Finding Neverland review

 Number 481 on the top 1000 films of all time is Marc Foster's biopic fantasy drama 'Finding Neverland.'

Finding Neverland tells the true-life story of Scottish children's author JM Barrie (Johnny Depp.) After his latest play flops, he is desperately looking for a new idea. This is when he meets widow and single mother Sylvia Llewelyn Davies (Kate Winslet) - she and her children serve as the inspiration for Barrie's most famous story: Peter Pan. Julie Christie and Dustin Hoffman co-star.

Finding Neverland started slowly, but once it got going it became a touching and surprising story about connection and childhood innocence. I say surprising, because, as a general rule, I'm generally not interested in biopics/period dramas. Neither am I much interested in Peter Pan. I don't know anything of the story outside of the Disney cartoon.

Yet that didn't matter with the ever-impressive Johnny Depp at the helm. Having become better known as a character actor with eccentric and off-beat roles, it was refreshing to see him in one of his most human roles. I'm not sure how much of Finding Neverland was fact and how much was fiction, but it did portray Barrie as a wholly complicated and interesting character. It's no surprise that Depp was Oscar-nominated for the role.

As for Kate Winslet, she was good but I felt that in her early career, she was often typecast as an upper-class aristocratic woman whether that is Sense and Sensibility or Hamlet. True, she does it well and she did well opposite Depp, but it did feel like Llewelyn Davies was just another similar character in a very long list.

Although it tells a story of fantasy and escape with multiple sets and like a pirate's ship or a desert, Marc Foster always kept things firmly grounded in the real by partly how Barrie was inspired by the people or events around him basing Peter Pan on Sylvia's son Peter, Freddy Highmore in an early role.

Overall, I enjoyed Finding Neverland. I wasn't sure whether I would, but it pleasantly surprised me. Now say it with me...I do...I do... I do believe in fairies. 

The Straight Story review

 Number 305 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Lynch's 1999 biographical road film 'The Straight Story.'

The Straight Story tells the true-life story of Alvin Straight (Richard Farnsworth) - an ailing, elderly man living in Iowa. When he finds out that his estranged brother Lyle (Harry Dean Stanton) has suffered a stroke, Alvin determines to make amends. The only problem is that Alvin can't legally drive and Lyle lives 240 miles away in Wisconsin. Alvin resolves to drive there on a John Deere tractor that travels at 5mph. Sissy Spacek co-stars as his simple-minded daughter.

It's difficult to believe that this film was directed by the same David Lynch who directed Twin Peaks and Blue Velvet. It is the least 'Lynchian' film he has ever directed, despite how he described it as his most experimental film. Although considering he is so well-known for his surrealism, anything else would be considered experimental.

The Straight Story was an intimate, quiet, but powerful film that focussed on family and community. It featured Richard Farnsworth who was absolutely endearing as Alvin Straight. Farnsworth brought a vulnerability, but also a relatability to the role. Who among us hasn't wished we could make amends with their estranged family members? Farnsworth earned his Oscar nomination. It's just so heart-breaking that a year later, a cancer-stricken Farnsworth took his own life.

Nevertheless, he left behind a lasting legacy with the Straight Story. Alvin's story was a heart-warming tale of tragedy and triumph. He is a character determined to achieve his goals, regardless of whatever comes his way.

Film critic Roger Ebert compared the dialogue to the realism that you would read in a Hemingway book. He hit the nail on the head. The whole film, particularly the dialogue, felt painfully real. And this was down to Mary Sweeney and John Roach's script. They excelled in crafting an authentic script where there was so much power in what the characters didn't say. In a particularly powerful poignant scene, Alvin swaps traumatic war stories with a fellow veteran. Much of the scene's deeper meanings are left up to the viewer to figure out for themselves. It was subtle and understated with a brilliant subtext - the same can be said for the rest of the film.

Yes, you can argue that the ending is anti-climatic, but this film epitomises the phrase: "it's not the destination, but the journey." And this film was a hell of a journey.

Control review

 Number 523 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2007 biopic 'Control.'

Control focusses on the true-life story of Ian Curtis (Sam Riley) the troubled lead singer of the English post-punk band Joy Division. Control explores his relationship with his bandmates, his record label and his wife Debbie (Samantha Morton.)

