The Lunchbox Review

I'm usually not a big fan of romantic films. I do like international films from time to time and films involving food is usually grab my attention. I don't recall where I heard about The Lunchbox (2013), but it's a charming movie set in India, though food isn't such a prominent feature as it was in other movies like The Hundred-Foot Journey. The Lunchbox was still a pleasant, light film even when it sticks to commonly used independent film tropes.

Lonely housewife Ila (Nimrat Kaur) decides to try adding some spice to her stale marriage by preparing a special lunch for her neglectful husband.  Through a rare mix-up of the famous "dabbawalas" of Mumbai (a complicated system that picks up and delivers lunches from restaurants or homes to people at work), the lunchbox Ila prepares for her husband ends up in the hands of Saajan (Irrfan Khan), an irritable widower on the verge of retirement who is frustrated with training his work replacement, Shaikh (Nawazuddin Siddiqui). Curious about her husband's lack of response, Ila adds a note to the next day's lunchbox, and thus begins an unusual friendship in which Saajan and Ila can talk about their joys and sorrows without ever meeting in person.

The dabbawala was something new to me. A dabbawala is a person in India, commonly in Mumbai, who is part of a delivery system that collects hot food in lunch boxes from restaurants or the residence of workers in the late morning, delivers the lunches to the workplace, predominantly using bicycles and the railway trains, and returns the empty boxes to the worker's residence that afternoon. I'm not clear why a lunchbox wouldn't be brought with the workers to their place of employment, but this creates a lot of jobs, so who am I to criticize? Harvard Bussiness School added a case study to their compendium for the dabbawalas' high level of service (equivalent of Six Sigma or better) with a low-cost and simple operating system. It's simply fascinating

When the movie started, I instantly recognized Irrfan Kahn. He's best known for his works predominantly in Hindi Cinema. He's been in a number of American films where I recognized him, such as Life of Pi, Slumdog Millionaire, Jurassic World, and The Amazing Spider-Man. He's very good in this film, and plays a character easy to relate to. Nimrat Kaur is a beautiful woman and displays some above average acting here. Nawazuddin Siddiqui's delivery seems a little stiff at times but he really sells his character's positivity and happiness.

The Lunchbox seems to be a romantic drama sort of story. It's got all the elements of a romance, but even though Ila and Saajan communicate through notes and form an emotional connection with each other, there's not really a romance that forms between them. Frankly, I'm okay with this. Saajan is at an age where he can retire while Ila is still a young mother. I feel that given the age gap between them would make any romantic interests awkward. It's less a love story as it is an evocative portrayal of loneliness.  Saajan and Ila are content to share their thoughts about life and their day with one another and that is sufficient for these characters.

Unfortunately, this epistolary exchange of pleasantries and philosophical musings lends itself to independent film tropes. Independent films often have long dialogues about life, what it is, it's fleeting nature, and how it's full of surprises. That is certainly present here, but it's actually well written and well incorporated and doesn't try to act like it's deeper than it actually is. The characters encounter major life changes, albeit common ones that most people experience; getting married, marriage trouble, problems at work, aging parents, caring for a child, beginning a new job, etc. These can make for some fascinating stories, but I felt the way they were handled here made them seem as mundane as real life actually is. Events seem very ordinary, even if they are well written and well acted. I think the what makes these things so interesting to me as a westerner is it peeks into the lives and customs of average residents in modern day Mumbai. What was happening was less interesting as how it was happening. I think that if this exact same story was set in Seattle, for example, it would be a hopeless bore.

The Lunchbox unknots the trials, tribulations, fears, and hopes of everyday people without the glamour that the city of Mumbai has become synonymous with. It's warm, affectionate, and sweet without being overly sentimental. It may have some independent film tropes but they are well incorporated and are good examples of these tropes. Other independent film makers could learn a few lessons from The Lunchbox. The camera work was solid and well shot. The acting was good and featured a talented cast. The only downside that western audiences might face is that it is not an English film. There are bits of English here and there, but the language used is Hindi with English subtitles. If that is too off putting, you're better off skipping this one. The Lunchbox is a good movie I'm glad I saw it, but it's not likely something I'd go out of my way to see again. It's an above average renter.

Have you seen a particularly good foreign romantic movie? Comment below and tell me all about it!

