The trailer of Kaashmora has set expectations high for the film among the audience, it gave the impression that the film is more likely to make audience cower in horror sequences, bite their nails in action sequences and laugh their lungs out with its comedy. The result, I'm afraid, is not what was expected of it. But, that's not to say that Kaashmora is a bad film. Director Gokul has tried hard to remain true to the film's multi-genre tag and the movie does manage to keep the audience entertained for the majority of its run time, which is 2:32 minutes. In order to satisfy all types of audience, Gokul seemed to have compromised on storytelling, as at times the film loses its grip on the viewers. Kaashmora, played by Karthi, is a con artist. Along with his family of four, Kaashmora exploits the fear and …show more content…
And then run to Kaashmora for help, who has built a celebrity profile as an exorcist by appearing on television talk shows and promoting himself through newspaper …show more content…
His character can be defined as unbeatable and ruthless warrior, whose only weakness is women. He is smitten by his king's daughter Ratna Mahadevi, played by Nayanthara. Following a few twist and turns, Raj Nayak kills Ratna Mahadevi's lover, brother and father. And he forcefully marries her. Unable to match his physical prowess, Mahadevi plays a seductress and poisons Raj Nayak. However, it would be a shame for a warrior of his stature to go down without a fight, right? Just before Mahadevi beheands him, he manages to drive a spear into her guts. Just to make sure that their enmity continues for generations to come, Mahadevi stops his soul from going to light casting a
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The films Bas Arto Leary and Caoineadh Airt Ui Laoire were based on the lament written by Eibhlin(Eileen in the movie) Dubh Ni Chonaill about the murder of her husband in the 1700. Caoineadh Airt Ui Laoire shows the viewer how a brave hero like Airt Ui Laoire could lose his life for resisting British imperialism in Ireland. Moreover, in Bas Arto Leary, Ui Laoire (Oleary) was killed for refusing to sell his horse and having an affair with his wife’s friend (Brid). Although there are some similarities in how both films tell the story of the lament, each film has a unique way of interpreting the story.
Of course, none of this is meant to imply that the film is actually any good. While entertaining in its ridiculousness, the entire genre was starting to get a little shoddy at this point, and this is obviously a very low-budget production with flimsy sets and excessive padding. Dr. Frankenstein provides some name value, but he could really be almost any generic mad scientist and Golem makes a rather poor substitute for Frankenstein's monster. It feels a bit like a television production, and many of these luchadore films would fit quite well next to campy productions like the 60s Batman series, though there's a lot less winking at the camera here.
The directing in this movie, however, was really poor. The props, murders, and camera direction left much to be desired. The director Dario Argento was highly decorated throughout the 1960s, but he really showed his bad side of directing. This movie had such high potential but he really destroyed that potential.
The characters were very well written. Maya is not your stereotypical femme fatale, and really drives the story with her determination. Jessica Chastain wore no makeup a majority of the movie and kept her hair unkempt in order to show how little sleep and how dedicated her character Maya was to her job. The growth of her character was very subtle, however it was difficult to tell what separated Maya from her colleagues. It may have been that she was a woman in the man’s world that covert intelligence
This film unlike most others on the same topic had no real event to focus on. There was not just one climax or specific scene that the others built up to or supported. I cannot say that I enjoyed it but I do feel it has to a great extent affected me. The only reason I feel that this film is one worth watching is because of the latent message it holds. It very successfully exposes authority and bureaucracy in society. The characters in this film portray people that are either convinced or have been convinced that are crazy.
“Tapped” is a decorated film documentary by directors, Stephanie Soechtig, Jason Lindsey and writer Josh David composed to inform individuals of the implications of the bottle water industry, relative corporate effects on communities, environmental hazards and drawn conclusions of their use ( (David & Lindsey, 2009). The documentary begins highlights two regions of the United States: Main and South Carolina. Due to specific water rights, these states allow water to be obtained by any person. As such, corporations (Nestle, Pepsi and Coke) basically drained this natural resources from these communities causing water shortages, essentially dehydrating the landscape and influencing a drought (David & Lindsey, 2009).
Museums rely on items to build their collections but not all the items that are housed on their shelves unarguable belong to the museum its self. In the museum culture, there is a conflict between the museum and descendant communities over the rightful owners of cultural collections.
I have to disagree with both these reviews. I believed that the story was brilliantly written and the cinematography was beautiful. This movie touched me and had me in tears which believe me is hard to do. I do agree with the New York Times and New Yorker that it was a little dragged out and that Kiera Knightly acting was over rated. Other than that I would defiantly recommend this movie.
Most reviewers overall enjoyed the movie very much. Christopher Null gave the movie four out of five stars and said it was “perfection and a good memorable film”. Steven Rhodes also says it is a good film “It's the sort of film that will leave you exhausted but glad you came.” (http://www.imdb.com/Reviews/210/21041) However from a woman’s point of view the film was barbaric and violent, “it's socially irresponsible and repellent in its graphic depictions of extreme violence and brutality,” says Susan Granger. (http://www.speakers-podium.com/susangranger.) I, however, even though I am a female I enjoyed the film very much. It has become one of my favorite movies because I feel like I can relate to the topic very much because I wish I was just able to let go and do what I really want to do. Everyone has his or her own opinion of things so you should see the movie and see how you react to it.
"Baraka" exemplifies everything Emile Durkheim referred to as sociological functionalism. This is the perspective that various parts of a society or social system affect other parts within that system, and how they function in the overall continuity of that system. Durkheim showed that all the aspects of human society work together much like the parts of a machine. The concept of social solidarity - ties that bind people to one another and to society as a whole- play a major role in the lives of humans. This film reflects these ideas.
I feel that the movie has no weaknesses. This is because even though I had a few things I didn’t like such as the anonymity given, I realised that there was a reason for this which I explained in my strengths of the movie below.
3. Results? A great script, concentrated direction, brilliant lighting and cinematography, etc. all helped make the film very good. But the core of this film is definitely the emotion. The acting was wonderful and the story was nothing short of great. These were the hearts of the film.
Finally the movie is a good movie. Actually this movie doesn’t need any improvement. The writer, actresses, and actors did their best. They tried to make a point and be a creative about it and that is exactly what they did. It is an amazing movie. I
Baraka is a non-linear environmental documentary released in 1992 and directed by Ron Fricke. The film is full of sweeping shots of breathtaking landscapes, intimate scenes of individuals in their environment, and time-lapse sequences of both natural and man-made structures. Without dialogue or a linear structure, the film successfully uses visual context to tell several stories that weave into the film’s overarching theme. First, Baraka tells the story of the importance of ritual and religion in the human experience, with a focus on indigenous cultures. Then, the narrative shifts focus and Baraka tells a new story, one about human modernization and the consequences of modern society. Finally, the film makes apparent its overarching theme:
Most people, especially those in positions of political power and prominence, try to keep their mistakes and misdeeds hidden, especially those that would result in adverse or detrimental consequences. In order to conceal their misconducts and avoid public scandals, most government officials will either silence those who know the truth or blatantly lie and create a façade to hide the reality from the public and the media. These tactics, employed by both the North and South Korean governments, are seen in the 2014 film, The Interview, and the 2003 film, Silmido, respectively. In The Interview, an American talk show host and his producer are recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to expose the realities of North Korean society while plotting to assassinate the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un. The South Korean film Silmido, which takes place during the mid-late 20th century, is based on the