Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
A Death in the Gunj (2016)
Only if someone could have LOVED Shutu
Today I saw "Death in the Gunj"
It is a slow movie. But once you have patience and if you can soak into its characters - The Bangla bourgeois culture, their liberalism, their talks, the way they look and behave (making the casting perfect); and if you can sustain yourself absorbed till the end the impact of the movie is not good but Overwhelming... Especially for those who have a sensitive soul, who can feel deep down the anguish and pain of a single individual.
Here the single individual is Shutu (Vikram Massey) whose character and psyche is known to us through peeling of each layer through small exchanges of dialogues and incidences. Shutu lost his father when he was 7 years, he does not have a good relation with his mother, who always scolds him, he is bad in studies, and has failed, he is bullied by his friends and talked down and even beaten by this elder brother. He is simple, shy, incoherent, child-like and finds solace and innocent friendship with his niece Tani (Arya Sharma) during a small gathering over a week with family and friends at a hill station house.
Events unfold in such a way that Shutu is initiated to sex by Mimi (Kalki Koechlin) who just wants to have fun and get over her love for Vikram (Ranvir Shorey) who is marrying someone else. By the end of the movie things do not work out for Shutu who is ignored, forgotten by everyone and shunned even by the little girl Tani. Yet with love in his eyes he pins his hopes on Mimi who ignores his feelings and advices him to concentrate on studies and life (sounds so familiar). It is a psychological take on a simple boy Shutu who is driven to death, but unfolding of events where everyone is unconsciously selfish (as a way of life) and happy with what one has in life except Shutu, who feels lonely, ignored and useless (even being used by that little girl).
While coming out of the theatre one feels, if once, someone the little girl Tani, or Mimi would have held Shutu's hand and consoled him, would have given him strength and hope to live life.
It is a great debut of Konkana Sen Sharma as a director. All the actors and actresses have acted superbly. Special mention of Vikram Massey as Shutu who lives his character's flaws like real. The slow and lingering shots are exquisite and a treat on the eye. The detailing is perfect. Music is appropriate with mix of a couple folk tunes and lingering sadness of violin.
This movie is recommended for the typical arty type sensitive movie goers who want to see good different cinema - This is the one!
(Rating 7.5 out of 10)
Jodaeiye Nader az Simin (2011)
A Separation - Brilliant layering of complex human relations
I was six years late to see this movie. I had downloaded this movie about 3 years back and was in my back up drive awaiting a watch. I watched it recently (2017) and I thank myself for making that decision because it opens up new vocabulary of cinema to students like us.
The director Asghar Farhadi had seen a visual of a young man washing an old man most probably his father, and that image stuck Asghar's mind that set the ball rolling to develop a story around it. This was the first Iranian movie to win an Oscar. It appeared in the top 250 films IMDb list and is mentioned in 1000 movies to see before you die.
For those who are can't understand Persian I am including spoilers to understand and enjoy the movie better because the dialogues are fast and lengthy and it is difficult to catch them and keep track on first viewing.
Simin (Leila Hatami) wants to leave Iran either her husband Nader (Peyman Moaadi) and their daughter Termeh (Sarina Farhadi director's real life daughter) come along with her or else she will divorce her husband. But husband can't leave his ailing egging father (Ali-Asghar Shahbazi) who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease.
Nader hires a pregnant Razieh (Sareh Bayat) who comes along with her daughter Somayeh (Kimla Hosseni) as a care-taker.
An incident happens when Nader pushes care-taker Razieh out of the house on accusation of not properly taking care of his Dad and for robbing money. Razieh undergoes abortion and her husband Hojjat (Shahbad Hosseini) puts a case of murder against Nader.
How all these characters interact and accuse each other, and each try to protect relationships, show humanity, and seek justice makes the rest of the movie.
Each character has its own convincing persona that we can empathize with. Who is right? Who is wrong? How the events unfold the way they do whom to blame it is so beautifully presented with a fluid story telling.
The plot is simple but the treatment is complex in terms of the facets of underlying human and cultural nuances popping up every now and then. The actors are top class. There is no music in the movie except the end titles. The movie is shot with hand-held camera. Editing is superb. The dialogues are layered and runs sub-plots that the audience have to weave together. Thus the movie makes the audience part of the proceeding putting the view in middle of the family as a witness and observer. Superb..!