As you will be very familiar with by now, I am not a fan of biopics. Nor am I familiar with Joy Division or Ian Curtis. But as somebody who couldn't even name a Joy Division song, I found Control entertaining and watchable. It was accessible even for a non-existent fan like me.

Filmed in colour and then rendered to black-and-white, Control hearkened back to a 1970's Cheshire. Everything was stark and bare, which gave the film great atmosphere. There was some great use of shadows and lighting especially the shots where we see the silhouetted Ian Curtis.

 Sam Riley brought Ian Curtis to life in his debut role. I did enjoy his performance. It was nuanced with plenty of gravitas. Anybody else thinks he really looked like Rami Malek? I had to keep doing double-takes, because the resemblance was so striking. I wasn't as keen on Riley's singing voice, but he was doing an imitation of Curtis, and I guess I'm not keen on post-punk music.

But Samantha Morton was every bit his equal. Dare I say she was better than Riley. She certainly proved why she has no less than two Oscar nominations. Their marriage was every bit as disturbed as Curtis, but Morton was a powerhouse. She spends much of the film with tears in her eyes. It is difficult not to feel sorry for her, after everything Curtis puts her through.

While Riley and Morton were good separately, they weren't so good together, but that was more down to the writing. It was obvious from the start that their marriage would not be a happy one, least of all to those who know the story. When the two started arguing, it was no surprise to me.

But they seemed to spend most of the film arguing. So much so, you wonder why they were so attracted to each other in the first place. We definitely needed to see more of the good before we saw the bad. Their relationship was rushed.

In fact most of the more tender moments seemed to be reserved for Ian and his Belgian mistress Annik (Alexandra Maria Lara.) They got on much more than he and Debbie ever did. This tenderness was missing from their marriage.

Nonetheless, I did enjoy Control. I'm not sure I'm going to become a Joy Division acolyte, but even to a non-existent fan like me, it was an entertaining and accessible watch. 

Elizabeth review

 Number 763 on the top 1000 films of all time is Shekhar Kapur's 1998 biographical period-drama 'Elizabeth.'

The year is 1558, and following the death of Mary I (Kathy Burke) Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) becomes the queen of England. However, her early days are met with many obstacles, least of all, Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk (Christopher Eccleston) plotting to overthrow her, as well as pressure from her advisors Francis Wolsingham (Geoffrey Rush) and William Cecil (Richard Attenborough) to marry.

For this film, Cate Blanchett was nominated for her first of eight acting Oscars. She ultimately lost out to Gwyneth Paltrow for Shakespeare in Love. Many people thought Blanchett should have won instead. I haven't seen the latter film, so I can't comment, but Blanchett was impressive in this film.

It was a nuanced performance showing the slow transformation from a weak-willed queen into a powerful force of nature. When Mary of Guise stations four thousand French troops in Scotland, Elizabeth allows Norfolk to bully her into sending a conscript army of peasants to stop the French. Of course, they are all massacred.

But by the film's conclusion, she is strong enough to execute all those plotting her downfall. That isn't a spoiler by the way. Like many historical dramas, Elizabeth plays fast and loose with history, but it sticks to the fact that Elizabeth was not overthrown.

Shekhar Kapur intended the final scene of Elizabeth's would-be assassins being put to death to mirror the end of the Godfather where Michael Corleone orders for his enemies to be killed. I would also argue that in some ways Elizabeth's transformation mirrors Michael Corleone's.

Furthermore, I think that Blanchett gave a great performance in an otherwise average film. I have never been a fan of period dramas, and Elizabeth did little to move the needle. I certainly didn't find it that engaging or easy to follow. It wasn't very interesting either.

While the supporting cast were good - it was fun seeing Vincent Cassel in a more comedic role - the narrative didn't match up.

But, as is often the case, with period dramas, Elizabeth just wasn't for me.

The Last King of Scotland review

 Number 557 on the top 1000 films of all time is the historical drama 'The Last King of Scotland.'