I loved the lunchboxes used in the film. They're called a "dabba" or Indian-style tiffin box. It's a metal and cylindrical, and comes apart in four tiers making four compartments or bowls. I actually found one of these Four Tier Indian-Tiffin Boxes online. I'd love to have one! Go check it out for yourself!

The Last Airbender Movie Review

Nickelodeon Studios has made a handful of movies that were little more than extra episodes of their successful TV shows with a much bigger budget. There are exceptions, of course. Rango for example, was quite good and had nothing to do with the studio's television programs. Avatar: The Last Airbender was one of their more successful and compelling shows that featured an interesting blend of Anime and American cartoon styles. It was character and plot driven, unlike most of their shows which are physical comedy driven. Nickelodeon made a bad move when they thought they needed to make a live-action summary of Avatar: The Last Airbender, then they made another bad move by having M. Night Shyamalan direct it.

The world is divided into four kingdoms, each represented by the elements they harness, and peace has lasted throughout the realms of Water, Air, Earth, and Fire under the supervision of the Avatar, a link to the spirit world and the only being capable of mastering the use of all four elements. When young Avatar Aang (Noah Ringer) disappears, the Fire Nation launches an attack, planning world domination. 100 years pass and Fire Nation has eradicated the Air Nomads and continues to conquer and imprison anyone with the elemental “bending” abilities in the Water Tribe and Earth Kingdom. Then young siblings Katara (Nicola Peltz) and Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) of the Southern Water Tribe find a boy trapped beneath the ice outside their village. Upon rescuing him, he reveals himself to be Aang, the Avatar and last of the Airbenders. Swearing to protect the Avatar, Katara and Sokka journey with him to the Northern Water Tribe to master Waterbending, and eventually fulfill his destiny of restoring peace to the world. But as they go, they must evade prince Zuko (Dev Patel), the exiled son of Lord Ozai, and Fire Nation military leaders.

Nickelodeon had to change the title of the movie to The Last Airbender (2010) so as not to get it confused with James Camron's Avatar movie which came out a few months earlier. I don't understand the reasoning to make this movie. The material was born to be Anime; it needs to be animated. The TV series used bright colors and “clear line” animation style which is used by animation masters and is a pleasure to observe. In contrast, take the X-Men movies for example; a lot of visual changes had to be made, costuming in particular. A lot of the visuals in X-Men looked good in comic books but would look silly in live-action. But The Last Airbender didn't make the necessary changes to keep it from looking silly. The colors seemed out of place and unreal, the costumes looked rather eccentric, and the elemental bending looked silly in a live-action context.

Another problem with The Last Airbender is the pacing. It seems that Shyamalan tried to condense a whole season of half hour episodes into one two-hour movie. Everything seemed incredibly rushed and there wasn't enough time granted to each of the characters to develop them into people we should care about. There were even moments that were described to us in narration rather than shown us. For example, we don't get to see our heroes arrive at the Northern Water Tribe. We're just told through Katara's narration that they got there and that Sokka hit it off with the princess. It would have been nice to see why they hit it off and how they developed a relationship. But, no, we simply see a new character show up from out of nowhere and suddenly has a long standing relationship with a main character we've had since the beginning of the movie. They just tried to get too much in too short a span of time, and it made the movie seem sloppy and rushed.

Given how rushed everything was, it left little time for meaningful dialogue. There was some dialogue here and there that developed the unique setting, but not much else. Even the way the film works so hard to develop the plot is scarcely left enough time to dramatize the characters. One of the more interesting characters is Prince Zuko; he has a tragic history and complex motives. But his dialogue in The Last Airbender was forced and simplistic. Which is a shame since Dev Patel is a really good actor. He was phenomenal in Slumdog Millionaire; he and the rest of the cast had such dry, uninspired material to work with that everyone's acting seemed impeded.

The Last Airbender was completely uncalled for. What little story they crammed into the movie was already done. This movie wasn't even a decent “readers digest version” of the series. Why make this movie? It did nothing new, and did lousy job recreating what was already done. I imagine the only ones who would appreciate The Last Airbender are young fans of the series who want to see more familiar images. I did appreciate the reluctant hero struggling with his responsibilities, but the sparse good qualities are completely overshadowed by the bad ones. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE, though I do strongly recommend watching the TV series itself; it's very good.