The screenplay the way it unfolds is like a thriller, and lots of questions remain unanswered till the end of the movie but the movie surely leaves a few signs for the viewers to detect the missing clues.
As the movie is already 6 years old, I am leaving a few spoilers for filling up the missing clues - that are not shown in the movie...
First, the robbing of money accusation is false because Nader's wife Simin might have paid the money to workers who charges her extra for a work.
Second, Nader pushing Razieh does not kill the child, but the child is killed a few days earlier when Razieh is hit by a car on the road in an attempt to bring Nader's father home.
Third, the end of the movie showing both Nader and Simin wearing black clothes signify that the father is now dead and still they are going for divorce.
Fourth, the ending is open as the daughter's decision of - with whom she will go father or mother - is not revealed and it is kept for the audience to guess based on what is shown in the movie.
This was Director Asghar's fifth movie. Recently in 2017 his movie Salesman again won the Best Foreign Film award at the Oscars - his second Oscar.
A movie is a must see for all movie buffs in terms understanding the art of cinema on how to integrate complex cultural pathos and broken human relationships with empathy where we as audience do not find fault with any character.
I give it 8 out of 10
At the End of the Cul-de-sac (2016)
At the End of Cul-De-Sac
What makes this short film impressive is that - technically it is brilliant.
It is a single shot 10 minute short film and it is amazing.
I was perplexed when I saw the film for the first time and wondered how the director has managed the cinematography?
It made me inquisitive to later read that it was taken by a camera- drone.
The Director Paul Trillo researched Google map to find a perfect Cul- de-sac and made an animated version of the whole 10 minutes of shoot.
The most difficult part according to me must have been the placement of drone at appropriate time during a particular happening in the shot that synchronizes with the dialogues.
I read that the whole team rehearsed to make the take "perfect"
The story is simple - it is a classic tale of societal judgment on an individual they see as unfit to live with them. Instead of helping the individual - by the end of the short film - they throw stones at him.
The story goes like this:
In a peaceful Cul-de-sac neighborhood, a drunk and mentally disturbed man pulls over in front of the house and blabbers things that draws attention of neighbors who become by-standers and spectators to the proceedings. As the man's antics become more bizarre, a woman who knows the man comes and tell everyone that this man is "A good man", yet the neighbors start throwing stones at the man who is crying for help.
It is very touching and to a certain extend disturbing to see the world's reaction to an individual's agony - mental or otherwise.
Only thing they did in post-production was dub the entire dialogues, as the syn-sound had drone sound, that had to be over-recorded with sound mixing.
I read that what the Director did as a final cut for the movie, was actually the rehearsal shot of 10 minutes, which came so perfect (better than the final shooting) that they kept the rehearsal shot as a final version of short film.
A lot of things to learn while seeing it - especially if one is interested in the technicality of movie making.
For the sheer brilliance of the attempt to do something different I will give this movie 7 out of 10.
Exploring the psyche of human growth - journey to LOVE
Moonlight was a wonderfully made movie.
The main purpose is to make the audience, all of us dwell into the psyche of the protagonist's mind and be the protagonist, feel him, become him to his journey of growth in life
The Director has done a profound job in exploring this element of human growth from being a child to adolescent and man.
For that the only condition is that - the person who is seeing the movie has to be a sensitive soul to accept the journey of the protagonist.
What is that journey? It is shown in three phases of a person's life - Age 9, Age 16 and Age 25. How a shy, lonely, fearing kid grows up to a person who can be identified and labeled by society as gay and drug dealer.
But basically it is a journey of LOVE
It is a journey of a child named Chiron (played brilliantly by all three actors - Alex Hibbert - age 9, Ashton Sanders - age 16, and Trevante Rhodes - grown up) who is bullied by his friends and abused by calling him a faggot (derogatory term for a gay man).
There are a few characters that influence Chiron - his mother Paula (Naomie Harris) is a separated psychotic drug addict
A drug dealer.Juan (Mahershala Ali) and his girl friend Teresa (Janelle Monae) who show parental love and care to Chiron
His only friend Kevin (played by Jaden Piner - age 9, Jharrel Jerome - age 16, Andrei Holland - grown up) is the one who befriends and gives Chiron confidence and shows care in his lonely world - with whom Chiron develops LOVE feelings.