Nicholas Garrigan (James Mcavoy) is a young Scottish doctor. Looking to make a difference, he travels to Uganda to work in a missionary clinic ran by David Merrit (Adam Katz) and his wife Sarah (Gillian Anderson.) But after a chance encounter, he becomes the personal physician of the Ugandan despot Idi Amin (Forrest Whitaker.)

In terms of dictators, Idi Amin is up there among the rest. He expelled all South Asians from his country, wiped out all political opposition and was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Despite all this, Forrest Whitaker showed a remarkably human side of the tyrant. Without never romanticising his actions, Whitaker made Idi Amin into a watchable character. He had a fascinating arc as we saw him spiral into paranoia and meglomania while remaining incredibly charismatic.

James Mcavoy was equally good as the naive, starry-eyed doctor initially a disciple of Amin, until his tyrannical actions become too much for Garrigan to ignore. The character of Nicholas Garrigan was a nice dismantling of the white saviour archetype. Rather than your average white colonist aiming to pacify, sedate and civilise the savage negro, Garrigan is a destructive force, albert unintentionally. Instead of saving the black characters, he gets many of them killed. *Spoilers*

One of these characters is Amin's third wife Kay (Kerry Washington) whom Nicholas impregnates while the pair are having a secret tryst. He is criticised for being a white man who couldn't resist the mystical trophy of a black woman.

The Last King of Scotland was penned by Peter Morgan who wrote other biopics like the Queen and the Crown. He wrote well knowing the most important sections to focus on. There isn't any spare fat anywhere in this film. I also want to give dues to Gillian Anderson. She was great in the supporting role of Sarah Merrit. Having seen countless dictators come and go, she fails to share Nicholas' wide-eyed optimism for Idi Amin's regime.

I thoroughly enjoyed the Last King of the Scotland. It was a great look into the life of Uganda's ruthless dictator. 

Ray review

 Number 522 on the top 1000 films of all time is the biographical musical drama 'Ray.'

Telling the real-life story of the blind R&B musician Ray Charles, Ray stars Jamie Foxx as the titular singer from his humble beginnings in rural Georgia to his touring on the Chitlin Circuit to his blending of Gospel and R&B and eventual rise to absolute superstar.

To echo Roger Ebert, it would be worth watching this just for the music alone. Ray Charles has done so many iconic songs from Hit the Road Jack to the gorgeous Georgia on My Mind. And it is the legendary Brother Ray who does all the singing in the film. Jamie Foxx didn't think he could ever do the Genius justice so elected to have all his singing dubbed. Although Jamie Foxx does play the piano, as well as the Ray Charles songs that he covered later in his career notably I got a Woman. 

But otherwise I thought Jamie Foxx was excellent as Ray Charles. He thoroughly deserved the Best Actor Oscar win for the part. He brought the legendary musician to life. At times I forgot I was watching an actor, Jamie Foxx was that convincing. The voice, the mannerisms were all completely on-point. 

Beyond that, Ray was a thoroughly interesting film. It helped to peel back the layers of such a legendary superstar. I don't know much about the singer, so it was fascinating learning about his heroin addiction that so plagued much of his life. No doubt this would have been a deeply sensitive topic, but it was treated with great sensitivity. Ray Charles was sent a braille version of the screenplay and he loved it, but sadly he died before he had a chance to attend a cinema screening. 

I've spoken about Jamie Foxx, but the rest of the cast were also very engrossing. I very much enjoyed Kerry Washington as Ray's wife Della Bea - she captured the morally conflicted wife wanting to support her tortured husband, but struggles in looking past his heroin habits.

I could have done without the expository transition slides and there could have been more distinction between Ray's various mistresses - I did get a bit mixed up at times, but overall I thoroughly enjoyed Ray. Ray Charles was a hell of a singer. 

United 93 review

 Number 632 on the top 1000 films of all time is Paul Greengrass' docudrama 'United 93.'

United 93 is based on the true story of the fourth plane that was hijacked during the 9/11 terror attack. The other three planes found their target. The fourth didn't due to the passengers and crew revolting and attempting to take back control resulting in the plane crash-landing which killed everybody on board.