What's your favorite Nickelodeon movie? Why do you like it so much? Comment below and tell me why!

28 Days Later Movie Review

Danny Boyle is responsible for some great and critically acclaimed films which include 127 Hours (2010) and Slumdog Millionaire (2008). Once, while discussing zombies with friends, I was shamed for not having seen Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later (2002). Apparently you can’t discuss zombies with any kind of authority without having seen it. I managed to see it recently; now I can talk about zombies.

British animal liberation activists break into a laboratory in Cambridge to free some chimpanzees being used for medical research. A scientist begs them not to free the chimps because they are infected with a virus that causes rage. He is ignored and the chimps escape. Twenty-eight days later, a young man named Jim (Cillian Murphy) awakens from a coma, alone, and in an abandoned hospital. He wanders out to find London completely empty. Jim draws the attention of some zombie-like humans who begin chasing after him. He’s rescued by Selena (Naomie Harris) and Mark (Noah Huntley) who explain about the rage virus and how it has decimated the country in a matter of days. They meet up with man named Frank (Brendan Gleeson) and his daughter Hannah (Megan Burns) who are following a radio broadcast promising a cure for the virus. When they reach the source of the radio, they find some corrupt renegade military personnel, lead by Major Henry West (The Doctor Christopher Eccleston). The military platoon quickly proves as much a threat as the rage-zombies.

Zombies have become such a common theme in movies, literature, comic books, and video games that I’m starting to wonder why people in zombie movies don’t seem to know what zombies are when they see them. I know several real people who have zombie survival strategies planned out, yet no one in movies or video games ever seems to have heard of zombies.

I don’t recall hearing the word “zombie” in 28 Days Later. I think that’s a good thing; actually calling them “zombies” would have weakened the movie and made it seem cliché. The infected weren’t your average zombies. They weren’t shambling, decomposing corpses; they were awake, alert, and filled with uncontrollable rage. The rage virus had more of a psychological effect than a physiological one. This seemed like a modern metaphor for social rage (road rage, air rage, etc). Rather than having a virus that kills victims and turns them into monsters, the virus amplifies something negative that is already in each and every person to levels beyond their control. Having the existing negative qualities deteriorate us into monsters is much more disquieting, I think.

Good science fiction makes commentary on contemporary issues in a unique, metaphorical way. The drive behind classic zombie movies revolved around fear of nuclear power and its possible ramifications. I think the rage-virus is more applicable to this generation; society seems much more frightened of disease than of nuclear power. Just think of the real world reactions to anthrax bioterrorism, the bird flu, swine flu, mad cow disease, and foot-and-mouth disease. Does a viral outbreak really terrify us these days more than a nuclear holocaust?

I could go on about the social commentary derived from this excellent film, but how does it stand as a zombie movie? Pretty darn well. Even if you just want to watch a movie about a few people struggling to survive a zombie apocalypse, 28 Days Later is a good movie to watch. It’s got a fairly small cast which gives the movie ample amount of time to develop the characters into people we care about. We even see them spiral downward from a civilized state into a survivalist mentality that doesn’t differentiate them much from the rage-zombies they are trying to avoid, even without becoming infected. And there is plenty of blood splattering gore to appease fans of zombies and the horror genre.

Parts of 28 Days Later are so obviously cheap that it is sometimes distracting. A lot of the sets were claustrophobically small; there even was a scene filmed with a Canon XL1 digital camcorder that anyone could get on Amazon.com. However, in spite of its low production budget, the movie is so well executed that you can’t help but get drawn into it. You become aware of how cheap the movie is only fleetingly, and then get sucked back into the film right away.

This movie is really great; Zombie mayhem, some excellent actors portraying good characters, social allegory, suspense, and fun, unabashed violence. I wouldn’t recommend this to younger audiences; the imagery gets pretty intense. I cringed watching it and occasionally had to hide under my zombie-proof blanket. 28 Days Later was a fun zombie flick to watch and was highly satisfying. I’m looking for a copy on Blu-Ray for my shelf.

There are lots of types of zombies in movies and video games. What’s your favorite kind and where are they from? Comment below; let’s talk zombies!