The beauty of the Director Barry Jenkins (his first full feature length directorial venture film, till now he made short films and TV episodes) - who has also written the screenplay - is that it leaves an untold back story with us of what may have gone within the kid's mind - on how one becomes what one becomes when he grows up.
It could happen to anyone in the society.
It was a beautiful and sensitive portrayal of a kid growing in a black neighborhood in Miami, United States.
Kudos to the team, Three Oscars!
Best Movie 2017, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best supporting Actor Mahershala Ali for his sensitive role as a guide and mentor to the kid.
Moonlight is also a subtle nuanced portrayal of a lonely child trying to find identity and how he imbibes the identity (without any good or bad connotations) that he becomes when he grows up.
All of us feel many a times identified with labels the world want to see us in a certain mold.
Because accepting a label will unconsciously make one project an image that is "not exactly what one is". Read the importance of this last sentence carefully. People start behaving in a certain way because of the influence the society has on us.
The cinematography is superb especially the shot where the camera follows the back of Chiron (and they are plenty in the movie)
I would rate this movie as an excellent class room/ text book course for those who are interested in knowing about writing a script and making a movie.
Rating (8 out of 10)
Sensitive Portrayal Of Transgender Mother-Hood
I am surprised that this short film released in 2011 that has already won 3 awards and had 4 nominations does not have a single review on IMDb. I am writing this review in 2017.
I came across this film, thanks to a best-friend who shared the BEST YEAR 2016 video of Adam Rose with us. On researching a bit about Adam Rose, I came across this touching gem about LGBTQ.
It is a simple story of Nikki Holiday (Ryan Eggold) a trans-gender drag cabaret star, who is going through a crisis of a broken affair with her partner, and has a desire to adopt a child to fill up the void in her life. The adoption legal counselor Regina (Angela Bullock) rejects Nikki's plea of adoption because she is a single parent
A young bouncer Jesse (Bobby Campo) gives a helping hand to Nikki by dropping her home after an abusive attack on her, and Nikki requests Jesse to be her boy-friend just to represent her at the authorities to be eligible for adopting a child.
I would not share here what happens after that, have a look at it.
The movie was a good first attempt by actor Adam Rose who turned writer, producer and director for this movie. The acting by the whole cast is excellent. Ryan Eggold also won best actor award for his role. The settings, cinematography, background score, music, songs were good too. The ending score rendered by the song leaves a lingering melancholic feeling of unfulfilled desires of LOVE.
My lonely days are over/ love is like a song/... for you are mine
The concept must have been so strongly exciting Adam Rose that he had to make it in a movie.
The Queen is official selection in 23 Film Festivals
This short film is available on You-tube. Have a look...
(Rating: 7 out of 10)
The Ledge (2011)
Do not Kill Yourself for LOVE, Step Back From The Ledge.
I was intrigued by the psychological theology theme of the movie religion as a pull on one side, and LOVE on the other side. It rightfully reflects the on-going fight of mind and heart. Mind that is nurtured by religion and heart that is geared by LOVE.
The movie starts with Gavin (Charlie Hunnan) being talked to by Detective Hollis (Terrence Howard) for not jumping of the ledge of a high rise building.
The story flashbacks to Gavin a divorced man with a broken past (of losing his daughter) who is living with a gay HIV positive room-mate Chris (Christopher Gorham) one day hires a poker face Shana (Liv Tyler) who has recently come to live next doors with her husband Joe (Patrick Wison) who is a reformed drug addict and a new Christian re- born (born-gain) convert, who had married Shana after rescuing her from a miserable past life.
On one side Joe tries to bring back the atheist in Gavin and the gay Chris back to what he considers good and right things as taught in Christianity; while on the other LOVE-sparks fly between Gavin and Shana, that is known by Joe who seeks avenge on Gavin and Shana. There is also another flashback story of Detective Hollis who is facing a moment of marriage breakup.
Each one has a dilemma of one's own: To begin with is the Director Matthew Chapman has to answer the queries of a subject close to his heart SCIENCE: believers versus non-believers; and for those among the movie characters 1) For Gavin it is to jump from the ledge to death in order to save the one he LOVES Shana?; 2) For Shana it is being loyal to her husband Joe or to her LOVER Gavin?; 3) For Joe, it is to follow the Christianity path of righteousness, forgiveness and self-pain-infliction or seek revenge on his unfaithful wife?; 4) for Detective Hollis it is about forgiving his cheating wife or divorcing her?