Firstly, I have to salute the heroism of everybody on board the real-life United 93. They showed a bravery that I never could have done. These were people with lives of their own who had no intention on dying that day. But they died as heroes. You might notice that I'm speaking very generally, and, alas, I have to, as Paul Greengrass was similarly vague in his depiction of the passengers. He made the directorial decision to not reveal any of the names of the passengers. This was because he wanted to elevate the group heroism above any individual heroism. Plus aeroplane passengers wouldn't know each other's names. 

True, it probably wouldn't have been very realistic for Tom Burnett (Christian Clemenson) and Mark Bingham (Cheyenne Jackson) to shake hands and say their names for the audience, but I would have gladly suspended my disbelief. Keeping the passengers' identities deliberately vague kept me at arm's length. I felt somewhat detached from their struggles and problems, because I knew so little about them. And it also did a disservice to the actors playing them. I saw some great acting, but because I didn't know the characters' names, I can't match an actor to the character. I only know Christian Clemenson and Cheyenne Jackson, because I looked them up on Wikipedia, but I'm not entirely sure who Tom Burnett and Mark Bingham were.

Otherwise Paul Greengrass made a great film. It was brilliantly paced with handheld-camera helping to keep the tension at a high. I was already familiar with this story, so I knew how it ended, but even if I didn't, I would have been kept on the edge of my seat. I prayed that there would be a happy ending, although I knew it would be impossible. And that's what made this such a good film. It was horribly doomy, but also powerful and touching.

Tom Burnett, Mark Bingham, Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick and to all the other crew and passengers of United 93, you never knew and I never knew you, but you all died as heroes.

October Sky review

 Number 493 on the top 1000 films of all time is Joe Johnston's biographical drama - October Sky.

Based on the true story, October Sky follows four teenage boys in Coalwood, West Virginia, who after being inspired by the Sputnik launch, decide to enter their county's science fair with their own rocket programme. The group is led by Homer Hickham (Jake Gyllenhaal) who is assisted by his friends Roy Lee Cooke (William Lee Scott) Sherman O'Dell (Chad Lindberg) the nerdy Quentin Wilson (Chris Owen) and their teacher Miss Riley (Laura Dern.) However, the group faces stiff resistance especially from Homer's father John (Chris Cooper) who is adamant that his son follows in his footsteps of working in the local coal mine.

Since starting this challenge, I have always tried to refrain from comparing films. I believe you should judge each film in its own right. But a comparison here would be appropriate. The last film I reviewed was the Breakfast Club. But where the Breakfast Club failed, October Sky succeeded as a great coming-of-age film. It had heart, drama and plenty of laughs.

Our group of boys faced innumerable challenges, but they resolve to never give up and eventually achieve their dream. And in the process, they all grow up. It is quickly established that the most common career path is to work in the coal mine, but Homer refuses to accept this. This steely determination made him a likeable protagonist. Even when it looked like all hope was lost, he continued working toward his dream.

And Jake Gyllenhaal did the part justice. This was his first leading role and he displayed an impressive maturity for such a young age. His tension with his father was one of the driving conflicts behind the film. And Gyllenhaal and Chris Cooper are very good together. Sure their relationship borders on the melo-dramatic - especially nearing the end, but it was no less effective. In essence, it was a clashing of generations - the old man bound by tradition and the young buck wanting to make his own way.

All in all, I did enjoy this film. It balanced humour with heartbreak. And, no doubt, it was a major contributor to Jake Gyllenhaal's current status as one of Hollywood's leading men. 

Walk the Line review

 Number 414 on the top 1000 films of all time is the biographical drama 'Walk the Line.'

Focussing on the story of the country music star Johnny Cash (Joaquin Phoenix,) 'Walk the Line' shows his life from his humble beginnings on an Arkansas cotton farm with his abusive father Ray (Robert Patrick) to his rise to stardom to the breakdown of his first marriage with Vivian (Ginnifer Goodwin) and his relationship with his contemporary June Carter (Reese Witherspoon.)

Although I do like Johnny Cash songs, I'm certainly no expert on his life. And 'Walk the Line' offered an unflinching look into the Man in Black himself. Joaquin Phoenix helped bring this character into life. He stopped him from being just another country music star and turned into a vulnerable and damaged man. I say, just another country star, as the film also adapts a lot of Johnny Cash's contemporaries from Waylon Jennings to Elvis Presley to Jerry Lee Lewis and, of course, June Carter.

