertainment value. I have certainly seen many worse films! Applying The Decinemal objectively, however, it comes out like this: Direction 4, Script 5, Design 6, Lead Acting 6, Support acting 4, Music 5, Photography 6, Critical Acclaim 7, Wachability 5, x-Factor 6. Added up that gives it a Decinemal of 54 – a far cry from the 74 it would have needed to make my top 200. And I stand by that score, as the level of likelihood of everyone’s enjoyment of it.
To an extent it discourages me from watching anything from this part of the world again, but I can’t say I didn’t appreciate why it was such a big hit. Interesting.
ConceptIQ : Human Geography
Education and Games
App
Would you like to have fun, while testing your knowledge of Human Geography. Would you like to...
Top City Card - Guide
Shopping and Travel
App
TOP CITY CARD Care este ideea cardului? BCR City Card si Top City Card sunt carduri de reduceri si...
AY
A Year in London: Two Things to Do Every Day of the Year
Jim Watson and David Hampshire
Book
Welcome to A Year in London, an exhaustive guide to 365 days in the most exciting, inspiring,...
Brick Body Kids Still Daydream by Open Mike Eagle
Album Watch
With the first song of his 2014 masterpiece, Dark Comedy, Open Mike Eagle reintroduced himself by...
rap
Tra câu Việt - Anh
Reference and Education
App
CHÀO MỪNG BẠN ĐẾN VỚI TRA CÂU - CÔNG CỤ TÌM KIẾM CẶP CÂU SONG NGỮ ANH VIỆT...
50 Under 50: Innovators of the 21st Century
Eva Maddox, Beverly Russell, Farooq Ameen and The Images Publishing Group
Book
Features design innovations that have become the visual models for idea advancement worldwide. "...a...
Here Come the Warm Jets
Book
"Warren's first book of poems is highly self-reflective, interestingly interrogative, and a lot of...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Soul (2020) in Movies
Oct 27, 2020
After all the chopping and changing in the release schedules I have to say that I was pretty glad I picked up tickets to see Soul at Watershed in Bristol before they announced its moving to Disney+.
Joe's life is music, and he's about to get the break he's been dreaming of... but life has a way of messing those dreams up. Finding himself bodiless and in a strange place, he makes the acquaintance of 22, a new soul who's keen on staying right where she is. Can the two of them work together to get what they both want the most in life?
As you'd expect with a Pixar it's got a story with a deeper meaning with an emotional rollercoaster built-in. We follow Joe as he is desperate to get back to the one thing he thinks will make his whole life make sense. Along the way he gets sidelined by a set of mishaps that bring him into pre-life where he crosses paths with 22. The pair make an unlikely team and the adventure they go on is full of comedy and relatable decisions, off-hand comments for the adults... and that's all before the expected crying portion of the film.
The voice acting was spot on with Jamie Foxx as Joe, our leading man, and Tiny Fey as 22, an adorable little blob of soul, They're a fun little mix together, and Fey in particular brings a quirky aspect to proceedings. I might only briefly query the casting of Richard Ayoade and Graham Norton, don't get me wrong, I adore both of them, but I can't deny that they felt out of place with this being set in America... but at the same time, they identified and created a multi-cultural and multi-lingual environment that you would see in the pre- and after-life, which is great attention to detail.
As always, the animation is a wonderful piece of thought, between the human realm and the spirit worlds there are clearly defined styles and ideas. The real-world design is the usual quirkiness you expect from Pixar, but the spirit world is where we really see the imagination that we've all come to love from them. Those bouncy little souls are so adorable and the celebrities you see will blow your mind. All the concepts that are dealt with in this space feel like they are crazily accurate and seeing them on-screen feels like something of a revelation.
I wondered where the film was going at the beginning, I wasn't seeing how it related to what would inevitably be coming, but the story comes full circle and, as expected, every moment turns into a thoughtful and teachable moment.
With music at its heart, Soul is a tribute to the love of a rhythm. From the skillfully done opening, the sleek saxophone (which I'm still not convinced was "merely" an animated object), to every moment we see Joe at his piano, you're faced with a piece of music that has been deftly constructed to fit its purpose and bring a rousing feeling of heart and passion into being.