Director Matthew who is the great grandson of world famous writer Charles Darwin is himself a writer, director and a noted speaker on Science; he weaves in a mysterious thriller with right doses of theological moral ethical questioning religion and modern scientific outlook of life.
Everyone has acted well but special mention has to be given to Liv Tyler for being a poker faced disillusioned girl who is obligated to be loyal and faithful with her husband Joe just because he saved her, cared for her and married her on one side and a on being a desperate LOVER of Gavin on the other. Equally comes the roles enacted by Patrick Wilson and Terrence Lawrence of bringing those pain of longing in their characters that is rightfully felt by the audience; and lastly Charlie Hunnan who does a decent job of a non-believer shallow not-so-likable character of a LOVER. I think his character required some more deep connect with audiences foundation and bearing to be empathized with.
Apart from the heart-wrenching dodgy ending that signifies no one is a winner to what life has to offer to all of us - One life, one chance, one step
I liked the movie. I will go with 7 out of 10 stars.
Sugar coated Regressive portrayal of feminine gender
I am aware that many people would not like to read my review.
I have no doubt that the movie viewing experience with its emotional pot-boiler roller coaster ride engages and is a good one, better than the Indian, regional and vernacular soap-opera dished out on Indian television. (That is why I am giving 7 out of 10 rating)
But if a sensitive person looks beyond the cosmetics of movie dazzles you will find someone is selling a regressive message through this film. Kodus to Dangal team for achieving such a feat. Here is my take..
When the first poster of the movie was released I did not like it. Even though being a wrestler, why four girls should look like boys was the first question I raised.
Now after reading so much appreciation and reviews of the movie I say this:
This is another patriarchal portrayal of regressive India A father forces his dreams on children. One should never do Children should be kept free to develop and grow as they want
This is again patriarchy dominance on the feminine gender and forcing it with the power of parenting to subjugate the flourishing of women's gender.
For sure the flourishing of women's gender is not in imitating men and/or boys and becoming fighters, wrestlers and looking masculine. This is degrading the pride, dignity and respect of being a woman
To use a true success story of a single case and successfully use it as propaganda for women's emancipation is sickening to say the least. The negative fallout of this movie could be:
Irrespective of boys or girls many parents will force their children (and more so to girls) to do what they failed to achieve in life. Make their children do things that they as parents have dreamed. Sick mentality!
Many girls may start behaving like boys - wearing boys dress, cutting hair like boys, fighting like boys etc. etc. not at all in the spirit of humanism
Father in the movie saying that "My girls are no less than boys". Such comparisons are not needed in today's evolved society. This is a phrase of sixties India. It is similar to always call a girl "Tom Boy" and demean and insult her sexuality. Such comparisons just distort the femininity of girls and women, who mis-understand such statements as being treated like boys rather than girls
Addressing girls as a male gender and treating one like that - the society like India - parents may do that to destroy the little bit of remaining self-esteem that girls and women - have on their given gender and sexuality
I also am bothered - as I always tell everyone about it is MAN - in capitals that drive the so called women's emancipation and empowerment agenda - It is so disturbing to see this. The four writers of the movie are men, the director of the movie is wearing men's glasses, the so called super-star gender sensitive actor Amir Khan is too wearing a man's hat.
In propaganda of spreading regressive message through this film the team too is of men - the director, writer, producer and lead actor - all men - who drive to influence the society in a way that may create a distorted image of what is meant by women empowerment.
In real life on which the movie is based the father of the wrestling girls drives their lives. Such case studies should have been presented more sensitively by showing such things need not be done even though in the end it brings laurels for the country.
Though I agree the medium of cinema when used with shrewdness can garner enough emotions within ignorant movie goers about nationhood to back the protagonist in whatever s/he is doing.
That is what has happened in this movie - the art of good film-making -tends to overlook and ignore finer aspects of women empowerment and digs more deep into the patriarchal systems to further strengthen patriarchal roles to build the women's liberation and freedom movement
I hope some readers who are sensitive human being will try to understand the point I am making and deplore such popular presentation of regressive concepts on feminism despite its all-time record breaking All India Collection.
It confirms my review - Indian is still a Patriarchal society with male dominance.
Have a look at the film with those lenses.