Up until now, June Carter has always just been a name to me. I knew that she was married to Johnny Cash, but little more than that. Reese Witherspoon was great in the role. She was charismatic and energetic as the country singer. But she also brought a quiet ferocity. This was a woman who wasn't going to roll over and let herself be dominated in a man's world. And, on many occasions, she rightly puts all the men in their place. 

Witherspoon won the Best Actress Oscar for the role and I think she put in a formidable performance. She was great by herself, but also great acting opposite Phoenix. The two actors had a great chemistry. Reportedly, the two got off to a rocky start but they soon became so close that they made a pact that if either one of them leaves the project, both of them would leave. I would argue that Phoenix and Witherspoon had better chemistry than Phoenix had with Goodwin. Although considering the two characters don't have the best relationship, perhaps this worked out for the best.

But a musical drama about real life musical stars is nothing without good singing performances. And Phoenix and Witherspoon don't disappoint. They did all their own singing and instrumentation without any dubbing. I've never really heard June Carter sing so I can't comment on Witherspoon too closely, but Phoenix got Cash down to his classic bass-baritone voice.

I did enjoy this film. Even if you're not a country music or a Johnny Cash fan, this is still a great watch with strong performances from both its leads.

Zwartboek (Black Book) review

 Number 435 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Paul Verhoeven's Dutch WW2 film Zwartboek which translates as Black Book.

Rachel Stein (Carice Van Houten) is a famed Jewish singer during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. When her hiding place is destroyed and her family are murdered by the SS, she joins the Dutch resistance. She is tasked by high-ranking resistance member Hans Akkermans (Thom Hoffman) to seduce the Gestapo leader Ludwig Muntze (Sebastian Koch.) This was all based on a true story.

In war films, it is all too easy to say that these are the good characters and these are the bad characters. but the reality is never that black and white. And that was all part of Verhoeven's vision. He definitely succeeded. We'll take glamorous heroine Rachel Stein as an example. Victim of Nazi persecution, she makes an obvious hero. However, she then falls in love with the Nazi official that she's seducing. The Nazi official Muntze quickly realises she is a Jew, but he has also fallen in love with her. And he is much fairer than his brutal deputy Gunther Franken (Waldermar Kobus.) Realising the war is lost, Muntze secretly negotiates a ceasefire with the Dutch resistance.

*spoiler alert*

When the Netherlands is liberated at the end of the war, Muntze is executed for his crimes and Rachel is locked up as a supposed Nazi collaborator. Her fellow Dutch compatriots treat her and the other supposed collaborators deplorably: humiliating them by forcing them to strip naked. But then Akkermans, now an army colonel, breaks things up and declares them no better than the Nazis. And this scene is not difficult to imagine happening in real life. The Dutch are angry at their treatment and want to take out their anger on anything they can.

As the two leads, Van Houten and Koch gave a lot of nuance to character who ran the risk of being flatly good and bad.  But it was these fundamental flaws that made all these characters so human and relatable. even the burtal Franken is a keen singer/ballroom dancer. To have characters be simply good or simply bad would be far too two-dimensional and cliche.  And Hoffman shone as the true villain of the piece. 

*more spoilers*

Hans Akkerman, despite being a high-level member of the resistance, is actually a secret Nazi collaborator.  Rachel Stein and her family try escaping to safety by boarding a boat that will carry them down the river. They are discovered by the SS and Rachel is the only one who escapes with her life. It is later revealed that Hans set this up, so he could steal whatever money the refugees had. This is entirely believable as well. Everybody becomes desperate in war. And loyalties can change at the drop of the hat.

Van Herhoeven perfectly captured the brutality of war: from the SS gunning down escaping Jews to them torturing one of the captured resistance fighters. He certainly pulled no punches. He succeeded in creating a harrowing tale of human morality and I'll end this review on his assessment of Zwartboek: "in this movie everything has a shade of grey. There are no people who are completely good no people who are completely bad. It's like life. It's not very Hollywoodian."

The Killing Fields review

 Number 382 on the top 1000 films of all time is a biographical drama 'The Killing Fields.'