Would it be better to see this on the big screen? Sure, I would rather see every film that way... but the magic of seeing a Pixar film for the first time can't be taken away from you, it doesn't matter what you're watching Soul on, I'm sure it will spark the same. I will admit there was a point while I watched that I wondered for the briefest moment how my life would look inside Soul, but if the film taught me anything it's that there's always something good there, you just have to find it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/soul-movie-review.html
Joe's life is music, and he's about to get the break he's been dreaming of... but life has a way of messing those dreams up. Finding himself bodiless and in a strange place, he makes the acquaintance of 22, a new soul who's keen on staying right where she is. Can the two of them work together to get what they both want the most in life?
As you'd expect with a Pixar it's got a story with a deeper meaning with an emotional rollercoaster built-in. We follow Joe as he is desperate to get back to the one thing he thinks will make his whole life make sense. Along the way he gets sidelined by a set of mishaps that bring him into pre-life where he crosses paths with 22. The pair make an unlikely team and the adventure they go on is full of comedy and relatable decisions, off-hand comments for the adults... and that's all before the expected crying portion of the film.
The voice acting was spot on with Jamie Foxx as Joe, our leading man, and Tiny Fey as 22, an adorable little blob of soul, They're a fun little mix together, and Fey in particular brings a quirky aspect to proceedings. I might only briefly query the casting of Richard Ayoade and Graham Norton, don't get me wrong, I adore both of them, but I can't deny that they felt out of place with this being set in America... but at the same time, they identified and created a multi-cultural and multi-lingual environment that you would see in the pre- and after-life, which is great attention to detail.
As always, the animation is a wonderful piece of thought, between the human realm and the spirit worlds there are clearly defined styles and ideas. The real-world design is the usual quirkiness you expect from Pixar, but the spirit world is where we really see the imagination that we've all come to love from them. Those bouncy little souls are so adorable and the celebrities you see will blow your mind. All the concepts that are dealt with in this space feel like they are crazily accurate and seeing them on-screen feels like something of a revelation.
I wondered where the film was going at the beginning, I wasn't seeing how it related to what would inevitably be coming, but the story comes full circle and, as expected, every moment turns into a thoughtful and teachable moment.
With music at its heart, Soul is a tribute to the love of a rhythm. From the skillfully done opening, the sleek saxophone (which I'm still not convinced was "merely" an animated object), to every moment we see Joe at his piano, you're faced with a piece of music that has been deftly constructed to fit its purpose and bring a rousing feeling of heart and passion into being.
Would it be better to see this on the big screen? Sure, I would rather see every film that way... but the magic of seeing a Pixar film for the first time can't be taken away from you, it doesn't matter what you're watching Soul on, I'm sure it will spark the same. I will admit there was a point while I watched that I wondered for the briefest moment how my life would look inside Soul, but if the film taught me anything it's that there's always something good there, you just have to find it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/soul-movie-review.html
Rachel King (13 KP) rated American Gods in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I have only ever read one other adult book ( I don't count Coraline) by Gaiman, which was vastly different from this book in both style and mood - Stardust. A friend recommended I read this book many years ago since I like mythology. I found this book really had not much to do with mythology in the classic sense. Instead the characters that were pulled from mythology, such as Odin, Anansi, Horus, Bast, and Ganesha, among others, behaved like has-been D-list celebrities that struggle to survive in a country that is repeatedly described as "...a bad land for gods." The powers they rarely put on display were minimal and amounted to the same kind of "magic" as a skilled pick-pocket, con-artist, or amateur magician. The few times any real power is observed is once during the sexual scene of a re-invented Queen of Sheba (I'll spare you the R-rated details) and when the gods travel "behind the scenes," a state of existence that only the gods can enter.
While the names of classical mythology fit into the category of the Old Gods, there are New Gods that have taken root in America, born from cultural obsessions that have evolved and devolved over the years, such as railroads - a man dressed as a railroad conductor, television - a voice talking through Lucille Ball on a rerun of I Love Lucy, vehicles - stocky men that seemed to resemble vehicles themselves, and internet - a short, nerdy, nervous kid, among other American fixations and stereotypes.