Disappointing, Debauched, Manipulative, Subtly by crafty persuading audiences
I wasn't in India during the famous trigger-happy media frenzy sensationalized Aarushi Talwar-Hemraj 2008 double murder case of Noida India, thus watching Talvar movie was a first time exposure on what actually could have happened. On the promotional campaign the Director Meghna Gulzar and Vishal Bhardwaj reiterated in every channel interview that they have presented the facts as it is without taking sides and leaving in the end for audience to decide. Such claims added immense credibility and interest for me to see the movie.
But I was thoroughly disappointed.
Obviously, by the wrong claims made in promotion by them (they should not lie and fool the people) because assuming they showed just actual facts (as them claim) the main purpose of the movie was clearly to show the parents were wrongly prosecuted due to blotched up police investigation (the movie shows that very effectively). The script, screenplay, writing, dialogues, casting, background score, using one- liners effectively (always in favor of Talwars), slight tinkering of events (that no one knows what happened except what they show on screen) here and there, (to favor the Talwars). The movie was not only manipulative but intrusively playing on the psychology of audiences by misusing the power of cinematic medium. I found the movie serving the same purpose as the frenzied media the difference was timing and intent. Clearly the purpose of the movie was questionable.
It was well documented and no one can deny the way police messed up the crime scene and investigation and thus CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) was brought into the case.
But just use some intelligence and say that the first CBI team led by Ashwini kumar - Irfan Khan (who is shown as a drunkard, emotionally devastated with a broken marriage and divorce, a mobile phone gamester with short-broken attention spans, a violent investigator using beatings and torture, whimsical to the extent of beating the police officer with a stick, attacking a colleague in official premises) how can he be believed? On one side, the police churned up the theory of claiming parents as murderers without evidence is it not possible that after seeing the inadequate forensic and investigative report Ashwini kumar would have had presumed and decisively pursued to build evidence to prove parents were innocent and there servants were murderers? It is possible !
Casting was very important - what impact would it made if the role of Ashwini was played by an unknown actor and Irfan was casted as head of second CBI team. The audience perception would have had swayed to what the second team would say. Additionally in the movie Tabu was paired with Irfan to build another by-plot of hero-heroine to lend authenticity to Irfan's character as hero. Whatever hero says must be true- is the message audience takes back home. Very manipulative.
Last 12 minutes the movie focuses two CBI teams facing and arguing each other in a room trying to convince each other about which investigation is true. This is another ploy by writer Vishal Bhardwaj to get away with the real court scene (which was fact of what actually happened in arguments) and replace it with a fictional scene and presented distorted debate instead of real one. Obviously court would have looked into much details the arguments of both parties the defense and prosecutors teams. Close observers of cinema tactics who are really intelligent would immediately question this Why the Director/ Writer duo should do such a thing and get away with showing at least 5-7 minutes of court arguments that lead to parents prosecution. Very disturbing when the pseudo intelligent critics and reviewers applaud such a crafty and bogus manipulation.
There are rumors as claimed by a Director Manish Gupta who made another fictional movie 'Rahasya' inspired by Aarushi murder case, that the Talwars had approached him to make a movie showing them as innocent, and when the Director didn't agree they wanted to ban the release of the movie.
The producers & production services is unprecedentedly (never seen ever before) using the print media of a leading national daily to promote sway the readers and audiences with two page paid news-coverage for four continuous day since release of this film. Says a lot about what is the intent to push the content of the movie. Is there anyone behind leading this?
During the whole movie I found numerous instances where I clearly saw how the Director and writer are mis-leading the audiences rather than giving unbiased and factual evidence. I would not go into details of each instance, but will close this review by highlighting the last scene where it is shown the parents entering the jail after being found guilty by the court and the manipulative sad back-ground score playing stating parents are innocent and this is what should linger in the minds of audiences who walk out of the theatres. Debauching!
I am skipping discussing acting, direction, cinematography etc. due to lack of space.
I am disappointed with lyricist Gulzar's daughter and I have no doubt but to question the integrity of the duo Director Meghna Gulzar and screenplay writer Vishal Bhardwaj. Apologies and sorry!
If I had heard them saying in their TV interviews that the movie is shown in favor of Talwar parents, I would had certainly rated this movie 6.5, but now...
(Rating 4.5 out of 10)
Brutal depiction & Cringing violence of law
When I saw this movie, throughout the movie I was cringing within myself, living in this obnoxious violent world that uses law, morals and intelligence doing crimes with impunity. God forbid to be exposed to such type of hidden violence of our society that may be reeling out injustice to thousands of innocence people on daily basis. It gave me a couple of sleepless nights and broad daylight nightmares.