Set during the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, the Killing Fields details the relationship of two journalists during the Cambodian genocide. One journalist is the American 'Sydney Schanberg' (Sam Waterston) and the other is Sydney's Cambodian interpreter Dith Pran (Haing S. Ngor.) John Malkovich co-stars as Sydney's photographer Al Rockoff.

Whenever I watch films about subjects like war or genocide. I am always of the mantra or go hard or go home. The Holocaust film 'The Pianist' goes hard and it's all the better for it. However, I cam coming to believe that this doesn't always need to be the way. the Killing Fields is subtle and understated. This isn't to say it shies away from the horrors of the genocide, but it far more selective in what it chooses to show.

We see the build-up of prisoners being executed, but we never see these executions first hand. So when we do see scenes like Pran escaping his internment camp to find himself tumbling into a pit of skeletons, the impact is all the stronger. The fact these skeletons are the remains of the executed prisoners makes the image even scarier.

A recurring issue I find with films about world historical events told from a Western lens is that there is the tendency to wrongly focus on the Western character. I wouldn't go far to say there was a white saviour narrative. Sydney is no hero and definitely no saviour. When he and the other Western journalists are being evacuated home, they do all they can to take Pran with them - even going so far to making him a fake passport. When this fails, they have no choice, but to leave them behind.

Sydney later acknowledges had a chance to leave long ago, but Sydney convinced him to stay. Back in the US, Sydney uses every contact he has to find Pran, but it is Pran who escapes and find a Red Cross refugee camp near the border with Thailand. Obviously growing up in the Western world, I view things through a Western lens. And so narratives like Sydney's are very familiar to me. Overly-familiar I would say. It wasn't until halfway when the film switched to Pran in the internment camp did I start taking serious interest. Pran was an infinitely more interesting character and I was rooting for him to escape. He was also a very clever man, playing dumb when interred, as he knows he'll be killed otherwise. If he is even suspected of being a working professional then the regime would kill him.

And all due credit to Haing Ngor. Having survived three stints in Cambodian prison camps, he went onto win an acting Oscar for this role, despite having no previous acting experience. He is the only Asian actor to win an Oscar and he very much deserved it. It is so sad his life was cut short when he was killed in a 1996 robbery.

Please give this film a watch. Albeit, it is very traumatic, but it makes for absolutely essential viewing.

Rang De Basanti review

 SPOILER ALERT

"If your blood does not yet rage, then it is water in your veins." Chandrashekhar Azad

Rang De Basanti (Paint it Saffron) begins with these powerful words. Filmed in 2006 by Rakeyesh Omprakash Mehra, it is number 34 on the top 1000 films of all time.

Sue Mckinley (Alice Patten) is a British filmmaker and the granddaughter of James Mckinley who served as part of the Indian Imperial Police, during the Indian Independence Movement.  Upon reading about his interactions with five leading members of the movement: Chandrasekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh, Shivaram Rajguru, Ashfaqualla Khan and Ram Prasad Basmil, she travels to India to film a documentary telling the story of these five revolutionaries. 

Once there, she meets with her friend Sonia (Soha Ali Khan) and casts her four friends Daljeet "DJ," (Aamir Khan) Karan Singhania, (Siddharth Narayan) Aslam Khan, (Kunal Napoor) and Sukhi Ram, (Sharman Joshi) as four of the five revolutionaries.  The fifth revolutionary is played by a party activist Laxman Adley.  (Atul Kulkani) Whilst the five actors are initially hesitant about appearing in the film, they soon settle into their roles and begin to embody the roles they are playing.

I think this film was brilliant.  It was enlightening, uplifting and very powerful.  It was funny, brutal and very emotionally poignant.  Rang De Basanti engages with the themes of loyalty, family, patriotism and independence.  The film's content matter being the Indian Independence Movement gave the film an intriguing and interesting backdrop. 

As the film progresses, the characters begin to embrace the revolutionaries that they are playing; their lives begin to parallel the lives of their revolutionary counterparts.  Whilst, Azad, Singh, Rajguru, Khan and Basmil were fighting for independence from British Rule, DJ, Karan, Aslam, Sukhi and Sonia are fighting against the oppressive rule of their conservative elders.  The parallels that begin to grow between the revolutionaries and the actors who are playing them become progressively and startingly obvious as the film continues.