In addition, one of the scenic devices used throughout the plot is what Gaiman's characters describe as places of power - side-of-the-road dives that road-trippers visit for no apparent reason, such as a place boasting the largest doll collection in America or the biggest wheel of cheese. And no, Disneyworld is not one of them.
One of the things I found interesting about this Gaiman-born world is that the Old Gods only exist in the New World when regular people travel from other countries and bring their memories and practices with them, even when they don't intend to stay themselves. The gods are "born" from these average people, and even though they can be killed by others, they don't die otherwise, but instead alternately starve or thrive based on the behavior of the people who live and die in the New World. They all have counterpart manifestations of themselves in the countries they are pulled from, but one's existence does not affect the other - though they do seem to be aware of each other.
All of this is merely the background of the main plot, which centers around the activities and travels of a seemingly mortal man with a single name, Shadow. I never did "get" the one-name thing, but whatever. Through Shadow's narration, the reader learns of an impending storm - a battle between the Old Gods and New Gods, the former fighting for survival and the latter fighting for dominance. Shadow works for a mysterious "Mr. Wednesday" and is randomly haunted by his dead wife, Laura, but otherwise seems to have little drive of his own for most of the book. In fitting irony, he has his own brand of "magic" - an obsession for coin tricks to pass the time from his days spent in prison - which I could never really follow the descriptions of.
To be completely honest, I truly did enjoy this book, though I am struggling to say exactly why. Perhaps I was fascinated by the "shadowy" way that Gaiman told the story, or how he developed this over-the-hill world of gods and goddesses that better resembled America's middle and poor classes' struggles for survival, money, and influence. Some of the personal touches that Shadow's character added to the plot made him at times surprisingly endearing. In addition, the way that Shadow seemed to address the reader at the very end of the book was so satisfying that I laughed out loud and had to read it again several times. Something about that just brought the book to life for me and help me to fully appreciate the versatile style of Gaiman. This is one of those books you don't have to fully understand to fully appreciate.
While the names of classical mythology fit into the category of the Old Gods, there are New Gods that have taken root in America, born from cultural obsessions that have evolved and devolved over the years, such as railroads - a man dressed as a railroad conductor, television - a voice talking through Lucille Ball on a rerun of I Love Lucy, vehicles - stocky men that seemed to resemble vehicles themselves, and internet - a short, nerdy, nervous kid, among other American fixations and stereotypes.
In addition, one of the scenic devices used throughout the plot is what Gaiman's characters describe as places of power - side-of-the-road dives that road-trippers visit for no apparent reason, such as a place boasting the largest doll collection in America or the biggest wheel of cheese. And no, Disneyworld is not one of them.
One of the things I found interesting about this Gaiman-born world is that the Old Gods only exist in the New World when regular people travel from other countries and bring their memories and practices with them, even when they don't intend to stay themselves. The gods are "born" from these average people, and even though they can be killed by others, they don't die otherwise, but instead alternately starve or thrive based on the behavior of the people who live and die in the New World. They all have counterpart manifestations of themselves in the countries they are pulled from, but one's existence does not affect the other - though they do seem to be aware of each other.
All of this is merely the background of the main plot, which centers around the activities and travels of a seemingly mortal man with a single name, Shadow. I never did "get" the one-name thing, but whatever. Through Shadow's narration, the reader learns of an impending storm - a battle between the Old Gods and New Gods, the former fighting for survival and the latter fighting for dominance. Shadow works for a mysterious "Mr. Wednesday" and is randomly haunted by his dead wife, Laura, but otherwise seems to have little drive of his own for most of the book. In fitting irony, he has his own brand of "magic" - an obsession for coin tricks to pass the time from his days spent in prison - which I could never really follow the descriptions of.
To be completely honest, I truly did enjoy this book, though I am struggling to say exactly why. Perhaps I was fascinated by the "shadowy" way that Gaiman told the story, or how he developed this over-the-hill world of gods and goddesses that better resembled America's middle and poor classes' struggles for survival, money, and influence. Some of the personal touches that Shadow's character added to the plot made him at times surprisingly endearing. In addition, the way that Shadow seemed to address the reader at the very end of the book was so satisfying that I laughed out loud and had to read it again several times. Something about that just brought the book to life for me and help me to fully appreciate the versatile style of Gaiman. This is one of those books you don't have to fully understand to fully appreciate.