Court is a simple story of a retired school teacher and folk singer dalit political activist Narayan Kamble (a real life activists Vira Sathidar played brilliant) who is arrested for a bizarre accusation of 'abetment of suicide' of a sewerage worker because of the lyrics of the passionate folk-activist-songs he sings. The court drama is set as real and as impassionate as possible with sporadic peeks into the pragmatic personal lives of public prosecutor Maharashtrian lawyer Nutan (Geetanjali Kulkarni natural accent / diction and typical advocate performance) and Gujarati defence lawyer Vinay Vora, played by producer of the movie Vivek Gomber, and lastly presided by the superstitious judge Sadavarte (Pradeep Joshi) who is seen dozing on a park bench as the end credits rolls by.
The crippling monotony and lack of empathy for innocent, embedded with bureaucratic procedures and archaic court law makes a dark comedy satire of the times we live in.
Brilliantly written, visioned and directed by Chaitanya Tamhane inspired seeing films of stalwarts like Krzysztof Kieslowski and Jia Zhangke. Director Tamhane took nearly 3 years to complete this project researching, writing and executing. And that shows in each frame and character enacted. Nearly 1800 people were auditioned from which mostly non-filmi people were selected, who in turn also helped in production work at the set. The laborious tasks of perfect pitch at times took them to shoot some scenes 50-60 retakes.
Static shots by cinematographer Mrinal Desai add us being part of the setting of the court-room drama with each scene mounting our frustrations by leaps and bounds.
Ten minutes prior to the actual ending when the court is adjourned Director Tamhane closes the shot with a dark screen as a prelude to building anger within the sensitive audiences for what is next to come the judge enjoying with his family and friends at a picnic during his vacation. Tamhane pushes the mirror of reality and slaps the audiences on its face to be aware of the unseen violence that goes on behind each scene of joy and pleasure, dance and songs.
It leaves such a deep impact that next time one sees people happy and jumping, one is un-mistakably not going to forget the terror some of them might have left behind in invisible people's lives.
I would strongly recommend everyone, especially students of law, interns, lawyers, advocates, magistrates and judges to see this movie and do some serious introspection on their role in perpetuating legal forms of crude violence through their professional careers that may impede justice especially for those who are innocent.
Lastly, kudos to Vivek Gomber to have trust, faith and backing such a wonderful script and believing the director's vision to bring life to a master piece, that should be a compulsory viewing for every cinema- lover.
A subtle but frightening and deeply disturbing brilliant masterpiece fascinatingly portraying honest violent satire of Indian judiciary and our modern society!
(Rating 8.25 out of 10)
This is the third movie of Austrian Director Michael Haneke I watched. AMOUR (Love). It won the best foreign film Oscar. Michael 's direction is many times compared to Alfred Hitchcock. His movie Funny Games is the best example of building mysterious tension. The other movie I had seen was Piano Teacher which was also exceptional in understanding unexplored sexual fantasies of a woman. Amour on other end tells the story of an old couple's Anne (Emmanuelle Riva) and George (Jean-Louis Trintignant)'s life. Starts with police breaking in their apartment and finding Anne's dead body. The movie goes ahead with a flashback when Anne and George come back from a concert. With time, Anne slowly loses her abilities and is struck with a paralytic attach on right side and after getting treatment in a hospital is confined to bed and wheelchair. The movie is about the struggle of old couple in a big Paris Apartment, where 3 times in a week a nurse comes to help Anne, otherwise George is the one who has to take care of bed-ridden Anne. It is a mirror to the audiences on loneliness, old-age, helplessness, slow process of decay and death in human body. Brilliantly executed. Though slow and not a flavor for everyone, especially those who are not sensitive towards the fact that one day, they too will become old and face old age.
Both Emmanuelle and Jean-Louis have acted brilliantly and taken the whole film on their shoulders. Direction is top class. There are moments that make you cry. After Anne gets paralytic attack I saw the rest of the movie with praying hands.
There is brilliant musical score especially on piano. It has won 80 international awards and additional 83 nominations showcases its appreciation and acceptability in the type of movie it is. Essential for movie buffs who like good movies.
(7.25 out of 10)