Sonia's is engaged to Ajay, a talented fighter pilot and close friend of the rest of the group. However, he sadly dies when his plane malfunctions and he steers it away from a populated town to crash harmlessly in a field. It is revealed that the Minister of Defence purchased faulty parts to save money, but he disguises his own greed and incompetence by claiming that Ajay's plane crashed not due to malfunction but due to pilot error. This enrages the group and they decide to protest. 

The five friends along with Alice, Sonia and her mother stage a peaceful protest at Ajay's memorial, but this is soon broken up by riot police who begin beating the protestors including Sonia's mother who slips into a coma.  In a move that mirrors the five revolutionaries assassinating a high ranking British officer, the group then murders the corrupt defence minister.  Just like their revolutionary counterparts, the group realises that violence is the only way to get their voices heard.  The extent that they go to for their fallen friend is touching and poignant.

Another thing that this film does well is create believable and realistic storyarcs for all of the characters.  DJ, Karan, Aslam, Sukhi and Sonia begin the film as just regular young men and women.  They like to drink, joke, talk about girls and just have a good time and enjoy themselves, which is where a lot of the film's humour comes from.  They are well-aware of the corruption in their country and their parents disapproving of them engaging in Western traditions and ideals.  However, none of them care.

 This changes with the death of Ajay and Sonia's suggestion to kill him.  The film opens with the five friends spending their free time drinking and dancing to Western music and ends with DJ, Karan, Aslam, Sukhi and Laxman all dying as martyrs for their cause.  Laxman Pandey's character arc is more interesting, because, to some extent, it is the reverse of his younger counterparts.  He begins the film as an older, conservative and very anti-Western political activist.  Yet as the film progress, he soon loses faith in his old beliefs and adopts new ones.  This character progression was also a great strength of the film, but this was not only down to the writing, but also due to the fantastic acting of the ensemble cast.  All of the cast depicted how their loyalty for each other and apathy to their country's corruption soon progressed into a burning loyalty and patriotism for India.

Rang De Basanti not only exposes the corruption in the Indian government, but it also mirrors how governments worldwide are corrupt.  You hear so many stories of corruption and greed and bribery within the American, English, Italian, French and numerous other governments and how these governments use the police and the army as repressive state apparatuses.  After the Defence Minister is hailed a martyr by the Indian government and media, the five friends take over a local radio station to confess their crime and denounce the defence minister. 

They are soon silenced by the police and army, who are told they are terrorists, shoot them all on sight, but not before the group expose the corruption within the government and enrage citizens across the country.  The fact that the five friends are dubbed as terrorists and shot as such, despite being unarmed civilians trying to bring some change to their country, reminds me strongly of how the U.S Government condemning Edward Snowdon as a terrorist, even though he did nothing more than expose the White House's own corruption. 

I also really liked the film stylistically.  When Sue is filming the documentary with her five actors, her footage is intercut with flashbacks to her grandfather's experiences with the five original revolutionaries and how they were brutally interrogated and tortured by the Indian Imperial Police.  These flashbacks were shot with a harsh yellow filter that not only gave the film an old-timey feel, but also represented the garishness and vulgarity of the Anglo-Imperial regime. 

Lastly, I loved the ending.  When DJ, Laxman, Aslam, Sukhi and Karan hijack the radio tower, my initial thought was that they were all going to be killed by the police, but somewhere, in the back of mind, I was worried that they might all survive.  Call me a pessimist, but in situations like this, I find it far too unrealistic that anybody would escape scot-free with accusing a government of corruption or hyprocisy.  This is why I was saddened and somewhat relieved that all five characters are shot by the police.  Not, because I wanted them to die, but because of how they all became martyrs for their beliefs. A revolutionary knows how dangerous their work is, they know they could be killed before they inspire change, but perhaps they could inspire masses to become revolutionaries too.  This is what these five friends do.

This film was amazing.  It was funny, touching and very emotional.  It had great acting, strong writer and a very powerful message.  I would definitely recommend it somebody wanting to watch a good film.  I promise it won't be an easy ride, but it will be a rewarding one.  Hey, it might even inspire you to make some change.